## Economic Analysis of t he Final Significant New Use Rule f or Di

- n
- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP)

FINAL
(EPA Docket EPA

- HQ

- OPPT

- 2010

- 0573

RIN 2070

- AJ73 )



### November 20

, 2014



## — Does not contain TSCA CBI

—

Prepared by:

Economic and Policy Analysis Branch Chemistry, Economics, and Sustainable Strategies Division

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460Economic Analysis of Final SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) i Economic and Policy Analysis Branch CONTRIBUTORS

The EPA analyst responsible for this report was Lynne Blake

- Hedges

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

- W_08_010.Economic Analysis of Final SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) ii Economic and Policy Analysis Branch ABSTRACT

This report estimates the costs of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s final Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) for Di

- n

- pentyl phthalate (DnPP) ( 1,2

- Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1, 2

- dipentyl

ester ) ( Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CASRN) 131

- 18

- 0 )

.

The final SNUR applies to all manufacturing, import, and processing of DnPP, exclud ing when the substance is used or sold for use as a chemical standard in phthalate testing

- the sole ongoing use of the

chemical

. 1 Asid e from the exempt use, EPA found no evidence of any manufactur ing or importation into

the United States. N o data for DnPP w ere reported in the 2006 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA ) Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) database (EPA 2006 a )

. 2 In addition, the Agency received no

comments after the publication of the Phthalates Action Plan to indicate current production of the chemical for any uses besides use as a chemical standard in phthalate testing

. 3 Because the domestic manufacture, import and processing of DnPP for the uses subject to the SNUR have been phased out, there is expected to be n o economic impact from the final SNUR

.

The final SNUR will require persons to notify EPA at least 90 days befo re commencing the manufacture

, import, or processing of DnPP for any significant new use as defined in the SNUR

. A firm inte nding to engage in these activities will be required to submit a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN)

. EPA is proposing the SNUR because of concerns regarding the adverse health effects presented by DnPP in humans and wildlife, as well as its environmental fate and exposure pathways. Although DnPP is no longer used in the United States, EPA is concerned that the manufacturing or pr ocessing of DnPP could

be reinitiated in the future. The required notification provided by a SNUN will provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate activities associated with a significant new use and an opportunity to protect against unreasonable risks, i f any, from exposure to DnPP.

When submitting a SNUN, a firm incurs a modest submission cost of $ 8, 571 and potentially other minor

costs . However, since no firms have been identified which import

, manufacture

, or process DnPP for any significant new uses, EPA believes it is highly unlikely that any firm will incur this cost. EPA does not require the development of test data for submission of a SNUN, although a firm may submit test d ata already in its possession or describe any other available data. Because EPA does not requir e the development of test data , EPA assumes that no firms will incur testing costs as a result of the final SNUR

.

In addition to the firms that make a SNUN submission, the final SNUR may also impact firms that do not

make a submission. B y avoiding a significant new use , a firm can avo id submission and testing costs but may incur other compliance costs. However, this may not be a concern given th at the domestic manufacture, import and processing of DnPP for the uses subject to the SNUR hav e been phased out

.

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

submission.

1 Both Cambridge Isotope Laboratories, Inc. and Accustandard.com sell DnPP as a standard for phthalate testing (CIL 2010a, Accustandard 2010). Columbia Analytical Services, Inc. does not sell DnPP but uses DnPP for on

- site phthalate testing (CAS 2010a).

2 The IUR compiles production data from manufactur ers and importers of certain chemical substances (including DnPP) listed on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory. Sites are only required to submit IUR data if they manufacture or import more than 25,000 lbs of a chemical during the reporting year. 2006 was the most recent year with data availability.

3 The docket for the phthalates action plan ( EPA

- HQ

- OPPT

- 2010

- 0342) is accessible at http://www.regu lations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=EPA

- HQ

- OPPT

- 2010

- 0342Economic Analysis of Final SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) iii Economic and Policy Analysis Branch TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTRIBUTORS

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... i

ABSTRACT

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. ii

LIST OF TABLES

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ v

1. INTRODUCTION

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

1.1 Background

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

Uses and Substitutes

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

Health Effects

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 2

Environmental Exposure and Effects

................................ ................................ ......................... 2 Current Manufacturing

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

1.2 Statutory Authority

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

1.3 Summary of Methodology

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

1.4 Organization of this Report

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

2. INDUSTRY COMPLIANCE COSTS

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 5

2.1 Wage Rates

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 6

2.2 Unit Industry Compliance Costs

................................ ................................ ................................ . 6

2.2.1 Rule Familiarization

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 6

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

................ 7

2.2.3 Form Completion and Submission Fee

................................ ................................ .......... 8

2.2.4 Reco rdkeeping

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 9

2.2.5 C ustomer Notification

................................ ................................ ................................ . 10

2.2.6 Import Certification

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

2.2.7 Export Notification

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

2. 3 Industry Costs of SNUR, by Option

................................ ................................ ......................... 14

2.4 Likelihood of a SNUN Submission

................................ ................................ .......................... 15

2.5 Potential for Subsequent Regulatory Action

................................ ................................ ............ 15

3. AGENCY COSTS

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 17

3.1 Labor Rates for EPA Staff

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 17

3.2 SNUN Processing Costs

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 17

3.3 Export Notification Cost

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 20

4. ADDITIONAL ANALYSES

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 21

4.1 Regulatory Flexibility Act

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 21

4.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

................................ ................................ .............................. 21

4.3 Paperwork Reduction Act

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 21

4.4 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

- Income Populations

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

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

Risks

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

4.6 Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

4.7 Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

.... 22

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

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

5. BENEFITS

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 24

A. INFLATORS AND WAGE RATES

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

A.1 Derivation of Loaded Wage Rates

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

A.2 Derivation of Inflation Factors

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4

6. REFERENCES

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 6Economic Analysis of Final SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) iv Economic and Policy Analysis BranchEconomic Analysis of Final SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) v Economic and Policy Analysis Branch LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Loaded Industry Wage Rates, December 2011

................................ ................................ ............... 6

Table 2: Rule Familiarization Burden and Cost for SNUR Submitters

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

First

- Time Submitters

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

................................ ................................ .... 9 Table 5: Industry Cost Estimate to Compl ete and Submit the SNUN Form

................................ ................. 9

Table 6: Annual Per

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

Submit a SNUN

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 10 Table 7: Derivation of Total Mailing Cost for 12 Notices

................................ ................................ .......... 13

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

................................ ................................ 14

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

............. 15

Table 10: Derivation of Loaded Agency Wage Rates

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

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

................................ .. 19 Table 13: TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost: Agency Burden per Activity (2011$)

........................... 20

Table A

- 1: Derivation of Loaded Wage Rates

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

Table A

- 2: Derivation of Inflation Factors

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 5Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) 1 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

### 1. INTRODUCTION

This report presents the U.S. Environmental Protection Age ncy (EPA), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention’s (OCSSP’s ) analysis of the potential costs incurred as a result of a fi nal Significant

New Use Rule (SNUR) for Di

- n

- pentyl phthalate (DnPP) ( 1,2

- Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,2

- dipentyl

ester ) CAS RN 131

- 18

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

TSCA. The final SNUR will require persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture, import, or pr ocessing of DnPP

, excluding when the substance is used or sold for use as a chemical standard in phthalate testing

– the sole ongoing use of the chemical

. Addi tionally, persons who manufacture or process DnPP solely for export will be exempt from the notification requirements of the

final SNUR , if when distributing the substance in commerce, it is labeled in accordance with TSCA section 12(a)(1)(B). EPA promulga tes a SNUR for a substance when potential uses c o uld result in increased exposure to

, or releases of

, the substance which in turn, could present an unr easonable risk to

health or the e nvironment

.

1.1 Background

As part of EPA’s efforts to enhance the existing chemicals program under TSCA , the Agency identified an initial list of widely recognized chemicals for the development of an Action P lan

. Phthalates were selected because of their toxicity and the evidence of pervasive human and environmental e xposure

. The Action Plan summarized readily available use, exposure, and hazard i nformation for eight phthalate esters ( including DnPP ); 4 considered which authorities provided under TSCA and other statutes could be used to address potential concerns; and described var ious courses of actions available to EPA to address the

concerns (EPA 2009d)

. 5 It is important to note that, unless specified, the following sections describe all phthalates, not just DnPP.

Uses and Substitutes

The major use of phthalates is as plasticize rs , additives incorporated into plastics and elastomers used to impart flexibility and other desirable properties into the material (Austr alian Government 2008a

- h; HSDB

2009 ; Krauskopf and Godwin 2005 ). Phthalate esters make up 92 percent of the plasticize rs produced worldwide, while di (2

- ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) makes up 51 percent of those phthalates (Rahman 2004a). It is not clear what portion, if any, DnPP historically contributed to these totals. A major application of plasticizers is in poly vinyl chloride (PVC), which is used in a variety of industrial and commercial products, as well as specialized medical and dental applications. The particular phthalate or combination of phthalates used in a particular product’s formulation depends on the prope rties the phthalates impart, as well as their cost.

Phthalates can often substitute for each other in specific applications. Furthermore, a lthough phthalates are still the main PVC plasticizers, numerous other substances can serve as substitutes. These in clude other phthalates, trimellitates, and monomeric plasticizers

, such as epoxidized soybean oil. Many of these

substit utes have specialized uses and are fr equently more expensive than phthalates

, but some exhibit properties that make them particularly su ited to certain applications.

4 The list of eight phthalates was assembled by combining phthalates identified by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) and those being evaluated by the EPA for t he Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), based on advice from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS 2008).

5 Accessible at: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/existingchemicals/pubs/actionplans/phthalates_ap_2009_1230_final.pdfEconomic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) 2 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch Health Effects

A comparison of toxicity information from laboratory animal studies for phthalates as a chemical group allows generalizations to be drawn with respect to certain health endpoints. For example, acute toxicity, skin and eye irritation, and sensitization potential are low for all phthalates tested, and the majority of the phthalates were not genotoxic. The most sensitive health outcomes from phthalate exposure shown in laboratory anima ls are phthalate syndrome effects, which consist of changes in the fetal development of the reproductive system (NAS 2008; NTP

- CERHR 2003a

- e, 2006; EC 2003a

- b, 2008a

- b; Australian

Government 2008a

- h). The phthalates that are the most potent at causing phthalate syndrome effects are generally those with linear ester side chains having 4

- 6 carbons (NAS, 2008). DnPP has a linear carbon chain length of 5 carbons.

There are no known human studies of expos ure to DnPP. However, s everal human studies have reported associations of exposure of some phthalates with adverse reproductive outcomes and developmental effects similar to those in the rat, although no causal link has been established (Swan et al 2005; H uang et al 2009). The reproductive developmental effects observed in humans include shortened anogenital distance observed in newborn boys; and shorted pregnancy, lower sex and thyroid hormones, and reduced sperm quality observed in adults. Recent scientif ic attention has focused on evaluating the cumulative effects of mixtures of phthalates on testosterone production, fetal mortality, and male and female reproductive development later in life , and shown all mixtures were cumulative for all endpoints (Rider et al. 2008, 2009; Howdeshell et al. 2007, 2008a, 2008b; Gray et al. 2006; Hotchkiss et al. 2004). 6

Based on data discussed in this section and DnPP’s general structure and categorization as a phthalate,

EPA is concerned that human health effect of DnPP exposure may be similar to that observed for some other phthalates.

Environmental Exposure and Effects

Phthalates are released in to the environment from multiple sources, including: industrial releases; the disposal of manufacturing, processing and industr ial wastes; municipal solid waste; land application of sewage sludge; and release from products containing phthalates. Due to their pervasive use and release, as well their propensity for global transport, various phthalates may be found in most environmen tal media, including ambient air, surface water, soil, sediment (Babich et al

. 2004; Clausen et al

. 2004; EC 2003 a

- b,

2003

- 04, 2008a

- b; CPSC 2001

, 2002). Exposures due to environmental releases from the phthalate plasticized PVC material in the enviro nmen t indicate a potential for bioavailability and bioaccumulation in aquatic and terrestrial food webs. 7

EPA is concerned that the environmental effects of DnPP may be similar to those of other phthalates studied. Other phthalates studied have been shown to have biological effects in all studied animal groups and have been observed at environmentally relevant exposures in the nanogram/liter to microgram/liter

range

. The combination of the inherent toxicity, variable solubility, log of the octanol

- water coe fficient values, and bioconcentration factor (BCF) values among the studied phthalates elicit both acute and chronic toxicity to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife by targeting thyroid function, liver function,

6 A major cumulative hazard as sessment of phthalates is scheduled to be conducted by the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC’s) Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP) as directed by CPSIA, with an anticipated completion date of 2012.

7 Data from the National Health and Nutrition E xamination survey (NHANES) indicates widespread exposure of the general population to phthalates. Biomonitoring data have demonstrated that humans are exposed to phthalates in

utero , as infants, during puberty, and in adult life, and that people are expose d to several phthalates at once (CDC 2009).Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) 3 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch reproduction, and other physiological mechanism s (EC 2003 a

- b, 2003

- 04, 2008a

- b; Oehlmann et al., 2008; Staples et al., 1997)

.

Current Manufacturing

EPA analyzed the most recent data from the TSCA IUR database (2006 reporting) and found no evidence of production of DnPP . Additionally, following public ation of the Action Plan, there were no comments provided during the comment period that will provide any indication of ongoing production of DnPP

. 8 However, subsequent internet queries identified several companies which either use or sell DnPP as a

chemi cal standard for use in phthalate testing. 9 As a result, EPA is proposing a SNUR for DnPP, excluding use of the substance as a chemical standard in phthalate testing.

1.2 Statutory Authority

Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to det ermine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including those listed in TSCA section 5(a)(2). Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to su bmit a Significant New Use Notice ( SNUN ) to EPA at least 90 days before manufacturing, importing, or processing the chemical substance for that use (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(B)).

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

1.3 Summary of Methodology

This analysis quantifies, to the extent possible, the costs of the final rule to society by identifying the costs to industry associated with performing the required reporting and recordkeeping activities, and the

costs to EPA of administering the rule. Industry costs consist of rule familiarization; registration with the Central Data Exchange (CDX) electronic reporting tool; collection, compilation, and submission of required information for significant new uses of the subject che micals; export notification; and recordkeeping. Agency costs include reviewing and processing the data received as a result of the rule. Data sources for this analysis include burden estimates derived from previous information collection requests and econo mic analyses for related rules, compensation data acquired from government publications, and supplementary market research.

In addition to estimated costs, this report qualitatively discusses the benefits of the final rule based on the

value of the inform ation it will provide

.

1.4 Organization of this Report

T he remainder of this report provides EPA’s economic analysis in support of the final rule

. Chapter 2 presents estimates of the costs incurred by manufacturers

, importers, and/or processors under the SNUR options. Chapter 3 shows estimates of the government costs associated with the administration of the final

8 The last year of reported DnPP production in the IUR database was 1990, in which between 100 million and 500 million pounds of DnPP were produced.

9 Both Cambridge Isotope Laboratories, Inc. and Accustandard.com sell DnPP as a standard for phthalate testing (CIL 2010a; Accustandard 2010). Columbia Analytical Services, Inc. does not sell DnPP but uses DnPP for on

- site phthalate testing (CAS 2010a). It is not known what proportion of the market thes e three companies represent, nor how large the market is; however, given the IUR data and the lack of public comments received following the Action Plan, it is likely that this ongoing market is small.Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) 4 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch rule . Chapter 4 pre sents an analysis of other impacts, as required by various statutes and executive orders

. Chapter 5 discusses the benefits of the final rule

.

Note that all dollar amounts in this analysis are reported in December 2011 doll ars
, which is the latest year for which complete data are available , except for U.S. Postal Service Mailing Rates, which were acquired in January 2012

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

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) 5 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

### 2. INDUSTRY COMPLIANCE COSTS

The final SNUR discussed in this report specifies that significant new us e s of DnPP that require reporting under section 5(a)( 2 )(A) of TSCA include the manufactur e , import, or pr oce ssing of DnPP, except when used or sold for use as a chemical standard in phthalate testing

. Th erefore

, a firm intending to manufacture, import, and/or process DnPP for any use other than as a chemical standard in phthalate testing m ust submit a SNUN. Alternatively, a firm can decide not to manufacture, import, and/or process

th e chemical for a significant n ew use

. The firm

, therefore

, has two options:

 Option 1: Submit a SNUN

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

, except use as a chemical standard in phthalate testing

. 10

. 11 The firm must submit the SNUN to EPA at least 90 days before it plans to commence the manufacture, import, and/or processing of the substance; the SNUN provides EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs. If EPA allows the manufacture, import, or processing of DnPP for the intended use , then the c osts associated with this option are the costs of submitting the SNUN (including a user fee) plus, if there is any export of these products , the export notification costs that result from TSCA Section 12(b) requirements that are automatically triggered

for chemicals regulated under TSCA Section 5 (see Section 2.2.7 for details). Because the domestic manufacture, import and processing of DnPP for the u ses subject to the SNUR have been phased out, EPA expects that no firms will choose this option.

 Option 2: Decide not to manu facture, import, and/or process the chemical

. The firm may decide simply not to proceed to manufacture, import, and/or process the chemical. While this option avoids the costs of submitting a SNUN, it entails the ‘hidden’ cost of the profit that will be foregone as a result of not engaging in the commercial activity originally planned. Similarly, if the firm will have used a given am ount of DnPP in the production of another product, and must substitute to a more costly substance, it will incur those additional “hidden” costs of production. However, these hidden costs are expected to be minimal, if not zero, because DnPP is not current ly manufactured in the United States except as a chemical standard for use in phthalate testing. If the firm elects to produce

DnPP for research and development (R&D) purposes only (an exemption for R&D purposes is provided in 40 CFR §721.47), it may have costs associated with R&D recordkeeping

.

Because the domestic manufacture, import and processing of DnPP for the uses subject to the SNUR have been phased out

, EPA does not expect there to be compliance cost associated with either of the options.

The remainder of this chapter estimates the quantified portion of costs as sociated with the final SNUR

. Section 2.1 summarizes the wage rates used in t his chapter. Section 2.2 provides the unit industry compliance costs, including the costs of rule familiarization, registration with the Central Data Exchange

10 EPA notes that, in accordance with TSCA section 12(a ) and 40 CFR 721.45(g), persons who manufacture or process DnPP solely for export will be exempt from the notification requirements of 40 CFR 721.25, if when distributing the substance in commerce, it is labeled in accordance with TSCA section 12(a)(1)(B). Further, EPA notes that the exemption from the TSCA section 12(b) notification requirements for exported articles ( see 40 CFR 707.60(b)) will remain in force. Thus, persons who export DnPP as part of an article will not be required to provide export notif

ication.

11 Section 5(h)(3) of TSCA, 15 USC 2604(h) exempts substances that are manufactured in small quantities solely for

research and development (R&D) from the section 5(a) notice requirements. No application is require d for the exemption for R&D und er section 5(h)(3) (U.S. EPA 1986)

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

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) 6 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch ( CDX ) electronic reporting tool, completing the SNUN form, submission fee, import certification, and export notification. Total costs under each option are presented in Section 2.3

.

2.1 Wage Rates

The final rule involves activities that may require efforts by employees in three labor classifications: managerial, technical, and clerical. Costs for each activity are calculated by estimating the labor hours required in each labor catego ry and multiplying those burde n hours by the wage rate for the corresponding labo r category. This section presents the estimated wage rate in each labor category.

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

its with estimates of overhead rates, following the methodology described in Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (EPA, 2002b). Wage data for each labor category for December 2011 are provided by the Employer Costs for E mployee Compensation (ECEC) Supplemental Tables available on the BLS website (BLS, 2012a). The loaded wage rate is $70.72 for managerial labor; $64.66 for technical labor; and $29.63 for clerical labor

. Table 1 presents the data used to calculate the loaded wage rates for the three labor categories.

Table 1 : Loaded Industry Wage Rates, December 20 11

Labor Category Data Sources Wage ( 2011$ ) Fringe

Benefit ( 2011$ ) Fringes

as %

wage Over

head %

wage 2 Fringe +

overhead

factor Loaded

Wages 1

( 2011$ )

(a) (b) (c)

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

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

(e)

Managerial BLS ECEC , Private

Manufacturing industries

, “Mgt, Business, and Financial” 3 $43.01 $20.40 47.43% 17% 1.64 $70.72

Professional/

Technical BLS ECEC , Private

Manufacturing industries

, “Professional and related“ 3 $38.48 $19.64 51.04% 17% 1.68 $64.66

Clerical BLS ECEC , Private

Manufacturing industries,
“Office and Administrative Support” 3 $17.69 $8.93 50.48% 17% 1.67 $29.63

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 ( EPA 2002b ), and the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report ( EPA, 2002a ).

3 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables: Decem ber 20 11

. US Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 1 4

, 20 1 2 (BLS 20 1 2 a ).

2.2 Unit Industry Compliance Costs



### 2.2.1 Rule Familiarization

The final rule requires submitters and their staff to become familiar with the SNUR and its various requirements. Rule familiarization is estimated to require 0.55 hours of technical labor and 0.27 hours of managerial labor, as described in the Economic An alysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009a), which measures the costs of mandatory electronic reporting of

SNUNs and other TSCA Section 5 notices. As shown in Table 2

, the total labor cost associated with rule familiarization is estimated at $54.43.Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) 7 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch

Table 2 : Rule Familiarization Burden and Cost for SNUR Submitters

Reporting Activity Clerical Labor (at $ 29.63 /hour) Technical Labor (at

$ 64.66 /hour) Managerial Labor

(at $ 70.72 /hour) Total Labor Cost

Burden (hours) Cost

( 2011$ ) Burden

(hours) Cost

( 2011$ ) Burden

(hours) Cost

( 2011$ ) Burden

(hours) Cost

( 2011$ )

Rule Familiarization 0.00 $0.00 0.55 $35.56 0.27 $18.86 0.82 $54.43

Total 0.00 $0.00 0.55 $35.56 0.27 $18.86 0.82 $54.43

Source : BLS 201 2 a (labor rates) ; EPA 2009a (burden hours)



### 2.2.2 CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup The final SNUR requires submission of a SNUN for any firm that chooses to manufacture, import, and/or process a chemical for a significant new use

. First

- time submitters of any TSCA section 5 notice (including Premanufacture Notices ( PMNs), SNUNs, Test Market Exemption (TME) applications, Low

Volume Exem

ption (LVE) notices, Low Exposure/Low Release (LoREX) exemption notices, Biotechnology Notices for genetically modified microorganisms, Notices of Commencement of Manufacture or Import (NOCs), and support documents to Section 5 notices ) are required to reg ister their company and key users with the CDX reporting tool, deliver a CDX electronic signature to EPA, and establish and use a Pay.gov E

- payment account. 12 These activities are only required of first

- time submitters of any Section 5 notice. These activit ies are estimated to require the following burden hours, based on the estimates presented in the Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009a) :

 CDX registration: EPA estimates that companies will spend ap proximately 0.18 hours per employee to register with CDX, and that an average of four technical staff members and one manager will need to register for each company, totaling approximately 0.92 hours of burden per

company.

 CDX electronic signature: EPA estimates that companies will spend 0.25 hours preparing, submitting, and filing an electronic signature agreement (Authentication of Identity) form to EPA per employee. This burden will apply to four technical staff members and one manager per

company, to taling 1.25 hours of burden per company. In addition, EPA estimates that a manager will spend an additional 0.50 hours accessing, preparing, and submitting verification forms (Verification of Authorization) for all authorized submitters to EPA. The total b urden incurred by companies submitting and then verifying electronic signature agreements is 1.75 hours. Note that this burden does not include any additional time required to contact EPA’s CDX help desk to notify a change of submitter status, should one o ccur. Filing the electronic signature agreement requires an additional mailing cost of $2.55 per company (including five $0.45 stamps 13 and five $0.06 business envelopes 14 ).

 Payment via Pay.gov account: EPA estimates that one manager per company will spend approximately 0.13 hours setting up a Pay.gov ID account, logging into the system, finding the appropriate form, and filling it out. This burden does not include the time required to click ‘submit’ on the form and wait for payment processing.

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

13 Price for a stamp was taken from the U.S. Postal Service website on January 24, 2012. (See U.S. PS, 2012)

14 Price for an envelope was determined based on the per unit price of a regular business envelope. See “ Staples® #10, Self

- Sealing Envelopes, 500/Box ." Available at: http://www.staples.com/ (Accessed 1/25/2012).Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) 8 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch As sh own in Table 3

, the cost associated with CDX registration, CDX electronic signature, and Pay.gov account setup is $ 190 , and this cost is only incurred by a first

- time submitter.

Table 3 : CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup Burden

and Cost for First

- Time Submitters

Reporting Activity Clerical Labor (at $ 29.63 /hour) Technical Labor (at

$ 64.66 /hour) Managerial Labor

(at $ 70.72 /hour) Total Cost

Burden (hours) Cost

( 2011$ ) Burden

(hours) Cost

( 2011$ ) Burden

(hours) Cost

( 2011$ ) Burden

(hours) Cost

( 2011$ ) CDX Registration 0.00 $0.00 0.73 $47.42 0.18 $12.96 0.92 $60.38

CDX Electronic Signature 0.00 $0.00 1 $64.66 0.75 $53.04 1.75 $118

Mailing Cost $2.55

E

- Payment ( Pay.gov ID) 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.13 $9.43 0.13 $9.43

Total 0.00 $0.00 1.73 $112 1.07 $75.43 2.80 $190

Source : BLS, 201 2 a (labor rates) ; EPA, 2009a (burden hours); USPS, 201 2 (mailing cost)



### 2.2.3 Form Completion and Submission Fee

Respondents who choose to submit a SNUN are required to gather and submit information regarding the data elements identified in the applicable SNUN reporting form. The methodology and calculations used in this analysis assume that the employee responsible for collecting, filling out, and submitting the requested information has a reasonable level of familiarity with the company and knowledge of operations at the site. It is assumed that for most entities these tasks are similar to other employee duties

that require familiarity with EPA, State, and other Federal agency requests for chemical information and do not require additional familiarization or training beyond the basic rule familiarization described above. In addition, this analysis focuses on the marg inal costs of submitting information for the final rule and not the total costs for the company to comply with a range of other Federal and State environmental, health, and safety regulations or accounting requirements that rely on this type of information

.
Estimates of the costs of completing a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN) form are based on the costs of completing a PMN submission, since the data requirements are the same and the same form is used for

both. The PMN submission costs came from EPA's 199 4 Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications, which relied on industry estimates of the effort needed to collect and compile all data required for a PMN submission, prepare the form, submit the

f orm and data to EPA, and maintain a file of the submission (EPA, 1994, Table III

- 2 and pages III

- 11,

- 12, and

- 13). The 1994 estimates were based on a survey conducted by the Chemical Manufacturers Association, which became the American Chemistry Council. These burdens include “the time spent reading and becoming familiar with the form, gathering the required information and preparing the report, producing sanitized responses for items claimed as confidential business information, and maintaining a

file of the submission” (EPA, 1994. p. III 11

- 13). The burden associated with SNUN submission and preparation has been adjusted to reflect burden reductions resulting from the 2009 final PMN Electronic Reporting (ePMN) Rule that requires the electronic submission of all TSCA section 5 notices. Electronic submission of SNUN forms is expected to remove all clerical burden and reduce the recordkeeping burden associated with preparing a SNUN (EPA, 2009a). 15 In addition, electronic submission is expected

15 The Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009a) reported a 0.5 hour clerical and a 0.5 hour technical burden associated with recordkeepin g in addition to the burdenEconomic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) 9 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch to generate and an additional 0.18 hours of technical burden, for the completion of the User Fee Payment

Identification Number and email address data elements on the electronic SNUN form

.

SNUN form completion and electronic submission is estimated to require approximatel y 74 hours of

technical labor and 18 hours of managerial labor (EPA, 2009a). Table 4 comb ines the estimated reporting burden and loaded wage rates for all three labor categories to estimate the per

- SNUN cost of form completion. The labor cost incurred by a SNUN submission for both large and small business submitters

is estimated at $ 6,071

.

Table 4 : Industry Cost Estimate to Complete the SNUN Form

Reporting Activity Clerical Labor (at $ 29.63 /hour) Technical Labor (at

$ 64.66 /hour) Managerial Labor

(at $ 70.72 /hour) Total Labor Cost

Burden (hours) Cost

( 2011$ ) Burden

(hours) Cost

( 2011$ ) Burden

(hours) Cost

( 2011$ ) Burden

(hours) Cost

( 2011$ ) Form Completion 0.00 $0.00 74.2 $4,798 18 $1,273 92.2 $6,071

Source :

1 Loaded wages include fringe benefits and overhead. See Appendix A of this report for derivation. Wage rates presented in this table are rounded values; however, unrounded values are used to calculate total labor costs. For this reason, total labo r costs may not equal the product of rounded values.

2 The estimate of no c lerical burden is taken from the Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notice Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009a, page 7)

3 T echnical and managerial labor burden is from the PMN Amendments RIA (EPA, 1994, Table III

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

In addition, each submitting large business must pay a $2,500 p er

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

- SNUN submission fee. Table 5 adds the labor cost and

submission fee to e stimate the total cost of a SNUN submission. The total cost of a SNUN submission is $ 8,571 for large business submitters and $ 6,171 for small business submitters

.

Table 5 : Industry Cost Estimate to Complete and Submit the SNUN For m

Reporting Population Labor Cost Submission Fee Total Cost ( 2011$ ) Large Business Submitters $6,071 $2,500 $8,571

Small Business Submitters $6,071 $100 $6,171

Source : EPA, 2009a

.



### 2.2.4 Recordkeeping

Companies submitting a SNUN must, under 40 CFR §721.40, keep records of the information contained in the SNUN. Some EPA reports have assumed that SNUN recordkeeping hours will be five percent of

estimates from the 1994 RIA (EPA, 1994, p. III

- 14). These burden estimates (the 0.5 for clerical burden and 0.5 for technical burden) are based on the recordkeeping burden for polymer exceptions and not the recordkeeping burden

associated with PMN submissions. Therefore, for this analysis, the 0.5 hour for clerical labor and the 0.5 hour for technical labor were removed. It is important to note that for this analysis, clerical burden changes are not applicable because the entire clerical burden

is assumed to be eliminated under the electronic reporting requirements . In summary, we do not include the one hour recordkeeping burden (0.5 hour for clerical, 0.5 for technical) reported in the ePMN EA.Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) 10 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch SNUN submission hours, or about five to six hours. For this r eport, the SNUN recordkeeping hours were included in the SNUN submission hours (see Section 2.2.3 ) and the SNUN recordkeeping costs under 40 CFR §721.4 0 were not s eparately esti mated

. 16

Recordkeeping for Companies that Do Not Submit a SNUN

If a firm that manufactures, imports, or processes a substance subject to the final SNUR chooses not to submit a SNUN, they must keep records that document compliance with SNUR conditions for avoiding a Significant New Use. Such recordkeeping requirements essentially involve copying and filing relevant records, including those related to category of use. Records must be maintained for five years from the date of their creation ( 40 CFR 721.40). For firms that choose to not submit a SNUN, costs for compliance with the recordkeeping requirements are estimated to be five percent of the reporting burden for reporting information for a specific section of the SNUN form and are performe d by clerical staff (EPA, 2005b, pages 10 and 14). EPA used the per

- activity burden for reporting, human exposure, category of use and releases to the environment presented in the Information Collection Request (ICR) for TSCA Section 5(a)(2) Significant Ne w Use Rules for Existing Chemicals (Renewal) (EPA, 2005b, page 12). Any clerical

burden associated with these activities was removed to reflect the burden reduction associated with electronic submissions (EPA, 2009a).

The recordkeeping burden for a compa ny that does not submit a SNUN is estimated at 0.15 hours and $9.70 and is derived in Table 6

.

Table 6 : Annual Per

- Chemical Costs of Recordkeeping Requirement for Companies that

Choose not to Submit a SNUN

Reporting Activity Per Activity

Burden (Hours) % of Reporting

Burden

Attributed to Recordkeeping Total Labor Cost (2011$)

Burden Cost

Category of Use 1 3 5% 0.15 $9.70

Notes: For the category of use reporting activity, the burden is associated with technical labor. See Table 1 for the technical wage rate.

Source :

1 US EPA, 2005b Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Information Collection Request (ICR) for TSCA Section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rules for Exi sting Chemicals (Renewal), page 13.



### 2.2.5 C ustomer Notification

Manufacturers, processors, and importers of chemicals subject to SNURs must notify recipients of such chemicals of the SNUR or verify that knowledge of the SNUR has been otherwise acquired by recip ients, or that the recipients are unable to engage in significant new uses. Since it is not expected that all such

entities will have complete knowledge of all uses of any products subject to a SNUR, and because filing a

16 SNUN submission costs estimated i n Section 2.2.3 of this report were based on PMN submission costs from a 1994 report, Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSC Section 5 Pre manufacture Notifications ( EPA , 1994)

. Page III

- 14 of the 1994 report refers to “the normal records kept with a PMN submission which are included in the estimates for submission costs.” Page III

- 12 identifies “maintaining a file of the submission” as part of the labor hours for the PMN reporting form. These statements imply that the 95 to 114 total hours for a PMN submission (page III

- 10 of EPA 1994) included recordkeeping hours.Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) 11 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch SNUN could require significantly more burden, it is assumed that manufacturers, processors, and importers will most often choose to notify their customers of SNUR regulatory activities. As this notification may be accomplished by simply annotating an MSDS, EPA estimates the associated burden to be about one hour of a technical employee's time or $64.66 per manufacturer, processor, or importer per chemical. The final SNUR applies to all manufacturing, import, and processing of DnPP, excluding when the substance is used or sold for use as a chemical standard in phthalate testing

- the sole ongoing

use of the chemical. 17 Aside from the exempt use, EPA found no evidence o f any manufacturing or importation into the United States. Therefore, customer notifications will not be necessary.



### 2.2.6 Import Certification

In general, promulgation of a SNUR triggers a TSCA Section 13 import certification requirement and the corresponding regulations at 19 CFR §12.118 to 12.127 and 19 CFR §127.28 for all imports of the relevant chemical substances. Thus, any U.S. manufacturer, importer, or processor receiving an imported shipment of chemicals subject to the final SNUR will have to certify that all chemical substances in the shipment either comply with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA or that all chemical substances in the shipment are not subject to TSCA. 18 The statement must be on or attached to a commercial invoice or entry docum ent belonging to the imported shipment.

Import certification is fulfilled by checking a box on an invoice or entry document and EPA assumes that it generally imposes no additional burden or cost on the importer. Any potential burden associated with

submit ter’s familiarization with this requirement is assumed to be included in the more general SNUR

familia rization burden discussed above

.



### 2.2.7 Export Notification

Under Section 12(b) of TSCA, exporters must notify EPA if they export or intend to export a chemical subject to various TSCA sections (40 CFR §707.60 through 75). For TSCA 5(a)(2) (the section under which EPA promulgates significant new use rules) and certain other TSCA sections, this is a one

- time notification requirement 19 per destination countr y for each exporter of a chemical substance. After receiving a notification from a firm, EPA notifies the importing country and the United States State Department (40 CFR §707.70). To calculate the burden associated with making a single export

notification , EPA first estimated the average annual number of export notifications made by an exporter. EPA then derived the annual and per notification burden associated with preparing and submitting an export notification.

EPA estimated the average burden associat ed with making a single notification, but did not estimate either the total number of exporters of a SNUR chemical or the number of notifications per SNUR chemical. This is because the SNURs apply to a variety of different chemicals with a variety of unrel ated

17 Both Cambridge Isotope Laboratories, Inc. and Accustandard.com sell DnPP as a standard for phthalate testing (CIL 2010a, Accustandard 2010). Columbia Analytical Services, Inc. does not sell DnPP but uses DnPP for on

- site phthalate testing (CAS 2010a).

18 The exact statements are as follows: For imports of chemical substances subjec t 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 import s 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 U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) 12 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch uses, manufacturers, and processors, making it impractical within the resources available for this report to assess the potential number of exporters and importing countries per chemical.

Most underlying data in this section come from the (2009 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR), ICR No.: 0795.13

OMB Control Number 2070

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

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

Reduction Act (EPA, 2009b).

Es timated Number of Annual Export Notifications per Exporter

E PA’s 2009 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR estimated that the average exporter making notifications would make 12 notifications per year

. 20 This includes notifications resulting from SNURs and notifications resulting from other TSCA activities. Therefore, it is likely that an exporter will make less than 12 notifications per year as a result of this final SNUR. A notification is typically no more than one page per chemical/country combination, and one notification mailing often includes multiple chemicals and/or

destination countries. 21

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

Exporter Costs 22

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

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

The per

- notification cost was calculated based on the average burden per firm. Exporters who make a larger n umber of notifications per year may benefit from economies of scale and have lower costs per notification; conversely firms making fewer notifications may have a higher cost per notification.

Estimated Submission (Mailing) Costs

. Regulated companies will i ncur mailing costs for export notifications delivered to EPA. Notifications are assumed shipped via the U.S. Postal Service (U.S. PS) as

first

- class registered mail with a return receipt (U.S. PS, 2012). The estimated per

- shipment and annual mailing costs incurred by individual submitters are detailed in Table 7

.

20 EPA calculated the average number of export notifications per exporter in the 2009 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR (EPA, 2009b) by dividing the estimated number of submitted notifications (3,500) by the estimated number of exporters (300 ).

21 Based on review by an EPA economist of notifications received under TSCA Sections 4, 5 and 6 over approximately three weeks in early 2010.

22 Most underlying data in this section come from the 2009 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR, ICR No.: 0795.13 [Information Collection Request for] Not ification of Chemical Exports

- TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act (EPA 2009b), with updating for inflation.Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) 13 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch

Table 7 : Derivation of Total Mailing Cost for 12 Notices

Dates that the rates were verified on United States Postal Service web site: January 2012

Postal services costs
Registered mail, regular, with $0 declared value $10.95

Return receipt, requested at time of mailing (receive by mail) $2.35

Postage, regular First Class, up to 1 ounce $0.45

Cost per export notice

– Subtotal $13.75

x 12

Total Mailing Cost for 12 Notices 165

Source : Mailing rates are from the US Postal Service web site as of January 2012 ( http://www.usps.com/prices/)

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

Compile and Maintain the List of Products

. Since TSCA §12(b) information collection activity has been in place for twenty years, most respondents will have already developed a list of their products subject to TSCA §12(b) export notification. Respondents need only check for new re gulations promulgated and any new products exported by the company. Updating the list is estimated to take an average of one hour of technical time, which may also include some proportion of legal time (EPA, 2009b). The total burden can vary from two hours per year up to two hours per month, depending on the number of products exported by the company and the number of their products subject to TSCA §12(b) (EPA, 2009b).

The number of submitters per year who report under TSCA §12(b) has varied over time, risi ng from around 160 in 1991 to over 460 in 2000, and declining since. In the most recent TSCA §12(b) ICR, EPA estimated that there will be approximately 300 submitters per year in near

- future years (EPA, 2009b). Of these 300 submitters, EPA estimated that 2 00 companies were near the lower burden estimate of two hours per year, and 100 companies were near the upper estimate of 24 hours per year. Compiling the list for all respondents was therefore estimated to take 2,800 hours (2 hours x 200 firms plus 24 hou rs x 100 firms), or an average of about 9.3 hours of technical time per firm per year for 12 notifications per year (EPA, 2009b).

Write or Revise Export Notification

. C ompanies that export chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) reporting
must prepare an export n otification to send to EPA when export shipments are made. Time for initial preparation of the export notice may vary depending on whether the company has prior experience with this requirement. This step is estimated to take an average of one hour of tech nical time (which may also include some proportion of legal time) per firm per year for 12 notifications per year (EPA, 2009b).

Check Orders and Send Notifications

.
Companies that export chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) reporting must check outgoing shipm ents against the list of their products described above. A form letter notifying EPA and providing the required data must be printed and mailed within the required time period. This process is estimated to take an average one half hour of clerical time per export notification or six hours for 12 notifications (EPA, 2009b).

The burdens and associated costs for each notification activity are provided in Table 8 below . EPA estimates that the burden associated with making one notification is approximately 1.4 hours and $ 84.06

. Because there is no manufacture or importation aside from the exempted use, EPA does not expect any

notifications costs.Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) 14 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch

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

Technical Clerical Total

$/Hr Hours 2011$ $/Hr Hours 2011$ Hours 2011$

Compile list $64.66 9.3 $601

-- -- -- 9.3 $601

Write letter $64.66 1 $65

-- -- -- 1 $65

Check order and send

notice -- -- -- $29.63 6 $178 6 $178

Mailing cost 1

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- $165 Total per average facility 2 10.30 $666 6.00 $178 16.30 $1,008
Total per n otification $0.86 $55.50 0.50 $14.81 1.36 $84.06

Notes:

1 Mailing costs reflect April 20 10 USPS rates and can be found in Table 7

. 2 Per notification costs are based on a n average facility submitting 12 expo rt 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 2009b , p.10)

, and are updated to 20 11 dollars.

2.3 Industry Costs of SNUR, by Option

The number of firms affected that do not make sub missions to EPA is not known; therefore, costs are not aggregated across the affected entities. The following table summarizes the per

- company per

- chemical costs to comply with the final rule amendment, as described in more detail in Section 2.2 above.Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) 15 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch Table 9 : Compliance Options and Associated Costs Incurred by a Firm Due to the Final SNUR

Option 1 Costs Quantified Costs per Chemical (20 11 $) 2

1. Electronic submission of a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN), indicating to EPA that

the firm would like to manufacture, import, or process the

chemical for a Significant New Use

as defined in the

SNUR

. Costs of e lectronically submitting a SNUN, including rule familiarization, CDX registration (for companies that are first

- time submitters), form completion, user fee, export notification cost (if relevant). Rarely, a firm may choose to conduct toxicity or fate testing to support the SNUN, but such testing is not required by law

. $ 54.43 rule familiarization cost; $8, 571 submission cost (including SNUN recordkeepin g under 40 CFR §721.40 and

fe e $2,500 for large businesses). EPA usually receives well under ten SNUNs per year. Export notifications costs are

estimated at $8 4.06 per notification; total
cost per company will vary. First time

submitters will incur $ 190 for CDX registration and associated activities. Companies manufacturing, importing, or processing a chemical cur rently used in

commerce in the United States will incur a

cost $ 64.66 for notifying consumers of SNUR regulatory activities

.

2. Decide not to manufacture, import, or process the chemical for any non

exempt uses. Cost of the profit foregone as a result of not engaging in the commercial activity originally planned (opportunity costs). Other costs include rule familiarization, and export notificati on costs. Opportunity costs are not quantified. Other costs include rule familiarization ($54.43), recordkeeping ($9.70), export notification costs ($84.06 per notification), and customer notification ($64.66) may appl y.

Notes:

1 Firms may experience cos ts related 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. Additionally, export notification costs are somewhat independent of the option because the pr oduction of DnPP for export purposes only is not subject to the

final SNUR notification requirements under 40 CFR 721.25.

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

are detailed in Section 2.2

. 3 EPA does not require the development of test data for submissi on of a SNUN, although a firm may submit test data already in its possession and/or describe any other available data. Because EPA does not require the development of test data, EPA assumes that no firms will incur testing costs as a result of the final S NUR

.

2.4 Likelihood of a SNUN Submission

This analysis assumes that no entities are expected to submit a SNUN. EPA has, over the years, promulgated SNURs that cover a total of more than 1,000 chemicals. In response, the Agency receives only a handful of SNUNs per year. For example, the number of SNUNs received was six in Federal fiscal year (FY) 2007, eight in FY2008, seven in FY2009, two in FY2010, and ten in FY2011. 23 In addition, all of the chemical subject to this final rule are currently not being man ufactured, imported or processed except for the exempted use

.

2.5 Potential for Subsequent Regulatory Action

The Agency recognizes that if submission of a SNUN does result from a SNUR, the Agency may take additional regulatory actions under TSCA. These additional regulatory actions might be necessary to

further evaluate an intended new use and associated activiti es, or to prohibit or limit that activity before it

23 Values based on US EPA’s PMN Gold (V1.1) record keeping system as of September 1, 2011 (EPA, 2011a)

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

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) 16 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch occurs to prevent unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment. It is not known what specific subsequent regulatory actions, if any, the Agency may determine are necessary after reviewin g a SNUN. Any such actions are highly dependent on the circumstances surrounding the individual SNUN (e.g., available information and scientific understanding about the chemical and its risks at the time the SNUN is being reviewed).

Should the Agency’s re view of the SNUN result in further regulatory actions, the Agency will initiate and follow the appropriate procedures for taking those actions. Included in those procedures w ill be an

assessment of the costs and benefits of those actions

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

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) 17 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

### 3. AGENCY COSTS

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

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

3.1 Labor Rates for EPA Staff

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

- Baltimore area published by the Office of Personnel Management effective January 2011 (OPM, 2011). EPA assumes that, on average, a federal GS

- 13, Step 5 full

- time equivalent (FTE) will conduct its collection and

administrative activities under the fi nal rule. 24 The average salary for a GS

- 13 Step 5 employee was $100,904 in 2011 without fringe benefits and overhead costs. In order to derive the fully loaded salary, EPA multiplied the annual salary by an assumed loading factor of 1.6 to reflect federal f ringe benefits and overhead (EPA, 2009c), which results in a fully loaded annual salary of $161,446 ( see Table 10 ). Dividing the fully loaded annual sa lary by 2,080 hours (i.e., the number of hours in a work year) yields an estimated hourly FTE wage rate of $77.62.

Fully loaded costs for Agency labor are shown in Table 10

.

Table 10 : Derivation of Loaded Agency Wage Rates

Labor Category Data Source for Wage

Information Date Wage Fringe

Benefit Fringes as

% wage Overhead

as % wage Fringe +

overhead

factor Loaded

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

EPA staff

FTE Annual federal staff cost:

OPM Washington

Baltimore

- Northern Virginia, DC

- MD

- PA

VA

- WV, area, GS

- 13 Step 1 pay rates a Jan

11 $100,904 (annual)

-- Included in

60%

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

$48.51 (hourly) $77.62 (hourly)

Notes :

a The Agency salary is the unloaded federal GS

- 13 Step 5 salary ($ 100

, 904 for 20 11 ), from the OPM salary table for the Washington

- Baltimore

- Northern Virginia Locality Pay Area ( OPM 20 11 )

. 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).

3.2 SNUN Processing Costs

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

- 1 of a 1994 EPA report, Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations f or TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications (EPA, 1994). The Agency burden associated with processing a PMN has been adjusted to reflect burden reductions resulting from the 2009 final PMN Electronic Reporting (ePMN) Rule that

24 The GS

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

earlier PMN SNUR economic analysis ( EPA, 2003 ), which used an average of GS

- 12 Step 1 and GS

- 12 Step 10

salaries.Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) 18 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch requires the electronic su bmission of all TSCA section 5 notices. Electronic submission of SNUN forms is expected to reduce Agency burden by 16.5 percent (EPA, 2009b, p.28).

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

col umn) by the fully loaded hourly salary. This shows EPA staff cost for chemicals requiring the selected review step.

The Extramural Cost column shows costs for contractor support and other outside purchases for chemicals requiring the selected review step, and is inflated from 1993 prices using the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employment Cost Index (ECI) data (BLS, 2012b). The ECI for total compensation (not seasonally adjusted) of private industry professional and related workers (Series ID CIU20100001 20000I) is used because it is the only series with continuous data since 1985, and that includes professional and technical labor, which perform the majority of Agency extramural activities. Table 11 contains the derivation of inflation factors for Agency extramural costs.

Table 11 : Derivation of Inflation Factors for Agency Extramural Costs

Item Inflation index source Starting

year Index

for starting

year (a) Index

for

20 11 (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 201 2b ] 4 1993 67.0 115.7 1.73

Source:

Bureau of Labor Statistics

. Employment Cost Index

– Total Compensation: Professional and Related Private Industry, Not Seasonally Adjusted. (Series ID: CIU2010000120000I) , extracted March 22, 20 12 (BLS 201 2 b).

The ‘Percent of Cases column’ in Table 12 is a weighting factor applied to reflect the fact that not all chemicals require each review step. For example, in the PMN process, all chemi cals require Administrative Prescreening, but not all chemicals require the intensive scrutiny of “Standard Review.” The three types of submissions resulting from a SNUR may have weighting factors that differ from each other and from the weighting factors for PMNs. Changes in weighting factors could cause actual review costs to be higher or lower than calculated here. For example, some SNUNs require little review because they are determined to be “invalid”

– i.e. not required in the first place. However, o ften a SNUN may take more Agency time than a typical PMN because of factors such as the need to retrieve old PMN records from archives, and the likelihood that more data requiring EPA review are submitted with a SNUN than

will be submitted on average with a PMN. Resources were not available to update the review hours to reflect the current review process or to tailor the cost estimates to SNUNs. Therefore, for this analysis, the review steps and weighting factors are assumed to be the same as those derived in 1994 for PMNs.

Values in the ‘Weighted Cost’ column are calculated by multiplying the un

- weighted costs (EPA staff cost plus extramural costs) by the percentage of cases requiring this review step. Weighted costs are then multiplied by the burden reduct ion of 16.5 percent to account for burden savings generated electronic submission. This calculation yields total Agency costs of $5,066 per SNUN, for submission review and processing, as shown in Table 12

.Economic Analysis of SNUR for 19 U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) Economic and Policy Analysis Branch Table 12 : Agency Costs for SNUN and Other Submission Review and Processing

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

Cost Pct. of

Cases Weighted

Cost 3 ePMN

Burden

Reduction 4 Weighted Cost

with ePMN

Burden

Reduction FTE

fraction Cost per

FTE 1 FTE Total

($20 11 ) 1993

dollars 20 11

dollars

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

- (i))

Pre

- notice consultation 0.0024 $161,446 $387.47 $4.00 $6.91 $394 41% $161.70 0.165 $135
Administrative prescreen/ notice receipt/user fee 0.0024 $161,446 $387.47 $92.00 $158.87 $546 100% $546.34 0.165 $456

CRSS (Chemical Review and Search Strategy) 0.0025 $161,446 $403.62 $268.00 $462.80 $866 100% $866.42 0.165 $723

SAT (Structure Activity Team) 0.0006 $161,446 $96.87 $14.00 $24.18 $121 100% $121.04 0.165 $101

Engineering/Exposure 0.0015 $161,446 $242.17 $56.00 $96.70 $339 100% $338.87 0.165 $283
Exposure/Fate 0.0008 $161,446 $129.16 $0.00 $0.00 $129 100% $129.16 0.165 $108

Focus 0.0009 $161,446 $145.30 $23.00 $39.72 $185 100% $185.02 0.165 $154

Standard Review Functions 0.0219 $161,446 $3,535.68 $511.00 $882.43 $4,418 29% $1,281.25 0.165 $1,070 Division Directors Meeting 0.0129 $161,446 $2,082.66 $113.00 $195.14 $2,278 15% $341.67 0.165 $285

Order Development/Negotiation

Review 0.0171 $161,446 $2,760.73 $22.00 $37.99 $2,799 3% $83.96 0.165 $70

Post Order Data Review 0.0886 $161,446 $14,304.15 $0.00 $0.00 $14,304 3% $429.12 0.165 $358

Order Modification 0.2167 $161,446 $34,985.43 $0.00 $0.00 $34,985 3% $1,049.56 0.165 $876

New Chemical SNUR Development 0.0277 $161,446 $4,472.07 $85.00 $146.78 $4,619 7% $323.32 0.165 $270

Notices of Commencement 0.0012 $161,446 $193.74 $40.00 $69.07 $263 31% $81.47 0.165 $68
FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) Requests 0.0333 $161,446 $5,376.17 $287.00 $495.61 $5,872 1% $58.72 0.165 $49

CBI (Confidential Business Information) Substantiation 0.0004 $161,446 $64.58 $3.00 $5.18 $70 100% $69.76 0.165 $58

TOTAL $6,067 0.165 $5,066

Notes:

1 GS

- 13 Step 5 salaries loaded with benefits and overhead. See Table 10 for derivation.

2 Extramural costs consist of contracting support and other pur chases directly attributable to the PMN review process inflated from 1993 prices using the factors presented in Table

11

. 3 Weighted costs were calcu lated using unrounded unit cost estimates, so results may differ from calculations using the rounded values shown in this tab le.

4 Electronic submission is expected to generate a cost savings of 16.5% to the Agency (EPA 2009 b , p. 28).

Sources: FTEs per re view step, 1993 extramural costs, and percents of cases are from EPA, 1994 Table VII

- 1, GS

- 13 salaries are from OPM

, 20 11

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

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) 20 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 3.3 Export Notification Co st

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

SNURs . The Agency burden and cost due to TSCA §12(b) export notification result from three tasks. In the first task, EPA receives export notifications fr om companies that intend to export one of the chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) (EPA, 2009b). In the second task, EPA staff prepares separate notification letters that are subsequently reviewed and delivered to importing countries, their embassies, or repre sentatives, and to the importing country’s U.S. embassies (EPA, 2009b). (See Table 7 for the cost of mailing one notification). The third task is comprised of EPA staff responses to public inquiries and other TSCA 12(b) activities. The work of responding to non

- routine requests for information and clarification from industry and importing countries, and of handling other tasks associated with the TSCA §12(b) program, was estimated to require roughly 400 hours per year (EPA, 2009b). Since the current rulemaking covers only a very small percent of the chemicals subject to TSCA 12(b) reportin g, a very small percent of such activity will be attributable to the current rulemaking.

Because it is unknown how many, if any, notifications EPA will receive or send as a result of the current rulemaking, the costs to the Agency are presented per activi ty. The estimated burden for the first two Agency activities is provided in Table 13

. To estimate the Agency cost, hourly burdens are multiplied by

th e loaded wage rate of a GS

- 13, Step 5, which is derived in Table 10

.

Table 13 : TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost: Agency Bu rden per Activity ( 2011$ )

Agency Activity Hours per Activity FTE per

Activity 1 Loaded Mailing

Cost Total Agency Cost per

Activity GS

- 13, Step 5 FTE Wage Rate (a) (b) = (a)/2,080 (c) (d) (e) = ((b)*(c))+(d)

Process an incoming

notification from an exporting compan y 0.1 0.00005 $161,446 $0.00 $7.76

P repare and mail a

notification to an importing countr y 0.5 0.00024 $161,446 $13.75 $52.56

Notes :

1 The burden associated with an Agency activity is the burden for the Agency to process one incoming notification, or to prepare and mail an outgoing notification

Source: Table 10 of this report derives Agency labor costs. Mailing costs are from Table 7 of this report

. Other burdens a re from EPA 2009 b , updated for inflation.Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) 21 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

### 4. ADDITIONAL ANALYSES

This section presents additional analysis of other potential impacts of this rulemaking, as required under

various statutes and executive orders.

4.1 Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq .), the Agency hereby certifies that promulgation of this SNUR will not have a signifi cant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rationale supporting this conclusion is as follows. The requirement to submit a SNUN applies to any person (including small or large entities) who intends to engage in any activity described in the rule as a significant new use. Where a use is new, by definition no small or large entities presently eng age in such activities. Although some small entities may decide to manufacture or process a substance for the new use after the SNUR is promulgated, EPA receives very few SNUNs, and few of those are submitted by small entities. In response to the promulgation of SNURs covering over 1

, 000 chemical substances, the Agency receives only a handful of SNUNs per year. For example, the number of SNUNs was four in Federal fiscal year 2005, eight in FY2006, six in FY2007, eight in FY2008, seven in FY2009, two in 2010, and ten in 2011 (EPA, 2012), for an average of 6 per year from all SNURs. EPA has no reason to believe that this SNUR will alter t he pattern of SNUN submissions that EPA has historically seen. In addition, the estimated reporting cost for submission of a SNUN is minimal regardless of the size of the firm, averaging about $8, 6 00 including SNUN recordkeeping and reporting costs. The Ag ency currently offers some relief to certain small businesses

with sales (including those of subsidiary/parent companies) of less than $40 million per year by reducing

the SNUN submission fee from $2,500 to $100. This lower fee reduces the cost of submitting a SNUN to about $ 6,200 for smaller firms. During the six year period from 2005

- 2010, only three submitters self

identified as small in their SNUN submission 25 (EPA, 2012). EPA believes the cost of submitting a

SNUN is relatively small compared th e cost of developing and marketing a chemical new to a firm and that the requirement to submit a SNUN generally does not have a signific ant economic impact.

EPA believes that the potential economic impact of complying with a SNUR is not expected to be

si gnificant or adversely affect a substantial number of small entities

.

4.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

chemicals

.

4.3 Paperwork Reduction Act

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., an Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OM B and displays a currently valid OMB Control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing

in the Federal Register , are listed in 40 CFR, part 9, and included on the related collection instrument, or form, if applicable. The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control numbers 2070

- 0 038 (EPA ICR No. 1188)

and 2070

- 0030 (EPA ICR No. 0795).

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

- 2010.Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) 22 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average 98.2 hours per response: 0.82 hours for rule familiarization ( Section 2.2.1 ), 2.80 hours for CDX registration, CDX electronic signature, and pay.gov account setup ( Section 2.2.2 ), 92.2 hours for form completion,

submission and recordkee ping under CFR §721.40 (Section s 2.2.3 and 2.2.4 ), 1 hour for consumer notifications (Section 2.2.5 ) and 1.36 hours for export notification ( Section 2.2.6 ). The burdens for rule familiarization, CDX registration, CDX electronic signature, pay.gov account setup form completion, submission, and recordkeeping are approved under EPA ICR No. 1188 (OMB control number 2070

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

2070

- 0030)

4.4 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

- Income Popu lations

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

- income populations in the United States.

The information collected under this final rule will assist EPA and others in determining the potential

hazards and risks associated with various chemicals manufactured and used at high production volumes. Although not directly impacting environmental justice

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

- income and m in ority

communities

.

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

Risks

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

.

4.6 Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” Policies that have federalism implications are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effec ts on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). The final rule establishes reporting and recordkeeping requirements that apply to manufacturers (including importers) and processors of certain chemicals. EPA has no information to indicate that any state or local government manufactures or processes the chemical substances covered by this action

.

4.7 Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal GovernmentsEconomic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) 23 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch Executive Order 13175 is Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000). This rule does not have Tribal implications bec ause EPA has no information to indicate that any tribal government manufactures or processes the chemical su bstances covered by this

action

.

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

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use.Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) 24 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

### 5. BENEFITS

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

EPA requires additional information to fulfill its mandate under TSCA to fully assess the risks posed by the production, sale, and use of DnPP in the United States. A SNUN submission provides EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that acti vity before it

occurs. It allows the Agency to take immediate action to mitigate an activity that the Agency deems

harmful to the environment or human health. The final SNUR allows EPA to evaluate the use of, or exposure to th is chemical and allow s the Age ncy to take preventive action to limit or prohibit any Significant New Use. EPA also expects the final rule may restrict future uses and thereby exposure to the chemical, as a company may choose modify planned uses of the chemical to not be subject to the SNUR, as opposed to submitting a SNUN. Therefore, the final SNUR may limit future exposure (e.g., worker, consumer) to the chemicals

.

Quantification of the benefits of the final rule will require more specific information about each user’s use

patterns an d preferences

, as well as the changes in these patterns and preferences that will result from the

additional information made available under the final rule . These data are not readily available and collecting such data will be cost

- prohibitive.Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) 1 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch APPENDIX A

INFLATORS AND WAGE RATESEconomic Analysis of SNUR for 1 U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

### A. INFLATORS AND WAGE R ATES

This appendix describes the derivation of the fully loaded labor rates and inflation factors used in calculating costs of labor, materials, and other inputs. Costs presented in this report are in 2011 do llars

.

A.1 Derivation of Loaded Wage Rates

Unit labor costs are calculated by adding fringe benefits and overhead to the wage or salary to derive a fully loaded labor cost. The basic method is described in Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics

Re lease Inventory Program (EPA, 2002b). The resulting loaded labor rates are given in Table A

- 1 . Costs are calculated for several labor categories: Managerial, Professio nal/Technical, Clerical, and EPA staff.

In March 2004, BLS began using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes instead of the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) System, and the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) syste m instead of the Occupational Classification System (OCS). The following table shows the crosswalk between old and new occupational titles.

EPAB Reports Labor Category BLS Old Title (OCS) BLS New Title (SOC)

Managerial Executive, administrative, and managerial Management, business, and

financial

Professional/Technical Professional specialty and technical Professional and related

Clerical Administrative support, including

clerical Office and administrative support

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

.

A.1.1 Derivation of Labor Rates for Managerial, Professional/Technical, Clerical, an d Production

Labor

Wages and fringe benefits for managerial, professional/technical, and clerical labor were taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) data, 26 for December 2011, for manufacturing industries. 27

The cost of fringe benefits such as paid leave and insurance, specific to each labor category, are taken from the same ECEC series. Fringe benefits as a percent of wages are calculated separately for each labor category. For example, for Dece mber 2011, the average wage rate for professional/technical 28 labor was $38.48; the average fringe benefit was $19.64. Fringe benefits as a percent of wages were $19.64/$38.48, or approximately 51.0 percent.

An additional loading factor of 17 percent is app lied to wages to account for overhead. This approach is used for consistency with Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics economic analyses for two major

26 This follows the approach introduced in Econo mic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 65 Chemical

Substances: EPA Docket OPPT

- 2003

- 0063 (EPAB, 2007 b )

. 27 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables December 2011

. (BLS, 2012 a)

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

. However, the manufacturing sector data seem more relevant since the SNURs mainly affect the chem icals industry.

28 This follows terminology introduced in EPAB, 2007 b . Earlier SNUR economic analyses used the term “technical” labor. Here the category is called “professional/technical” labor, to make clear how it relates to BLS categories

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

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

. However, the coverage of

the old and new occupational groups is approximately the same

. See the BLS article, C omparing Current and Former Industry

and Occupation ECEC Series (Weinstein, 2004).Economic Analysis of SNUR for 2 U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) Economic and Policy Analysis Branch rulemakings: Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (EPA, 2002b),

and the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report (EPA, 2002a). This overhead loading factor is added to the benefits loading factor, and the total is then applied to the base wage to derive the fully loaded wage. For ex ample, the December 2011 fully loaded wage for professional/technical labor is $38.48 × (1+0.5104 + 0.17) = $64.66.

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

A

- 1

.

A.1. 2 Derivation of Labor Rates for EPA Staff

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

- Baltimore area published by the Office of Personnel Manage ment effective January 2011 (OPM, 2011). The average salary for one FTE staff member is estimated as the salary for a GS

- 13 Step 5 employee. 29

Multiplying the annual pay by an assumed loading factor of 1.6 to reflect Federal fringe benefits and
overhead, t he loaded annual salary of EPA staff was calculated to be $161,446.

The Agency loading factor is from an EPA guide, Instructions for Preparing Information Collection
Requests (ICRs) (EPA, 1992, page 30, footnote 9). The 60 percent assumption was labeled “ the benefits multiplication factor” in the EPA Guide, but has been used in many EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ICRs to reflect both fringe benefits and overhead for Federal staff. For example, it was used in an August 2000 document supportin g ICR No. 1139.06 (EPA, 2000), with the following explanation:

The annual costs per FTE are derived by multiplying the annual pay rate by 1.6 (the benefits multiplication factor). The multiplication factor used is recommended in EPA’s Office of Policy, Pla nning, and Evaluation’s Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (June 1, 1992). An EPA internal phone call between Carol Rawie (OPPT/EETD/RIB) and Carl Koch (OPPE/RMD/IMB) on May 3, 1994, indicated that the 1.6 factor included not only benefits but also overhead. (ICR No.1139.06)

29 The GS

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

- 12 Step 1 and GS

- 12 Step 10 salaries.Economic Analysis of SNUR for 3 U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) Economic and Policy Analysis Branch Table A

- 1 : Derivation of Loaded Wage Rates

EPAB Labor Category Data Sources Date Wage Fringe

Benefit Fringes as

% W age Over

head %

W age 2 Fringe +

Overhead

Factor Loaded Wages 1

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

Managerial BLS ECEC , Private Manufacturing

industries

, “Mgt, Business, and

Financial” 3 Dec

- 11 $43.01 $20.40 47.43% 17% 1.64 $70.72

Professional/

Technical BLS ECEC , Private Manufacturing

industries

, “Professional and

related“ 3 Dec

- 11 $38.48 $19.64 51.04% 17% 1.68 $64.66

Clerical BLS ECEC , Private Manufacturing

industries, “Office and Administrative Support” 3 Dec

- 11 $17.69 $8.93 50.48% 17% 1.67 $29.63

EPA staff

FTE Annual Federal staff cost: OPM

Washington

- Baltimore

- Northern Virginia, DC

- MD

- PA

- VA

- WV, area,

GS

- 13 Step 5 pay rates, with 60%

overhead. 3 Jan

- 11 $48.51

-- [Included in

60% overhead] 60% 1.6 $77.62

Notes:

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

2 An overhead rate of 17% was used based on assumptions in Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program ( EPA, 2002b ), and the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report (EPA, 2002 a ).

3 The salary is unloaded Federal GS

- 13 Step 5 salary for calendar year 20 11 , from the Office of Personnel Management salary table for Washington

- Baltimor e

- Northern Virginia (OPM,

20 11 ). The 60% fringes

- and

- overhead rate is from an EPA guide, Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) ( EPA, 1992a , page 30, footnote 9).Economic Analysis of SNUR for 4 U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) Economic and Policy Analysis Branch A.2 Derivation of Inflation Factors

Detailed inf

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

- 2 . In 2006, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) made several changes to the Employment Cost Index. The changes are described on a BLS web page, “Change has come to the ECI,” (BLS, 2006c) and in several April 2006 Monthly Labor Review articles posted on the BLS web site: “Changes affecting the Employment Cost Index: an overview” (Caroll, 2006); “Employment Cost Index Publication Plans” (Sleemi, 2006); and “Seasonal adjustment in the ECI and the conversion to NAICS and SOC” (Branch, 200 6).

Under a mandate from OMB, BLS changed its classification of industries and occupations from the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and Occupational Classification System (OCS) to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and Stand ard Occupational Classification (SOC) system. In 2006, BLS adjusted all ECI series to reflect this change.

In addition to changing the industry and occupational classification systems, in 2006, BLS rebased the

ECI from June 1989 = 100 to December 2005 = 1 00 for all current and historical non

- seasonally adjusted series, including the NAICS and SIC based series. (Seasonally adjusted indices, including those in Table

A

- 2 of this report, may not exactly equal 100 for December 2005 as a result of the seasonal adjustment. Seasonal adjustments are explained in Branch, 2006.)

According to BLS, the official ECI for the years 1975

- 2005 is the SIC

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

- SOC based series (Sleemi, 2006, p.8). 30

“Starting year” indices in Table A

- 2 continue to be SIC

- OCS based. Current year indices are NAICS

SOC based. We use indices from both the NAICS

- SOC and the SIC

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

30 BLS has been publish ing the NAICS

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

OCS based series and NAICS

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

ECS10002I for the SIC

- OCS series and CIS2010000000000I for the NAICS

- SOC series

.Economic Analysis of SNUR for 5 U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) Economic and Policy Analysis Branch Table A

- 2 : Derivation of Inflation Factors

Item Inflation Index Source 1 Starting

Y ear Index for

Starting Year (a) Index for

20 11 (b) Inflation

F actor (b)/(a) 2

Agency Extramural costs White collar labor; equipment; supplies BLS ECI, Total comp, Private industry, Professional and

related

, 4 th Q [BLS, 2012b ] 3 1993 67 115.7 1.727

Labels, placards etc. BLS CPI, All urban consumers, not SA. CUUR0000SA0, Annual [BLS, 2012c] 1997 160.5 224.939 1.401

File cabinet

Photocopies BLS CPI, All urban consumers, not SA. CUUR0000SA0, Annual [BLS, 2012c] 1988 118.3 224.939 1.901 Record keeping materials

Key: BLS = Bureau of Labor Statistics. CPI = Consumer Price Index. ECI = Employment Cost Index. SA = Seasonally Adjusted. Total Comp = Total Compensation (wages/salaries and benefits). 4th Q = Fourth Quarter. “ECS10002I” etc. refer to BLS series Ids.

Notes:

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

Relea se Text: Employment Cost Index, March 2006 (BLS, 2006b). The Consumer Price Index (CPI) was not rebased.

“Starting year” ECI indices are SIC

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

ECU11122I for private i ndustry Professional and Related Workers.

After 2006, ECI indices are NAICS

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

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

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

OPPT

- 2009

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

- seasonally adjusted CIU2010000120000I for private industry Professional,

and Rela ted workers, instead of SA CIS2010000W00000I for private industry white collar workers because BLS retired the “white

collar” series

.Economic Analysis of SNUR for 6 U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

### 6. REFERENCES

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

– 113, Section 12(d).

19 CFR 12 , Customs Duties: Spec ial Classes of Merchandise, Code of Federal Regulations

, Part 12, Title 19, August 1, 1983

.

40 CFR 707, Chemical Imports and Exports , Code of Federal Regulations

, Part 707, Title 40, July 1,

2003.

40 CFR 720

, Premanufacture Notification , Code of Federal Regulations

, Part 720, Title 40, July 1, 2003.

40 CFR 721, Significant New Use of Chemical Substances , Code of Federal Regulations

, Part 721, Title 40, July 1, 2003.

59 FR 7629, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

- Income Populations , Federal Register, Volume 59, February 16, 1994.

59 FR 22951, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments , Federal Register, Volume 59, November 6, 2000.

62 FR 19885, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, Federal Register

, Volume 62, April 23, 1997.

6 4 FR 43255, Federalism , Federal Register, Volume 65, August 10, 1999.

66 FR 28355, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Af fect Energy Supply, Distribution, or

Use , Federal Register, Volume 66, May 22, 2001.

71 FR 66234

, Export Notification; Change to Reporting Requirements, Final Rule, Federal Register

, Volume 71, November 14, 2006. Available in docket EPA

- HQ

- OPPT

- 2005

- 0058 at http://www.regulations.gov

.

Accustandard, 2010. “Phthalates Standards.” Available at: http://www.accustandard.com/asi/np_phthalates.php3 Accessed Aug. 12 , 2010.

Australian Government. 2008a. Existing Chemica l Hazard Assessment Report for Butylbenzyl Phthalate

. Department of Health and Ageing, National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS): Sydney, Australia, 2008. http://www.nicnas.gov.au/Publications/CAR/Other/Phthalates.asp

. Acces sed Aug 13, 2009.

Australian Government. 2008b. Existing Chemical Hazard Assessment Report for Dibutyl Phthalate

. Department of Health and Ageing, National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS): Sydney, Australia, 2008. http://w ww.nicnas.gov.au/Publications/CAR/Other/Phthalates.asp

. Accessed Aug 13, 2009.

Australian Government. 2008c. Existing Chemical Hazard Assessment Report for Diethylhexyl Phthalate

.Economic Analysis of SNUR for 7 U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) Economic and Policy Analysis Branch Department of Health and Ageing, National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS): Sydney, Australia, 2008 http://www.nicnas.gov.au/Publications/CAR/Other/Phthalates.asp

. Accessed Aug 13, 2009.

Australian Government. 2008d. Existing Chemical Hazard Assessment Report for Diisobutyl Phthalate

. Department o f Health and Ageing, National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS): Sydney, Australia, 2008. http://www.nicnas.gov.au/Publications/CAR/Other/Phthalates.asp

. Accessed Aug 13, 2009.

Australian Government. 2008e. Existing Chemical Hazard Assessment Report for Diisodecyl Phthalate

. Department of Health and Ageing, National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS): Sydney, Australia, 2008. http://www.nicnas.gov.au/Publications/CAR/Other/Phthalates.asp

. Accessed Aug 13, 2009.

Australian Government. 2008f. Existing Chemical Hazard Assessment Report for Diisonoyl Phthalate

. Department of Health and Ageing, National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS): Sydney, Australia, 2008. http://www.nicnas.gov.au/Publications/CAR/Other/Phthalates.asp

. Accessed Aug 13, 2009.

Australian Government. 2008g. Existing Chemical Hazard Assessment Report for Di

- n

- octyl Phthalate

. Department of Health and Ageing, National Industrial Chemicals Notifi cation and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS): Sydney, Australia, 2008. http://www.nicnas.gov.au/Publications/CAR/Other/Phthalates.asp

. Accessed Aug 13, 2009.

Australian Government. 2008h. Phthalates Hazard Compendium. A Summary of Physicochemical and

Human Healt

h Hazard Data for 24 Ortho

- Phthalate Chemicals . Department of Health and Ageing, National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS): Sydney, Australia, 2008. www.nicnas.gov.au/Publications/CAR/Other/Phthalates.asp

. Accessed Aug 13,

2 009.

Babich, M.; Chen, S.; Greene, M.; Kiss, C.; et al. 2004. Risk Assessment of Oral Exposure to Diisononyl Phthalate from Children’s Products . Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2004, 40 (2), 151

– 167.

BLS, 2012a. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employer Cost s for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables December 2011.” (Accessed on March 14, 2012.) Available at: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsuptc21.pdf. (Note: The BLS report title and content is updated periodically to include more recent data, on the sa me website.)

BLS, 2012b. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Cost Index

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

- bin/srgate

.

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

- All Urban Consumers, U.S. City Average (Series ID: CUUR0000SA0), extracted March 22, 2012. Available at; http:/data.bls.gov/cgi

- bin/srgate

.

CAS, 2010a. Columbia Analytical Services, Inc. “Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate.” Available at: http://www.caslab.com/Di

- n

- pentyl

- Phthalate.php5

CDC, 2009a. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Third National Report on Human Exposure to

Environmental Chemica ls. http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/

. Accessed July 2005.Economic Analysis of SNUR for 8 U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) Economic and Policy Analysis Branch CIL, 2010a. Cambridge Isotope Laboratories, Inc. “Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate.” Available at: http://www.i sotope.com/cil/products/displayproduct.cfm?prod_id=9076&cat_id=107

. Accessed Aug. 12, 2010.

Clausen, P. A.; Hansen, V.; Gunnarsen, L.; Afshari, A. 2004. Emission of Di

- 2

- ethylhexyl Phthalate from PVC Flooring into Air and Uptake in Dust: Emission and Sorp tion Experiments in FLEC and CLIMPQA . Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 2531

– 2537.

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

PMN Submissions

. Distributed by the Chemical Manufacturers Association, Washington, DC.

CPSC. 2001. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Chronic Hazard Advisor y Panel on Diisononyl

Phthalate (DINP). Directorate of Health Sciences: Bethesda, MD 20814.

CPSC. 2002. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Memorandum to Mari lyn L. Wind from S.B.

Chen. Screening of Toys for PVC and Phthalates Migration.

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

EC. 2003a. European Commission. European Union Risk Assessment Report: 1,2

- Benzenedicarboxylic Acid, Di

- C8

- 10

- Branched Alkyl Esters, C9

- Rich And Di

- “Isononyl” Phthalate (DINP), CAS

- Nos.

68515

- 48

- 0, 28553

- 12

- 0. Vol. 35; EUR 20784EN; Office for Official Publ ications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2003.

EC. 2003b. European Commission. European Union Risk Assessment Report: 1,2

- Benzenedicarboxylic Acid, Di

- C9

- 11

- Branched Alkyl Esters, C10

- Rich And Di

- “Isodecyl” Phthalate (DIDP), CAS

- Nos

68515

- 49

- 1 an d 26761

- 40

- 0

. Vol. 36; EUR 20785EN; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2003.

EC. 2003

- 04. European Commission. European Union Risk Assessment Report: Dibutyl Phthalate, CAS

No. 84

- 74

- 2 . Vol. 29; EUR 19840EN; Office f or Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2003

- 04.

EC. 2008a. European Commission. European Union Risk Assessment Report Bis(2

- Ethylhexyl) Phthalate (DEHP),CAS

- No. 117

- 81

- 7 . Vol. 80; EUR 23384EN; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2008.

EC. 2008b. European Commission. European Union Risk Assessment Report Benzyl Butyl Phthalate (BBP), CASNo. 85

- 68

- 7. Vol. 76; EUR 22773EN; Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

, 2008.

EPA, 1986. U.S. EPA, Office of Toxic Substances. New Chemical Information Bulletin: Exemptions for Research and Development and Test Marketing . Washington, D.C. November, 1986. Available

at: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/pubs/tmeranddbulletin.pdf

EPA, 1994. U

. S

. EPA, Office of Toxic Substances, Regulatory Impacts Branch. Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Reg ulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications

. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA/OPPT/EETD/RIB, September 9, 1994. (OTS/RIB later became OPPTS/EPAB.)Economic Analysis of SNUR for 9 U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) Economic and Policy Analysis Branch EPA, 200 0

. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, ICR No. 1139.06. [Information

Collectio n Request for] TSCA Existing Chemical Test Rules, Consent Orders, Test Rule Exemptions, and Voluntary Test Data Submissions: Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act . Attachment 5, Wage Rates Estimation, August 29,

2000.

EPA, 2002 a U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report. Washington,

DC. August 2002

.

EPA, 2002 b

. U.S. EPA, Office of Polluti on Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis

Branch. Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program. Washington, DC , June 10, 2002

.

EPA, 2003

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

. Washington, DC, 2003. Available in docket EPA

- HQ

- OPPTS

- 2002

- 0078 at http://www.re gulations.gov

.

EPA, 2005

. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Change to TSCA Section 12(b) Export Notification Requirements,

November 2005, available from the Federal Docket Mana gement System as EPA

- HQ

- OPPT

2005

- 005 8

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

EPA, 2006a. Inventory Update Reporting (IUR): Non

- Confidential 2006 TSCA Inve ntory Update Rule (IUR) Records. Available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/iursearch/index.cfm?s=chem . (Accessed 9 April 2009).

EPA, 2007 a . U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis

Branch. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 38 Chemical Substances (EPA Docket OPPT

- 2006

- 0898 ), August 17, 2007

.

EPA, 2007b . U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

, ICR No. 0574.14. [Information Collection Request for] Pre

- Manufacture Review Reporting and Exemption Requirements for New Chemical Substances and Significant New Use Reporting Requirements for Chemical Substances: Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under The Paperwork

Reduction Act , December 6, 2007.

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

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

. (EPA

- HQ

- OPPT

- 2008

- 0296) . July 13, 2009.

EPA, 2009b . U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. ICR No.: 0795.13 [Information Collection Request for] Notification of Chemical Exports

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

.

EPA, 2009c . U.S. EPA, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Phthalates Action Plan.

Available at:Economic Analysis of SNUR for 10 U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) Economic and Policy Analysis Branch http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/ex istingchemicals/pubs/actionplans/phthalates_ap_2009_1230_final. pdf

.

Gray L.E. Jr, Wilson V.S., Stoker T., Lambright C., Furr J., Noriega N., Howdeshell K., Ankley GT,

Guillette L. 2006. Adverse effects of environmental antiandrogens and androgens on

repro ductive development in mammals . Int J Androl. Feb; 29(1): 96

- 104; discussion 105

- 8.

Review.

Hotchkiss A. K ., Parks

- Saldutti L. G ., Ostby J.S ., Lambright C., Furr J

. , Vandenbergh J.G., Gray L.E. Jr.

2004. A mixture of the "antiandrogens" linuron and butyl benzyl phthalate alters sexual differentiation of the male rat in acumulative fashion . Biol Reprod. 71(6):1852

- 61.

Howdeshell K

. L

. , Furr J

. , Lambright C

. R

. , Rider C

. V

. , Wilson V

. S

. , Gray L

. E

. Jr. 2007

. Cumulative effects of dibutyl phthalate and diethylhe xyl phthalate on male rat reproductive tract development: altered fetal steroid hormones and genes . Toxicol Sci. Sep; 99(1): 190

- 202.

Howdeshell K.L., Rider C.V., Wilson V.S., Gray L.E. Jr. 2008a. Mechanisms of action of phthalate esters, individually and in combination, to induce abnormal reproductive development in male laboratory rats . Environ Res. Oct;108(2):168

- 76. Review.

Howdeshell K.L., Wilson V.S., Furr J., Lambright C.R., Rider C.V., Blystone C.R., Hotchkiss A.K., Gray

L.E. Jr. 2008b. A mixture of five phthalate esters inhibits fetal testicular testosterone production in the sprague

- dawley rat in a cumulative, dose

- additive manner . Toxicol Sci. Sep; 105(1): 153

- 65.

HSDB. 2009. Hazardous Substance Data Bank. U.S. National Library of Medicine TOXN ET System. http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi

- bin/sis/htmlgen?HSDB (accessed Aug 13, 2009).

Huang, P. C.; Kuo, P. L.; Chou, Y. Y.; Lin, S. J.; Lee, C. C. 2009. Association between prenatal exposure to phthalates and the health outcome of newborns. Environ. Int. 2009, 35(1), 14

– 20.

Krauskopf, L.G., and Godwin, A. 2005. Plasticizers. In C. Wilkes, J. Summers, and C. Daniels (Eds.),

PVC Handbook (pp. 173

- 201) . Cincinnati: Hanser Gardner Publications, Inc.

NAS. 2008. National Academy of Sciences. Phthalates a nd Cumulative Risk Assessment; The Tasks

Ahead. Dec 2008. http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/phthalates_final.pdf . Accessed Dec 9, 2009

.

NTP

- CERHR. 2003a. National Toxicology Program

- Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction. Monograph on the Potential Human Reproductive and Developmental Effects of

Di

- n

- Octyl Phthalate (DnOP); NIH Pub. No. 03

- 4488; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, May 2003.

NTP

- CERHR. 2003b. National Toxicology Program

- Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction. Monograph on the Potential Human Reproductive and Developmental Effects of

Di

- n

- Hexyl Phthalate (DnHP); NIH Pub. No. 03

- 4489; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, May 2003.

NTP

- CERHR. 2003c. National Toxicology Pr ogram

- Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction. Monograph on the Potential Human Reproductive and Developmental Effects ofEconomic Analysis of SNUR for 11 U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) Economic and Policy Analysis Branch Di

- Isodecyl Phthalate (DIDP); NIH Pub. No. 03

- 4485; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, April 2003.

NTP

- CERHR. 2003d. National Toxicology Program

- Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction. Monograph on the Potential Human Reproductive and Developmental Effects of

Di

- Isodecyl Phthalate (DIDP); NIH Pub. No. 03

- 4485; U.S. Department of Health an d Human Services, April 2003.

NTP

- CERHR. 2003e. National Toxicology Program

- Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction. Monograph on the Potential Human Reproductive and Developmental Effects of Butyl Benzyl Phthalate (BBP); NIH Pub. No. 0 3

- 4487; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, March 2003.

NTP

- CERHR. 2006. National Toxicology Program

- Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction. Monograph on the Potential Human Reproductive and Developmental Effects of

Di

- (2

- eth ylhexyl) Phthalate (DEHP); NIH Pub. No. 06

- 4476; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, March 2006.

Oehlmann et al., 2008. Oehlmann, J.; Schulte

- Oehlmann, U.; Werner, K.; Jagnytsch, O.; Lutz, I.; Kresten, K.; Wollenberger, L.; Santos, E.; Paull, G. C.; Van Look, K.J.W.; Tyler, C.R. 2008. A Critical Analysis of the Biological Impacts of Plasticizers on Wildlife. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B: Biol. Sci. 2008, 364(1526), 2047

– 2062.

OPM, 2011. Office of Personnel Management, Salary Table 2011

- DCB, Washington

- Baltimore

Northern

- Virginia, DC

- MD

- VA

- WV

- PA. Accessed from http://www.opm.gov/oca/11tables/pdf/DCB.pdf

.

Staples et al., 1997. Staples, C.A.; Adams, W.J.; Parkerton, T.F.; Gorsuch, J.W.; Biggingers, G.R.; Reiner, K.H. 1997. Aquatic Toxicity of Eighteen Phthalate Esters. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1997, 16(5): 875

– 91.

Swan, S. H.; Main, K. M.; Stewart, S. L.; Kruse, R. L.; Calafat, A. M.; Mao, C. S.; Redmon, J. B.; Ternand, C. L.; Sullivan, S.; Teague. J. L. 2005. Study for Future Families Research Team. Decrease in Anogenital Distance among Male Infants with Prenatal Phthalate Exposure. Environ. Health Perspect. Aug 2005, 113(8), 1056

– 61.

Rahman, Mustafizur, and Brazel, Christopher S. The plasticizer market: an as sessment of traditional plasticizers and research trends to meet new challenges . Progress in Polymer Science, Volume 29, Issue 12, December 2004, pp. 1223

- 1248.

Rawie, Carol

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

- mail

. February 5 , 2009.

Rider C.V., Furr J., Wilson V.S., Gray L.E. Jr. 2008. A mixture of seven antiandrogens induces reproductive malformations in rats . Int J Androl. Apr;31(2):249

- 62.

Rider C .V., Wilson V

. S

. , Howdeshell K

. L

. , Hotchkiss A

. K

. , Furr J

. R

. , Lambright C

. R

. , Gray L

. E

. Jr.

2009. Cumulative effects of in utero administration of mixtures of "antiandrogens" on male rat reproductive development . Toxicol Pathol. 37(1):100

- 13.Economic Analysis of SNUR for 12 U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Di

- n

- pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) Economic and Policy Analysis Branch U.S. SBA. 2010. United States Small Business Administration. Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes. Available at: http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf

U.S. Postal Service (U.S. PS). 201 2 . “Prices” < http://www.usps.com/prices/ >. Accessed January 2012

.