1

Economic Analysis of the Proposed Significant New Use Rule

for Nonylphenols (NPs) and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates (NPEs)

(EPA DOCKET EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0490)

RIN 2070-AJ96

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, DC 20460
i

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 Use Rule (SNUR) being proposed by the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for certain nonylphenols (NPs) and nonylphenol 

ethoxylates (NPEs). The proposed rule will apply to the 15 NPs and NPEs listed in Table ES- 1

below. Note that the significant new uses (SNUs) being proposed are for: 1) any use of 13 NPs

and NPEs; and 2) any use of two NPs with some excluded uses.

The proposed SNUR requires manufacturers (including importers) or processors of the 15

chemicals 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 importing) or processing of a linear NP or NPE listed in Table 

ES-1 (CASRN 104-40-5, CASRN 20427-84-3, CASRN 27176-93-8, CASRN 7311-27-5, 

CASRN 27177-05-5, CASRN 26571-11-9, CASRN 27177-08-8, CASRN 26027-38-3, CASRN

37205-87-1, CASRN 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 (CASRN 84852-15-3) and Phenol, 2-nonyl-, branched (CASRN 91672-41-2).

A firm intending to engage in these activities would be required to submit a Significant New Use 

Notice (SNUN), incurring an estimated submission cost of $8,589 per chemical, and potentially 

other minor costs. The required notification will 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 NPs and NPEs Subject to the Proposed SNUR

CAS RN Chemical Abstract Index Name Alkyl Groups Type

Manufacturing (Including Importing) or Processing 

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-Nonaoxanonacosan-1-ol, 29-

(nonylphenoxy)-

Linear, unspecified NPE

8 26027-38-3

Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), (4-nonylphenyl)-

hydroxyLinear, para- NPE

9 37205-87-1

Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), (isononylphenyl)-

hydroxySingle branching 

point, unspecified NPE

10 51938-25-1

Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), (2-nonylphenyl)-

hydroxyLinear, 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
iii

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 

submission. The hidden costs to the firms that do not make a submission are not quantified. EPA 

receives only a handful of SNUNs per year. The 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 Uses 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 Affected 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.gov 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 Option................................................. 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 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)...................................................................... 28

6.4 Executive Order 13132, Federalism ................................................................. 29

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

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

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 2012 ................................................................................................................................ 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 Cost 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

Table 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....................................................................... 40
1

1 Introduction

This report estimates the costs of the proposed Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) for 15 specific 

nonylphenols (NPs) and nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs). 

The proposed SNUR requires manufacturers (including importers) or processors of the 15 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

(CASRN 104-40-5, CASRN 20427-84-3, CASRN 27176-93-8, CASRN 7311-27-5, CASRN 27177-05-5, 

CASRN 26571-11-9, CASRN 27177-08-8, CASRN 26027-38-3, CASRN 37205-87-1, CASRN 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 branched 4-

nonylphenol (CASRN 84852-15-3) and branched 2-nonylphenol (CASRN 91672-41-2). 

A firm intending to engage in these activities would be required to submit a SNUN. The required 

notification will 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)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical 

substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all 

relevant factors, including those listed in TSCA Section 5(a)(2). Once EPA determines that a use of a 

chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA Section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a 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 and recordkeeping, and the costs to 

EPA of administering the rule. Industry costs consist of rule familiarization; registration with the Central 

Data Exchange (CDX) electronic reporting tool; collection, compilation, and submission of required 

information for 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, 

small entity impact is defined as a small business’ estimated cost 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 

government 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, this report qualitatively discusses the benefits of the proposed 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 costs to comply with the proposed rule, and Chapter 4 shows estimates 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 mandates 

that pertains to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA); an analysis of environmental justice 

implications that addresses the requirements of Executive Order 12898; and an analysis of children’s 

health pertinent to Executive Order 13045. 

Note that all dollar amounts in this analysis are reported in 2012 dollars.
3

2 Chemical Uses and Manufacturers 

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

This SNUR applies to 15 nonylphenol (NP) and nonylphenol ethoxylate (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 the 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, 2004). 

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 their cost-effectiveness and high performance in multiple 

applications. NPs 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 persistent, 

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 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). 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. waters. 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 and 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 and 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 all relevant factors, including:

 The projected volume of manufacturing (including importing) 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 of a chemical substance.

Because of the toxicity of NPs and NPEs to aquatic organisms, EPA is proposing a SNUR for the 15

chemicals listed in Table 1. For 13 of those 15 chemicals, EPA found no indication that they are currently

used in commerce and therefore considers them “dead chemicals.” EPA is proposing a SNUR for any 

manufacturing (including importing) or processing of these chemicals, so that the Agency may be 

informed of any intended use of these chemicals. EPA 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 

phenol (CASRN 91672-41-2), and branched 4-nonyl phenol (CASRN 84852-15-3). EPA is of the opinion 

that NPs are only used commercially as chemical intermediates or in epoxy resin systems.

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

CAS RN Chemical Abstract Index Name Alkyl Groups Type

Manufacturing (Including Importing) or Processing 

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-Nonaoxanonacosan-1-ol, 29-

(nonylphenoxy)-

Linear, unspecified NPE

8 26027-38-3

Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), (4-nonylphenyl)-

hydroxyLinear, para- NPE

9 37205-87-1

Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), (isononylphenyl)-

hydroxySingle branching 

point, unspecified NPE

10 51938-25-1

Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), (2-nonylphenyl)-

hydroxyLinear, 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 company would be expected to submit a SNUN for any of the 15 chemicals included 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 2012 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 

Reports (lbs)

Manufacturing (including importing) or processing 

1 104-40-5 Phenol, 4-nonyl- NP N/A1

2 20427-84-3 Ethanol, 2-[2-(4-nonylphenoxy)ethoxy]- NPE N/A1

3 27176-93-8 Ethanol, 2-[2-(nonylphenoxy)ethoxy]- NPE N/A1

4 7311-27-5

Ethanol, 2-[2-[2-[2-(4-

nonylphenoxy)ethoxy]ethoxy]ethoxy]-

NPE N/A1

5 27177-05-5

3,6,9,12,15,18,21-Heptaoxatricosan-1-ol, 23-

(nonylphenoxy)-

NPE

N/A1

6 26571-11-9

3,6,9,12,15,18,21,24-Octaoxahexacosan-1-ol, 26-

(nonylphenoxy)-

NPE

N/A1

7 27177-08-8

3,6,9,12,15,18,21,24,27-Nonaoxanonacosan-1-ol, 29-

(nonylphenoxy)-

NPE N/A1

8 26027-38-3

Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), (4-nonylphenyl)-

hydroxyNPE N/A1

9 37205-87-1

Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), (isononylphenyl)-

hydroxyNPE

N/A1

10 51938-25-1

Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), (2-nonylphenyl)-

hydroxyNPE N/A1

11 9016-45-9 Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), (nonylphenyl)-hydroxy- NPE 10 – 50 M2

12 25154-52-3 Phenol, nonyl- NP 0

3

13 27986-36-3 Ethanol, 2-(nonylphenoxy)- NPE N/A1

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 91672-41-2 Phenol, 2-nonyl-, branched NP 1 - 10 M

Notes:

1EPA understands that these are “dead chemicals” and are not produced for commercial consumption.

2EPA 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. 2014. 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 volume. 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 volume 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 NP. 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 Encyclopedia 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 nonene (used to make NP) does not contain linear C9H18 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 that linear NP is a laboratory 

chemical substance that is not used in commerce and is not a degradant found in the environment 

(APERC, 2010). During the development of a testing consent order on 4-nonylphenol (EPA, 1990), the 

Alkylphenols and Ethoxylates Panel of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) stated that, as 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 NPs: CASRN 84852-15-3 and CASRN 91672-41-2. 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 Commercial Uses of NP in the United States as Reported to CDR in 2012

CASRN Product Category Consumer or 

Commercial

84852-15-3

Laundry and Dishwashing Products Commercial

Paints and Coatings Commercial

Ink, Toner, and Colorant Products Commercial

Source: EPA. 2013. Chemical Data Reporting Retrieved May 16, 2013, from 

http://www.epa.gov/cdr
7

Table 4. Industrial Uses of NP in the United States as Reported to CDR in 2012
8

CASRN Industrial Sector 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 Intermediates 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 reactant

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 Processing-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 Processing-incorporation into formulation, mixture, or 

reaction product

Printing Ink Manufacturing Intermediates Processing as a reactant
9

CASRN Industrial Sector Function Category Type of Processing

Processing-incorporation into formulation, mixture, or 

reaction product

Pigments Processing-repackaging

Soap, Cleaning 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 Chemical 

Manufacturing

Intermediates Processing-incorporation into formulation, mixture, or 

reaction product

Soap, Cleaning Compound, and Toilet 

Preparation Manufacturing

Adhesive Manufacturing

Plastics Product Manufacturing

Printing Ink Manufacturing

Source: EPA. 2013. Chemical Data Reporting Retrieved May 16, 2013, from http://www.epa.gov/cdr
10

2.2.3 Epoxy Cure Catalysts

Nonylphenol is also used as a catalytic diluent in epoxy resins in household products (EPA, 2010). The 

Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Household Products Database lists the chemical as 

an adhesive epoxy resin in four household products (DHHS, 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 

The proposed SNUR applies to processors as well as to manufacturers (including importers) (40 CFR 

§721.5). It would require manufacturers (including importers) and processors to notify EPA at least 90 

days before commencing the manufacturing (including importing) or processing of any of the subject 

chemicals for any significant new use. 

Table 5 provides a list of manufacturers (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 Confidential Business Information (CBI) and, therefore, would be excluded from the 

list in Table 5. In addition, any site that manufactured (including imported) less than 25,000 pounds of a 

chemical during the reporting year (2006 or 2012) was not required to submit data. Furthermore,

polymers were exempt from 2006 IUR and 2012 CDR reporting, and NPEs are polymers. The proposed 

SNUR may also impact firms that currently do not manufacture, import, or process any of the 15

chemicals, but who may be interested in manufacturing (including importing) or processing these 

chemicals in the future. 

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

Company Location(s) Source

Berryman Chemical Houston, TX CDR

Chemorse LTD Des Moines, IA CDR

Chemtura Corporation Morgantown, WV DWCP, 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, TX1 CDR, 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, NY2 DWCP, ICIS, IUR

Solvchem Inc. Pearland, TX CDR

Weatherford 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, 2007
11

3 Industry Compliance Costs 

The proposed SNUR discussed in this report specifies that any manufacturing (including importing) or 

processing 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

these chemicals for these applications must submit a SNUN. Alternatively, a firm can decide not to 

manufacture (including import) and/or process these chemicals or to manufacture (including import)

and/or process these chemicals in such a way that it is not 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 case,

means (1) any manufacturing (including importing) or processing of a linear NP or NPE listed in 

Table 1 (CASRN 104-40-5, CASRN 20427-84-3, CASRN 27176-93-8, CASRN 7311-27-5, 

CASRN 27177-05-5, CASRN 26571-11-9, CASRN 27177-08-8, CASRN 26027-38-3, CASRN

37205-87-1, CASRN 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 (CASRN 84852-15-3) and Phenol, 2-nonyl-, branched (CASRN

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 with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to 

prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs. If EPA allows the manufacture (including import)

and/or processing of any of the 15 chemicals for a significant new use, then the costs associated 

with this option are the costs of submitting the SNUN (including a user fee) plus, if there is any 

export of these chemicals, the export notification costs that result from TSCA Section 12(b) 

requirements that are automatically triggered for chemicals regulated under TSCA Section 5 (see 

Section 3.2.8 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 manufacturing (including import) and/or processing any of the 15 listed chemicals 

in a manner such that they would be considered new uses. That is, if the firm does not undertake

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

(CASRN 104-40-5, CASRN 20427-84-3, CASRN 27176-93-8, CASRN 7311-27-5, CASRN

27177-05-5, CASRN 26571-11-9, CASRN 27177-08-8, CASRN 26027-38-3, CASRN 37205-87-

1, CASRN 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 (CASRN 84852-15-3) and Phenol, 2-nonyl-, branched (CASRN 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 resulting from not engaging in the 

commercial activity originally planned, and may 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 costs 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 portion of costs associated with the proposed 

SNUR. Section 3.1 summarizes the wage rates used in this chapter. Section 3.2 provides the unit industry 
12

compliance costs, including the costs of rule familiarization, registration with the Central Data Exchange 

(CDX) electronic reporting tool, completing the SNUN form, submission fee, import certification, and 

export notification. Total costs under each option are presented in Section 3.3. 

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 

required in each labor category and multiplying those burdens by the wage rate for each labor category. 

This section presents the estimated wage rate in each labor category.

Loaded wage rates for managerial, technical, and clerical personnel are derived by combining data on 

wages and fringe benefits with estimates of overhead rates, following the methodology described in Wage 

Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (EPA, 2002b). Wage data for each 

labor category in December 2012 are provided by the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation 

(ECEC) Supplemental Tables available on the BLS website (BLS, 2013a). The loaded wage rate is $72.87

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 2012

Labor 

Category Data Sources Date

Wage

(2012$)

Fringe 

Benefit

(2012$)

Fringes 

as % 

wage

Overhead 

% 

wage2

Fringe + 

overhead 

factor

Loaded 

Wages1

(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

Dec12 $43.95 $21.45 48.81% 17% 1.66 $72.87

Professional/

Technical

BLS ECEC, Private 

Manufacturing 

industries, “Professional 

and related“3

Dec12 $38.53 $19.30 50.09% 17% 1.67 $64.38

Clerical

BLS ECEC, Private 

Manufacturing 

industries, “Office and 

Administrative Support”

3

Dec12 $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 Compliance 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 proposed 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. First-time submitters of any TSCA section 5 

notice (including Premanufacture Notices (PMNs), SNUNs, Test 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 support documents to Section 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 submitters of any 

Section 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 

company.

 CDX electronic signature: EPA estimates that companies will spend 0.25 hours preparing, 

submitting, and filing an electronic signature agreement (Authentication of Identity) form to EPA 

per employee. This burden will apply to four technical staff members and one manager per 

company, totaling 1.25 hours of burden per company. In addition, EPA estimates that a manager 

will spend an additional 0.50 hours accessing, preparing, and submitting verification forms 

(Verification of Authorization) for all authorized submitters to EPA. The total burden incurred by 

companies submitting and then verifying electronic signature agreements is 1.75 hours. Note that 

 

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 change 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. Postal Service to be $2.60 per company (including five $0.46 stamps and five $0.06

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 associated with CDX registration, CDX electronic signature, and 

Pay.gov account setup by a first-time submitter is $189.31. As noted above, an additional $2.60 in 

mailing cost per company is attributable to these activities, for a total cost of approximately $192 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. Unrounded estimates were used during 

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 elements identified in the applicable SNUN reporting form. The methodology and calculations used 

in this analysis assume that the employee responsible for collecting, filling out, and submitting the 

requested information has a reasonable level of familiarity with the company and knowledge of 

operations at the site. It is assumed that for most entities these tasks are similar to other employee duties 

that require familiarity with EPA, State, and other Federal agency requests for chemical information and 

do not require additional familiarization or training beyond the basic rule familiarization described above. 

In addition, this analysis focuses on the marginal costs of submitting information for the proposed rule 

and not the total costs for the company to comply with a range of other Federal and State environmental, 

health, and safety regulations or accounting requirements that rely on this type of information.

Estimates of the costs of completing a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN) form are based on the costs of 

completing a 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 Notifications, which relied on industry estimates of the 
15

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 required information and preparing the report, 

producing sanitized responses for items claimed as confidential business information, and maintaining a 

file of the submission” (EPA, 1994. p. III 11-13). The burden associated with SNUN submission and 

preparation has been adjusted to reflect burden reductions resulting from the 2009 final PMN Electronic 

Reporting (ePMN) Rule that requires the electronic submission of all TSCA section 5 notices. Electronic 

submission of SNUN forms is expected to remove all clerical burden and reduce the recordkeeping 

burden associated with preparing a SNUN (EPA, 2009b).3In 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 

is $6,089.

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 Burden Cost Burden Cost Burden Cost

Form 

Completio

n

0.00 $0.00 74.20 $4,777.00 18.00 $1,311.66 92.2 $6,089

Note:

Costs may not equal labor wage rate multiplied by burden hours as shown, due to rounding.

Sources: 

Loaded wages include fringe benefits and overhead. 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 not 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 

$8,589 for large business submitters and $6,189 for small business submitters.

 

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

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

estimates from the 1994 RIA, which include the burden for recordkeeping (EPA, 1994, p. III-14). These 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

(2012$)

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 five 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 costs under 40 

CFR §721.40 were not separately estimated.5 

3.2.5 Recordkeeping for Companies That Do Not 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 conditions 

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 the 

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 Information 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 reduction associated 

with electronic 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 chemical 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 recordkeeping costs at 5.67 hours (ICR 

118.08, page 15).

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 Amendments to Regulations for TSC Section 5 Premanufacture 

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

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

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

hours for a PMN submission (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 use1 3 5% 0.15 $9.66 

Sources:

1 EPA, 2005b 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 Customer 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 are 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 manufacturers

(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 hour 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 15 chemicals;

however, EPA understands that 13 of these chemicals are not used in commerce and therefore have no 

manufacturers (including importers) or processors. Therefore, customer notifications will only be 

performed for two chemicals, CASRN 84852-15-3 and CASRN 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 shipment 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.

Import 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, exporters 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 applicable rule or order under TSCA.” For 

imports of chemical substances not subject to TSCA (e.g., pesticides), “I certify that all chemicals in this shipment 

are not subject to TSCA.” (40 CFR 707.20)
18

EPA promulgates SNURs) and certain other TSCA sections, this is a one-time notification requirement7

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 chemicals with a variety of unrelated 

uses, manufacturers, 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 section come from the (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 

Reduction 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 from 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/country combination, and one notification mailing often includes multiple chemicals and/or 

destination countries.9

The percent of notifications resulting from SNURs in general is unknown, and it is also unknown how 

many notifications may result from this rulemaking, 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 EPA, 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 make a 

larger number of notifications per year may benefit 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 requirement for chemicals subject to TSCA §5(a)(2), 

5(b), 5(e)(1) and 5(e)(2) from an annual to a one-time requirement per destination country for each exporter 

(November 14, 2006, 71 FR 66234).

8EPA calculated the average number of export notifications per 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 

notifications delivered to EPA. Notifications are assumed shipped via the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) as 

first-class registered mail with a return receipt (USPS, 2012). The estimated per-shipment and annual 

mailing costs incurred by individual submitters are detailed in Table 12.

Table 12: Derivation of Total Mailing Cost for 12 Notices

Postal Service Cost

Registered mail, regular, with $0 declared value $10.95

Return receipt, requested at time of mailing (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 (http://www.usps.com/prices/). The mailing 

method comes from the Economic Analysis of the Proposed Change to TSCA Section 12(b) Export Notification Requirements, 

November 2005 (EPA, 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. Respondents need only check for new regulations 

promulgated and any new products exported by the company. Updating the list is estimated to take an 

average of one hour of technical time, which may also include some proportion of legal time (EPA, 

2009c). The total burden can vary from two hours per year up to two hours per 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 submitters, 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 hours 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) 

reporting must prepare an export notification to send to EPA when export shipments are made. Time for 

initial preparation of the export notice may vary depending on whether the company has prior experience 

with this requirement. This step is estimated to take an average of one hour of technical time (which may 

also include some proportion of legal time) per firm per year for 12 notifications per year (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

$/Hr Hours 2012$ $/Hr Hours 2012$ Hours 2012$

Compile list $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 cost1-- -- -- -- -- -- -- $165 

Total per average facility2` 10.30 $663.11 6.00 $177.06 16.30 $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 rounding. Unrounded estimates were used during the 

actual cost calculations. 

1 Mailing costs reflect March 2012 USPS rates and can be found in Table 12.

2An 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.10), and are updated to 2012 dollars. 

3.3 Summary of Per Submission Costs, by Option

The number of firms affected by not making submissions to EPA is unknown; 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 Proposed 

SNUR

Option1 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 submitters 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 regulatory 

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 

export 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 manufacturing

(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 its 

possession and/or describe any other available data. Because EPA does not require the development of test data, EPA assumes that no 

firms will incur testing costs as a result of the proposed SNUR.
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, 

promulgated 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 six 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 submission 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 activity before it 

occurs to prevent unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment. It is not known what 

specific subsequent regulatory actions, if any, the Agency may determine are necessary after reviewing a 

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 regulatory actions, the Agency will initiate and 

follow the appropriate procedures for taking those actions. Included in those procedures would be an 

assessment of the costs and benefits of those actions. 

 

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 Office of Personnel Management effective January 2012 (OPM, 2012). 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 2012 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, 2009d), 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 $77.62.

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

Fringes 

as % 

wage

Overhead 

as % 

wage

Fringe + 

overhead 

factor

Loaded 

Wages

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

EPA staff 

FTE

Annual Federal staff cost: 

OPM Washington-BaltimoreNorthern Virginia, DC-MDPA-VA-WV, area, GS-13 Step 

5 pay rates, with 60% 

overheads a.

Jan 

2011

$100,904

(annual)

--

[Included 

in 60% 

overhead]

60% b 1.60

$161,446

(annual)

$48.51

(hourly)

$77.62

(hourly)

Notes:

a The Agency salary is the unloaded federal GS-13 Step 5 salary ($100,904 for 2012),from the OPM salary table for the 

Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia Locality Pay Area (OPM, 2012). Hourly rates are based on annual salary divided by 

2,080 hours.

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

(EPA, 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 agency burden associated with processing a PMN has been adjusted to 

reflect burden reductions resulting from the 2009 final PMN Electronic Reporting (ePMN) Rule that 

requires the electronic submission of all TSCA section 5 notices. Electronic submission of SNUN forms 

is expected to reduce Agency burden by 16.5 percent (EPA, 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-12 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, 2012b). The not seasonally adjusted ECI for 

total compensation of private industry professional and related workers (Series ID CIU2010000120000I) 

is used because it is the only series with continuous data since 1985, and that includes professional and 

technical labor, which perform the majority of Agency extramural activities. Table 16 contains the 

derivation of inflation factors for Agency extramural costs.

Table 16: Derivation of Inflation Factors for Agency Extramural Costs

Item Inflation Index Source1 Starting 

year

Index for 

starting 

year

(a)

Index 

for 

2012

(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 BLS 

retired the “white-collar” series.

Source:

BLS, 2012b. 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/cgibin/srgate.

The Percent of Cases column in Table 17 is a weighting factor applied to reflect the fact that not all 

chemicals require each review step. For example, in the PMN process, all chemicals require 

Administrative Prescreening, but not all chemicals require the intensive scrutiny of “Standard Review.” 

The three types of submissions resulting from a SNUR may have weighting factors that differ from each 

other and from the weighting factors for PMNs. Changes in weighting factors could cause actual review 

costs to be higher or lower than calculated here. For example, some SNUNs require little review because 

they are determined to be “invalid” – i.e. not required in the first place. However, often a SNUN may take 

more Agency time than a typical PMN because of factors such as the need to retrieve old PMN records 

from archives, and the likelihood that more data requiring EPA review is submitted with a SNUN than 

would be submitted on average with a PMN. Resources were not available to update the review hours to 

reflect the current review process or to tailor the cost estimates to SNUNs. Therefore, for this analysis, the 

review steps and weighting factors are assumed to be the same as those derived in 1994 for PMNs.

The Weighted Cost column is calculated by multiplying the un-weighted Costs (EPA staff cost plus 

extramural costs) by the percentage of cases requiring this review step. Weighted costs are then multiplied 

by the burden reduction of 16.5 percent to account for burden savings generated electronic submission. 

This calculation yields total Agency costs of $5,086 per SNUN, for submission 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 

Cost3

ePMN 

Burden 

Reduction4

Weighted 

Cost with 

ePMN 

Burden 

Reduction

FTE 

fraction

Cost per 

FTE 1

FTE Total 

($2011)

1993 

dollars

2012

dollars

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

Pre-notice consultation 0.0024 $161,446 $387.47 $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% $340.96 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 $85.00 $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 Table 16. 

3 Weighted costs were calculated using unrounded unit cost estimates, so results may differ from calculations using the rounded values shown in this table. 

4 Electronic submission is expected to generate a cost savings of 16.5% to the Agency (EPA 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, 2012.
25

4.3 Export Notification Cost 

Under TSCA Section 12(b), exporters must notify EPA if they intend to export chemicals subject to 

SNURs, as described in Section 3.2.8. The Agency burden and cost due to TSCA §12(b) export 

notification result from three tasks. In the first task, EPA receives export notifications from companies 

that intend to export one of the chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) (EPA, 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 importing 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 current 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. 

Because it is unknown how many, if any, notifications EPA will receive 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 burdens are multiplied by the 

loaded wage rate of a GS-13, Step 5, which is derived in Table 18. 

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

Agency Activity

Hours per 

Activity

FTE per 

Activity1

Loaded Mailing 

Cost

Total Agency Cost 

per Activity GS-13, Step 5 

FTE Wage Rate

(a) (b) = 

(a)/2,080 (c) (d) (e) = ((b)*(c))+(d)

Process an incoming 

notification from an 

exporting company

0.1 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 12of this report. Other burdens 

are from ICR No.: 0795.13 [Information Collection Request for] Notification of Chemical Exports - TSCA Section 12(b)

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

5 Benefits

A SNUN submission provides EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended 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 certain 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, NPs 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 Ferrey, 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 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 (Balaguer 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 EPA to address the environmental effects that may result from releases of 

NPs and NPEs into aquatic environments 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 also 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 to 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 regulations 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 definition 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 submitted 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 FY2007, eight in FY2008, seven in FY2009, two in 2010, and 

ten in 2011 (EPA, 2012a), 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 addition, the 

estimated reporting cost for submission of a SNUN is minimal regardless of the size of the firm, 

averaging about $8,600 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 $6,200 for smaller firms. During the six year period from 

2005-2010, only three submitters self-identified as small in their SNUN submission (EPA, 2012a). 

12

 

For this proposed SNUR, EPA was able to identify manufacturers (including importers) of the subject 

chemicals based on confidential IUR data. EPA identified the ultimate parent company and obtained sales 

and employment data from Hoovers; a Dun & Bradstreet Company (Dun & Bradstreet, 2013),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 companies 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, 

2012). 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, 2012). Based on these definitions, EPA identified seven

small parent companies that manufacture (including 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 analyses, EPA has 

defined 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 significant. 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 2005-2011.

13 Dun and Bradstreet is a New York-based company that provides business information through a global commercial 

database; Hoovers. 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. Database 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 growth 

rates, as well as up to 40 vital statistics about each 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. To have a sales-to-cost ratio of greater than one percent a company 

must have less than $98,643 in sales annually. The seven small companies that produce the subject 

chemicals are not expected to have an impact greater than one percent if they choose to submit a SNUN. 

EPA estimates that the smallest small company 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 Dollar Threshold (2011dollars)

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 affected 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 minor. 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 production, 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 small 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 Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., an Agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB 

approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB 

Control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing 

in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and included on the related collection instrument, or 

form, if applicable. The information collection requirements related to this action have already been 

approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control numbers 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 

export 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 approved 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 are 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 Populations (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 collected 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 justice-related concerns, this 

information will enable the Agency to better protect human health and the environment, including in lowincome 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 have 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 discusses Consultation and Coordination 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 ends; 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 apply 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., Franois, 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 Index, 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, 2012a. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation 

Supplementary Tables December 2011.” Accessed March 21, 2012. 

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, 2012b. 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, 2012b. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Cost Index – Total Compensation: Professional and 

Related Private Industry, Not Seasonally Adjusted. (Series ID: CIU2010000120000I (B)), 

extracted March 20, 2012. 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 Employee 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 conversion 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), 2013. Hoovers; a Dun & Bradstreet Company.

Ellis, D.D., Jones, 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-Nonylphenol, 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, DC, September 9, 1994. (OTS/RIB later became OPPT/EPAB.)

EPA, 2000. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 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 Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program. Washington, 

DC: June 10, 2002.

EPA, 2003. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. 

Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 65 Chemical Substances. 

Washington, DC, 2003. Available from the Federal Docket Management System as EPA-HQOPPTS-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-OPPT2005-005 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 Chemicals (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 Review Reporting and 

Exemption Requirements for New Chemical Substances and Significant New Use Reporting 

Requirements for Chemical Substances: Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, December 6, 2007.

EPA, 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 Certain Nonylphenol and Nonylphenol Ethoxylate Substances: 

Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), 40 CFR Part 799 (2009 June, 17, 2009).

EPA, 2009b. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis 

Branch. Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule. 

(EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0296). July 13, 2009

EPA, 2009c. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. EPA 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 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, 2010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. 

Nonylphenol (NP) and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates (NPEs) Action Plan (RIN 2070-ZA09). August 

2010. 

EPA, 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Economic 

Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 25 Chemical Substances, (EPA Docket 

OPPT-2009-0922) August 2011.

EPA, 2012a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “Count of SNUN Submissions as tracked in EPA’s 

Confidential Business Information Tracking System (CBITS)”. February, 2012

EPA, 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 Assessment 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, 2014. Chemical Data Reporting. Retrieved September 26, 2013, from http://www.epa.gov/cdr

Ferrey, M. (2013). Pharmaceuticals and Endocrine Active Chemicals in Minnesota Lakes. Minnesota 

Pollution Control Agency
34

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/Office 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.

Kortner, 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 Burg, 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. Alkylphenols 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, Washington-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-Rosales, 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. Characterization 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 Health Science. 47(5): p. 495–501.

SBA, 2012. 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 Preferred Chemicals Program. Chemical Week. 

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/31994575/WalMart-Modifies-PreferredChemicals-Program. Accessed July 14, 2011.

Sleemi, 2006, Fehimida Sleemi. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employment Cost Index 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/. Accessed 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 Service (USPS), 2012. “Prices” <http://www.usps.com/prices/>. Accessed March 2012.

Weinstein, 2004. Harriet G. Weinstein and Mark A. Loewenstein, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Comparing Current and Former Industry and Occupation ECEC Series. Originally posted August 

25, 2004 at http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20040823ar01p1.htm

White, R., Jobling, S., Hoare, S., Sumpter, J, and Parker, M., 1994. Environmentally 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: Inflators 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 Derivation 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 Inventory 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/Technical 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 Occupational 

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 and 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 labor 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 2012, the average wage rate for professional/technical16 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 50.09 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 Pollution 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 Chemical 

Substances: EPA Docket OPPT-2003-0063 (EPAB, 2007a). 

15 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables December 2011. (BLS, 2012a). 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 the 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, Comparing 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, 2002a). 

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 2012 fully loaded wage for 

professional/technical labor is $38.53 × (1+0.5009 + 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 2012 (OPM, 2012). The average 

salary for one FTE staff member is estimated as the salary for a GS-13 Step 5 employee.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 Preparing Information Collection 

Requests (ICRs) (EPA, 1992, page 30, footnote 9). The 60 percent assumption was labeled “the benefits 

multiplication factor” in the EPA Guide, but has been used in many EPA Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics ICRs to reflect 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 between Carol Rawie (OPPT/EETD/RIB) and Carl 

Koch (OPPE/RMD/IMB) on May 3, 1994, indicated that the 1.6 factor included not only benefits 

but also overhead.” (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 

Labor 

Category

Data Sources Date Wage Fringe 

Benefit

Fringes as % 

Wage

Overhead 

% 

Wage2

Fringe + 

Overhead 

Factor

Loaded Wages1

(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 

industries, “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:

1Wage data are rounded to the closest penny in this table; however, in calculations using these numbers for this report, unrounded values were used.

2An 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).

43The Federal salary is the unloaded Federal GS-13 Step 5 salary ($100,904) for 2012, from the Office of Personnel Management salary table for Washington-Baltimore-Northern 

Virginia (OPM, 2012). The 60% fringes-and-overhead rate is from an EPA guide, Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (EPA, 1992, page 30, footnote 9).
39

A.2 Derivation of Inflation Factors

Complete information 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 web 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” (Sleemi, 2006); and 

“Seasonal adjustment in the ECI and the conversion to NAICS and SOC” (Branch, 2006).

Under a mandate from OMB, BLS changed its classification of industries and occupations from the 

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and Occupational Classification 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 occupational 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 1975-2005 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 indices are NAICSSOC 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 became official in March 2006. The SICOCS 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 industry 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 Source1 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, 4th Q [BLS, 2012b ]3

1992 64.9 118.2 1.821

Agency Extramural costs 

White collar labor; 

equipment; supplies

BLS ECI, Total comp, Private 

industry, Professional and 

related, 4th Q [BLS, 2012b] 3

1993 67 118.2 1.76

Labels, placards etc. BLS CPI, All urban consumers, 

not SA. CUUR0000SA0, Annual 

[BLS 2012a] 1997 160.5 229.594 1.430

File cabinet

Photocopies BLS CPI, All urban consumers, 

not SA. CUUR0000SA0, Annual 

[BLS 2012a]

Record keeping materials 1988 118.3 229.594 1.941

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) 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. 

“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 are NAICS-SOC based: Seasonally Adjusted (SA) CIS2010000000000I for private industry All Workers, and

not SA CIU2010000120000I (B) for private industry Professional, 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 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 BLS retired the “white-collar” 

series.