## Economic A nal ys is of t he Pro posed Significant NewUse Rule for Mercury Containing Barometers, Manometers, Hygromete rs, and Ps yc hrometers (EPA Docket EPA- HQ - OPPT - 2010 - 0630 )

November 8 , 2010



## —Does not contain TSCA CBI

—

Prepared by: Economic and Policy Analysis Branch Economics, Exposure and Technology Division Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products Page i of 32 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch CONTRIBUTORS The EPA analyst responsible for this report was Timothy Lehman

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

-W

- 08

- 010

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

Mercury Legacy Products Page ii of 32 Economic and Policy Analysis BranchEconomic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products Page i of 32 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch ABSTRA CT 1 This report estimates the costs of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s proposed 2 Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) that applies to the significant new use of elemental mercury (CAS 3 7439

- 97

- 6) in three mercury

- containing product s 1 ) barometers , 2 ) hygrometers /psychrometers , 1 and 3) 4 manometers. 2 Not included in this proposed SNUR is mercury use in portable, batter y -powered, motor

5 aspirated psychrometers containing less than 7 grams of elemental mercury because the se type of 6 ps ychrometers are currently manufactured. 7 The proposed SNUR applies to all manufacturing , import, and processing of elemental mercury for use in 8 the se three mercury- containing products ( excluding th e specified psychrometers ) . The three mercury

9 containing products subject to the proposed SNUR are b elieved to no longer be manufactured in or 10 imported into the United States and are considered “l egacy p roducts” by the Interstate Mercury Education 11 and Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC). Legacy products are defined by IMERC as prod ucts that are not 12 sold as new, but may still be in use, resold as used or antique, or stored in homes or businesses. 3 All three 13 products currently have viable and cost

- effective substitutes

. Because the three mercury - containing 14 products subject to the proposed SNUR are not manufactured, and feasible mercury

- free alternatives are 15 widely available , there is expected to be no economic impact as a result of the proposed SNUR

. 16 The three mercury - containing products subject to the proposed SNUR are all applicatio ns of barometers, 17 manometers and hygro meters /psychrometers ( excluding the specified psychrometers )

. All three products 18 subject to the proposed SNUR currently have effective and economically feasible substitutes , and are no 19 longer manufactured in Unit ed St ates
. 4 Man ometers are used to measure air, gas, and liquid pressure, in 20 the automotive, dairy, and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) industries. There are viable 21 mercury - free alternatives for almost all uses of manometers, including digital manometers, bourdon tube 22 manometers, aneroid manometers, and hydrostatic gauges. Barometers are instruments used to measure 23 atmospheric pressure

. Current alternatives for barometers include aneroid barometers, electronic 24 barometers, and other liquid

-b ased barometers

. Hygrometers /psychrometers are used to measure the 25 moisture content, or humidity, of air or gas. There are two available and widely used alternatives to 26 hygrometers /psychrometers : spirit

- filled product s and digital product s. 27 The propose d SNUR would require persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the 28 manufacture , import, or processing of elemental mercury for any significant new use as described in the 29 SNUR

. A firm intending to engage in these activities would be require d to submit a Significant New Use 30 Notice (SNUN) . EPA is proposing the SNUR because of health and environmental concerns about 31 mercury use . Because the three specified mercury- containing products subject to the proposed SNUR are 32 not currently manufactured in the United States , it is important that EPA is notified if a company chooses 33 to produce, import, or process elemental mercury for use in any of the se products. The SNUN provides 34 EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity 35 before it occurs

. 36 To submit this SNUN, a firm incurs a modest submission cost of $8, 143, and potentially other minor 37 costs . However, because no firm s are currently importing, manufacturing , or processing elemental 38 mercury for any significant new uses, it is highly unlikely that any firm will incur this cost. EPA does not 39

1 Psychrometers are the most common type of hygrometer; while they function similarly, they have historically been used in different applications and so have different naming conventions. See Section 2 for more details. 2 Because EPA cannot re gulate articles containing a chemical under TSCA Section 5, the SNUR applies to elemental mercury used in these products. EPA will not be notified if there is import of mercury

- containing barometers, hygrometers, or manometers. 3 These devices may still be in use, resold in the aftermarket, or stored in homes and businesses. 4 Portable, battery

-powered, motor

- aspirated psychrometers containing less than 7 grams of elemental mercury continue to be manufactured in the United States, and are not subject to the proposed SNUR.Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products Page ii of 32 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch require the development of test data for submission of a SNUN, although a firm may submit test data 40 already in its possession or describe any other avai lable data. Because EPA does not require the 41 development of test data , EPA assumes that no firms will incur testing costs as a result of the proposed 42 SNUR. 43 In addition to the firms that make a SNUN submission, the proposed SNUR may also impact firms that do 44 not make a submission. By avoiding a significant new use , a firm can avo id submission and testing costs 45 but may incur other compliance costs. However, this may not be a concern given that there are no current 46 manufacturers of these three products

. 47 48 C o sts are estimated at the firm level and reflect the burden of a SNUR on the firms that would make a 49 submission. 50 51Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products Page iii of 32 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch TABLE OF CONTENTS 52 53 CONTRIBUTORS

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... i 54 ABSTRACT

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... i 55 LI ST OF TABLES

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... iv 56 1. INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 1 57 1. 1 Statutory Authority

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 1 58 1.2 Summary of Methodology

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 1 59 1.3 Organization of this Report

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 1 60 2. POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ENTITIES

................................ ................................ ............................ 2 61 2.1 Historic Uses of and Alternatives to Mercury

- Containing Barometers, 62 Hygrometers/Psychrometers, and Manometers

................................ ................................ .......... 2 63 Barometers

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 2 64 Hygrometers/Psychrometers

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 3 65 Manometers

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 3 66 2.2 Potentially Affected Entities

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 3 67 Barometers

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 68 Hygrometers/Psychrometers

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 4 69 Manometers

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 4 70 3. INDUSTRY COMPLIANCE COSTS

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 5 71 3.1 Wage Rates

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 6 72 3.2 Unit Industry Compliance Costs

................................ ................................ ................................ . 6 73 3.2.1 Rule Familiarization

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 6 74 3.2.2 CDX Regist ration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup

................ 7 75 3.2.3 Form Completion and Submission Fee

................................ ................................ .......... 8 76 3.2.4 Import Certification

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 9 77 3.2.5 Export Notification

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 9 78 3.3 Industry Costs of SNUR, by Option (per Submission)

................................ ............................. 12 79 3.4 Likelihood of a SNUN Submission

................................ ................................ .......................... 13 80 3.5 Potential for Subsequent Regulatory Action

................................ ................................ ............ 13 81 4. AGENCY C OSTS

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 14 82 4.1 Labor Rates for EPA Staff

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 14 83 4.2 SNUN Processing Costs

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 15 84 4.3 Export Notification Cost

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 18 85 5. ADDIT IONAL ANALYSES

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 19 86 5.1 Small Entity Impacts

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 19 87 5.2 Unfunded Mandates

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 19 88 5.3 Paperwork Reduction Act

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 19 89 5.4 Technical Standards

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 20 90 5.5 Regulatory Planning and Review

................................ ................................ ............................. 20 91 5.6 Environmental Justice

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 20 92 5.7 Protection of Children

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 20 93 5.8 Federalism

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 20 94 5.9 Tribal Governments

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 20 95 5.10 Effect on Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

................................ ................................ ......... 20 96 6. REFERENCES

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 22 97 98 99Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products Page iv of 32 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch LIST OF TABLES 100 Table 1: Loaded Ind ustry Wage Rates, December 2009

................................ ................................ ............... 6 101 Table 2: Rule Familiarization Burden and Cost for SNUR Submitters

................................ ........................ 7 102 Table 3: CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup Burden and Cost for 103 First

- Time Submitters

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 7 104 Table 4: Industry Cost Estimate to Complete the SNUN Form

................................ ................................ .... 8 105 Table 5: Industry Cost Estimate to Complete and Submit the SNUN Form

................................ ................. 9 106 Table 6: Derivation of Total Mailing Cost for 12 Notices

................................ ................................ .......... 11 107 Table 7 : TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost per Notification

................................ ................................ 11 108 Table 8 : Compliance Options and Associated Costs Incurred by a Firm Due to the Proposed SNUR

...... 13 109 Table 9: Derivation of Loaded Agency Wage Rates

................................ ................................ .................. 15 110 Table 10: Derivation of Inflation Factors for Agency Extramural Costs

................................ .................... 16 111 Table 11: Agency Costs for SNUN and Other Submission Review and Processing

................................ .. 17 112 Table 12: TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost: Agency Burden per Activity (2009$)

........................... 18 113 114Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and T oxics

Mercury Legacy Products 1 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

### 1. INTRODUCTION 115 This report presents the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Pollution Prevention and 116 Toxics’ (OPPT’s) analysis of the potential costs incurred as a result a p roposed Significant New Use Rule 117 (SNUR) that addresses the use of elemental mercury (CAS 7439

- 97

- 6) in three products : 1 ) barometers , 118 2) hygrometers /psychrometers , and 3) manometers

. Portable, battery

-powered, motor

- aspirated 119 psychrometers containing less than 7 grams of elemental mercury continue to be manufactured in the 120 United States, and are not subject to the proposed SNUR. SNURs are proposed by EPA under the 121 authority granted by Section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA). The propos ed SNUR 122 would require persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture, import, or 123 processing of elemental mercury for manometers, barometers and hygrometers/psychrometers ( excluding 124 the specified psychrometers)

. EPA promulgates a SNUR for a substance when potential uses c o uld result 125 in increased exposure to or releases of the substance and in turn, could present an unreasonable risk to 126 health or the environment

. 127 1.1 Statutory Authority 128 Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) au thorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance 129 is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, 130 including those listed in TSCA section 5(a)(2). Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a 131 significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a Significant New Use Notice ( SNUN) 132 to EPA at least 90 days before manufacturing, importing, or processing the chemical substance for that use (15 133 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(B)). 134 135 The general SNUR provisions are found at 40 CFR Part 721, Subpart A. 136 137 1.2 Summary of Methodology 138 139 This analysis quantifies, to the extent possible, the costs to society of the proposed rule by identifying the 140 costs to industry associated with performing the required reporting and recordkeeping, and the costs to 141 EPA of administering the rule. Industry costs consist of rule familiarization; registration with the Central 142 Data Exchange (CDX) electronic reporting tool; collection, compilation, and submis sion of required 143 information for significant new uses of the subject chemicals; export notification; and recordkeeping. 144 Agency costs include reviewing and processing the data received as a result of the rule. Data sources for 145 this analysis include burden estimates derived from previous information collection requests and 146 economic analyses for related rules, compensation data acquired from government publications, and 147 supplementary market research. 148 149 1.3 Organization of this Report 150 The remainder of this report p rovides EPA’s economic analysis in support of the proposed rule. The chemical 151 substances and industry sectors potentially affected are characterized in Chapter 2

. Chapter 3 contains estimates 152 of the industry cost of complying with the proposed rule, and Chapter 4 shows estimates of the government 153 costs associated with the administration of the proposed rule

. Chapter 5 presents additional im pact analyses

. 154 155 Note that all dollar amounts in this analysis are reported in December 2009 dollars

. 156Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and T oxics

Mercury Legacy Products 2 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 157 

### 2. POTENTIALLY AFFECTED E NTITIES 158 The proposed SNUR applies to all manufacturing, import, and processing of elemental mercury for use in 159 mercury - containing barometers, manometers, and hygrometers /psychrometers ( excluding portable, battery

160 powered, motor

- aspirated psychrometers containing less than 7 grams of elemental mercury)

. N one of the three 161 mercury - containing products subj ect to the proposed SNUR are b elieved to be manufactured , import ed , or 162 process in the United States , 5 and are considered “l egacy p roducts” by the Interstate Mercury Education and 163 Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC). 6 Legacy products are defined by IMERC as products that are not sold as 164 new, but may still be in use, resold as used or antique, or stored in homes or businesses. 165 166 The following sections describe the specific historic uses of each of the three specified mercury 167 containing products , the substitutes for each product , and the potentially affected industry sectors

. 168 Because the manufacture of the three mercury

- containing products subject to the proposed SNUR has 169 ceased in the United States, we assume that there is no import of elemental mercury for these uses. 170 2.1 Historic Uses of an d Alternatives to Mercury- Containing Barometers, 171 Hygrometers /Psychrometers , and Manometers 172 Barometers 173 Barometers are instruments used to measure atmospheric pressure, and consist of a long cylindrical tube, 174 typically closed at one end, with a mercury

- fille d reservoir at the base. The weight of mercury creates a 175 vacuum at the top of the tube, and the mercury adjusts until the pressure inside the reservoir equals atmospheric 176 pressure. Rising mercury indicates increasing air pressure while dropping mercury indicates decreasing air 177 pressure ( IMERC, 2010b , 2009 b and Maine DEP , 2003). Historically, barometers have primarily been used in 178 weather forecasting applications (IMERC 2008c). 7 Additional uses include scientific demonstration in schools 179 and non

- mercury device calibration (IMERC , 2007, DEPA , 2006). A mercury barometer contains between 400 180 and 620 grams of mercury ( IMERC, 2010b )

. 181 182 Alternatives to mercury

- containing barometers include aneroid barometers, electronic barometers (which 183 use vibrating cylinder air pressure transducers, electronic resistance or capacitance), and other liquid

184 based (water or eco

- celli) barometers. 8 185

5 However, it is possible that these three may still be in use, resold as used or antique, or stored in homes or businesses. 6 IMERC requires that all companies planning to sell mercury

- containing products under the jurisdiction of its member states ( California, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) submit a notification to the clearinghouse every three years

. However , because IMERC does not cover all state s , its totals may not represent the entire universe . The only exception to this finding is mercury

- containing psychrometers for w hich we found one manufacturer (Belfort, 2010). 7 Electronic instruments connected are now commonly used to take barometric readings (Columbia Encyclopedia 2010). 8 Since water is lighter than mercury, it moves a greater distance in response to a given pressure change. As a result, the water barometers are large, bulky, and thus, seldom used (Maine DEP, 2003). Eco

- celli barometers use a non

toxic silicon

-based fluid in conjunction with a gas, and leverage the compressibility of gas in relation to gravity. Since changes in temperature can cause the liquid to expand, a thermometer is attached s o that the necessary adjustments can be made to the scale (IMERC, 2007).Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and T oxics

Mercury Legacy Products 3 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch Hygrometers

/Psychrometers 186 Hygrometers are used to measure the moisture content, or humidity, of air or gas. A p sychrometer, the 187 mos t common type of hygrometer, use s two mercury
- added thermometers, one with a wetted base, and 188 one with a dry base. Hygrometers and psychrometers function similarly but have historically been used 189 in different applications: hygrometers are used for cigar and tobacco humidors, or in residential settings 190 where humidity is monitored to prevent the growth of mildew or dust mites; psychrometers are used by 191 atmospheric scientists and weather enthusiasts ( IMERC, 2010a). Mercury

- added 192 hygrometers /psychrometers contain between 3 and 7 grams of mercury (Environment Canada , 2004). 193 There are two types of alternatives to mercury

- added hygrometers /psychrometers that are readily 194 available and widely used: spirit

- filled product s, which use methyl alcohol or citrus oil thermometers and 195 provide results with comparable accuracy to mercury

- added thermometers ; and digital product s, which 196 use electronic sensors to measure humidity changes and, when calibrated properly, provide as accurate 197 results as mercury product s (Maine DEP , 2003 , IMERC, 2010b ). 198 EPA found sufficient information to conclude that only one type of mercury

- containing 199 hygrometer/psychrometer is manufactured in or imported into the United States. Portable, battery

200 powered, motor

- aspirated psychrometers containing less than 7 grams of elemental mercury continue to 201 be manufactured in the United States. 9 EPA is considering whether risk management or other actions 202 would be appropriate for the one type of psychrometer that is still in use. 203 Manometers 204 Manometers are u sed to measure air, gas, and liquid pressure. While these instruments come in a variety 205 of shapes and sizes, the most common mercury manometer design is a U

- shaped tube. One end is left 206 open to the atmosphere; the other is exposed or connected to the source being measured. If the pressure 207 measured is higher than atmospheric pressure, the liquid moves toward the open end of the tube. If the 208 pressure measured is lower, it moves away from the open end. The difference between the levels of 209 mercury provides a reading relative to atmospheric pressure. Historical manometer uses include vacuum 210 pressure measurement in natural gas pipelines, 10 dairy cow milking systems (“dairy manometers”), the 211 automotive industry, and the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) industry. Depending on 212 the application, the amount of mercury in a manometer may range from 30 to 525 grams (IMERC, 2010b, 213 VT Agricultural Agency, 2001; WI DNR, 2007). 11 214 There are viable mercury

- free alternatives for almost all uses of manometer s. There are several mercury

215 free technologies in the dairy industry (digital manometers, bourdon tube manometers, and aneroid 216 manometers), automobile industry (hydrostatic gauges) and the heating, ventilation and air conditioning 217 (HVAC) industry (hydrostatic gauges and bourdon tube manometers). 218 2.2 Potentially Affected Entities 219 Because the three mercury- containing product s subject to the proposed SNUR are b elieved to no longer 220 be manufactured in or imported into the United States , there are likely to be no entities affected by the 221 proposed SNUR. The following summarizes the research undertaken as part of this decision

- making 222 process. 223

9 A phone conversation with a customer service representative at the Belfort Instrument Company on April 27, 2010 confirmed the manufacture of at least one model of mercury

- containing psychrometer (Belfort, 2010). 10 Based on information that use of mercury in natural gas manometers has ceased, on September 11, 2009 EPA has proposed a TSCA §5(a)(2) significant new use rule (SNUR), requiring persons to notify EPA 90 days prior to manufa cture, import, or processing of elemental mercury for natural gas manometers, except when the articles are in service as of the effective date of the final rule (EPA, 2009a). 11 Natural gas manometers may contain several kilograms of mercury (Schleifstein, 2007).Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and T oxics

Mercury Legacy Products 4 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch Barometers 224 Pri n co Instruments, the sole barometer manufacturer reporting use of mercury to IMERC in 2001 and 225 2 004, phased

- out manufacturing mercury

- added measuring product s in January, 2007 ( IMERC, 2010b ). 226 Internet queries did not identify any current manufacturer of mercury

- added barometers. This research 227 suggests that the manufacture of mercury

- containing barometers has been p hased out. 12 228 Hygrometers

/Psychrometers 229 IMERC reports that the quantity of mercury sold in hygrometers/psychrometers decreased from 0.0018 230 metric tons in 2001 to 0.00 09 metric tons in 200 7 ; however, the 2007 value actually equals zero because 231 IMERC categori zes “other measuring equipment” with hygrometers/psychrometers , and b oth 232 manufacturers who reported sales of mercury

- containing hygrometers/psychrometers to IMERC in either 233 2001 or 2004 (Princo Instruments, Inc. and Taylor Precision Products L.P.) have rep orted that they have 234 phased out the use of mercury ( IMERC, 2010b )

. 13 235 Manometers 236 All manufacturers who had reported historical manufacture of mercury

- containing manometers to IMERC 237 in either 2001 or 2004 have since phased out use of mercury in their products (IMERC, 2010b). 14 P hone 238 conversations with five additional companies (Ashcroft Inc., Dwyer Instrument s, Dynisco Instruments, S 239 J Electro Systems, Inc., and McMaster

- Carr) identified through 1) online queries for pressure 240 measurement devices, and 2) a search of Dun & Bradstreet database under the relevant NAICS code 15 241 indicated that none made or sold mercury

- containing manometers (Ashcroft Inc., 2010; Dwyer 242 Instruments , 2010 ; Dynisco Instruments, 2010; S J Electro Systems, Inc.; and McMaster

- Carr, 2010). As 243 a result, EPA believes that manufacturing of mercury

- containing manometers have been phased

- out. 244 245 246

12 Barometers may still be found in secondary markets; in fact, some state bans provide exemptions for antique barometers. 13 A phone conversation with a customer service representative at the Belfort Instrument Company on April 27, 2010 confirmed the manufacture of at least one model of mercury

- containing psychrometers, therefore these were excluded from the SNUR (Belfort, 2010). 13 14 Scientific Glass & Instruments, which reported the sale of mercury

- containing manometers to IMERC in 2001 and 2004, reported to IMERC that they only produce the glass component and do not fill the manometer with mercury. 15 NAICS 33451 2: Automatic Environmental Control Manufacturing for Residential, Commercial, and Appliance Use

.Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and T oxics

Mercury Legacy Products 5 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

### 3. INDUSTRY COMPLIANCE COSTS 247 The proposed SNUR discussed in this report specifies that significant new use s of mercury that require 248 reporting under section 5( a)( 2 )(A) of TSCA include the manufacture , import, or processing of elemental 249 mercury fo r use in : 1) barometers , 2 ) manometers , and 3) hygrometers/psychrometers. Not included in 250 this proposed SNUR is mercury use in portable, battery

-powered, motor

- aspirate d psychrometers 251 containing less than 7 grams of elemental mercury because they are currently manufactured. 16 Therefore , 252 a firm intending to manufacture, import, and/or process elemental mercury for the previously specified 253 product s , m

ust submit a SNUN. Al ternatively, a firm can decide not to manufacture, import, and/or 254 process th e chemical for a significant new use

. The firm , therefore , has two options: 255

 Option 1: Submit a SNUN

. A SNUN indicates to EPA that the firm would like to manufacture, 256 import, and/or process the chemical for a significant new use , which, in this case, means any 257 manufacture, importing, and/or processing of this chemical or articles containing the chemicals

. The 258 firm must submit the SNUN to EPA at least 90 days before it plans to commence the manufacture, 259 import, and/or processing of the substance; the SNUN provides EPA with the opportunity to evaluate 260 the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs. If EPA allows the 261 manufacture, import, or processing of mercury for use in the three products subject to the proposed 262 SNUR , then the costs associated with this option are the costs of submitting the SNUN (including a 263 user fee) plus , if there is any export of these products , the export notification c osts that result from 264 TSCA Section 12(b) requirements that are automatically triggered for chemicals regulated under 265 TSCA Section 5 (see Section 3.2.5 for details)

. Because the three products subject to the proposed 266 SNUR are not currently manufactured or imported into the United States , EPA expects that no firms 267 will choose this option. 268 269
 Option 2: Decide not to manu facture, import, and/or process the chemical. The firm may simply 270 decide to not manufacture, imp ort, or process mercury for use in the three products subject to the 271 proposed SNUR

. While this option avoids the costs of sub mitting a SNUN, it entails the “hidden” 272 cost of the foregone profit as a result of not engaging in the commercial activity originally planned. 273 Similarly, if the firm would have used a given amount of mercury for use in the production of one of 274 the three products subject to the proposed SNUR, it may substitute mercury with a more costly 275 substance and will incur those additional “hidden ” costs of production. However, these hidden costs 276 are expected to be minimal , if not zero, because the manufacture of the mercury

- containing products 277 subject to the proposed SNUR has phased out, and firms have begun to produce substitutes for the 278 products prior to the proposed SNUR. If the firm elects to produce mercury for use in the three 279 products subject to the proposed SNUR for research and development (R&D) purposes only ( an 280 exemption for R&D purposes is provided in 40 CFR §721.47), it may have co sts associated with 281 R&D recordkeeping. In addition, if the firm exports any existing stockpiles of the specified mercury282 containing products , it will incur the export notification costs (see Section 3.2.5 for details). 283 284 Since the products subj ect to the proposed SNUR are not currently manufactured in the United States , 285 EPA does not expect there to be compliance cost associated for either of the options. The remainder of 286 this chapter estimates the quantified p ortion of costs associated with the proposed SNUR for these uses of 287 the elemental mercury

. Section 3.1 summarizes the wage rates used in this chapter. Section 3.2 provides 288 the unit industry compliance costs, including the costs of rule familiarization, registration with the Central 289 Data Exchange ( CDX ) electronic reporting tool, completing the SNUN form, submission fee, import 290 certification, and export notification. Total costs under each option are presented in Section 3.3

. 291 292

16 A phone conversation with a customer se rvice representative at the Belfort Instrument Company on April 27, 2010 confirmed the manufacture of at least one model of mercury

- containing psychrometer (Belfort, 2010).Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and T oxics

Mercury Legacy Products 6 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 3.1 Wage Rates 293 294 The proposed rule involves activities that may require efforts by employees in three labor classifications: 295 managerial, technical, and clerical. Costs for each activity are calculated by estimating the labor hours 296 required in each labor category and multiplying those burdens by the wage rate for each labor category. 297 This section presents the estimated wage rate in each labor category. 298 Loaded wage rates for managerial, te chnical, and clerical personnel are derived by combining data on 299 wages and fringe benefits with estimates of overhead rates, following the methodology described in 300 “Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program” ( EPA, 2002b ). Wage 301 data for each labor category in December 2009 are provided by the Employer Costs for Employee 302 Compensation (ECEC) Supplemental Tables available on the BLS website (BLS, 2010 a). The loaded 303 wage rate for managerial labor is $68.24; for technical labor, $ 59.49; and for clerical labor, $28.31. Table 304 1 presents the basic data used to calculate the loaded wage rates for all three categories of labor. 305 306 Table 1 : Loaded Industry Wage Rates, December 2009

Labor Category Data Sources Wage (2009$) Fringe

Benefit (2009$) Fringes

as % wage Over head % wage 2 Fringe +

overhead factor Loaded

Wages 1 (2009$) (a) (b) (c)

=(b)/(a) (d) (e)=(c)+

(d)+1 (f)=(a) x

(e) Managerial BLS ECEC, Private

Manufacturing industries, “M gt, Business, and Financial” 3 $42.36 $18.68 44.10% 17% 1.61 $68.24 Professional/ Technical BLS ECEC, Private

Manufacturing industries , “Professional and related“ 3 $35.96 $17.42 48.44% 17% 1.65 $59.49

Clerical BLS ECEC, Private

Manufacturing industrie s, “Office and Administrative Support” 3 $17.21 $ 8.17 47.47% 17% 1.64 $28.31

1 Wage data are rounded to the closest pennies in this table. 2 An overhead rate of 17% was used based on assumptions in Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (EP A, 2002b ), and the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report ( EP A, 2002a). 3 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables: December 200 9

. US Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 1 0 , 20 1

- (BLS, 20 10 a). 307 3.2 Unit Industry Compliance Costs 308 309 

### 3.2.1 Rule Familiarization 310 311 The proposed rule requires submitters and their staff to become familiar with the SNUR and its various 312 requirements. The per company burden associated with r ule familiarization is approximately 0.55 hours 313 of technical labor and 0.27 hours of managerial labor, as described in the Economic Analysis of the 314 Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009 b )

. As shown in Table 2 the 315 total labor cost associated with rule familiarization by a first

-time reporter is $50.92. 316 317Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and T oxics

Mercury Legacy Products 7 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch

Table 2 : Rule Familiarization Burden and Cost for SNUR Submitters
Reporting Activity Clerical Labor (at $28.31/hour) Technical Labor (at

$59.49/hour) Managerial Labor

(at $68.24/hour) Total Labor Cost Burden (hours) Cost

(2009$) Burden

(hours) Cost

(2009$) Burden

(hours) Cost

(2009$) Burden

(hours) Cost

(2009$) Rule Familiarization 0.00 $0.00 0.55 $32.72 0.27 $18.20 0.82 $50.92 Total 0.00 $0.00 0. 55 $32.72 0.27 $18.20 0.82 $50.92 Source : BLS, 2010 a (labor rates) ; EPA, 2009 b (burden hours) 318 

### 3.2.2 CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup 319 320 The proposed SNUR requires first

-time submitters (that is, those companies who have not submitted 321 information to EPA through CDX before) to register their company and key users with the CDX reporting 322 tool, deliver a CDX electronic signature to EPA, and establish and use a Pay.gov E

-payment account
. . 17

. 323 These activities are only required of first
-time submitters (companies already registered with CDX would 324 not need to re

-register for the purposes of complying with the proposed SNUR)

. The burdens associated 325 with these activities were estimated in the Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Noti fication 326 Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009 b ) and are described in more detail below : 327

 CDX registration: EPA estimates that companies will spend approximately 0.18 hours per 328 employee to register with CDX, and that an average of four technical staff me mbers and one 329 manager will need to register for each company, totaling approximately 0.92 hours of burden per 330 company. 331 332
 CDX electronic signature: EPA estimates that companies will spend 0.25 hours preparing, 333 submitting, and filing an electronic signature agreement (Authentication of Identity) form to EPA 334 per employee

. This burden will apply to four technical staff members and one manager per 335 company, totaling to 1.25 hours of burden per company

. In addition, EPA estimates that a 336 manager will spend an additional 0.50 hours accessing, preparing, and submitting verification 337 forms (Verification of Authorization) for all authorized submitters to EPA

. The total burden 338 incurred by companies submitting and then verifying electronic signature agreements is 1.75 339 hours

. Note that this burden does not include any additional time required to contact EPA’s CDX 340 help desk to notify a change of submitter status, should one occur. 341 342 Filing the electronic signature agreement requires an additional mailing cost of $2.30 per 343 company (including five $0.44 stamps and five $0.02 business envelopes) (USPS, 2010)

. 344 345
 Payment via Pay.gov account: EPA estimates that one manager per company will spend 346 approximately 0.13 hours setting up a Pay.gov ID account, logging into the system, f inding the 347 appropriate form, and filling it out

. This burden does not include the time required to click 348 ‘submit’ on the form and wait for payment processing. 349 350 As shown in Table 3 , the cost associated with CDX registration, CDX e lectronic signature, and Pay.gov 351 account setup is $17 8

. 2 1 , and this cost is only incurred by a first

-time submitter. 352
Table 3 : CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup Burden and Cost for First
- Time Submitters

17 Although the proposed rule does not specifically require submitters to establish and use a Pay.gov account, the burden estimates in this analysis are conservative insofar as to include the use of Pay.gov as a required activity

.Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and T oxics

Mercury Legacy Products 8 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch Reporting Activity Clerical Labor (at $28.31/hour) Technical Labor (at

$59.49/hour) Managerial Labor

(at $68.24/hour) Total Cost Burden (hours) Cost

(2009$) Burden

(hours) Cost

(2009$) Burden

(hours) Cost

(2009$) Burden

(hours) Cost

(2009$) CDX Regis tration 0.00 $0.00 0.73 $43.63 0.18 $12.51 0.92 $56.13 CDX Electronic Signature 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $59.49 0.75 $51.18 1.75 $110.67 Mailing Cost $2.30 E

- Payment ( Pay .gov ID) 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.13 $9.10 0.13 $9.10 Total 0.00 $0.00 1.73 $103.1 2 1.07 $72.79 2.80 $17 8 . 2 1 Source : BLS, 2010a (labor rates) ; EPA, 2009b (burden hours); USPS, 2010 (mailing c ost) 353 

### 3.2.3 Form Completion and Submission Fee 354 355 Respondents are required to gather and submit information regarding the data elements identified in the 356 applicable SNUN reporting form

. The methodology and calculations used in this analysis assume that the 357 employee responsible for collecting, filling out, and submitting the requested information has a 358 reasonable level of familiarity with the company and k nowledge of operations at the site

. Itis assumed 359 that for most entities these tasks are similar to other employee duties that require familiarity with EPA, 360 State, and other Federal agency requests for chemical information and do not require additional 361 familiarization or training beyond the basic rule familiarization described above

. In addition, this analysis 362 focuses on the marginal costs of submitting information for the proposed rule and not the total costs for 363 the company to comply with a range of oth er Federal and State environmental, health, and safety 364 regulations or accounting requirements that rely on this type of information. 365 Estimates of the costs of completing a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN) form are based on the costs 366 of completing a Premanufacture Notification ( PMN) submission, since the data requirements are the same 367 and the same form is used for both

. The PMN submission costs are based on EPA's 1994 Regulatory 368 Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications and the 369 updates to this estimates in 2009 ( EPA, 2009 b)

. The original 1994 estimates relied on industry estimates 370 of the effort needed to collect and compile all data required for a PMN submission, prepare the form, 371 submit the form and data to EPA, and maintain a file of the submission (EPA , 1994, Table III

- 2 and pages 372 III

- 11,

- 12, and

- 13)

. The 1994 estimates were based on a survey conducted by the Chemical 373 Manufacturers Association ( CMA, 1991 ), which became the American Chemistry Council

. These 374 burdens “ include the time spent reading and becoming familiar with the form, gathering the required 375 information and preparing the report, producing sanitized responses for items claimed as confidential 376 busi ness information, and maintaining a file of the submission” ( EPA, 1994. p. III 11

- 13 )

. The burden 377 associated with SNUN submission and preparation has been adjusted to reflect burden reductions 378 resulting from the 2009 final PMN Electronic Reporting (ePMN) Rule that requires the electronic 379 submission of all TSCA section 5 notices

. Electronic submission of SNUN forms is expected to remove 380 all clerical burden associated with preparing a SNUN (EPA, 2009 b ). 381 382 SNUN form completion and electronic submission is estimated to require 74.20 hours of technical labor 383 and 18.00 hours of managerial labor ( EPA, 2009 b )

. Table 4 combines the estimated reporting burden and 384 loaded wage rates for all three labor categories to estimate the per

- SNUN cost of form completion

. The 385 labor cost incurred by a SNUN submission for both large and small business submitters is $5,643. 386 387 Table 4 : Industry Cost Estimate to Complete the SNUN FormEconomic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and T oxics

Mercury Legacy Products 9 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch Reporting Activity Clerical Labor (at $28.31/hour) Technical Labor (at

$59.49/hour) Managerial Labor

(at $68.24/hour) Total Labor Cost Burden (hours) Cost

(2009$) Burden

(hours) Cost

(2009$) Burden

(hours) Cost

(2009$) Burden

(hours) Cost

(2009$) Form Com pletion 0.00 $0.00 74.20 $4,414 18. 00 $1,228 92.20 $5,643 Source : BLS, 2010 a (labor rates) ; EPA, 2009 b (burden hours) 388 In addition, each submitting large business must pay a $2,500 per

- SNUN submission fee, and each 389 submitting small business must pay a $100 per

- SNUN submission fee

. Tabl e 5 adds the labor cost and 390 submission fee to estimate the total cost of a SNUN submission

. The total cost of a SNUN submission is 391 $8,14 3 for large business submitters and $5,74 3 for small business submitters. 392 393 Tabl e 5 : Industry Cost Estimate to Complete and Submit the SNUN Form Reporting Population Labor Cost Submission Fee Total Cost (2009 $ ) Large Business Submitters $5,64 3 $2,500 $8,14 3 Small Business Submitters $5,64 3 $100 $5,74 3 Sour ce : EPA, 2009 b

. 394 

### 3.2.4 Import Certification 395 396 In general, promulgation of a final SNUR triggers a TSCA Section 13 import certification requirement 397 and the corresponding regulations at 19 CFR 12.118 to 12.127 and 19 CFR 127.28 for all imports of the 398 relevant chemical substances

. Thus, any U.S. manufacturer, importer, or processor receiving an imported 399 shipment of chemicals subject to the proposed SNUR would have to certify that all chemical substances 400 in the shipment either comply with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA or that all chemical 401 substances in the shipment are not subject to TSCA. 18 The statement must be on or attached to a 402 commercial invoice or entry document belonging to the imported shipment. 403 In practice, import certification is fulfilled by checking a box on an invoice or entry document and 404 generally imposes no additional burden or cost on the importer ( EPA, 2009c )

. Any potential burden 405 associated with a submitter’s familiarization with this requirement is assumed to be included in the more 406 general SNUR familiarization burden discussed above. 407 408 

### 3.2.5 Export Notification 409 410 Under Section 12(b) of TSCA, exporters must notify EPA if they export or intend to export a chemical or 411 an article subject to various TSCA sections ( 40 CFR §707.60 through 75 )

. For TSCA 5(a)(2) (the section 412 under which EPA promulgates significant new use rules) and certain other TSCA sections, this is a one

413 time notification requirement 19 per destination country for each exporter of a chemical substance

. After 414 receiving a notificati on from a firm, EPA notifies the importing country and the United States State 415 Department ( 40 CFR §707.70 )

. To calculate the burden associated with making export notifications, EPA 416

18 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 im ports of chemical substances not subject to TSCA (e.g., pesticides), “I certify that all chemicals in this shipment are not subject to TSCA.” ( 40 CFR 707.20 ) 19 On November 14, 2006, EPA revised the export notification requirement for chemicals subject to TSCA §5(a)(2), 5(b), 5(e)(1) and 5(e)(2) from an annual to a one

- time requirement per destination country for each exporter (November 14, 2006, 71 FR 66234 ).Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and T oxics

Mercury Legacy Products 10 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch first estimated the average annual number of export notifications made by an exporter
. EPA then derived 417 the annual and per notification burden associated with preparing and submitting an export notification. 418 EPA estimated the average burden associated with making a single notification, but did not estimate the 419 total number of exporters of elemental mercury for the uses subject to the SNUR, or the number of 420 notifications per specified mercury - containing product

. Itis also important to note that the Mercury 421 Export Ban Act of 2008 will forbid export of elemental mercury from the United States beginning in 422 2013. Therefore, beyond 2013, there will be no export notification costs related to export of elemental 423 mercury for these uses; the only cost would be if there is import of mercury

- containing barometers, 424 manometers and/or hygro meter s /psychrometers

. 425 426 Most underlying data in this section come from t

### he 2009 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR, ICR No.: 0795.13 427 [Information Collection Request for] Notification of Chemical Exports

- TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting 428 Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act ( EPA, 2009 c ), with updating 429 for inflation. 430 431 Exporter Costs 432 433 The 2009 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR ( EPA, 2009 c , page 11, Table 3 ), estimated the annual export 434 notification cost for an exporter under the one

-time export notif ication requirement

. These costs include 435 the cost to the exporter of compiling a list of their products that are subject to TSCA Section 12(b) 436 requirements, writing or revising an export notification letter to EPA, checking the outgoing shipments, 437 and sen ding the notification letters with the associated shipping costs

. 438 

### The per -notification cost was calculated based on the assumption that the average exporter makes 12 439 notifications per year

. 20 Exporters making more notifications per year may benefit from e conomies of 440 scale and have lower costs per notification; those making fewer notifications may have higher costs per 441 notification. 442 Estimated Submission (Mailing) Costs

. Regulated companies will incur mailing costs for export 443 notifications delivered to EPA

. Notifications are assumed shipped via the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) as 444 first

- class registered mail with a return receipt (USPS, 20 10 )

. The estimated per

- shipment and annual 445 mailing costs incurred by individual submitters are detailed in Table 6

. 446 447

20 EPA calculated the average num ber of export notifications per exporter in the 2009 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR (EPA, 2009d) by dividing the estimated number of submitted notifications (3,500) by the estimated number of exporters (300 ).Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and T oxics

Mercury Legacy Products 11 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch

Table 6 : Derivation of Total Mailing Cost for 12 Notices Dates that the rates were verified on United States Postal Service web site: April 2010 Postal services costs Registered mail, regu lar, with $0 declared value $10.60 Return receipt, requested at time of mailing (receive by mail) $2.30 Postage, regular First Class, up to 1 ounce $0.44 Cost per export notice

– Subtotal $13.34 Source : Mailing rates are from the US Postal Service web site as of April 2010 (http://www.usps.com/prices/)

. The mailing method comes from the Economic Analysis of the Proposed Change to TSCA Section 12(b) Export Notification Requirements , November 2005 (EPA, 2005), as clarified in a later SNUR economic analysis ( EPA, 2007 a , Table 8 ). 448 Compile and Maintain the List of Products

. Since TSCA §12(b) information collection activity has been 449 in place for twenty years, most respondents will have already developed a list of their products subject to 450 TSCA §12(b) exp ort notification

. Respondents need only check for new regulations promulgated and any 451 new products exported by the company

. Updating the list is estimated to take an average of one hour of 452 technical time, which may also include some proportion of legal time (EPA, 2009c )

. The total burden can 453 vary from two hours per year up to two hours per mont h, depending on the number of products exported 454 by the company and the number of their products subject to TSCA §12(b) ( EPA, 2009 c ). 455 Write or Revise Export Notification

. Companies that export chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) reporting 456 must prepare an export notification to send to EPA when export shipments are made

. Time for initial 457 preparation of the export notice may vary depending on whether the company has pri or experience with 458 this requirement

. This step is estimated to take an average of one hour of technical time (which may also 459 include some proportion of legal time) per firm per year for 12 notifications per year , or 0.08 hours per 460 notification ( EPA, 2009c ). 461 Check Orders and Send Notifications

. Companies that export chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) 462 reporting must check outgoing shipments against the list of their products described above

. A form letter 463 notifying EPA and providing the required data must be printed and mailed within the required time 464 period

. This process is estimated to take an average one half hour of clerical time per export notification 465 (EPA, 2009 c ). 466 The burdens and associated costs for each notification activity are provided in Table 7 below. 467 468 Table 7 : TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost per Notification Technical Clerical Total $/Hr Hours 2009$ $/Hr Hours 2009$ 2009$ Hours Com pile list $59.49 0.78 $46.08

-- -- -- $46.08 0.78 Write letter $59.49 0.08 $4.96

-- -- -- $4.96 0.08 Check order and send notice -- -- -- $28.31 0.50 $14.17 $14.17 0.50 Mailing cost 1

-- -- -- $ 13.34

- Total per n otification 0.86 $51.0 4 0.50 $14.15 $78. 5 4 1.36Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and T oxics

Mercury Legacy Products 12 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch

Table 7 : TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost per Notification

Technical Clerical Total $/Hr Hours 2009$ $/Hr Hours 2009$ 2009$ Hours Notes: 1 Mailing costs reflect April 20 10 USPS rates and can be found in Table 6

. 2 Per notification costs are based on an average facility submitting notifications , that is assumed to submit 12 export notifications per year. Source: ICR No.: 0795.13 [Information Collection Request for] Notification of Chemical Exports

- TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act (EPA, 2009 c , p.10) , and are updated to 2009 dollars. 469 3.3 Industry Cost s of SNUR, by Option (per Submission) 470 471 The number of firms affected by not making submissions to EPA is not known; therefore, costs are not 472 aggregated across the affected entities. Table 8 summarizes the costs to comply with the proposed rule, 473 as described in more detail in section 3.2 above. 474Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and T oxics

Mercury Legacy Products 13 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch Table 8 : Compliance Options and Associated Costs Incurred by a Firm Due to the Proposed SNUR Option 1 Costs Quantified Costs per Che mi cal (2008$) 2

1. Submit a SNUN. Costs of submitting a SNUN,

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

- time submitters), form completion , user fee, export notification, and any test costs, $50.92 rule familiarization cost; $8,143 submission cost (including SNUN recordkeeping and $2,500 fee). EPA usually receives well under ten SNUNs per year. Based on review of recent SNUNs, it appears that firms rarely conduct toxicity or fate testing to support a SNUN (such testing would be voluntary). 3 E xport notifications costs are estimated at $78.56 per notification; total cost per company will vary. First time submitters would incur $17 8 for CDX registration and associated activities.

2. Decide not to manufacture, im port, or proce ss the chemical. Cost of the profit foregone as

a result of not engaging in the commercial activity originally planned, and recordkeeping costs only if manufacturing for research and development. Costs not quantified. Rule familiarization and export notif ication costs may apply

.
Notes: 1 Firms may be subject to both options at once since submission of a SNUN results in profits foregone as a result of not manufacturing, importing, or processing the chemical. 2 Quantified costs are attributable to the SNUR only if a firm 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 te st data already in its possession and/or describe any other available data. Because EPA does not require the development of test data, EPA assumes that no firms will incur testing costs as a result of the proposed SNUR. 475 3.4 Likelihood of a SNUN Submission 476 477 EPA believes that the use of elemental mercury for manufacturing the specified mercury - containing 478 products has been phased out in the United States (see section 2.2 )

. 21 Therefore, very few , if any, entities 479 are expected to submi t a SNUN. 480 481 3.5 Potential for Subsequent Regulatory Action 482 EPA recognizes that if submission of a SNUN does result from the proposed SNUR, the Agency may 483 take a dditional regulatory actions under TSCA

. These additional regulatory actions might be necessary to 484 further evaluate an intended new use and associated activities, or to prohibit or limit that activity before it 485 occurs to prevent unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment

. Itis not known what 486 specific subsequent regulatory actions, if any, the Agency may determine are necessary after reviewing a 487 SNUN

. Any such actions are highly dependent on the circumstances surrounding the individual SNU N 488 (e.g., available information and scientific understanding of the chemical and its risks at th e time the 489 SNUN is being reviewed). 490 Should EPA’s review of the SNUN result in further regulatory actions, the Agency will initiate and 491 follow the appropriate procedures for taking those actions

. Included in those procedures would be an 492 assessment of the costs and benefits of those actions. 493 494

21 These products may still be in use, resold in the aftermarket, or stored in homes and businesses, but these activities are not subject to the SNUR.Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and T oxics

Mercury Legacy Products 14 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 495 

### 4. AGENCY COSTS 496 As described in the following sections, EPA’s costs to review and process SNUN submissions are 497 assumed to be the same as EPA costs to review PMNs. 498 4.1 Labor Rates fo r EPA Staff 499 500 Agency labor costs are calculated based on annual Federal salaries for the Washington

- Baltimore area 501 published by the Office of Personnel Management effective January 200 9 (OPM, 200 9 ) . EPA assumes 502 that, on average, a federal GS

- 13, Step 5 full

-time equivalent (FTE) will conduct its collection and 503 administrative activities under the proposed rule. 22 The average salary for a GS

- 13 Step 5 employee was 504 $ 98,518 in 2009 without fringe benefits and overhead costs

. In order to derive the fully loaded salary, 505 EPA multiplied the annual salary by an assumed loading factor of 1.6 to reflect federal fringe benefits and 506 overhead, which results in a fully loaded annual salary of $157,629 (see Table 9 )

. Divi ding the fully 507 loaded annual salary by 2,080 hours (i.e., the number of hours in a work year) yields an hourly FTE 508 compensation wage rate of $ 75.78. 509 The Agency loading factor of 1.6 is from an EPA guide entitled Instructions for Preparing Information 510 Collection Requests (ICRs) ( EPA, 1992, page 30, footno te 9 )

. The 60 percent assumption was labeled 511 “the benefits multiplication factor” in the EPA guide, but has been used in many EPA OPPT ICRs to 512 reflect both fringe benefits and overhead for federal staff

. For example, it was used in a document 513 supporting EPA ICR No. 1139.06 ( EPA, 2000 ), with the following explanation: 514 The annual costs per FTE are derived by multiplying the annual pay rate by 1.6 (the benefits 515 multiplication factor)

. The multiplication fa ctor used is recommended in EPA’ s Office of Policy, 516 Planning, and Evaluation’s Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) 517 (June 1, 1992)

. An EPA internal phone call between Carol Rawie (OPPT/EETD/RIB) and Carl 518 Koch (OPPE/RMD/IMB) on May 3, 1994, indicated that the 1.6 factor included not only benefits 519 but also overhead

. 520 521 Fully loaded costs for Agency labor are shown in Table 9

. 522

22 The GS

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

- 12 Step 1 and GS

- 12 Step 10 salaries.Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and T oxics

Mercury Legacy Products 15 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 523 Table 9 : Derivation of Loaded Agency Wage Rates

Labor Category Data Source for Wage

Informa tion Date Wage Fringe Benefit Fringes as

% w age Overhead

as % wage Fringe +

overhead factor Loaded

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

EPA staff FTE Annual federal staff cost:

OPM Washington

Baltimore

-Northern Virginia, DC

- MD

- PA

VA

- WV, area, GS

- 13 Step 1 pay rates a Dec

09 $98,518 (annual)

-- [Included

in 60% overhead] 60% b 1.60 $157,629 (annual) $47.36 (hourly) $75.78 (hourly) Notes : a The Agency salary is the unloaded federal GS

- 13 Step 5 salary ($98,518 for 2009), from the OPM salary table for the Washington

- Baltimore

-Northern Virginia Locality Pay Area ( OPM, 2009 )

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

- and

- overhead rate is from an EPA guide, Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) ( EPA, 1992 , page 30, footnote 9). 524 4.2 SNUN Processing Costs 525 526 The list of review steps, estimates of extramural costs, and the percent of chemicals requiring a particular 527 review step are derived from the costs for processing PMN submissions in Table VII

- 1 of a 1994 EPA 528 report, Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture 529 Notifications ( EPA, 1994 ). The Agency burden associated with processing a PMN has been adjusted to 530 reflect burden reductions resulting from the 2009 final PMN Electronic Reporting (ePMN) Rule that 531 requires the electronic submission of all TSCA section 5 notices

. Electronic submission of SNUN forms 532 is expected reduce Agency burden by 16.5 percent (EPA, 2009 b , p.28 )

. 533 F or each review step, the “EPA staff” cost is calculated by multiplying the number of FTEs (in the first 534 column) by the fully loaded hourly salary. This shows EPA staff cost for chemicals requiring the selected 535 review step. 536 The Extramural Cost column show s costs for contractor support and other outside purchases for 537 chemicals requiring the selected review step is inflated from 1993 prices using the Bureau of Labor 538 Statistics (BLS) Employment Cost Index (ECI) data (BLS, 2010b). T he not seasonally adjusted E CI for 539 total compensation of private industry professional and related workers (Series ID CIU2010000120000I) 540 is used because it is the only series with continuous data since 1985 , and that includes professional and 541 technical labor, which perform the majority of Agency extramural activities. Table 10 , below contains 542 the derivation of inflation factors for Agency extramural costs. 543Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and T oxics

Mercury Legacy Products 16 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch

Table 10 : Derivation of Inflation Factors for Agency Extramural Costs

Item Inflation index source Starting year Index for

starting year (a) Index

for 2009 (b) Inflation factor (b)/(a) 2 Agency Extramural costs White collar labor; equipment; supplies BLS ECI, Total comp, Private industry, Professional and related , 4 th Q [BLS 2010d] 4 1993 67.0 111.4 1.663
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

. Employment Cost Index

– Total Compensation: Professional and Related Private Industry, Not Seasonally Adjusted. (Series ID: CIU2010000120000I) , extracted April 12, 2010 (BLS, 2010b ). 544 The Percent of Cases column in Table 11 is a weighting factor applied to reflect the fact that not all 545 chemicals require each review step. For example, in the PMN process, all chemicals require 546 Administrative Prescreening, but not all chemicals require the intensive scrutiny of “Standard Review.” 547 The three types of submissions resulting from a SNUR may have weighting factors that differ from each 548 other and from the weighting factors for PMNs. Changes in weighting factors could cause actual review 549 costs to be higher or lo wer than calculated here. For example, some SNUNs require little review because 550 they are determined to be “invalid”

– i.e. not required in the first place. However, often a SNUN may 551 take more Agency time than a typical PMN because of factors such as the need to retrieve old PMN 552 records from archives, and the likelihood that more data requiring EPA review is submitted with a SNUN 553 than would be submitted on average with a PMN. Resources w ere not available to update the review 554 hours to reflect the current review process or to tailor the cost estimates to SNUNs. Therefore, for this 555 analysis, the review steps and weighting factors are assumed to be the same as those derived in 1994 for 556 PMNs. 557 The Weighted Cost column is calculated by multiplying the un -weighted Costs (EPA staff cost plus 558 extramural costs) by the percentage of cases requiring this review step. Weighted costs are then 559 multiplied by the burden reduction of 16.5 percent to accoun t for burden savings generated electronic 560 submission. This calculation yields total Agency costs of $4,934, per SNUN, for submission review and 561 processing , as shown in Table 11

. 562Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three 17 U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products Economic and Policy Analysis Branch Table 11 : Agency Costs for SNUN and Other Submission Review and Processing

ReviewSteps EPA staff (FTE) Cost Extramural Cost 2 Unw eighted Cost Pct. of

Cases Weighted

Cost3 ePMN

Burden Reduction 4 Weighted Cost

with ePMN Burde n Reduction FTE fraction Cost per

FTE 1 FTE Total

($2009) 1993

dollars 2009

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

- (i)) Pre

- notice consultation 0.0024 $157,629 $378 $4.00 $6.65 $385 41% $158 0.165 $132 Administrative prescreen/ notice receipt/user fee 0.0024 $157,629 $378 $92.00 $152.97 $531 100% $531 0.165 $444 CRSS (Chemical Review and Search Strategy) 0.0025 $157,629 $394 $268.00 $445.60 $840 100% $840 0.165 $701 SAT (Structure Activity Team) 0.000 6 $157,629 $95 $14.00 $23.28 $118 100% $118 0.165 $98 Engineering/Exposure 0.0015 $157,629 $236 $56.00 $93.11 $330 100% $330 0.165 $275 Exposure/Fate 0.0008 $157,629 $126 $0.00 $0.00 $126 100% $126 0.165 $105 Focus 0.0009 $157,629 $142 $23.00 $38. 24 $180 100% $180 0.165 $150 Standard Revie w Functions 0.0219 $157,629 $3,452 $511.00 $849.63 $4,302 29% $1,247 0.165 $1,042 Division Directors Meeting 0.0129 $157,629 $2,033 $113.00 $187.88 $2,221 15% $333 0.165 $278 Order Development/Negotiation Revie w 0.0171 $157,629 $2,695 $22.00 $36.58 $2,732 3% $82 0.165 $68 Post Order Data Review 0.0886 $157,629 $13,966 $0.00 $0.00 $13,966 3% $419 0.165 $350 Order Modification 0.2167 $157,629 $34,158 $0.00 $0.00 $34,158 3% $1,025 0.165 $856 New Chemical SNUR Development 0.0277 $157,629 $4,366 $85.00 $141.33 $4,508 7% $316 0.165 $263 Notices of Commencement 0.0012 $157,629 $189 $40.00 $66.51 $256 31% $79 0.165 $66 FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) Requests 0.0333 $157,629 $5,249 $287.00 $477.19 $5,726 1% $57 0.165 $48 CBI (Confidential Business Information) Substantiation 0.0004 $157,629 $63 $3.00 $4.99 $68 100% $68 0.165 $57 TOTAL $5,909 0.165 $4,934 Notes: 1 GS

- 13 Step 5 salaries loaded with benefits and overhead. See Table 9 for derivation. 2 Extramural costs consist of contracting support and other purchases directly attributable to the PMN review process inflated from 1993 prices using {insert reference]. 3 Weighted costs were calculated u sing unrounded unit cost estimates, so results may differ from calculations using the rounded values shown in this table. 4 Electronic submission is expected to generate a cost savings of 16.5% to the Agency (EPA 2009 c , p. 28). Sources: FTEs per review st ep, 1993 extramural costs, and percents of cases are from EPA, 1994 Table VII

- 1, GS

- 13 salaries are from OPM, 2009.Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three 18 U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 4.3 Export Notification Cost 563 The Agency burden and cost due to TSCA §12(b) export notification result from three tasks. In the first 564 task, E PA receives export notifications from companies that intend to export one of the chemicals subject 565 to TSCA §12(b) (EPA, 2009 c ). In the second task, EPA staff prepares separate notification letters that are 566 subsequently reviewed and delivered to importing countries, their embassies, or representatives, and to 567 the importing country’s US embassies (EPA, 2009 c ). (See Table 6 for the cost of mailing one 568 notification)

. The third task is comprised of EPA staff responses to public inquiries and other TSCA 569 12(b) activities. The work of responding to non

-routine requests for information and clarification from 570 industry and importing countries, and of handling other tasks associated with the TSCA §12(b) program, 571 was esti mate d to require roughly 400 hours per year (EPA, 2009c ). Since the current rulemaking covers 572 only one chemical subject to TSCA 12(b) reporting for a minimal number of uses , a very small percent of 573 such activity will be attributable to the current rulemaking. 574 Because the manufacture of mercury

- containing products subject to the proposed SNUR is phased out, 575 EPA does not expect to receive or send any export notifications. Nevertheless, should there be any 576 notifications as a result of the current rulemaking, th e costs to the Agency are presented per activity. The 577 burden for the first two Agency activities is provided in Table 12 below. To estimate the Agency cost, 578 hourly burdens are multiplied by the loaded wage rate o f a GS

- 13, Step 5, which is derived in Table 9

. 579 580 Table 12 : TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost: Agency Burden per Activity (2009$)

Agency Activity Hours per Activity FTE per

Activity 1 Load ed Mailing Cost Total Agency Cost per

Activity GS
- 13, Step 5 FTE Wage Rate (a) (b) = (a)/2,080 (c) (d) (e) = ((b)* (c))+(d) Process an incoming notification from an exporting com

pany 0.1 0 0.000048 $157,629 $0.00 $7.58 P repare and mail a notificati on to an im porting country 0.5 0 0.000240 $157,629 $13.34 $ 51.23 Notes : 1 The burden associated with an Agency activity is the burden for the Agency to process one incoming notification, or to prepare and mail an outgoing notification Source: Table 9 of this report derives Agency labor costs. Mailing costs are from Table 6 of this report

. Other burdens are from ICR No.: 0795.13 [Information Collection Request for] Notific ation of Chemical Exports

- TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act (EPA 2009 c ), updated for inflation. 581 582 583Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three 19 U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 584 

### 5. ADDITIONAL ANALYSES 585 This section presents additional analysis of other potential impac ts of this rulemaking, as required under 586 various statutes and executive orders. 587 5.1 Small Entity Impacts 588 589 Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq .), the Agency 590 hereby certifies that promulgation of this SNUR woul d not have a significant adverse economic impact on 591 a substantial number of small entities. The rationale supporting this conclusion is as follows. A SNUR 592 applies to any person (including small or large entities) who intends to engage in any activity des cribed in 593 the rule as a "significant new use." By definition of the word "new," and based on all information 594 currently available to EPA, it appears that no small or large entities pres ently engage in such activity. 595 Since this proposed SNUR would require a person who intends to engage in such activity in the future to 596 first notify EPA by submitting a SNUN, no economic impact will occur unless someone files a SNUN to 597 pursue a significant new use in the future or forgoes profits by avoiding or delaying the s ignificant new 598 use. Although some small entities may decide to conduct such activities in the future, EPA cannot 599 presently determine how many, if any, there may be. However, EPA's experience to date is that, in 600 response to the promulgation of over 1,000 SNURs, the Agency receives on average only 5 notices per 601 year. Of those SNUNs submitted, only one appears to be from a small entity in response to any SNUR. 602 Therefore, EPA believes that the potential economic impact of complying with a SNUR is not expected to 603 be significant or adversely impact a substantial number of small entities. In a SNUR that published as a 604 final rule on August 8, 1997 (62 FR 42690)(FRL

- 5735

- 4 ), the Agency presented its general determination 605 that proposed and final SNURs are not exp ected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 606 number of small entities, which was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 607 Administration. 608 609 5.2 Unfunded Mandates 610 611 Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments 612 have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reason to believe that any 613 State, local, or Tribal government would be impacted by this rulemaking. As such, EPA has determined 614 that this regulatory action would not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or 615 otherwise have any effect on small governments subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203, 204, or 616 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531

- 1538). 617 618 5.3 Paperwork Reduction Act 619 620 According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq ., an Agency may not conduct or 621 sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB 622 approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB 623 control number. The OMB control numbers for certain EPA regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after 624 appearing in the Federal Register , are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on the related collection 625 instrument, or form, if applicable. 626 627 The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB 628 pursuant to the PRA under OMB control number 2070

- 0038 (EPA ICR No. 1188). This action does not 629 im

pose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the 630 Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average 97 hours per response. This burden estimate includes 631Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three 20 U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products Economic and Policy Analysis Branch the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, 632 and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN. 633 634 5.4 Technical Standards 635 636 Because this action does not involve any technical standards; section 12(d) of the National Technology 637 Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104

- 113, S ection 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 638 note), does not apply to this action. 639 5.5 Regulatory Planning and Review 640 641 Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 642 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this action is a "significant regulatory 643 action," because it may raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s 644 priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to 645 OMB for review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB 646 recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action as required by section 6(a)(3)(E) of 647 the Executive Order. 648 649 5.6 E nvironmental Justice 650 651 This action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by 652 Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 653 Populations and Low

- Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 654 5.7 Protection of Children 655 656 EPA interprets Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks 657 and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern 658 health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5

- 501 of the Executive Order has the 659 potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does 660 not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. 661 5.8 Federalism 662 663 This action will not have federalism implications because it is not expected to have a substantial direct 664 effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 665 of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 666 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). 667 5.9 Tribal Governments 668 669 This action will not have t ribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation 670 and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9 , 2000) . This action is not 671 expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes , will not significantly or uniquely affect the 672 communities of Indian Tribal governments , and does not involve or impose any requirements that affect 673 Indian Tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. 674 675 5.10 Effect on Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 676 677 This acti on is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 , entitled Actions 678 Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, 679Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three 21 U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products Economic and Policy Analysis Branch May 22, 2001), because this action is not likely to have a significant adverse affect on the supply, 680 distribution, or use of energy. 681Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three 22 U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 682 

### 6. REFERENCES 683 684 15 U.S.C. 272, National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104

– 685 113, Section 12(d). 686 687 19 CFR 12 , Customs Duties: Special Classes of Merchandi se, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 12, Title 688 19, August 1, 1983

. 689 690 40 CFR 707, Chemical Imports and Exports , Code of Federal Regulations, Part 707, Title 40, July 1, 691 2003. 692 693 40 CFR 720 , Premanufacture Notification , Code of Federal Regulations, Part 720, T itle 40, July 1, 2003. 694 695 40 CFR 721, Significant New Use of Chemical Substances , Code of Federal Regulations, Part 721, Title 696 40, July 1, 2003. 697 698 59 FR 7629, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

-Income 699 Populations , Federal Register, Volume 59, February 16, 1994. 700 701 59 FR 22951, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments , Federal Register, Volume 702 59, November 6, 2000. 703 704 62 FR 19885, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risk s, Federal 705 Register , Volume 62, April 23, 1997. 706 707 6 4 FR 43255, Federalism , Federal Register, Volume 65, August 10, 1999. 708 709 66 FR 28355, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 710 Use , Federal Register, Volume 66, May 22, 2001. 711 712 71 FR 66234 , Export Notification; Change to Reporting Requirements, Final Rule, Federal Register , 713 Volume 71, November 14, 2006. Available in docket EPA

- HQ

- OPPT

- 2005

- 0058 at 714 http://www.regulations.g ov . 715 716 Ashcroft Inc. 2010. Phone conversation between Jacob Grindal (Abt Associates) and Customer Service 717 Representative (Ashcroft Inc.). June 23, 2010. 718 719 Belfort, 2010. Phone conversation between Jacob Grindal (Abt Associates) and Customer Service 720 Representative (Belfort Instrument Company). April 27, 2010. 721 722 BLS, 2010 a . U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation 723 Supplementary Tables December 2009”. (March 10, 2010) at 724 http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsuptc13.pdf. (Note: The BLS report title and content is updated 725 periodically to include more recent data, on the same website.) 726 727Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three 23 U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products Economic and Policy Analysis Branch BLS, 2010b . Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Cost Index

– Total Compensation: Professional and 728 R elated Private Industry, Not Seasonally Adjusted. (Series ID: CIU2010000120000I ) , extracted 729 April 12 , 2010. 730 731 CMA, 1991. Chemical Manufacturers Association. Responses to Questions on Burden Associated with 732 PMN Submissions

. Distributed by the Chemical Manufacturers Association, Washington, DC. 733 734 Columbia Encyclopedia. 2010. “Barometer.” Available at: http://www.answers.com/topic/barometer 735 736 DEPA, 2006

. Danish Environmental Protection Agency “Alternatives to Mercury

- Containing Measuring 737 Devices.” 2006 Available at: 738 http://www2.mst.dk/common/Udgivramme/Frame.asp?http://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/20 739 06/87

- 7052

- 13 3

- 6/html/helepubl_eng.htm 740 Dwyer Instruments. 2010. Phone conversation between Tulika Narayan (Abt Associates) and two 741 Technical Representatives. May 24, 2010. 742 Dynisco Instruments. 2010. Phone conversation between Jacob Grindal (Abt Associates) and Brady 743 D avison (Regional Manager, Dynisco Instruments). June 23, 2010. 744 EPA, 1992. U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. Instructions for Preparing Information 745 Collection Requests (ICRs). Washington, DC, June 1, 1992. 746 747 EPA, 1994. US EPA, Office of T oxic Substances, Regulatory Impacts Branch. Regulatory Impact 748 Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications

. 749 Washington, DC: U.S. EPA/OPPT/EETD/RIB, September 9, 1994. (OTS/RIB later became 750 OPPTS/EPAB.) 751 752 EPA, 200 0

. U .S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, ICR No. 1139.06. [Information 753 Collection Request for] TSCA Existing Chemical Test Rules, Consent Orders, Test Rule 754 Exemptions, and Voluntary Test Data Submissions: Supporting Statement for Request for OMB 755 Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act . Attachment 5, Wage Rates Estimation, August 29, 756 2000. 757 758 EPA, 2002 a U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. 759 Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report. Washington, 760 DC. August 2002

. 761 762 EPA, 2002 b

. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis 763 Branch. Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program. 764 Washington, DC , June 10, 200 2

. 765 766 EPA, 2003

. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. 767 Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 65 Chemical Substances

. 768 Washington, DC, 2003. Available in docket EPA

- HQ

- OPPTS

- 2002

- 0078 at 769 http://www.regulations.gov

. 770 EPA, 2005

. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic 771 Analysis of the Proposed Change to TSCA Section 12(b) Export Notification Requirements, 772 November 2005, available from the Federal Docket Management System as EPA

- HQ

- OPPT

773 2005

- 005 8

- 0017 at http://www.regulations.gov

. 774Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three 24 U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products Economic and Policy Analysis Branch EPA, 2007 a . U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis 775 Branch. Economic Analysis ofExpedited Significant New Use Rules for 38 Chemical 776 Substances (EPA Docket OPPT

- 2006

- 0898

), August 17, 2007

. 777 EPA, 2007b . U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, ICR No. 0574.14. [Information 778 Collection Request for] Pre

-Manufacture Review Reporting and Exemption Requirements for 779 New Chemical Substances and Significant New Use Reporting Requirements for Chemical 780 Substances: Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under The Paperwork 781 Reduction Act , December 6, 2007. 782 783 EPA 2009 a . U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers 784 (PBDEs) Action Plan . December 30, 2009 at 785 http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/ pbdes_ap_2009_1230_final.pdf

. 786 787 EPA, 2009b . U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis 788 Branch . Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule

. 789 (EPA

- HQ

- OPPT

- 2008

- 0296) . July 13, 2 009

. 790 791 EPA, 2009c

. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. ICR No.: 0795.13 [Information 792 Collection Request for] Notification of Chemical Exports

- TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting 793 Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act

. March 6, 2009 at 794 http://www.regulations.gov

. 795 796 EPA, 2010 [expected]. U.S. EPA, U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and 797 Policy Analysis Branch

. Economic Analysis of Expedited Signi ficant New Use Rules for 25 798 Chemical Substances. (EPA

- HQ

- OPPT

- 2009

- 0922). Not yet published. 799 800 Environment Canada , 2004. “Mercury and the Environment: Sources of Mercury: Mercury

- containing 801 Products.” Available at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/MERCURY/SM/EN/ sm - mcp. cfm#HD

. 802 IMERC , 2007. Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse. “Mercury Use in School 803 Classrooms: Summary and Assessment of Non

- Mercury Alternatives.” 2007 Available at: 804 http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/schools/MercuryAlternativesReport.pdf 805 IMERC , 2008 a Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse “Trends in Mercury Use in 806 Products: Summary of the Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC) 807 Mercury

-Added Products Database.” 2008. Available at: 808 http:/

/www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc/pubs/reports.cfm 809 IMERC, 2010a Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC). 2010 a . “Mercury 810 Legacy Products: Commercial Products: Measuring Devices.” Available at: 811 http://www.newmoa.org/preventio n/mercury/projects/legacy/measdev.cfm

. 812 IMERC , 2010b Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC). . “IMERC Fact 813 Sheet: Mercury Use in Mea suring Devices.” 2010. Available at: 814 http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc/factsheets/measuring_devices.cfm

. 815 Maine DEP, 2003. Maine Department of Environmental Protection. “An Investigation of Alternatives to 816 Mercury

- Containing Products.” Lowell Cen ter for Sustainable Production. Prepared by Galligan, 817 Catherine; Morose, Gregory; and Jim Giordani

. 2003. Available at: 818 http://www.sustainableproduction.org/downloads/An%20Investigation%20Hg.pdf

. 819Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three 25 U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products Economic and Policy Analysis Branch McMaster

- Carr. Phone conversation between Jacob Grindal (Abt Associates) and Customer Service 820 Representative (S J Electro Systems, Inc.). June 23, 2010. 821 OPM, 2009. Office of Personnel Management, Salary Table 2009

-DCB, Washington BaltimoreNorthern 822 Virginia, DC

-MD

-PA

- VA

- WV. Accessed from http://www.opm.gov/oca/09tab les/pdf/DCB.pdf. 823 824 Rawie, Carol

. 2009. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics . Personal communication with Tulika 825 Narayan and Kimberly Wilson of Abt Associates via e - mail

. February 5 , 2009. 826 827 S J Electro Systems, Inc. Phone conversation between Jacob Grindal (Abt Associates) and Customer 828 Service Representative (S J Electro Systems, Inc.). June 23, 2010. 829 U.S. SBA. 2010. Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry 830 Classification System Codes. Available at: 831 http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf 832 USPS, 2010

. U.S. Postal Service Mailing and postage rates. <http://www.usps.com /prices >. (Accessed 23 833 April 20 10 )

. 834 Vermont Agriculture Agency. 2001. Mercury Manometer Replacement Program Update. Available at: 835 http://www.vermontagriculture.com/2001report.htm

. 836 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WI DNR). 2007. Mercury Reduction Program: Dairy 837 Farms. Available at: 

### http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cea/mercury/program.htm

. 838 839 840 841 842 843 844