## Economic Analysis of the Significant New Use Rule for Long-Chain Perfluoroalkyl Carboxylate Chemical Substances and Perfluoroalkyl
Sulfonate Chemical
Substances (EPA DOCKET EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0225)

Contract # EP-W-08-010

November 20, 2014

-- Does not contain TSCA CBI --

Prepared for:
Economic and Policy Analysis Branch Economics, Exposure and Technology Division Office of Pollution, Prevention, and Toxics U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20460This Page Intentionally Left BlankSNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg . i 

### Economic Analysis of the Significant New Use Rule Long-Chain Perfluoroalkyl Carboxylate Chemical Substances and Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonate Chemical Substances (EPA DOCKET EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013- 0225)

Table of Contents

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. ........... 1-1
1.1 Statutory Authority ......................................................................................................... 1 -2
1.2 Summary of Methodology .............................................................................................. 1-2

1.3 Organization of this Report ............................................................................................ 1-2

2. Chemical Uses and Manufacturers ....................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Chemicals Subject to the Proposed Rule ........................................................................ 2-1

2.1.1 PFOA ................................................................................................................ 2-2
2.1.2 CDR Chemicals ................................................................................................ 2-3

2.1.3 PFAS Chemical Substances .............................................................................. 2-5

2.2 Significant New Uses under the Proposed SNUR .......................................................... 2-5

2.3 Chemical Uses ................................................................................................................ 2-6
2.4 Potentially Affected Companies ..................................................................................... 2-7

2.5 Article Importation ....................................................................................................... 2-1 1
2.5.1 Affected Entities ............................................................................................. 2-11

2.5.2 Activities which may Impact the Use of PFCs in the Supply Chain .............. 2-15

3. Industry Complia nce Costs .................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Wage Rates .................................................................................................................... . 3-2
3.2 Unit Industry Compliance Costs ..................................................................................... 3-3

3.2.1 Rule Familiarization ......................................................................................... 3-3

3.2.2 CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signat ure, and Pay.gov Account Setup ... 3-4

3.2.3 Form Completion and Submission Fee ............................................................. 3-5

3.2.4 Recordkeeping for Companies Choosing to Submit a SNUN .......................... 3-7

3.2.5 Recordkeeping for Companies that Do Not Submit a SNUN........................... 3-8

3.2.6 Customer Notification ...................................................................................... 3-8

3.2.7 Import Certification .......................................................................................... 3-9

3.2.8 Export Notification ........................................................................................... 3-9

3.2.9 Estimated Number of Annual Export Notifications per Exporter .................. 3-10

3.2.10 Exporter Costs ................................................................................................ 3-10
3.2.11 Article Importation ......................................................................................... 3-13

3.2.12 Potential Compliance Activiti es (Article Importers) ...................................... 3-13

3.3 Summary of per Submission Costs, by Option ............................................................. 3-17

3.4 Likelihood of SNUN Submission ................................................................................. 3-18

3.5 Potential for Subsequent Regulatory Actions ............................................................... 3-19

4. Agency Costs .................................................................................................................. .......... 4-1
4.1 Labor Rates for EPA Staff .............................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 SNUN Processing Costs ................................................................................................. 4-2

4.3 Export Notification Cost ................................................................................................. 4-6

5. Benefits ...................................................................................................................... ............... 5-1

6. Additional Analyses ........................................................................................................... ..... 6-1SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg . ii 6.1 Regulatory Flexibility Act .............................................................................................. 6-1

6.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) .................................................................... 6-2

6.3 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) ................................................................................... 6-2

6.4 Executive Order 13132, Federalism ............................................................................... 6-2

6.5 Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice ............................................................. 6-3

6.6 Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children ............................................................. 6-3

6.7 Executive Order 13175, Tribal Governments ................................................................. 6-3

6.8 Executive Order 13211, Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use ....................................... 6-3

6.9 Executive Order 13563, Improving Regula tion and Regulatory Review ....................... 6-3

7. References .................................................................................................................... ............ 7-1 Appendix A – Wage Rate CalculationsSNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg . iii List of Exhibits

Exhibit 2-1: PFOA and Its Salts and Aggregate Na tional Production Volumes as Reported in the NonConfidential 2012 CDR Database .................................................................................. 2-2 Exhibit 2-2: LCPFAC Chemical Substances and Aggregate National Production Volumes as Reported in the Non-Confiden tial 2012 CDR Database ................................................. 2-4 Exhibit 2-3: PFOA and LPFAC Chemcial Substa nces and Company Level Production Volumes as Reported in the Non-Confiden tal 2012 CDR Database .................................................. 2-9 Exhibit 2-4: Examples of Industries that ma y Import Articles Containing LCPFACs ..................... 2-12 Exhibit 3-1: Loaded Industry Wage Rates, December 2012 .............................................................. 3-3 Exhibit 3-2: Rule Familiarization Burden and Cost for SNUR Submitters ........................................ 3-4 Exhibit 3-3: CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Si gnature, and Pay.gov Account Setup Burden and Cost for First-Time Submitters ....................................................................................... 3-5 Exhibit 3-4: Industry Cost Estimate to Complete the SNUN Form .................................................... 3-7 Exhibit 3-5: Industry Cost Estimate to Complete and Submit the SNUN Form ................................ 3-7 Exhibit 3-6: Annual Per-Chemical Costs of Recor dkeeping Requirement for Companies that Choose not to Submit a SNUN .................................................................................................... 3-8 Exhibit 3-7: Derivation of Total Ma iling Cost for 13 Notices .......................................................... 3-11 Exhibit 3-8: TSCA 12(b) Export Notifi cation Cost per Notification ............................................... 3-12 Exhibit 3-9: Range of costs associated with an importer’s identification of chemicals subject to SNURs in articles ......................................................................................................... 3-1 5 Exhibit 3-10: Compliance Options and Associat ed Costs Incurred by a Firm Due to the Proposed SNUR ............................................................................................................ 3-18 Exhibit 4-1: Derivation of Loaded Agency Wage Rates, 2012 .......................................................... 4-1 Exhibit 4-2: Derivation of Inflation Factors for Agency Extramural Costs ....................................... 4-3 Exhibit 4-3: Agency Costs for SNUN and Ot her Submission Review and Processing ...................... 4-4 Exhibit 4-4: TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cos t: Agency Burden per Activity (2012$) ............... 4-6SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg . iv 

### Contributors

The EPA analyst responsible for this report was Ti mothy Lehman. Analytical and draft preparation support was provided by Abt Associates Inc. under EPA Contract No. EP-W-08-010.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg . v 

### Executive Summary

Under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend a significant new use rule (SNUR) at 40 CFR 721.10536 for LCPFAC chemical substances by desi gnating manufacturing (including import) or processing of LCPFAC chemical substances listed in E xhibit 2-2 for any use that will not be ongoing after December 31, 2015, as a significant new use; designating manufacturing (including importing) or processing of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) or its salts (listed in Exhibit 2-1) for any use as a significant new use; and designating manufacturing (i ncluding importing) or processing of all other
LCPFAC chemicals substances for which there are currently no ongoing uses, as a significant new use. For this SNUR, EPA is also proposing to ma ke the exemption at 40 CFR 721.45(f) inapplicable for persons who import LCPFAC chem ical substances listed in Exhi bit 2-2 or PFOA or its salts as part of an article for a significant new use. Howeve r, EPA is also proposing that the exemption at 40 CFR 721.45(f) remain in effect for persons who process chemical substances as part of an article because existing stocks of articles may still cont ain LCPFAC or PFOA chemical substances. In addition, EPA is also proposing to amend a SNUR at 721.9582 for perfluoroalkyl sulfonate (PFAS) chemical substances that would make the exemp tion at 40 CFR 721.45(f) inapplicable for persons who import of PFAS chemical substances as part of carpets

Persons subject to these SNURs would be required to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing any significant new use. The required notifications would provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohi bit or limit that activity before it occurs. 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 for large businesses per chemical 1 , and potentially other minor costs. The required notifica tion would provide EPA w ith the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prevent or limit potentially adverse effects from
chemical use before it occurs.

Firms importing articles that may use any of the LC PFAC chemicals listed in Exhibit 2-2, PFOA or its salts, or PFAS as part of carpets will need to de termine whether the articles it imports uses any of these substances, and if so, either cease to import th em or submit a SNUN. To determine if an article uses any of the LCPFAC chemicals listed in Exhibit 2-2, PFOA or its salts, or PFAS as part of carpets, a firm may either gather information from its suppliers to insure the article does not contain any of these chemicals and/or conduct testing samples of the article itself. However, EPA expects that no firms will be importing LCPFAC chemicals listed in Exhibit 2-2 as part of articles after 2015 as a result of the PFOA Stewardship Program, which plan s on eliminating global emissions and product content of these chemicals by 2015. In addition, EPA also expects that no firms will be importing PFOA or its salts as part of articles or importing carpe ts PFAS chemical substances as part of carpets.

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 cost s. The firm may also incur “hidden” costs; for

1 For small businesses, the estimated cost is $6,189 to complete and submit a SNUN. See section 3.2.3 for
details.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg . vi 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 in this report are estimated at the firm leve l and reflect the burden of a SNUR on the firms that make a submission. The potential 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; therefor e, costs are not aggregated across the affected
entities.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 1-1 

## 1. Introduction

This report presents the estimated costs of the proposed Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) for longchain perfluoroalkyl carboxylate (LCPFAC) chemical substances. Under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA is proposin g to amend a SNUR at 40 CFR 721.10536 for LCPFAC chemical substances by designating ma nufacturing (including import) or processing of
LCPFAC chemical substances listed in Exhibit 2- 2 for any use that will not be ongoing after December 31, 2015, as a significant new use; designating manufacturing (including importing) or processing of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) or its salts for any use as a significant new use; and designating manufacturing (including importing) or processing of all other LCPFAC chemicals substances for which there are currently no ongoing uses, as a significant new use.

For this SNUR, EPA is also proposing to make the exemption at CFR 40 721.45(f) inapplicable for persons who import LCPFAC chemical substances listed in Exhibit 2-2 or PFOA or its salts as part of an article for a significant new use. However, EPA is also proposing that the exemption at CFR 40 721.45(f) remain in effect for persons who process chemical substances as part of an article because existing stocks of articles may still contain LCPFA C or PFOA chemical substances. EPA is also proposing to amend a SNUR at 40 CFR 721.9582 for PFAS chemical substances to make the exemption at CFR 40 721.45(f) inapplicable for pe rsons who import of PFAS chemical substances as part of carpets. The proposed SNUR requires manuf acturers (including importers) or processors of chemicals subject to this SNUR to notify EPA at least 90 days prior to the occurrence of any significant new use. The required notifications will pr ovide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohib it or limit that activity before it occurs.

EPA will not designate ongoing uses as significant new uses. Persons who manufacture (including import) or process any of the chemical substances s ubject to this SNUR for an ongoing use would be free to continue without submitting a SNUN. Note, however, that uses not already ongoing as of the publication date of the proposed rule would not be considered ongoing uses if they later arose between the date of publication and the effective da te for the final rule. Furthermore, uses that are ongoing as of publication date of the proposed rule w ould not be considered ongoing uses if they have ceased by the date of issuance of a final rule. Pe rsons who intend to begin (or resume) commercial manufacture (including import) or processing of the chemical substance(s) for a significant new use would have to comply with all applicable SNUN requirements.

The term LCPFAC refers to the long-chain cat egory of perfluorinated carboxylate chemical substances with perfluorinated carbon chain lengths equal to or greater than seven carbons and less than or equal to 20 carbons. The category of LCPFA C chemical substances also includes the salts and precursors of these perfluorinated carboxylates (See se ction 2.1 for further details). Note that PFOA and its salts covered by this rule are considered LCPFAC chemical substances.

The term PFAS in this proposed rule refers to a general category of perfluorin ated sulfonate chemical substances of any chain length. These chemical subs tances are referred collectively in this rule as perfluoroalkyl sulfonates, or PFAS chemical subs tances. The PFAS chemical substances for which EPA is modifying an existing SNUR are currently listed in 40 CFR 721.9582.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 1-2 

### 1.1 Statutory Authority

Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) author izes 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 se ction 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, 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 of the proposed rule to society by identifying the costs to industry associated with performing the required reporting and recordkeeping activities, 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 in clude reviewing and processing the data received as a result of the rule. Data sources for this analys is include burden estimates derived from previous information collection requests and economic analy ses for related rules, compensation data acquired from government publications, and supplementary market research.

In addition to estimated costs, this report qualita tively discusses the benefits of the proposed rule based on the value of the information it would provide.



### 1.3 Organization of this Report

The remainder of this report presents EPA’s econom ic analysis in support of the proposed rule. A description of LCPFACs, including PFOA or its salts , and PFAS chemicals affected by this SNUR are provided in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 contains estim ates 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 a ddresses the benefits of the proposed rule. Several additional impact analyses are presented in Chapte r 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 an alysis of environmental justice implications that addresses the requirements of Executive Order 12 898; and an analysis of children’s health pertinent to Executive Order 13045.

Note that all dollar values in this analysis are reported in 2012 dollars, except for the U.S. Postal Service mailing rates, which reflect postal rates as of April 9, 2013.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 2-1 

## 2. Chemical Uses and Manufacturers

2.1 Chemicals Subject to the Proposed Rule

EPA is proposing to amend a SNUR at 40 CFR 721.10536 for LCPFAC chemical substances by designating manufacturing (including import) or pro cessing of LCPFAC chemical substances listed in Exhibit 2-2 for any use that will not be ongoing after December 31, 2015, as a significant new use; designating manufacturing (including importing) or processing of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) or its salts for any use as a significant new use; and designating manufacturing (including importing) or processing of all other LCPFAC chemicals substances for which there are currently no ongoing uses, as a significant new use. For this SNUR, EPA is also proposing to make the exemption at CFR 40 721.45(f) inapplicable to persons who import LCPFAC chemical substances listed in Exhibit 2-2 or PFOA or its salts as part of an article for a signifi cant new use. However, EPA is also proposing that the exemption at 40 CFR 721.45(f) remain in effect for persons who process chemical substances as part of an article because existing stocks of articles may still contain LCPFAC or PFOA chemical substances. EPA is also proposing to amend a SNUR at 40 CFR 721.9582 for PFAS chemical substances to make the exemption at 40 CFR 721.45 (f) inapplicable to persons who import of PFAS chemical substances as part of carpets.

Long-chain perfluorinated chemicals (LCPFCs) are f ound world-wide in the environment, wildlife, and humans. They are bioaccumulative in wildlife an d humans, and are persistent in the environment (Danish Ministry of the Environment, 2008). To date , significant adverse effects have not been found in the general human population 2 ; however, LCPFCs have been linked to a number of health effects, including thyroid disease and reproductive functi on (Knox, et al., 2011; Melzer, et al., 2010).

EPA believes that the commencement of manufacturing, import, or processing of these chemicals would significantly increase the magnitude and duration of exposure to humans and the environment.

In this rule, the term LCPFAC refers to th e long-chain category of perfluorinated carboxylate chemical substances with perfluorinated carbon chain lengths equal to or greater than seven carbons and less than or equal to twenty carbons. The cate gory of LCPFAC chemical substances also includes the salts and precursors of these perfluorinated carboxylates.

LCPFAC chemical substances are synthetic chemicals that do not occur naturally in the environment. The LCPFAC chemical substances are identified as follows, where 5<n<21 or 6<m<21:

a. CF 3 (CF 2 )
n -COO

M where M = H + or any other group where a formal dissociation can be made;

b. CF 3 (CF 2 )
n -CH=CH 2 ;

c. CF 3 (CF 2 )
n -C(=O)-X where X is any chemical moiety;

d. CF 3 (CF 2 )
m -CH 2 -X where X is any chemical moiety; and

2 Based on review of a number of studies examining health effects of LCPFCs.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 2-2 e. CF 3 (CF 2 )
m -Y-X where Y = non-S, non-N hetero atom and where X is any chemical moiety.

This category definition of LCPFAC, based on the chemical structures above, refers to a large group of chemical substances containing perfluoroo ctanoic acid (PFOA) and its higher homologues. The category also includes the salts and precursors of these chemical substances. The precursors may be simple derivatives of PFOA and higher homologu es or polymers that contain or may degrade to PFOA or higher homologues. These precursors include certain long-chain fluorotelomers.

2.1.1 PFOA

PFOA is an eight-carbon chain length chemical. PFOA is the most studied chemical of the LCPFAC
chemical substances. PFOA is manufactured for use primarily as an aqueous dispersion agent, as the ammonium salt, in the manufacture of fluoropol ymers, such as PTFE, which have thousands of important manufacturing and industrial applications (Prevedouros et al, 2006 ). PFOA can also be produced unintentionally by the degradation of some fluorotelomers, which are not manufactured using PFOA but could degrade to PFOA (Washington et al, 2009). Fluorotelomers are used to make polymers that impart soil, stain, grease, and water resistance to coated articles. Some fluorotelomer based products are also used as high performance su rfactants in products where an even flow is essential, such as paints, coatings, cleaning products , and fire-fighting foams for use on liquid fuel fires (OECD PFC Steering Group, 2010).

DuPont was the sole manufacturer of PFOA a nd its salts in the United States until it ceased
manufacture at all its facilities worldwide in 2013. In addition, PFOA and its salts are not imported
into the United States. APFO is the ammonium salt of PFOA which dissociates to PFOA in water (Burns et al, 2008).

In this proposal, PFOA and its salts includes the ch emical substances with the Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) Registry Numbers (CASRN) and ch emical names shown in Exhibit 2-1. EPA is designing manufacturing (including importing) or processing of PFOA or its salts for any use as a significant new use.

Exhibit 2-1: PFOA and Its Salts and Aggregate Na tional Production Volumes as Reported in
the Non-Confidential 2012 CDR Database

CAS Registry Number (CAS RN) Chemical Name National Production Volume in 2011 (lbs.) 2

335-67-1 Octanoic acid, pentadecafluoro- (PFOA) Withheld

3825-26-1 Octanoic acid, pentadecaf luoro-) ammonium salt (APFO) Withheld

335-95-5 Octanoic acid, pentadecaf luoro-) sodium salt No Reports 2395-00-8 Octanoic acid, pentadecaflu oro-) potassium salt No Reports 335-93-3 Octanoic acid, pentadecaf luoro-) silver salt No Reports 335-66-0 Octanoyl fluoride, pentadecafluoro- WithheldSNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 2-3 2.1.2 CDR Chemicals

Exhibit 2-2 provides a list of LCPFAC of 20 non-co nfidential chemical substances, which are known to have current or recent ongoing uses on the basi s of their inclusion in reports submitted to the Agency under the 2012 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule. The manufacturing (including import) or processing of these chemical substances listed for any use that will not be ongoing after December 31, 2015, will be considered a significant new use. This list is only a sample of the chemicals that may be regulated under the proposed rule, as only sites manufacturing more than 25,000 lbs. of a chemical in 2011 were required to report under CDR. EPA is also designating manufacturing (including importing) or processing of all other LCPFAC chemi cals substances, which are not listed
in Exhibit 2-2 and for which there are curren tly no ongoing uses, as a significant new use.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 2-4 Exhibit 2-2: LCPFAC Chemical Substances and A ggregate National Production Volumes as Reported in the Non-Confidential 2012 CDR Database

Chemical Category of CAS Re g istr y Accession
Number Chemical Name National Production Volume in
1 507-63-1 - Octane, 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4, 5,5,6,6,7,7, 8,8-heptadecafluoro-8-iodo- Withheld
2 678-39-7 - 1-Decanol, 3,3,4, 4,5,5,6,6, 7,7,8,8,9,9,10,1 0,10-heptadecafluoro- Withheld
3 865-86-1 - 1-Dodecanol, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,12-heneicosafluoro- Withheld
4 2043-53-0 - Decane, 1,1,1,2, 2,3,3,4,4, 5,5,6,6,7, 7,8,8-heptadecafluoro- 10-iodo- Withheld
5 2043-54-1 - Dodecane, 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10 ,10-heneicosafluoro-12-iodo- Withheld

6 17741-60-5 - 2-Propenoic acid, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11, 12,12,12- heneicosafluorododecyl este r Withheld

7 27905-45-9 - 2-Propenoic acid, 3, 3,4,4,5,5, 6,6,7,7,8, 8,9,9,10,10,10 -heptadecafluorodecyl ester Withheld

8 30046-31-2 - Tetradecane, 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12-

p entacosafluoro-14-iodoWithheld

9 39239-77-5 - 1-Tetradecanol, 3,3,4,4,5, 5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14,14-

p entacosafluoroWithheld

10 60699-51-6 - 1-Hexadecanol, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14,15,15,16,16,16-
nonacosafluoroWithheld

11 65510-55-6 - Hexadecane, 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14-
nonacosafluoro-16-iodoWithheld

12 68187-47-3 - 1-Propanesulfonic acid, 2-methyl-, 2-[[1-oxo-3-[(.gamma.-.omega.-perfluoro- C4- 16-alkyl)thio]propyl]amino] derivs., sodium salts 128,784

13 68391-08-2 - Alcohols, C8-14, .gamma.-.omega.-perfluoro Withheld 14 70969-47-0 - Thiols, C8-20, .gamma.-.omega.-perfluoro, telomers with acrylamide 127,592

15 125476-71-3 - Silicic acid (H4SiO4), sodium salt (1:2), reaction products with chlorotrimethylsilane and 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-heptadecafluoro-1-
decanol 33,455

16 1078712-88-5 - Thiols, C4-20, .gamma.-.omega.-perfluoro, telomers with acrylamide and acrylic acid, sodium salts 34,374

17 1078715-61-3 - 1-Propanaminium, 3-amino-N-(carboxymethyl)-N,N-dimethyl-, N-[2-[(.gamma.- .omega.-perfluoro-C4-20-a lkyl)t hio]acetyl] derivs., inner salts 95,372

18 - 89419 Modified fluoroalkyl urethane Withheld 19 - 71217 Polyfluoroalkyl betaine Withheld 20 - 274147 Perfluorinated polyamine Withheld
Sources: EPA, 2013a. US Environmental Prot ection Agency. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, “2012 Chem ical Data Reporting (CDR) Data as provided by EPA’s Chemical Data Ac cess Tool (CDAT)” Ac cessed February 2013SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 2-5 2.1.3 PFAS Chemical Substances

In this SNUR, the term PFAS refers to a gene ral category of perfluorinated sulfonate chemical substances of any chain length. These chemical subs tances are referred collectively in this rule as perfluoroalkyl sulfonates, or PFAS chemical s ubstances EPA is amending a SNUR at 40 CFR 721.9582 for PFAS chemical substances to make inap plicable the exemption at 40 CFR 721.45(f) for persons who import PFAS chemicals as part of carpets. EPA believes that action on these PFAS chemicals is warranted because the commencement of import of these chemicals as part of carpets would significantly increase the magnitude and duration of exposure of humans and the environment
to these chemicals.



### 2.2 Significant New Uses under the Proposed SNUR

EPA may promulgate a SNUR for a substance when potential use could result in significant changes in human exposure or environmental release levels a nd/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 signifi cant new use must consider all relevant factors, including:

 The projected volume of manufacturing, importation, 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;

 The extent to which a use incr eases 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.

EPA is proposing to define the significant new use as: 1) manufacturing (including import) or processing of LCPFAC chemical substances listed in E xhibit 2-2 for any use that will not be ongoing after December 31, 2015; 2) manufacturing (inclu ding importing) or processing of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) or its salts for any use; and 3) manuf acturing (including importing) or processing of all
other LCPFAC chemicals substances for which there are currently no ongoing uses, as a significant new use. For this SNUR, EPA is also proposing to make the exemption at 40 CFR 721.45(f) inapplicable for persons who import LCPFAC chemical substances listed in Exhibit 2-2 or PFOA or its salts as part of an article for a significant new use. However, EPA is also proposing that the exemption at 40 CFR 721.45(f) rema in in effect for persons who process chemical substances as part of an article because existing stocks of articles may still contain LCPFAC or PFOA chemical substances. In addition, EPA is also propos ing to amend a SNUR at 40 CFR 721.9582 for perfluoroalkyl sulfonate (PFAS) chemical substa nces that would make the exemption at 40 CFR 721.45(f) inapplicable for persons who import PFA S chemical substances as part of carpets.

A company would be expected to submit a SNUN for any of the chemical substances used that are included in the proposed SNUR prior to initiating a new use.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 2-6 

### 2.3 Chemical Uses

PFACs are substances with special properties that have a variety of industrial applications. PFACs provide characteristics such as thermo -stability, ability to adapt to a va riety of surface characteristics, high chemical stability, and other characteristics. 3 Fluoropolymers, in particular, have properties that include fire resistance and oil, stain, grease, a nd water repellency. Fluorotelomers can be used in surface treatment products in order to impart the following properties: soil, stain, grease, and water
resistance. Fluorotelomers can also be used as surf actants to help products flow more evenly (EPA, 2009d).

PFACs are used in a wide variety of industries ranging from medical devices to wire and cable to textile products. The following list provides gene ral categories of uses and applications for

LCPFACs. 4 The proposed rule also applies to PFAS ch emical substance used to treat carpets.

 Aerospace

o Wire insulation

o Aircraft cabin interiors (films laminated to hardboard, paper, vinyl, polystyrene, polyurethane, and other substrates)

o Heat-shrinkable tubing made from PVDF resin forms ‘‘solder sleeves’’
 Automotive

o Engine oil seals (rotating and reciprocating types)

o Tubing
 Building/ Construction

o Exterior siding on industrial and residentia l buildings (PVF films are laminated to sheets of metal to make the siding)
 Coatings

o Coating for window frames

o Linings for hoses

o Antireflective coatings

o Paper coatings for food package

o Wax (floor and ski)
 Electrical/ Electronics

o Insulated hookup wire

o Molded electrical parts

o Electrical tape
 Lubricants

o Lubricant additives

o Magnetic recording surfaces using perfluoropolye ther lubricants, partially fluorinated diesters, and amine polyesters
 Mechanical

3 Armeduri, Bruno; Bouterin, Bernard. Well-Architectured Floropolymers: Synthesis, Properties, and Applications . “Applications of Flourinated Telomers,” (p. 71).

4 The list is not comprehensive. Also, an applica tion or use could fall under several categories because the
classifications are broad.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 2-7 o Piston rings

o Mechanical tapes

o Conveyor belts
 Medical

o Battery cases for heart pacemakers

o Prosthetic devices

o Waterproof packaging for pharmaceuticals (thin film)
 Military

o Binders for military flares
 Semiconductor

o Chemical handling equipment

o Engineering coatings used semiconductor manufacture
 Solar

o Film for solar collector windows
 Surfactant

o Cleaning products

o Paints
 Textiles

o Clothing

o Carpets

o Architectural fabric (dome construction)
 Wire and Cable

o Insulating heater cables and automotive wiring

o Control and instrumentation wire for utilities

o Jacketing signal, control, communications , and power wiring for mass transport
systems


### 2.4 Potentially Affected Companies

The proposed SNUR requires manufacturers, importers , and processors to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture, import, or processing of any of the subject chemicals for any significant new use. The proposed SNUR may also a ffect firms that currently do not manufacture, import, or process any of the chemicals, but who ma y be interested in manufacturing, importing, or processing these chemicals in the future.

In January 2006, EPA launched the 2010/2015 PFOA Stewardship Program (PFOA Stewardship Program) in partnership with eight companies (EPA, 2006):

 Arkema
 Asahi Glass Company
 BASF Corporation (successor to Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation)
 Clariant
 Daikin
 3M/Dyneon
 DuPont  Solvay SolexisSNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 2-8 These companies represent a large portion of global manufacture of LCPFAC. The program set a goal of reducing facility emissions and product content of LC PFAC chemical substances on a global basis by 95 percent, no later than 2010, and to work toward eliminating emissions and product content of these chemicals by 2015. The eight participating comp anies have informed EPA that they are on track to phase out LCPFC by the end of 2015 (EPA, 2012).

Based on the 2012 CDR reporting, there are some a dditional manufacturers (including importers) of
certain LCPFAC chemical substances who are not participants in the PF OA Stewardship Program. These companies manufacture (including import) a small volume, compared to the volume of LCPFAC chemical substances manufactured (incl uding imported) by PFOA Stewardship Program companies. Importers identify the volume but not th e source of the chemicals they report under the CDR. Because the PFOA Stewardship Program member companies represent a large portion of the global production of LCPFAC chemical substances, it is likely that a portion of the import volume reported by non-Stewardship Program companie s may represent the importation of substances manufactured by member companies. Further, b ecause of the nature of the market, companies reporting the domestic manufacture of specific LCPFAC chemicals may be obtaining the feedstocks for that manufacturing process from companies participating in the PFOA Stewardship Program. For these companies to continue manufacturing (importing) LCPFAC chemical substances, they would
need the feedstock and finished LCPFAC chemic al substances currently supplied by companies participating in the PFOA Stewardship Program . As the PFOA Stewardship Program member companies phase out their manufacture of those subs tances and customer demand continues to shift from LCPFAC to alternatives, EPA believes that th e manufacture (including import) of LCPFAC by companies not participating in the PFOA Stewar dship Programs are likely to cease by December 31,

2015.

Exhibit 2-2 contains 2012 CDR production information by company.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010▌pg.2-9Exhibit 2-3: PFOA and LPFAC Chemical Substances and Company Level Production Volumes as Reported in the Non-Confidential2012 CDR DatabaseCASRNChemical NameParent CompanyManufactureror ImporterProductionVolume1 335-66-0 Octanoyl fluoride, 2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-p entadecafluoro- E I Du Pont De Nemours & CoM CBI2 335-67-1 Octanoic acid, 2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-p entadecafluoro- E I Du Pont De Nemours & CoM CBI3 507-63-1 Octane, 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8-heptadecafluoro-8-iodo- EI Du Pont De Nemours & CoM CBI4 678-39-7 1-Decanol, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-heptadecafluoro- E I Du Pont De Nemours & CoCBI CBI5 865-86-1 1-Dodecanol, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,12-heneicosafluoro- E I Du Pont De Nemours & CoCBI CBI6 2043-53-0 Decane, 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8-heptadecafluoro-10-iodo-E I Du Pont De Nemours & CoCBI CBICBICBI CBI7 2043-54-1 Dodecane, 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10-heneicosafluoro-12-iodo-E I Du Pont De Nemours & CoCBI CBICBICBI CBI8 3825-26-1 Octanoic acid, 2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-p entadecafluoro-, ammonium salt E I Du Pont De Nemours & CoM CBI9 17741-60-52-Propenoic acid, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11, 12,12,12-heneicosafluorododecyl esterDaikin America IncI CBIE I Du Pont De Nemours & CoCBI CBI10 27905-45-92-Propenoic acid, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-h eptadecafluorodecylesterDaikin America IncI CBIE I Du Pont De Nemours & CoCBI CBI11 30046-31-2 Tetradecane, 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12- E I Du Pont De Nemours & CoCBI CBI12 39239-77-5 1-Tetradecanol, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14,14- E I Du Pont De Nemours & CoCBI CBI13 60699-51-61-Hexadecanol,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14,15,15,16,16,16-E I Du Pont De Nemours & CoCBI CBI14 65510-55-6Hexadecane, 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14-nonacosafluoro-16-iodoE I Du Pont De Nemours & CoCBI CBI15 68187-47-31-Propanesulfonic acid, 2-methyl-, 2-[[1-oxo-3-[(.gamma.-.omega.-perfluoroC4-16-alkyl)thio]propyl]amino] derivs., sodium saltsTyco Fire Protection ProductsM 128,78416 68391-08-2 Alcohols, C8-14, .gamma.-.omega.-perfluoro CBICBI CBI17 70969-47-0 Thiols, C8-20, .gamma.-.omega.-perfluoro, telomers with acrylamide Tyco Fire Protection ProductsM 127,59218 125476-71-3Silicic acid (H4SiO4), sodium salt(1:2), reaction products withchlorotrimethylsilane and 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-h eptadecafluoro1-decanolDow Corning CorpM 33,455SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010▌pg.2-10CASRNChemical NameParent CompanyManufactureror ImporterProductionVolume19 1078712-88-5Thiols, C4-20, .gamma.-.omega.-perfluoro, telomers with acrylamide and acrylicacid, sodium saltsTyco Fire Protection ProductsM 34,37420 1078715-61-31-Propanaminium, 3-amino-N-(carboxymethyl)-N,N-dimethyl-, N-[2-[(.gamma.-.omega.-perfluoro-C4-20-a lkyl)thio]acetyl] derivs., inner saltsTyco Fire Protection ProductsM 95,372Sources:1EPA, 2013b. US Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.Downloadable of the Non-Confidential Chemical Reporting Data(CDR) Database, February 2013SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 2-11 

### 2.5 Article Importation

The proposed SNUR will also require importers to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the import of LCPFAC chemical substances listed in Exhibit 2-2 and PFOA or its salts as part of articles. In addition, the proposed SNUR will require importers to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the import of PFAS chemical substances as part of carpets. The proposed SNUR may also affect firms that do not currently import articl es using the chemicals, but who may be interested in importing these articles in the future.

2.5.1 Affected Entities

As stated in Section 2.3 LCPFACs are used in a wide variety of industries and may be found in a wide variety of products, including textiles, elect ronics, and wires and cables, which may be imported
into the United States as finished articles. Wh ile EPA believes that the manufacture (including import) of LCPFAC by both companies particip ating in the PFOA Stewardship Program and not participating in Stewardship Program are likely to cease by December 31, 2015, EPA is concerned about the importation of articles containing LC PFAC increasing human and environmental exposure to LCPFAC chemicals. For example, in Norway th e main source of PFOAs in the environment is from imported articles, such as textiles, carpets, pain ts and lacquers, and coated paper, as there is no current production or use of PFOAs in the country (Vierke et al, 2012 and Norwegian Pollution Control Authority, 2007). Exhibit 2-3 contains ex amples of NAICS codes for firms that may import
articles that contain PFACs. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but rather an example of the types of industries that may be im pacted by the articles exemption.

Given the PFAS chemicals subject to an existing S NUR and the stringent international regulations on PFAS, EPA believes it is unlikely that any carpe t will be imported containing PFAS chemicals subject to the proposed rule.

Furthermore, due to the Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) for PFAS chemicals published in 2002
and 2007 under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the manufacture (including importation) of PFAS chemicals in the United States is strictly limited. The 2002 SNURs (67 FR 11008, March 11, 2002, and 67 FR 72863, December 9, 2002, as codified at 40 CFR 721.9582 limited future manufacture or import of 88 PFAS chemicals; an amendment published in 2007 (72 FR 57229, October 9, 2007) identified an additional 183 PFAS chemicals no longer being manufactured, imported, or used in the United States. Given the PFAS chemicals subject to an existing SNUR and the stringent international regulations on PFAS, EPA believes it is unlikely that any carpet will be imported containing PFAS chemicals subject to the proposed rule.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010▌pg.2-12Exhibit 2-4: Examples of Industries thatmay Import Articles Containing LCPFACsNAICSCodeSectionDescription315 Apparel Manufacturing Industries in the Apparel Manufacturing subsector group establishments with two distinct manufacturing processes: (1)cut and sew (i.e., purchasing fabric and cutting and sewing to make a garment), and (2) the manufacture of garments inestablishments that first knit fabric and then cut and sew the fabric into a garment. The Apparel Manufacturing subsectorincludes a diverse range of establishments manufacturing full lines of ready-to-wear apparel and custom apparel: apparelcontractors, performing cutting or sewing operations on materials owned by others; jobbers performing entrepreneurialfunctions involved in apparel manufacture; and tailors, manufacturing custom garments for individual clients are allincluded.334 Computer andElectronic ProductManufacturingIndustries in the Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing subsector group establishments that manufacturecomputers, computer peripherals, communications equipment, and similar electronic products, and establishments thatmanufacture components for such products335 Electrical Equipment,Appliance, andComponentManufacturingIndustries in the ElectricalEquipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing subsector manufacture products thatgenerate, distribute and use electricalpower. Electric Lighting EquipmentManufacturing establishments produceelectric lamp bulbs, lighting fixtures, and parts. Household Appliance Manufacturing establishments make both smalland major electrical appliances and parts. Electrical Equipment Manufacturing establishments make goods, such aselectric motors, generators, transformers, and switchgear apparatus. Other Electrical Equipment and ComponentManufacturing establishments make devices for storing electrical power (e.g., batteries), for transmitting electricity (e.g.,insulated wire), and wiring devices (e.g., electrical outlets, fuse boxes, and light switches).423 Merchant Wholesalers,Durable GoodsIndustries in the Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods subsector sell capital or durable goods to other businesses.Merchant wholesalers generally take title to the goods that they sell; in other words, they buy and sell goods on theirown account. Durable goods are new or used items generally with a normal life expectancy of three years or more.Durable goods merchant wholesale trade establishments areengaged in wholesaling products, such as motor vehicles,furniture, construction materials, machinery and equipment (including household-type appliances), metals and minerals(except petroleum), sporting goods, toys and hobby goods, recyclable materials, and parts.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010▌pg.2-13NAICSCodeSectionDescription424 Merchant Wholesalers,Nondurable GoodsIndustries in the Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods subsector sell nondurable goods to other businesses.Nondurable goods are items generally with a normal life expectancy of lessthan three years. Nondurable goodsmerchant wholesale trade establishments are engaged in wholesaling products, such as paper and paper products,chemicals and chemical products, drugs, textiles and textileproducts, apparel, footwear, groceries, farm products,petroleum and petroleum products, alcoholic beverages, books, magazines, newspapers, flowers and nursery stock, andtobacco products.442 Furniture and HomeFurnishings StoresIndustries in the Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores subsector retail new furniture and home furnishings from fixedpoint-of-sale locations. Establishments in this subsector usually operate from showrooms and have substantial areas forthe presentation of their products.443 Electronics andAppliance StoresIndustries in the Electronics and Appliance Stores subsector retail new electronics and appliances from point-of-salelocations. Establishments in this subsector often operate fromlocations that have special provisions for floor displaysrequiring special electrical capacity toaccommodate the proper demonstration of the products. The staff includes salespersonnel knowledgeable in the characteristics and warranties of the line of goods retailed and may also include trainedrepair persons to handle the maintenance and repair of the electronic equipment and appliances. The classificationswithin this subsector are made principally on the type of product and knowledge required to operate each type of store.444 Building Material andGarden Equipment andSupplies DealersIndustries in the Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealerssubsector retail new building materialand garden equipment and supplies from fixed point-of-sale locations. Establishments in this subsector have displayequipment designed to handle lumber and related products and garden equipment and supplies that may be kept eitherindoors or outdoors under covered areas. The staff is usually knowledgeable in the use of the specific products beingretailed in the construction, repair, and maintenance of the home and associated grounds.448 Clothing and ClothingAccessories StoresIndustries in the Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores subsector retail new clothing and clothing accessoriesmerchandise from fixed point-of-sale locations. Establishments in this subsector have similar display equipment andstaff that is knowledgeable regarding fashion trends and the proper match of styles, colors, and combinations of clothingand accessories to the characteristics and tastes of the customer.449 Sporting Goods,Hobby, MusicalInstrument, and BookStoresIndustries in the Sporting Goods, Hobby, Musical Instrument, and Book Stores subsector are engaged in retailing andproviding expertise on the use of sporting equipment or other specific leisure activities, such as needlework and musicalinstruments. Book stores are also included in this subsector.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010▌pg.2-14NAICSCodeSectionDescription450 General MerchandiseStoresIndustries in the General Merchandise Stores subsectorretail new general merchandise from fixed point-of-salelocations. Establishments in this subsector are unique in that they have the equipment and staff capable of retailing alarge variety of goods from a single location. This includes a variety of display equipment and staff trained to provideinformation on many lines of products.451 Nonstore Retailers Industries in the Nonstore Retailers subsector retail merchandise using methods, such as the broadcasting ofinfomercials, the broadcasting and publishing of direct-response advertising, the publishing of paper and electroniccatalogs, door-to-door solicitation, in-home demonstration, selling from portable stalls and distribution through vendingmachines. Establishments in this subsector include mail-order houses, vending machine operators, home delivery sales,door-to-door sales, party plan sales, electronic shopping, and sales through portable stalls (e.g., street vendors, exceptfood). Establishments engaged in the direct sale (i.e., nonstore) of products, such as home heating oil dealers andnewspaper delivery service providers are included in this subsector.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 2-15 2.5.2 Activities which may Impact the Use of PFCs in the Supply Chain

State level and international regulatory as well as vol untary actions by firms may impact the use of a chemical within an article. Because suppliers of ar ticles are likely to export to multiple countries, they may find it more cost effective to comply with the more stringent regulations in one country than to have two separate supply chains. Similarly, if a significant downstream consumer refuses to purchase products containing a certain chemical, the supplier may find it more profitable to stop using that
chemical for all of its customers.

Currently, the PFAS chemical substance, perfluorooctane su lfonic acid (PFOS) is subject to many international regulations a nd was added to Annex B of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).The European Union’s toxics law R egistration, E valuation, A uthorisation
and Restriction of Ch emical (REACH) currently prohibits PFOS in semi-finished products or articles, at levels greater than 0.1 percent by weight or, for textiles or other coated materials at levels greater
than 1 μ g/m 2 . Furthermore, due to the Significant Ne w Use Rules (SNURs) for PFAS chemicals published in 2002 and 2007 under the Toxic S ubstances Control Act (TSCA), the manufacture (including importation) of PFAS chemicals in the United States is strictly limited. The 2002 SNURs (67 FR 11008, March 11, 2002, and 67 FR 72863, December 9, 2002, as codified at 40 CFR 721.9582 limited future manufacture or import of 88 PFAS chemicals; an amendment published in 2007 (72 FR 57229, October 9, 200 7) identified an additional 1 83 PFAS chemicals no longer being manufactured, imported, or used in the United St ates. These SNURs were issued following the after the voluntary phase out of PFOS and its related ch emicals between 2000 and 2002 by 3M, the only US manufacture of PFOS (EPA, 2000b and 3M, 2013). PFOS was used by 3M in Scotchgard TM a stain and water repellant used to treat carpet s and other fabrics (EPA, 2000b). Given the PFAS chemicals are no longer manufactured, imported, or used in the United States and the stringent international regulations on PFOSEPA has no evidence of the international use of these chemicals in the treatment of carpets and it is believed that no carpets will be imported containing PFAS chemicals subject to the proposed rule.

Regulatory and voluntary action regarding the use of PFOAs has been conducted at the national level. Canada currently has an agreement with five comp anies to work towards the elimination of residual PFOA, residual Long Chain PFACs and residual precu rsors in their perfluorochemical products sold in Canada and Germany has recommended maximum concentrations for drinking water (Environment Canada, 2010 and German Federa l Environmental Agency, 2009). 5 While neither of these actions applies to the use of PFACs in articles, Norway has proposed regulate the content of PFOA in consumer products with a percen tage by weight limit of 0.0001 percent and 1 μ g/m 2 for textiles, carpeting and other coated materials (Norwegian Pollution Control Authority, 2010 and European Commission, 2010).

5 Environment Canada defines a perfluorochemical product as a perfluorinated or polyfluorinated chemical product that may contain PFOA, Long Chain PFCAs, Precursors, or mixtures of these substances. Perfluorochemical Products are Fluoropolymers, Fluoropolymer Dispersions, and
Fluorotelomer-Based Substances . Perfluorochemical Products do not include end products and formulated items (i.e., paints, cleaners and surface treatments), the articles to which they ar e applied (i.e., carpets, textiles and paper), and the articles that are manufactured from them.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 2-16 In addition to government regulatory approaches individual companies have also been taking voluntary approaches to banning PFCs in articles. The clothing company H&M has committed to banning PFCs in all its products by January 1 st 2013 (H&M, 2012) and British department store Marks and Spencer’s has committed to phasing out PFCs by 2020 (Greenpea ce, 2012). Several other clothing companies have indicated that they ar e currently in the process of substituting 8 chain
PFOAs for 6 Chain PFOAs and non-fluorinated alternativ es and have also indicated that they plan on eliminating the use of LCPFAC in 2015 as a result of EPA’s stewardship program (Patagonia, 2012, Adidas, 2012, Outsideonline, 2012, blu esign, 2012, and Jack-Wolfskin, 2012).SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 3-1 

## 3. Industry Compliance Costs

The proposed SNUR discussed in this report specifies that any manufacture (including import) or processing of LCPFACs for a designated significan t new use would require reporting under section 5(a)(1)(A) of TSCA. In addition, the proposed rule revokes the exemption at 40 CFR 721.45(f) for importers of LCPFAC chemical substances listed in Exhi bit 2-2 and PFOA or its salts as part of articles and for PFAS chemical substances as part of carpets. Therefore, a firm intending to manufacture (including import) and/or process any of these LCPFACs for a significant new use, import LCPFAC
chemical substances listed in Exhibit 2-2 or PFOA or its salts as part of articles, or import PFAS chemicals as part of carpets must submit a SNUN. Al ternatively, a firm can decide not to manufacture, import, and/or process these chemicals or articles in su ch 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, import, and/or process the chemical for a signifi cant new use, which, in this case, means 1) manufacturing (including import) or processing of LC PFAC chemical substances listed in Exhibit 2-2 for any use that will not be ongoing after December 31, 2015; 2) manufacturi ng (including importing) or processing of PFOA or its salts for any use; 3) manufacturing (including importing) or processing
of all other LCPFAC chemicals substances for wh ich there are currently no ongoing uses, as a significant new use; and 4) importing any of the twenty LCPFAC chemical substances listed in Exhibit 2-2 or PFOA or its salts as part of an article or PFAS chemical substances as part of carpet. A firm must submit the SNUN to EPA at least 90 days before it plans to commence the manufacture, import, and/or processing of the new use of th e substance. The SNUN provides EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if n ecessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs. If EPA allows the manufacture, import, and/ or processing of any of the chemical substances for a significant new use, then th e costs associated with this op tion are the costs of submitting the SNUN (including a user fee) plus, if there is an y 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 manufac ture, 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, importing, and/or processing any of the chemical substances in a manner such that they would be considered new uses. That is, if th e firm does not 1) manufacture (including import) or process LCPFAC chemical substances listed in Exhib it 2-2 for any use that will not be ongoing after December 31, 2015; 2) manufacturing (including im porting) or processing of PFOA or its salts for any use; 3) manufacturing (including importing) or processing of all other LCPFAC chemicals substances for which there are currently no ongoing uses, as a significant new use; and 4) import any of the twenty LCPFAC chemical substances listed in Exhibit 2-2, PFOA or its salts as part of an article, or PFAS chemical substances as part of carpet, then it would meet all applicable SNUR requirements. While this option avoids the cost s of submitting a SNUN, it may entail the “hidden” cost of the foregone profit as a result of not engaging in the commercial activity originally planned, and may involve substituting one of the subject chemi cals 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 CF R 721.47), it may have costs associated with R&DSNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 3-2 recordkeeping. In addition, if the firm exports an y existing stockpiles of the chemicals, it would incur the export notification costs. The firm may also pursue this option temporarily by complying with SNUR restrictions while also pursuing Option 1. Du e to the uncertainty related to this option, and EPA’s expectation that affected entities would select Option 1, the costs of Option 2 are not fully quantified in this report.

The remainder of this chapter estimates the quantif ied 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 compliance costs, including the costs of rule familiarization, registrati on 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 act ivity are calculated by estimating the labor hours required in each labor category and multiplying those burden hours by the wage rate for the corresponding 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 overh ead rates, following the methodology described in Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of th e Toxics Release Inventory Program (EPA, 2002b). Wage data for each labor category for December 2012 are provided by the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) Supplemental Tables available on the BLS we bsite (BLS, 2013a). The loaded wage rate is $72.87 for managerial labor; $64.38 for technical labor; and $29.51 for clerical labor. Exhibit 3-1 presents the data used to calculate the loaded wage rates for the three labor categories. Appendix A: provides more information on the wage rates and inflation factors used in this analysis.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 3-3 Exhibit 3-1: Loaded Industry Wage Rates, December 2012

Labor Category Data Source Date Wage Fringe Benefit Fringe
as % Wage Overhead

% Wage Fringe +
Overhead Loaded Wages 1

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

Managerial BLS ECEC , Private Manufacturing
industries

, “Mgt, Business, and
Financial” 3 12/12 $43.95 $21.45 48.81% 17% 1.66 $72.87

Professional/
Technical BLS ECEC , Private Manufacturing industries,
“Professional and
related“ 3 12/12 $38.53 $19.30 50.09% 17% 1.67 $64.38

Clerical BLS ECEC , Private Manufacturing industries, “Office
and Administrative Support” 3 12/12 $17.64 $8.87 50.28% 17% 1.67 $29.51

Notes:

1 Wage rates are rounded to the clos est pennies; however, unrounded valu es were used in calculations.

2 An overhead rate of 17 percent was used based on assumptions in Wage Rates for Economic Anal yses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (EPA, 2002b), and the Re vised Economic Analysis fo r the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report (EPA, 2002a).

3 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables December 2 012, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 18, 2013 (BLS, 2013a).



### 3.2 Unit Industry Compliance Costs

3.2.1 Rule Familiarization

The proposed rule requires manufactures, processors, and importers of the chemicals subject to the proposed rule, as well as any importer of articles containing LCPFACS and any importer of carpet containing PFAS to become familiar with the SNUR a nd its various requirements. Rule familiarization is estimated to require 0.55 hours of technical labor a nd 0.27 hours of managerial labor, as described in the Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notifica tion Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009a), which measures the costs of mandatory electronic reporting of SNUNs and other TSCA Section 5 notices. As shown in Exhibit 3-2, the total labor cost associat ed with rule familiarization is estimated at $54.84.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 3-4 Exhibit 3-2: Rule Familiarization Burden and Cost for SNUR Submitters

Reporting

Activity Clerical Labor ($29.51/hour) Technical Labor ($64.38/hour) Managerial Labor ($72.87/hour) Total Labor Cost (2012$)

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 multiplied by burden hour s as shown, due to rounding. Unrounded values were used
in calculations.

Sources: Wage rates: Exhibit 3-1; Burden estimates: EPA, 2009a.

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, 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 Exposur e/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) are required to register their company and key users with the CDX reporting tool, deliver a CDX electronic signature to EPA, and establish and use a Pay.gov E-payment account. 6 These activities are only required of first-time submitters of any Section 5 notice. These activities are estimated to require the following burden hours, based on the estimates presented in the Economic Anal ysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009a):

 CDX registration. EPA estimates that companies would spend approximately 0.18 hours per employee to register with CDX, and that an averag e of four technical staff members and one manager would need to register for each company, totaling approximately 0.92 hours of burden per company.

 CDX electronic signature. EPA estimates that companies would spend 0.25 hours preparing, submitting, and filing an electronic signature agreemen t (Authentication of Identity) form to EPA per employee. This burden would apply to four techni cal staff members and one manager per company, totaling 1.25 hours of burden per company. In add ition, EPA estimates that a manager would 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 ag reements is 1.75 hours. Note that this burden does not include any additional time required to cont act EPA’s CDX help desk to notify a change of

6 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.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 3-5 submitter status, should one occur. Filing the elect ronic signature agreement requires an additional mailing cost of $2.60 per company (including five $0.46stamps 7 and five $0.06 business envelopes 8 ).

 Payment via Pay.gov account. EPA estimates that one manager per company would 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 do es not include the time required to click ‘submit’ on the form and wait for payment processing.

As shown in Exhibit 3-3, the labor cost consists of CDX registration, CDX electronic signature, and Pay.gov account setup by a first-time submitter. As not ed above, an additional $2.60 in mailing cost per company is attributable to these activities, for a total cost of approximately $192 per company.

Exhibit 3-3: CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup Burden
and Cost for First-Time Submitters

Reporting Activity Clerical Labor ($29.51/hour) Technical Labor ($64.38/hour) Managerial Labor ($72.87/hour) Total Labor Cost (2012$)

Burden Cost Burden Cost Burden 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 $112 1.07 $77.72 2.80 $192.1

Note:

Costs may not equal labor wage rate multiplied by burden hours as shown, due to rounding. Unro unded values were used in
calculations.

Sources: Wage rates: see Exhibit 3-1; Burden estimates: EPA, 2009a.

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 respons ible 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 be yond the basic rule familiarization described above. In addition, this analysis focuses on the marginal costs of submitting information for the proposed rule

7 Price for a stamp was taken from the U.S. Postal Service website on April 9, 2013. (See U.S. PS, 2013)

8 Price for an envelope was determined based on the per unit price of a regular business envelope. See “Staples® #10, Self-Sealing Envelopes, 50 0/Box." Available at: http://www.s taples.com/ (Accessed 4/9/2013).SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 3-6 and not the total costs for the compan y to comply with a range of other Federal and State environmental, health, and safety regulations or accounting requireme nts 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 effort needed to collect and compile all data requi red for a PMN submission, prepare the form, submit the form and data to EPA, and maintain a file of th e 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 Chemistr y Council. These burdens include “the time spent reading and becoming familiar with the form, gatherin g the required information and preparing the report, producing sanitized responses for items claimed as c onfidential 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, 2009a). 9 In addition, electronic submission is expected to generate and an additional 0.18 hours of techni cal 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 est imated to require approximately 74 hours of technical labor and 18 hours of managerial labor (EPA, 2009a). Exhibit 3-4 combines the estimated reporting burden and loaded wage rates for all three labor categories to estimate the per-SNUN cost of form completion. The labor cost incurred by a SNUN submission for both large and small business submitters is estimated at $6,089.

9 The Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009a) reported 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 (EPA, 1994, p. III-14) . These burden estimates (the 0.5 for clerical burden and 0.5 for technical burden) are based on the recor dkeeping burden for polymer exceptions and not the recordkeeping burden associ ated with PMN submissions.

Therefore, for this analysis, the 0.5 ho ur for clerical labor and the 0.5 hour for technical labor were removed. It is important to note that for this anal ysis, clerical burden changes are not applicable because the entire clerical
burden is assumed to be eliminated under the electronic reporting requirem ents. In summary, we do not include the one hour recordkeeping burden (0.5 hour for cl erical, 0.5 for technical) reported in the ePMN EA.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 3-7 Exhibit 3-4: Industry Cost Estimate to Complete the SNUN Form

Reporting

Activity Clerical Labor ($29.51/hour) Technical Labor ($64.38/hour) Managerial Labor ($72.87/hour) Total Labor
Cost (2012$)

Burden Cost Burden 1 Cost Burden Cost Burden Cost

Form Completion 0.00 $0.00 74.2 $4,777.00 18 $1,311.69 92.2 $6,089

Note:

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

2. Loaded wages include fringe be nefits and overhead. See Exhibit 3-1 of this re port for derivation. Wage rates presented in this table are rounded; however, unrounded values were used in calculations. For this reason, total labor costs may not equal the product of rounded values.

3. The estimate of zero clerical burden is taken from the Econo mic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notice Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009a, page 7).

4. Technical and manageri al 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 Electr onic SNUN form (EPA, 2009a, page 15).

Sources : Burden estimated: EPA, 1994 and EPA, 2009a; Wage rates: see Exhibit 3-1.

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 submi ssion fee. Exhibit 3-5 adds the labor cost and
submission fee to estimate the total cost of a SNUN submission. The total cost of a SNUN submission is $8,589 for large business submitters and $6,189 for small business submitters.

Exhibit 3-5: 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 : Labor cost: see Exhibit 3-4; Submission fees: EPA, 1994

3.2.4 Recordkeeping for Companies Choosing to Submit a SNUN

Companies submitting a SNUN must, under 40 CFR 721.40, k eep records of the information contained in the SNUN. Some EPA reports have assumed that S NUN recordkeeping hours would be five percent of SNUN submission hours, or about five to six hours. For this report, the SNUN recordkeeping hours were included in the SNUN submission hours (see Section 3.2.3) and the SNUN recordkeeping costs under 40 CFR 721.40 were not separately estimated.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 3-8 3.2.5 Recordkeeping for Companies that Do Not Submit a SNUN

If a firm that manufactures, imports, or processes a substance the proposed SNUR or imports articles containing a substance subject to the proposed S NUR chooses not to submit a SNUN, they must keep records that document compliance with SNUR cond itions for avoiding a Significant New Use. Such recordkeeping requirements essentially involve copy ing and filing relevant records, including those related to category of use. Records must be maintain ed 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 and are performed by clerical staff (EPA, 2005b, pages 10 and 14). 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 burde n reduction associated with electronic submissions (EPA, 2009a).

The recordkeeping burden for a company that does not submit a SNUN is estimat ed at 0.15 hours and $9.66
and is derived in Exhibit 3-6.

Exhibit 3-6: Annual Per-Chemical Costs of R ecordkeeping Requirement for Companies that
Choose not to Submit a SNUN

Reporting Activity Per Activity

Burden (Hours) % of Reporting
Burden
Attributed to Recordkeeping Total Labor Cost (2012$)

Burden Cost

Category of Use 1 3 5% 0.15 $9.66

Notes: For the category of use reporting activity, the burden is associated with technical la bor. See Exhibit 3-1 for the technical wage rate.

Source :

1 US 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, processors, and importers 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 signifi cant new uses. Since it is not expected that all such entities would 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, processors, and importers would most often choose to notify their customers of SNUR regulatory activities. As this notification may be accomplished by simply annotat ing an MSDS, EPA estimates the associated burden to be about one hour of a technical employee's ti me or $64.38 per manufacturer, processor, or importer per chemical. The proposed SNUR would cover LC PFACS and PFAS used for any significant new use.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 3-9 However, EPA believes LCPFACS (including PFOA and its salts) will not be manufactured, imported, or processed after 2015 as a result of the 2010/2015 PFOA Stewardship Program. In addition, given the PFAS chemicals are no longer manufactured, imported, or used in the United States and the stringent international regulations on PFOS, EPA has no evidence of the international use of these chemicals in the treatment of carpets and it is believed that no carpets will be imported containing PFAS chemicals subject to the proposed rule. Therefore no manufacturers, processors, or importers would be affected and customer notifications would not be necessary.

3.2.7 Import Certification

Persons who import any chemical s ubstance governed by a final SNUR are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements and the corresponding regulations at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127; see also 19 CFR 127.28. Those persons must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA, including any SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import cer tification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. Thus, any U.S. manufacturer, importer, or processor r eceiving an imported shipment of chemicals and/ or chemical substances subject to the SNUR would have cer tify that they are compliant with all applicable
rules and orders under TSCA or that all chemical subs tances and/or chemical substances in the shipment are not subject to TSCA. 10 The statement must be on or attached to a commercial invoice or entry document corresponding to the imported shipment.

As stated in Sections 2.4 and 2.5, EPA believes that all manufacture of LCPFACs (including PFOA and its salts) will cease after 2015 as a result of the 20 10/2015 PFOA Stewardship Program. Given the current commitments under the 2010/2015 PFOA Stewardship Pr ogram and stringent international regulations pertaining to these chemicals, EPA believes it is unlikely that these chemicals will be imported. Therefore, the likelihood of U.S. manufacturers, importers, or processors receiving an imported shipment of chemicals subject to the SNUR is minimal.

If a firm wishes to import a chemical substance subject to the SNUR, this importation would be considered a new use and require them to first submit a SNUN. Reviewing and submitting the import certification is expected to take approximately fifteen minutes (0.25 hours) of clerical time and have a cost of $16.10 per transaction (OIRA, 2011). 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 through 75). For TSCA 5(a)(2) (the section under

10 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 chemical substances in this shipment are not subject to TSCA.” (19 CFR 12.121(a)(1))SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 3-10 which EPA promulgates significant new use rules) a nd certain other TSCA sections, this is a one-time notification requirement 11 per destination country for each expor ter of a chemical substance. After receiving a notification from a firm, EPA notifies the importing country and the United States State Department (40 CFR 707.70). To calculate the burden associated with making a single export notification, EPA first estimated the average annual nu mber 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 ma king a single notification, but did not estimate either the total number of exporters of a SNUR ch emical 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 th e (2012 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR), ICR No.: 0795.14 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, 2012c).

3.2.9 Estimated Number of Annual Export Notifications per Exporter

EPA’s 2012 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR estimated that the average exporter making notifications would make 13 notifications per year

. 12 This includes notifications resulting from SNURs and notifications resulting from other TSCA activities. Therefore, it is lik ely that an exporter would make less than 13 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 notifica tion mailing often includes multiple chemicals and/or
destination countries. 13

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.

3.2.10 Exporter Costs

The 2012 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR (EPA, 2012c, pa ge 11, Table 3), estimated the annual export notification cost for an exporter under the one-tim e export notification requirement. These costs include

11 On November 14, 2006, EPA revised the export no tification requirement for ch emicals 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).

12 EPA calculated the average number of export notifications per exporter in the 2012 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR (EPA, 2012c) by dividing the estimated number of submitted notifications (3,090) by the estimated number of exporters (240).

13 Based on review by an EPA economist of notifications received under TSCA Sections 4, 5 and 6 over approximately three we eks in early 2010.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 3-11 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 notifica tion letter to EPA, checking the outgoing shipments, and sending the notification letters w ith the associated shipping costs.

The per-notification cost was calculated based on th e average burden per firm. Exporters who make a larger number of notifications per year may benef it from economies of scale and have lower costs per notification; conversely firms making fewer notifica tions may have a higher cost per notification.

Estimated Submission (Mailing) Costs. Regulated companies would incur mailing costs for export
notifications delivered to EPA. Notifications are assum ed shipped via the U.S. Postal Service (U.S. PS) as first-class registered mail with a return receipt (U.S. PS, 2013). The estimated per-shipment and annual mailing costs incurred by individual su bmitters are detailed in Exhibit 3-7.

Exhibit 3-7: Derivation of Tota l Mailing Cost for 13 Notices

Postal Service Cost
Registered mail, regular, with $0 declared value $10.95

Return receipt, requested at time of mailing (receive by mail) $3.95
Postage, regular First Class, up to 1 ounce $0.45
Cost per export notice - Subtotal $15.35

× 13
Total Mailing Cost for 13 Notices $199.55

Source: Mailing rates are from the U.S. Postal Service web site as of April 2013 (https ://www.usps.com/ship/servicechart.htm). The assumption on the mailing method is based on 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 econom ic 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 would 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 , 2012c). 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, 2012c).

The number of submitters per year who report unde r 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 that there would be approximately 240 subm itters per year in near-future years (EPA, 2012c). Of these 240 submitters, EPA estimated that160 companies were near the lower burden estimate of two hours per year, and 80 companies were near the uppe r estimate of 24 hours per year. Compiling the list for all respondents was therefore estimated to take 2,240 hours (2 hours x 160 firms plus 24 hours x 80 firms), or an average of about 9.3 hours of technical time per firm per year for 13 notifications per year (EPA, 2012c).SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 3-12 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 13 notifications per year (EPA, 2012c).

Check Orders and Send Notifications. Companies that export chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) reporting must check outgoing shipments against the lis t 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 6.5 hours for 13 notifications (EPA, 2012c).

The burdens and associated costs for each notification activity are provided in Exhibit 3-8. EPA estimates that the burden associated with making one notifi cation is approximately 1.3 hours and $81.

Exhibit 3-8: TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost per Notification

Notification Activity Technical Labor Clerical Labor Total
Wage
Rate ($/hr) Burden Cost Wage
Rate ($/hr) Burden Cost Burden Cost

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 6.5 $191 6.5 $191

Mailing cost 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $199.55

Total per average facility 2 10.30 $663.12 6.5 $191.82 16.80 $1,054

Total per Notification 0.79 $51.01 0.50 $14.76 1.29 $81.04

Notes:

Costs may not equal labor wage rate multiplied by burden hour s as shown due to rounding. Unrounded values were used in
calculations.

1 Mailing costs reflect April 2013 U.S. PS rates and can be found in Exhibit 3-7.

2 An average facility submitting notifications is assumed to submit 13 e xport notifications per year.

Source: Appendix A of this report derives technical and clerical hourly labor costs. Burden hour estimates are from ICR No.: 0795.14 ICR for Notification of Chemical Exports - TSCA Sec tion 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act (EPA, 2012c, p.10).SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 3-13 3.2.11 Article Importation

The proposed SNUR contains a provision to eliminate the exemption for persons to the import of
LCPFAC chemical substances listed in Exhibit 2-2 and PFOA or its salts as part of articles or PFAS as part of carpets. However, EPA is also proposing that the articles exemption remain in effect for persons
who process chemical substances as part of an article, because existing stocks may still contain LCPFAC or PFOA chemical substances. The elimination of the exemption will require importers of LCPFAC
chemical substances listed in Exhibit 2-2 and PFOA or its salts as part of articles or PFAS as part of carpets to notify EPA at least 90 days before importing the articles. The proposed SNUR may also affect firms that do not currently import articles using the chemicals, but who may be interested in importing these articles in the future or who may be interested in ensuring that the articles they import s are in compliance with the requirements of the proposed SN UR. Although there are no specific requirements in the rule for these companies, they may choose to undertake some activiti es to assure themselves that they are not undertaking a new use. Importers have varying levels of knowledge about the chemical content of the articles they import, yet under TSCA the definitio n of “manufacture” means to “import..., produce or
manufacture” 14 and importers are responsible parties under the proposed SNUR. In order to understand and monitor their liability, companies might undertake a range of activities to ensure that the articles they import do not violate existing regulations.

3.2.12 Potential Compliance Ac tivities (Article Importers)

The rule does not prescribe steps that an importer must ta ke to identify a chemical subject to the SNUR in articles, therefore, there are a variety of potential actions that a company coul d take to identify specific substances in its articles, should they choose to do so. These activities range in cost; however, costs incurred are at the discretion of any individual impor ter. EPA expects that in all likelihood, importers
would take actions that are commensurate with th e company’s perceived likelihood that a chemical substance might be a part of an article, and the resources it has available.

There is currently no single widely accepted standard procedure to identify regulated chemicals in the supply chain. However, there are a number of organi zations that help provide information on the content of articles, organize declarations from suppliers, or certify suppliers based on materials or processes used. Importers subject to SNURs may refer to these sources for assistance in their own strategy to identify a chemical subject to a SNUR in articles.

ASTM International, formerly known as the Americ an Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), has developed a Standard Guide for Assessment of Material s and Products for Declarable Substances (“ASTM F2577”) which provides guidance for the d ecision process to assess materials and products for declarable substances. The following list includes activ ities that an importer might perform to identify any restricted chemicals in imported articles. Any rule familiarization burden associated with the proposed SNUR for importers of articles is discussed in Section 3. 2.1 of this report. This list is intended to capture the general types of activities that might be performed.

14 TSCA section 3(7).SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 3-14 1) Understand applicable requirements (per-firm cost). All importers would read and understand the SNUR, within the context of the company’s produ cts. This burden is derived in Section 3.2.1 of this report

2) Identify the type of imported articles that potentially Use the chemicals subject to this SNUR (per-firm cost). This determination may be done b ased on an understanding of the uses of the subject chemical substances (e.g., those describ ed in Section 1.1 of this analysis) and the application of any a priori knowledge of the material and its manufacture to assess the probability whether each regulated substance may be present.

3) Identify all suppliers involved (per-firm cost). The importer may choose to identify all suppliers from whom the articles identified in th e previous step are imported, and as appropriate, to make them aware of the importer’s poten tial notice obligations respecting the regulated chemical substances.

4) Collect data from suppliers (per-article cost). Importers may choose to obtain verification from suppliers identified in step 3 that the regulated chem ical substance is or is not found in the article. This may be accomplished through, for example, agreements with supplie rs, declarations through databases or surveys, or by using a third-party certification system.

5) Chemical testing (per-article cost). Importers may choose to assess imported articles for chemical content. This could involve requ iring suppliers to provide certificates of analysis/laboratory reports for a lot or batch of the material produced. Importers may perform their own laboratory testing of certain articles (or components of articles) to determine if they use the restricted substance.

6) Recordkeeping (per-firm cost). The importer may choose to keep records confirming the activities completed.

Exhibit 3-9

. contains the cost ranges associated with the above activities. The activities and cost derivations are discussed in more detail in Understanding the Costs Associated with Eliminating Exemptions for Articles in SNURs (EPA, 2013c).SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010▌pg.3-15Exhibit 3-9: Range of costs associated with an importer’sidentification of chemicals subject to SNURs in articlesActivityCost (2011$)NotesPer Rule CostsRule familiarization $55Discussed in Section 3.2.1of this documentIdentify the type of imported articles thatpotentially use the restricted substances$130 to $1,550Actual costs may vary based on number of articles imported andthe complexity of the article itself (number of components)Identify all suppliers involved $950Actual costs may vary depending on the number of articlesimported, number of suppliers, and frequency of supplierchangesRecordkeeping $104Actual costs may vary depending on recordkeeping systemalready in placePer Article-Related CostsCollect data from suppliers$5 to $515 per articlereviewed.$0 if no data collected.Actual costs only apply to those companies that choose tocollect data from suppliers. They will vary depending on thespecific data collection method chosen. Total costs depend onconsiderations including thenumber of articles imported,number of suppliers, and frequency of supplier changes.Chemical testing$130 per article tested. $0if no testing.6Actual costs only apply to those companies that choose tocollect data from suppliers. They will vary depending on thespecific chemical being tested for; the complexity of the articleand sample preparation required; and the exact fees of thelaboratory chosen for the analysis. Total costs per company willdepend on considerations including the number of articlestested, which may be affected bythe number of suppliers andrisk associated with each, and frequency of supplier changes.Source: EPA, 2013cSNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 3-16 Variation in costs associated with these activities would depend on a company’s level of activity to comply with other regulations on chemicals in artic les, the complexity of the supply chains, and the size of the company. Total costs per article impor ter will further depend on the number of affected articles and the frequency of supplier change

Total costs associated with these activities to any article importer are not quantified, but are believed to be minimal for this particular SNUR. As stat ed in Section 2.4, EPA believes that the global manufacture of LCPFACs (including PFOA and its salts ) will cease by the end of 2015, as a result of the PFOA Stewardship Program. Therefore, EPA be lieves there will be no importation of articles using LCPFACs after 2015, because the chemical processors supplying importers with finished articles will be unable to purchase LCPFACs after 2015. In addition, given the PFAS chemicals are no longer manufactured, imported, or used in the United States and the stringent international regulations on PFOS, EPA has no evidence of th e international use of these chemicals in the treatment of carpets and it is believed that no car pets will be imported containing PFAS chemicals subject to the proposed rule or PFOA and its salts will be imported as part of articles.

Under step 1 above, importers who are aware of the PFOA Stewardship Program may apply this knowledge and determine that none of their imported articles manufact ured after 2015 will contain a substance subject to the SNUR. Furthermore, firms th at have previously selected suppliers that have agreed to uphold certain standards, or who have ot herwise sufficiently demonstrated that they are not supplying LCPFACs, PFOA and/or PFAS, would not lik ely incur any additional costs associated with these activities. Essentially, the product’s certificati on would allow importers of articles to learn
whether an article does or does not contain LCPFA Cs, PFOA and/or PFAS or whether suppliers have agreed to uphold certain production standards. There are labeling systems for products in which independent entities ensure that the production of products does not utilize specific chemicals. For example, the European Union has developed a vol untary labeling system, called the EU Ecolabel. Producers, importers and retailers can voluntarily apply for the EU Ecolabel (European Commission EC, 2013). Labeled products signal to consumers that the product in question has a reduced environmental impact throughout the product’s life cy cle, such as at the manufacturing stage and/or during the final product disposal. The criteria are specif ically designed to focus on the stage of the life cycle where a product has the most environmental impact (European Commission EC, 2013). Another international association, OEKO-TEX® 15 set up an independent testing and certification system specifically for textiles, called the OEKO-TEX® Standard 100 (OEKO-TEX®, No Date b). The system looks at products at different stages of produc tion, including, raw materials, intermediates, and end products. The label signals to customers that the textiles have been tested for (1) illegal substances, (2) legally regulate d substances, (3) known harmful unregulated chemicals, and (4) parameters for healthcare The company also looks at the uses of the textile to see the intensity of contact between the product and skin, for th eir parameters. (OEKO-TEX®, No Date b).

Similarly, firms that operate in places where LCPFACs, PFOA and/or PFAS are already regulated would presumably have mechanisms in place to identif y the content of any articles they import. Firms with less experience with other regulations that ar e planning to import articles that could potentially contain LCPFACs, PFOA and/or PFAS may incur a larger burden should they choose to conduct

15 The International Association for Research and Testing in the Field of Textile a union of 15 institutes for textile research and testing in Europe and Japan (OEKO-TEX®, No Date a).SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 3-17 some or all of the activities listed above to ensure compliance. These firms may choose to reach out to a wide variety of upstream firms including s ubcontractors, accessory suppliers, and chemical suppliers to gather information on the chemical c ontent of articles. Firms may also choose to conduct additional research on their suppliers to ensure th at they are purchasing from reputable manufacturers and chemical suppliers who will provide necessary t echnical support and will use high quality articles that meet customer quality, as well as regulatory standards (AFIRM, 2011). Furthermore, a company could choose to have articles tested. If a company ch ooses to conduct testing they may also need to
conduct additional research to ensure the labor atory is accredited, reliable and follows Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) (AFIRM, 2011).

Given existing regulatory limitations both intern ationally and within the U.S., industry-wide processes, resources that support companies in unde rstanding and managing their supply chains, and the evidence showing minimal worldwide availab ility of the LCPFACs regulated under the SNUR, EPA believes that article importers would incur co sts at the lower end of the ranges presented in Table 8, as a result of this rule. However, firms w ith less knowledge about the chemical content of the articles they import may choose to undertake mo re extensive action to identify the chemicals substances located within the articles and may incu r larger costs than firms with more understanding of their supply chains. For those companies choos ing to undertake actions to assess the composition of the articles they import, EPA expects that in a ll likelihood, these importers would take actions that are commensurate with the company’s perceived likeli hood that a chemical substance might be a part of an article, and the resources it has available.



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

The number of firms affected that do not make subm issions to EPA (see Option 2 in Exhibit 3-10) is not known; therefore, costs are not aggregated across the affected entities. The following table summarizes the per-company per-chemical costs to comply with the proposed rule amendment, as
described in more detail in section 3.2 above.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 3-18 Exhibit 3-10: Compliance Options and Associat ed Costs Incurred by a Firm Due to the Proposed SNUR
Option 1 Costs Quantified Costs per Chemical (2012$) 2

1. Electronic submission of a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN), indicating to EPA that
the firm would like to manufacture, 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 under 40 CFR 721.40 and fee $2,500 for large businesses). EPA usually receives well under ten SNUNs per year. Import certification cost are approximately $16.10 per transaction. Export notifications
costs are estimated at $81.04 per notification; total cost per company would vary. First time submitters would incur $191.91 for CDX registration and associated activities. Companies manufacturing, importing, or processing a chemical currently used in
commerce in the United States would incur a cost $64.38 for notifying consumers of SNUR regulatory activities.

2. Manufacture, 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), import certification ($16.10 per transaction), export notification ($81.04 per notification), and customer notification ($64.38) may apply. Costs associated with article importation may include activities such as article identification ($130 to $1,550), supplier id entification ($950) recordkeeping ($10), collecting data from suppliers ($5 to $515 per article), and testing ($130 per article tested).

Notes:

1 Firms may be subject to both options at once since s ubmission of a SNUN results in profit s foregone as a result of not manufacturing, importing, or processing the chemical.

2 Quantified costs are attributable to the SNUR only if a fi rm 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 would incur te sting costs as a result of the proposed SNUR.



### 3.4 Likelihood of SNUN Submission

This analysis assumes that no 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, eight in FY2008, seven in FY2009, two in FY2010, and ten inSNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 3-19 FY2011. 16 In addition, as discussed in sections 2.4, all of the chemicals subject to this proposed rule will not be manufactured, imported or processed afte r December 31, 2015. Therefore, this suggests there will be no ongoing uses of the chemicals after 2 015 and that it is unlikely a firm would 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 a dditional 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 a nd 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 would initiate and follow the appropriate procedures for taking those actions. Included in those procedures
would be an assessment of the cost s and benefits of those actions.

16 Values based on US EPA’s PMN Gold (V1.1) record keeping system as of September 1, 2011 (EPA, 2011a).SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 4-1 

## 4. Agency Costs

As described in the following sections, EPA’s co sts 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 annua l Federal salaries for the Washington-Baltimore area published by the Office of Personnel Manageme nt effective January 2012 (OPM, 2012). EPA assumes that, on average, a federal GS-13, Step 5 full-time equivalent (FTE) would conduct its collection and administrative activities under the proposed rule. 17 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, 2009c), which results in a fully loaded annual salary of $161,446 (see Exhibit 4-1). Dividing the fully load ed annual salary by 2,080 hours (i.e., the number of hours in a work year) yields an estimated hourly FTE wage rate of $77.62.

Fully loaded costs for Agency labor are shown in Exhibit 4-1.

Exhibit 4-1: Derivation of Loaded Agency Wage Rates, 2012

Labor Category Data Source Date Wage Frin g e Benefit Fringes
as %

wage Overhead
as %

wage Fringe +

overhead

factor Loaded Wages

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

EPA staff

FTE Annual Federal staff cost:OPM WashingtonBaltimore-NorthernVirginia, DC-MD-PAVA-WV, area, GS-13 Step 5 pay rates, with
60% overhead 1 Jan
2012 $100,904 (annual)

-- Included
in 60%
overhead 60% 2 1.60 $161,446 (annual)

$48.51 (hourly) $77.62 (hourly)

Notes:

1 The Agency salary is the unloaded federal GS-13 Step 5 salary ($100,904 for 2012), from the OPM salary table for the Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia Locality Pay Area (OPM, 2012). Hourly ra tes are based on annual salary divided by 2,080 hours.

2 The 60% fringes-and-overhead rate is from an EPA guide, Instructions for Prep aring Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (EPA, 2009c).

17 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.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 4-2 

### 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 Ag ency 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, 2009b, p.28).

For each review step, the “EPA staff” cost is cal culated by multiplying the number of FTEs (in the first column) by the fully loaded hourly salary. Th is 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 Inde x (ECI) data (BLS, 2012). The ECI for total compensation (not seasonally adjusted) of private industry professional and related workers (Series ID CIU2010000120000I) is used because it is the onl y series with continuous data since 1985, and that includes professional and technical labor, whic h perform the majority of Agency extramural
activities. Exhibit 4-2 contains the derivation of inflation factors for Agency extramural costs.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 4-3 Exhibit 4-2: Derivation of Inflation Factors for Agency Extramural Costs

Item Inflation Index Source 1 Starting

year Index
for starting

year (a) Index for
December
2012

(b) Inflation
factor (b)/(a) 2

Agency Extramural
costs Professional
and Related Private Industry BLS ECI, Total comp, Private industry, Professional and

related , 4 th Q [BLS, 2012] 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 re flected in the indices in this tabl e 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; unrounded va lues were used in calculations.

3 Beginning with the report Economic Analysis of Expedite d Significant New Use Rules for 25 Chemical Substances: EPA Docket OPPT-2009-0922 (EPA 2011b), we began to use the not-seasonally adjusted CIU2010000120000I for private industry Professional, and Rela ted workers, instead of SA CIS2010000W 00000I for private industry white collar
workers because BLS retired the “white-collar” series.

Source: (BLS 2012) Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Cost Index – Total Compensation: Professional and Related Private Industry, Not Seasonally Adjusted. (S eries ID: CIU2010000120000I (B)), extracted March 22, 2012. http:/data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgate. (BLS 2012).

The Percent of Cases column in Exhibit 4-3 is a weigh ting factor applied to reflect the fact that not all chemicals require each review step. For exampl e, in the PMN process, all chemicals require Administrative Prescreening, but not all chemical s 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 fact ors for PMNs. Changes in weighting factors could cause actual review costs to be higher or lowe r 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 are 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.

Values in 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 pe rcent to account for burden savings generated electronic submission. This calculation yields tota l Agency costs of $5,086 per SNUN, for submission review and processing, as shown in Exhibit 4-3.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010Agency Costs▌pg. 4-4Exhibit 4-3: Agency Costs for SNUN andOther Submission Review and ProcessingReview StepsEPA Staff (FTE) CostExtramural Cost2UnweightedCost% ofCasesWeightedCost3BurdenReduction4WeightedCost withBurdenReductionFTEFractionCost perFTE1FTE Total(2012$)1993$2012$(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 $135Administrativeprescreen/ noticereceipt/user fee0.0024 $161,446 $387.47 $92.00 $162.30 $550 100% $549.78 0.165$459CRSS (ChemicalReview and SearchStrategy)0.0025 $161,446 $403.62 $268.00 $472.80 $876 100% $876.42 0.165$732SAT (Structure ActivityTeam)0.0006 $161,446 $96.87 $14.00 $24.70 $122 100% $121.57 0.165$102Engineering/Exposure 0.0015 $161,446 $242.17 $56.00 $98.79 $341 100% $340.96 0.165 $285Exposure/Fate 0.0008 $161,446 $129.16 $0.00 $0.00 $129 100% $129.16 0.165 $108Focus 0.0009 $161,446 $145.30 $23.00 $40.58 $186 100% $185.88 0.165 $155Standard ReviewFunctions0.0219 $161,446 $3,535.68 $511.00 $901.50 $4,437 29% $1,286.78 0.165$1,074Division DirectorsMeeting0.0129 $161,446 $2,082.66 $113.00 $199.35 $2,282 15% $342.30 0.165$286OrderDevelopment/Negotiation Review0.0171 $161,446 $2,760.73 $22.00 $38.81 $2,800 3% $83.99 0.165$70Post Order Data Review 0.0886 $161,446 $14,304.15 $0.00 $0.00 $14,304 3% $429.12 0.165 $358Order Modification 0.2167 $161,446 $34,985.43 $0.00 $0.00 $34,985 3% $1,049.56 0.165 $876SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010Agency Costs▌pg. 4-5Review StepsEPA Staff (FTE) CostExtramural Cost2UnweightedCost% ofCasesWeightedCost3BurdenReduction4WeightedCost withBurdenReductionFTEFractionCost perFTE1FTE Total(2012$)1993$2012$(a)(b)(c)=(a)*(b)(d)(e)(f)=(c)+(e)(g)(h)=(f)*(g)(i)(j)=(h)*(1-(i))New Chemical SNURDevelopment0.0277 $161,446 $4,472.07 $85.00 $149.96 $4,622 7% $323.54 0.165$270Notices ofCommencement0.0012 $161,446 $193.74 $40.00 $70.57 $264 31% $81.93 0.165$68FOIA (Freedom ofInformation Act)Requests0.0333 $161,446 $5,376.17 $287.00 $506.32 $5,882 1% $58.82 0.165$49CBI (ConfidentialBusiness Information)Substantiation0.0004 $161,446 $64.58 $3.00 $5.29 $70 100% $69.87 0.165$58TOTAL$6,0910.165$5,086Notes:1GS-13 Step 5 salaries loaded with benefitsand overhead. See Exhibit 4-1 for derivation.2Extramural costs consist of contracting support and other purchases directly attributable to the PMN review process inflated from 1993 prices using Exhibit 4-2.3Weighted costs were calculatedusing unrounded unit cost estimates.4Electronic submission is expected togenerate a cost savings of 16.5% to the Agency (EPA 2009a, p. 28).Sources:FTEs per review step, 1993 extramural costs, and percent ofcases are from EPA, 1994 Table VII-1; GS-13 salaries are from OPM,2012.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 4-6 

### 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 Ag ency burden and cost due to TSCA §12(b) export
notification result from three tasks. In the fi rst task, EPA receives export notifications from companies that intend to export one of the chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) (EPA, 20012c). 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 U.S. embassies (EPA, 2012c). (See Exhibit 3-7 for the cost of mailing one notification). The third task is comprised of EPA staff responses to pu blic 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, 2012c). 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 would be attributable to the current rulemaking.

Because it is unknown how many, if any, notifications EPA would receive or send as a result of the current rulemaking, the costs to the Agency are presented per activity. The estimated burden for the first two Agency activities is provided in Exhibit 4-4. To estimate the Agency cost, hourly burdens are multiplied by the loaded wage rate of a GS-13, Step 5, which is derived in Exhibit 4-1.

Exhibit 4-4: TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost: Agency Burden per Activity (2012$)

Agency Activity Hours per Activity FTE per Activity 1 Loaded Wages Mailing
Cost Total Agency Cost per Activity GS-13, Step 5

FTE

(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 bur den 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 Exhibit 3-7 of this report.
Other burden estimates are from ICR No.: 0795.14 [Information Collection Re quest for] Notification of Chemical Exports - TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act (EPA 2012c), adjusted for inflation.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 5-1 

## 5. Benefits

A SNUN submission provides EPA with the opportun ity 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 deem s 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.

Long-chain perfluorinated chemicals (LCPFCs) are f ound world-wide in the environment, wildlife, and humans. They are bioaccumulative in wildlife and humans, are persistent in the environment, and toxic to mammalian species (Danish Ministry of the Environment, 2008 and OECD, 2002). Based on currently available information, EPA believes that while all PFAS chemical substances are expected to persist, the length of the perfluorinated chai n may also have an effect on bioaccumulation and toxicity, and that chemical substances with long er carbon chain lengths may be of greater concern than those with shorter chain lengths (3M Compan y, 1999b, 3M Company, 1999c, and Kudo et.al, 2001). LCPFAC chemical substances have been det ected in human blood samples throughout the United States and the world. These compounds have also been detected in human breast milk, liver, umbilical cord blood, and seminal plasma. Individual samples collected on perfluorinated chemical
substances in the National Health and Nutriti on Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2009 are similar across teens and adults; however, pooled da ta from NHANES 2001-2002 indicate that most of the levels of perfluorinated compounds are higher in children ages 3-11 years compared to adults (EPA, 2009d). To date, some associations for th e general population have been identified between
serum LCPFC levels and several adverse conditions , including thyroid disease in women (Melzer et al., 2010), elevated total cholesterol (Steenland et al 2009), and impaired fetal growth (Apelberg et al, 2007). In the highly exposed population, there are al so associations with cancer (Vieira et al. 2013).

The proposed SNUR allows EPA to evaluate the u se of, or exposure to these chemicals and allow the Agency to take preventive action to limit or prohib it any Significant New Use. EPA also expects that the proposed rule may restrict future uses or e xposure to the chemicals, as a company may choose to 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

.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 6-1 

## 6. Additional Analyses

6.1 Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq .), the Agency hereby certifies that promulgation of this SNUR would not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rationale supporting this conclusion is as follows. 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 presen tly engage in such activities. Although some small entities may decide to manufacture or process a su bstance for the new use after the SNUR is promulgated, EPA receives very few SNUNs, and fe w 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 subm ission of a SNUN is minimal regardless of the size of the firm, averaging about $8,600 including S NUN 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 m illion 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 18 (EPA, 2012a). EPA believes the cost of submitting a SNUN is relatively small compared the cost of developing a nd marketing a chemical new to a firm and that the requirement to submit a SNUN generally does not have a significant economic impact.

As stated in Section 2.4, EPA believes that th e global manufacture of LCPFAC will cease by the end of 2015, as a result of the PFOA Stewardship Program. Therefore, EPA believes there will be no importation of articles containing LCPFACs after 2015, because the chemical processors supplying importers with finished articles will be unable to purchase LCPFACs after 2015. In addition, given the PFAS chemicals are no longer manufactured, impor ted, or used in the United States and the stringent international regulations on PFOS, EPA be lieves that no carpets will be imported containing PFAS chemicals subject to the proposed rule or PFOA and its salts will be imported as part of
articles.

Given the existing regulatory limitations both intern ationally and within the U.S., industry-wide processes, resources that support companies in unde rstanding and managing their supply chains, and the evidence showing minimal worldwide availab ility of the LCPFACs regulated under the SNUR, EPA believes that there will be minimal impact to im porters of the chemical substance subject to the proposed SNUR as part of an article. The SNUR does not require importers of articles that contain the chemicals subject to the proposed SNUR to c onduct specific activities to ascertain if they are importing or processing an article that uses a chemi cal subject to the rule. EPA expects importers

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

2010.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 6-2 would take actions that are commensurate with th eir perceived likelihood of a chemical substance subject to the SNUR being part of an article , and the resources it has available. Exhibit 3-9

. contains the costs associated the potential ac tivities a firm may choose to undertake to determine if a chemical substance subject to the SNUR is part of an artic le. EPA has no reason to believe that a firm would voluntarily incur substantial costs to comply with the SNUR, but rather EPA believes each firm will choose the most efficient route to identify whethe r it is importing the subject chemical substances in articles. EPA believes that the potential economic impact of complying with a SNUR is not expected to be significant or adversely affect a substantial number of small entities.


### 6.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

The proposed rule does not impose any enforceab le duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect on small governments b ecause none of the current producers of the subject chemicals are governments. Additionally, it is not expected that any governments would 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 appr oved 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 rela ted to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control numbers 2070-0038 (EPA ICR No. 1188) and 2070-0030 (EPA ICR No. 0795).

If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency , the annual burden is estimated to average 98.2 hours per response: 0.82 hours for rule familia rization (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 40 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 registrati on, 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). Th e 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 Execu tive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the re lationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and res ponsibilities among the various levels of government” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 6-3 The proposed rule establishes reporting and recordk eeping requirements that apply to manufacturers (including importers) and processors of certain ch emicals. 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 fe deral agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental ju stice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately hi gh 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, would 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 im pacting environmental ju stice-related concerns, this information would enable the Agency to be tter protect human health and the environment, including in low-income and minority communities.



### 6.6 Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children

Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), requires EPA to identify and assess environmental health and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. This type of analysis is required for rules that would have an impact of $100 million or more only. The impa ct of this SNUR would be less than $100 million and therefore no analysis of such impacts on children is required.



### 6.7 Executive Order 13175, Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175 is Consultation and Coordination wi th 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 governmen t 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 Re gulatory 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 predictab ility and reduce uncertainty , identify and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends, consider both theSNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 6-4 costs and benefits qualitatively and quantitatively an d ensure regulations are accessible, consistent, written in plain language, and easy to understand.

The proposed rule establishes reporting and recordk eeping requirements that apply to manufacturers (including importers) and processors of certain chemicals. Consiste nt with EO 13563, this document qualitatively and quantita tively describes both the costs and bene fits 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 docume nt and the best analytic approaches given the available data and
other constraints.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 7-1 

## 7. References

3M, 2013. 3M “3M’s Phase Out and New Technologies” 2013. Available at: http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/PFO S/PFOA/Information/phase-out-technologies/

40 CFR 721 Toxic Substances Control Act, Significant New Uses for Chemical Substances Code of Federal Regulations . Part 721 Title 40, July 27, 19 88, as amended, June 23, 1993.

Adidas, 2012. Adidas Group. Adidas Group Responds to Greenpea ce Report on the use of Chemical by the Outdoor Industry. November, 2012.

AFIRM , 2011. Apparel and Footwear International RSL Management. AFIRM Supplier Toolkit

. Retrieved from: http://www.afirm-group.com/AFIRMSupplierToolkitFinalJune6.pdf

. Apelberg et al, 2007. Apelberg, BJ, FR Witter, JB Herbstman, AM Calafat, RU Halden, LL Needham and LR Goldman. 2007. Cord serum concentrati ons of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) in relati on to weight and size at birth. Environmental Health Perspectives 115(11):1670-1676

. Armeduri, Bruno; Bouterin, Bernard. Well-Architectured Floropolymers: Synthesis, Properties, and Applications . “Applications of Flourinated Telomers,” (p. 71).

ASTM-F2577. ASTM International, ASTM’s Standard Guide for Assessment of Materials and Products for Declarable Substances
bluesign, 2012. bluesign. Management of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) according to bluesign® criteria. November 2012.

BLS, 2006a. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Emplo yee 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, 2012. 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. Available at: http:/data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgate.

BLS, 2013a. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables December 2012

. ” Accessed March 18, 2012. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsuptc25.pdf (Note: The BLS report title and content are updated periodically to include more recent data, on the same website.)

BLS, 2013b. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index- All Urban Consumers, U.S. City Average (Series ID: CUUR0000SA0), extracted March 18, 2013. Available through http:/data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgate

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.


### Burns DC, Ellis DA, Li H, McMurdo CJ, Webs ter E: Experimental pKa determination for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and the pot ential impact of pKa concentrationSNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 7-2 

### dependence on laboratory-measured partitioning phenomena and environmental modeling. Environmental Science & Technology 2008, 42:9283–9288.

Caroll, 2006. Richard E. Caroll. U.S. Bureau of La bor Statistics, “Changes affecting the Employment Cost Index: an overview.” Monthly Labor Review . Vol. 129, No. 4, April 2006. Available at www.bls.gov.

Danish Ministry of the Environment. 2008. Survey and Environmental/H ealth Assessment of Fluorinated Substances in Impregnated Consum er Products and Impregnating Agents: Survey of Chemical Substances in Consumer Products, No. 99

. Environment Canada, 2010. Environment Canada. Environmental Performance Agreement (“Agreement”) Respecting Perfluorinated Carbo xylic Acids (PFCAs) and their Precursors in Perfluorochemical Products Sold in Canada . 2010. Available at http://www.ec.gc.ca/epeepa/default.asp?lang=En&n= 81AE80CE-1#X-2010073015020613 . Accessed February 2013.

EPA, 1992. U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs). Washington, DC, June 1, 1992.

EPA, 1994. U. S. EPA, Office of Toxic Substances, Regulatory Impacts Branch. Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications. Washington, DC, September 9, 1994. (OTS/RIB later became OPPT/EPAB.)

EPA, 2000a. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Tox ics, ICR No. 1139.06. OMB Control No.: 2070-0033 [Information Collection Request for] TSCA Existing Chemical Test Rules, Consent Orders, Test Rule Exemptions, and Voluntary Test Data Submissions: Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act . Attachment 5, Wage Rates Estimation, August 29, 2000.

EPA, 2000b. U.S. EPA, “EPA and 3M announce Phas e out of PFOs” May 16, 200. Available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa /admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/33aa946e6cb11f3 5852568e1005246b4!OpenDocument &Highlight=2,risk

EPA, 2002a. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Preven tion 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, Ec onomic and Policy Analysis Branch, Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of th e 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 Fede ral Docket Management System as EPA-HQOPPTS-2002-0078 at http://www.regulations.gov.

EPA, 2005a. Office of Pollution Prevention and To xics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Change to TSCA Section 12(b) Export Notification Requirements, November 2005, available from the Fede ral Docket Management System as EPAHQ-OPPT-2005-005 8-0017 at http://www.regulations.gov.

EPA, 2005b. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ICR No. 118.08. OMB Control No.: 2070-0038 [Information Collection Request for] TS CA Section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rules for Existing Chemicals (Renewal). Supporting Stat ement for a Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act , October 11, 2005.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 7-3 EPA, 2006. 2010/2015 PFOA Stewardship Program. 2006. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pfoa/pubs/stewardship/index.html.

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 Ne w 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 Preven tion 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, 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 Environmental In formation, Collection Strategies Division, ICR Handbook EPA’s Guide to Writing Informati on Collection Requests under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 199. Revised 10/2009.

EPA, 2009d. "Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Fluorinated Telomers: Basic Information." Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pfoa/pubs/pfoainfo.html (Accessed August 24, 2009).

EPA, 2011a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. PMN Gold Database (Confiden tial Business Information) accessed September 1, 2011.

EPA, 2011b. 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. Count of SNUN Submissions as tracked in EPA’s Confidential Business Information Tracking System (CBITS). February, 2012.

EPA, 2012b. “Industry Progressing in Voluntary Effort to Reduce Toxic Chemicals.” February 10,
2012.

EPA, 2012c. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. EPA ICR No.: 0795.14 OMB Control Number 2070-0030 [Information Collecti on Request for] Notification of Chemical Exports - TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Stat ement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act . December 18, 2012 at http://www.regulations.gov.

EPA, 2013a. US Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, “2012 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Data as provided by EPA’s Chemical Data Access Tool (CDAT)” Accessed February 2011.

EPA, 2013b. US Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Downloadable of the Non-Confidential Chemical Reporting Data (CDR) Database , February
2013

EPA, 2013c. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics . Understanding the Costs Associated with Eliminating Exemptions for Articles in SNURsSNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 7-4 European Commission, 2010. European Commission: Enterprise and Industry –TRIS. Prohibition on Perfluorooctanoic acid (P FOA) in consumer products . December 2010.

European Commission EC, 2013. “More about the EU Ecolabel.” Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environmen t/ecolabel/the-ecolabel-scheme.html (Accessed June 5, 2013). Last updated March 25, 2013.

Germany Federal Environmental Agency, 2009, Germany Federal Environmental Agency. Perfluorinated compounds: Avoid inputs – protect the environment Available at http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/uba-info-presse-e/2009/pe09- 046_perfluorinated_compounds_avoid_input s_protect_the_environment.htm . 2009. Accessed February 2013.

Greenpeace, 2012. Greenpeace. Marks & Spencer Pledges to Eliminate Toxic Chemicals from Clothing. October, 2012.

H&M, 2012. H&M. H&M Puts Ban on Perflourinated Compounds (PFCs). September 2012.

Jacks-Wolfskin, 2012. Jacks-Wolfskin. FAQ on PFOA and PFCs in outdoor apparel (as of: 13/11/12) . November 2012.

Knox, S. S., T. Jackson, B. Javins, Stephanie J. Frisbee, A. Shankar and A. M. Ducatman. 2011. Implications of Early Menopause in Women Exposed to Perfluorocarbons. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 96(6): 1-7.

Melzer, D., N. Rice, M. H. Depledge, W. E. Henl ey and T. S. Galloway. 2010. Association between Serum Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Thyroi d Disease in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Environmenta l Health Perspectives. 118(5): 686-692.

Norwegian Pollution Control Authority 2007. Norwegian Pollution Control Agency. Survey of National Sources 2007: PFOA in Norway. December 2007.

Norwegian Pollution Control Authority 2010. Norwegian Pollution Control Authority. Impact assessment of regulating perfluorooctanoic ac id and individual PFOA salts and esters in consumer products (PFOA) 2010.

OECD PFC Steering Group. 2010. Survey on the production, use and release of PFOS, PFAS,PFOA, PFCA, their related substances and products/mix tures containing these s ubstances(2009 survey).
Available at http://www.oecd.org/document/58/0,3343, en_2649_34375_23843 78_1_1_1_1,00.html.

OEKO-TEX® Association. No Date a. “OEKO-TEX® Association” Available at https://www.oekotex.com/en/manufacturers/philosophy/oeko_t ex_association/oeko_tex_association.xhtml (Accessed June 6, 2013)

OEKO-TEX® Association. No Date b. “O EKO-TEX® Standard 100” Available athttps://www.oekotex.com/en/manufacturers/concept/oeko_te x_standard_100/oeko_t ex_standard_100.xhtml (Accessed June 5, 2013)

OPM, 2012. Office of Personnel Management, Salary Table 2012-DCB, Washington Baltimore Northern Virginia, DC-MD-PA-VA-WV. Accessed from http://www.opm.gov/oca/12tables/pdf/DCB.pdf.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

▌ pg. 7-5 OIRA, 2011. U.S. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Historic Information Collection Data for the Information Collection Request (ICR) for the Importation of Chemicals Subject to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) OMB Control Number: 15 1 5-0 1 73 Accessed. June
2011.
Outsideonline, 2012. Outside Magazine. “Greenpeace Scolds Outdoor Apparel Makers for Chemical Use”. November, 2012.

Patagonia, 2012. Patagonia Apparel. PFOS, PFOA and Other Fluorochemical. 2012.

Prevedouros K, Cousins IT, Buck RC, Korzen iowski SH: Sources, fate and transport of perfluorocarboxylates. Environmental Science & Technology. 2006, 40:32–44.

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.


### Steenland et al 2009. American Journal of Epidemiology, “ Association of Perfluorooctanoic
Acid and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate With Serum Lipids Among Adults Living Near a Chemical Plant”. Volume 170, Issue #10. 1268 – 1278.

U.S. Postal Service (U.S. PS). 2013. “Compare Services & Prices.” Available at https://www.usps.com/ship/service-chart.htm. Accessed April 2013.

Vieira et al. 2013. Vieira VM, Hoffman K, Shin HM, Weinberg JM, Webster TF, Fletcher T. 20013. Perfluorooctanoic acid exposure and cancer outcomes in a contaminated community: a geographic analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives 121(3):318-323 at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23308854

Vierke et al, 2012. Lena Vierke, Claudia Sta ude, Annegret Biegel-Engler, Wiebke Drost and Christoph Schulte. 2012. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) — main concerns and regulatory developments in Europe from an environmental point of view. Environmental Sciences Europe. 24(16)

Washington JW, Ellington JJ, Thomas MJ, Evans JJ, Hoon Yoo, Hafner SC. 2009. Degradability of an acrylate-linked, fluorotelomer polymer in soil Environmental Science and Technology, 43(17),
6617-6623.

Weinstein, 2004. Harriet G. Weinstein and Mark A. Loewenstein, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
C omparing Current and Former Indu stry and Occupation ECEC Series. Originally posted August 25, 2004 at http://www.bls. gov/opub/cwc/cm2004082 3ar01p1.htm.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

Appendix A ▌ pg. A-1 

## Appendix A: – Inflators and Wage Rates

This appendix describes the derivation of the fully lo aded labor rates and inflation factors used in calculating costs of labor, materials, and other in puts. Costs presented in this report are in 2012
dollars.



### A.1 Derivation of Loaded Wage Rates
Unit labor costs are calculated by adding fringe bene fits 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 Exhibit 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 Classificati on (SIC) System, and the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system instead of the Occupa tional Classification System (OCS). The following table shows the crosswalk between old and new occupational titles.

Exhibit A- 1: Labor Category Crosswalk

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, and Clerical
Labor
Wages and fringe benefits for managerial, professi onal/technical, and clerical labor were taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) data, 19 for December 2012, for manufacturing industries. 20

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

19 This follows the approach introduced in Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 65 Chemical
Substances: EPA Do cket OPPT-2003-0063 (EPAB, 2007b).

20 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables December 2012. (BLS, 2013a). This follows the approach introduced in EPAB, 2007a. Earlier PMN SNUR econom ic analyses, such as EPA, 2003, used ECEC data for “All Goods Producing” sectors (manufacturing, mining, and co nstruction). However, the manuf acturing sector data seem
more relevant since the SNURs main ly affect the chemicals industry.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

Appendix A ▌ pg. A-2 labor category. For example, for December 2012 , the average wage rate for professional/technical 21 labor was $38.53; the average fringe benefit was $19.30. Fringe benefits as a percent of wages were $19.30/$38.53, or approximately 50.09 percent.

An additional loading factor of 17 percent is app lied to wages to account for overhead. This approach is used for consistency with Office of Pollutio n Prevention and Toxics economic analyses for two major 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. Fo r 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 and clerical la bor are calculated in a similar manner, as shown in
Exhibit A-2.

A.1.2 Derivation of Labor Rates for EPA Staff
Agency labor costs are calculated based on annua l 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. 22

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, 2000a), 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)

21 This follows terminology introduced in EPAB, 2007b. Earlie r SNUR economic analyses used the term “technical” labor. Here the category is called “professiona l/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 “Professi onal and related” category. However, the coverage of the old and new occupational groups is approximately the same. See the BLS article, C omparing Current and Former Industry and Occ upation ECEC Series (Weinstein, 2004).

22 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 averag e of GS-12 Step 1 and GS-12 Step 10 salaries.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010Agency Costs▌pg.A-3Exhibit A- 2: Derivation of Loaded Wage RatesEPAB LaborCategoryData SourceDateWageFringeBenefitFringes as %WageOverhead% Wage2Fringe +OverheadFactorLoadedWages1(a)(b)(c) =(b)/(a)(d)(e)=(c)+(d)+1(f)=(a) x (e)ManagerialBLSECEC, Private Manufacturingindustries,“Mgt, Business, andFinancial”3Dec-12 $43.95 $21.45 48.81% 17% 1.66 $72.87Professional/TechnicalBLSECEC, Private Manufacturingindustries, “Professional and related“3Dec-12 $38.53 $19.30 50.09% 17% 1.67 $64.38ClericalBLSECEC, Private Manufacturingindustries, “Office and AdministrativeSupport”3Dec-12 $17.64 $8.87 50.28% 17% 1.67 $29.51EPA staffFTEAnnual Federal staff cost: OPMWashington-Baltimore-NorthernVirginia, DC-MD-PA-VA-WV, area,GS-13 Step 5 pay rates, with 60%overhead4Jan-12 $48.51 --[Included in60% overhead]60% 1.6 $77.62Notes:1Wage data are rounded to the closest penny; however, unrounded values wereused in calculations.2An overhead rate of 17 percentwas used based on assumptions inWage Rates for Economic Analyses ofthe Toxics Release Inventory Program(EPA, 2002b), and theRevisedEconomic Analysis for the AmendedInventory Update Rule: Final Report(EPA, 2002a).3Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables December 2012, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 18, 2013 (BLS, 2013a).4The Federal salary is the unloaded Federal GS-13 Step 5 salary ($100,904 divided by2,080 hours to get the hourly wage rate inthe table) for 2012, from the Office ofPersonnel Management salary table for Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia (OPM, 2012). The 60% fringes-and-overhead rate isfrom an EPA guide, Instructions forPreparing Information Collection Requests(ICRs) (EPA, 1992, page 30, footnote 9).SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

Agency Costs ▌ pg. A-4 

### A.2 Derivation of Inflation Factors

Detailed information on the derivati on of the inflation factors used is presented in Exhibit A-3. In 2006, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) made sev eral 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 th e ECI and the conversion to NAICS and SOC” (Branch, 2006).

Under a mandate from OMB, BLS changed its classif ication of industries and occupations from the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and Occ upational 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 indus try 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 Exhibit 7-2 of this report, may not ex actly 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 year s 1975-2005 is the SIC-OCS based series, and for subsequent years, the official ECI is th e NAICS-SOC based series (Sleemi, 2006, p.8). 23

“Starting year” indices in Exhibit 7-2 continue to be SIC-OCS based. Current year indices are
NAICS-SOC based. We use indices from both the NAICS-SOC and the SIC-OCS based ECI series because neither series spans the entire period over whic h testing and other costs need to be inflated.

23 BLS has been publishing the NAICS-SOC based ECI series since March 2001 and it became official in March 2006. The
SIC-OCS based series and NAICS-SOC series have different se ries ID numbers, even when they describe essentially the same population. For example the series ID for seasonally adjusted total compensa tion for all private industry workers is

ECS10002I for the SIC-OCS series and CIS2010000000000I for the NAICS-SOC series

.SNUR EA for Long Chain PFACs Contract # EP-W-08-010

Agency Costs ▌ pg. A-5 Exhibit A- 3: Derivation of Inflation Factors

Item Inflation Index Source 1 Starting
Year Index for
Startin g Year (a) Index for
2012

(b) Inflation

Factor (b)/(a) 2

Agency Extramural costs
Professional and Related Private Industry BLS ECI, Total comp, Private industry, Professional and

related , 4 th Q [BLS, 2012b] 3 1993 67 118.2 1.764

Labels, placards etc. BLS CPI, All urban consumers, not SA. CUUR0000SA0, Annual [BLS, 2012c] 1997 160.5 229.594 1.430

File cabinet

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

Key: BLS = Bureau of Labor Statistics. CP I = Consumer Price Index. ECI = Empl oyment Cost Index. SA = Seasonally Adjusted. Total Comp = Total Compensation (wages/salaries and benefits). 4 th 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 refl ected in the indices in this tabl e and explained on the BLS website, Employment
Cost Index News Release Text: Em ployment Cost Index, March 2006 (BLS, 2006b). The Consumer Price Index (CPI) was not
rebased.

“Starting year” ECI indices are SIC-OCS based: Seasonally Ad justed (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: Seasonall y Adjusted (SA) CIS2010000000000I for private industry All Workers, and not SA CIU2010000120000I (B) for private industry Professional, a nd Related workers.

2 Inflation factors are rounded; however, unr ounded values were used in calculations.

3 Beginning with the report Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 25 Chemical Substances: EPA Docket OPPT-2009-0922 (EPA, 2011b) we began to use the not -seasonally adjusted CIU2010000120000I for private industry Professional, and Related workers, in stead of SA CIS2010000W00000I for private industry white collar workers because
BLS retired the “wh ite-collar” series.