`



# Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-five
Chemical Substances(EPA Docket EPA-HQOPPT-201 5-0810)

April 22, 2016

-- Does not contain TSCA CBI –

Economic and Policy Analysis Branch Economics, Exposure and Technology Division Office of Pollution, Prevention, and Toxics U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20460

### This Page Was Inten tionally Left BlankEconomic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 i 

### Contributors

The EPA analyst responsible for this report was St ephanie Suazo of the Economic and Policy Analysis Branch; Economics, Exposure and Technology Division; Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 ii 

### Table of Contents

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. .................... 1-1

1.1 Statutory Authority and Significant New Uses under the Proposed SNURs ........................ 1-1

1.2 Summary of Methodology ...................................................................................................... 1 -2

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

2 Costs of a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR), by Option ............................................................ 2-1

2.1 Comply with SNUR Limits (Option 1) .................................................................................. 2-3

2.1.1 Hazard Communication ............................................................................................ 2-4

2.1.2 Protection in the Workplace ..................................................................................... 2-5

2.1.3 Recordkeeping ........................................................................................................... 2-9

2.1.4 Hidden Costs: production volume limits, li miting releases to water, PMN uses, import-only, and disposal ..................................................................................................... . 2-10

2.2 Request Modification or Revocation of a SNUR (Option 2) ............................................... 2-11

2.2.1 Costs of Developing and Submitting Testing Data ................................................ 2-11

2.2.2 Costs for Submitting a Request for Modifica tion or Revocation of a SNUR ....... 2-12

2.2.3 Other Costs .............................................................................................................. 2-13

2.2.4 Total Costs for Option 2 ......................................................................................... 2-13

2.3 Submit SNUN (Option 3) ...................................................................................................... 2 -13

2.3.1 SNUR “New” Chemicals ........................................................................................ 2-14

2.3.2 Advance Compliance Exemption ........................................................................... 2-15

2.3.3 Costs for Submitting a SNUN ................................................................................ 2-15

2.3.4 Potential for Subsequent Regulatory Actions ........................................................ 2-15

2.4 Request Equivalency Determination (Option 4) .................................................................. 2-16

2.5 Decide Not to Produce Chemical (Option 5) ........................................................................ 2-16

2.6 Summary of Costs for Each Option ...................................................................................... 2-16

3 Export Notification Costs ..................................................................................................... ........... 3-1Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 iii 

### 3.1 Estimated Number of Annual Export Notifications per Exporter .......................................... 3-1

3.2 Exporter Costs ................................................................................................................ ......... 3-2

3.2.1 Estimated Submission (Mailing) Costs .................................................................... 3-2

3.2.2 Compile and Maintain the List of Products .............................................................. 3-2

3.2.3 Write or Revise Export Notification ......................................................................... 3-3

3.2.4 Check Orders and Send Notifications ...................................................................... 3-3

4 Agency Costs .................................................................................................................. ................... 4-1

4.1 SNUN Processing Costs ......................................................................................................... . 4-1

4.2 Export Notification Processing Burden .................................................................................. 4-4

5 Additional Analyses ........................................................................................................... .............. 5-1

5.1 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) ........................................................................................... 5- 1

5.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) ............................................................................ 5-1

5.3 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) ............................................................................................ 5-2

5.4 Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.................................................... 5-2

5.5 Executive Order 13132, Federalism ....................................................................................... 5-2

5.6 Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice ..................................................................... 5-2

5.7 Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children ..................................................................... 5-2

5.8 Executive Order 13175, Tribal Governments ......................................................................... 5-2

5.9 Executive Order 13211, Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use ............................................... 5-3Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 iv 

### List of Tables

Table ES-1. Compliance Options and Associated Costs Incurred by a Firm due to SNUR ....................... vii

Table 1. Summary of Compliance Options and Associated Costs Potentially due to a SNUR ................. 2-2

Table 2. Production and Use Restrictions/Requirements ......................................................................... ... 2-4

Table 3. Annual Costs of Hazard Communication Requiremen ts .............................................................. 2-5

Table 4. Annual Costs of Workplace Protection Requirement ................................................................... 2 -6

Table 5. Sample Costs of Workplace Protection ................................................................................. ........ 2-8

Table 6. Annual Costs of Recordkeeping Requirements (40 CFR §721.125) .......................................... 2-10

Table 7. Sample Costs of Recommended Testing .................................................................................. ... 2-11

Table 8. Costs of Requirement to Modify/Revoke SNUR or Submit SNUN ........................................... 2-13

Table 9. Derivation of Total Mailing Cost for 13 Notices ...................................................................... .... 3-2

Table 10. TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost per Notification .............................................................. 3 -3

Table 11. Agency Costs for SNUN and Other Submission Review and Processing .................................. 4-3

Table 12. TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost: Agency Burden per Activity (2013$) ........................... 4-4

Table A-1. PMNs and Chemical Names Referenced in th is Economic Analysis ..................................... A-1

Table B-1. Derivation of Loaded Wage Rates .................................................................................... ........ B-4

Table B-2. Derivation of Industrial Hygienist Wage Rate (NAICS 31, 32, 33) ........................................ B-5

Table B-3. Derivation of Inflation Factors .................................................................................... .............. B-7

Table C-1. Annual Costs of Labeling for Distribution in Commerce [40 CFR §721.72(b)(2)] ................ C-3

Table C-2. Annual Costs of Labeling for Use in Workpl ace [40 CFR §721.72(b)(1)] ............................. C-4

Table C-3. Annual Costs for Material Safety Data Sh eets (MSDSs) [40 CFR §721.72(c)] ..................... C-4

Table C-4. Annual Costs for Employee Training, Per Chemical [40 CFR §721.72(d)] ........................... C-5

Table C-5. Annual Costs for Dermal Protection Selection [40 CFR §721.63(a)(1)] ................................ C-6

Table C-6. Annual Costs of Impermeability Testing [40 CFR §721.63(a)(3)].......................................... C-7

Table C-7. Annual Cost of Gloves [40 CFR §721.63(a)(2)(i)] .................................................................. C -8

Table C-8. Annual Cost of Protective Eyewear [40 CFR §721.63(a)(2)(iii)] ............................................ C-9

Table C-9. Annual Cost of Protective Clothing [40 CFR §721.63(a)(2)] .................................................. C-9Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 v 

### Table C-10. Crosswalk Between SNUR Text and Respir ator Types at 40 CFR §721.63(a)(5) ............. C-11

Table C-11. Annual Per-Chemical Costs for Respiratory Protection [40 CFR §721.63(a)(4)] .............. C-13

Table C-13. Recordkeeping Estimates from Kearney 1988a and 1988b ................................................. C-24

Table C-14. Annual Per-Chemical Costs of Recordkeeping Requirement [40 CFR 721.125] ............... C-26

Table D-1. Cost Estimates for Test Guidelines Cited in SNURs ............................................................... D- 3

Table D-2. Default Parameters for Species, Route, and Study Type ...................................................... D-16

Table D-3. Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) Ti ered Testing Requirements .............................. D-18Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 vi 

### Executive Summary

This Economic Analysis estimates the potential cost s of Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) covering fifty-five chemicals that have been the subject of TSCA premanufacture notic es (PMNs). APPENDIX A: lists each regulated chemical’s generic or specific ch emical name and Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number (CASRN) (if non-confidential). The SNURs are being published under the rulemaking docket number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0810 as direct final rules. The SNURs define “Significant New Uses” that trigger EPA notification requirements. To submit a Significant New Use Notice or request a SNUR modification, a firm incurs a modest submission cost , plus costs of any additional data generated to support the submission. By avoiding a Significant New Use, a firm can avoid submission costs, but may incur other compliance costs. For example, it may incur costs associated with restricting chemical releases to water or preventing worker exposure. The options available to a firm cons idering the manufacture, import, and/or processing of a chemical covered unde r a SNUR, and the types of associated costs to the firm, are summarized in Error! Reference source not found.

.

It should be noted that the costs listed in Error! Reference source not found. may be incurred for reasons other than the SNUR. The costs of avoiding a Significant New Use are attributable to the SNUR only if, in the absence of the SNUR, the firm would have adopted a different approach. For example, a SNUR may define any use other than that described in the PMN as a Significant New Use. If the PMN
submitter would have conformed to the uses descri bed in the PMN even with out the SNUR, then any associated costs of adhering to the PMN uses woul d not be due to the SNUR. Costs to a PMN submitter of practices required by a TSCA Section 5(e) Consent Order would be attributable to the Consent Order, not the SNUR. If a processor would have workers wear gloves even without S NUR requirements, then the gloves costs would not be attributable to the SNUR. The costs in Error! Reference source not
found. are attributable to the SNUR only if the firm a dopts a different approach due to the Significant
New Use Rule.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 vii 

### Table ES-1. Compliance Options and Associated Costs Incurred by a Firm due to SNUR

Option 1 Costs Quantified Costs per Chemical (2015$) 2

1 Satisfy the limits and/or requirements specified in the SNUR, such as limiting water releases, engaging in PMN uses only, importing only, limiting volumes, providing workplace protection, or providing hazard
communications. Costs of meeting haz-comm, personal protective equipment, and recordkeeping requirements are quantified in this analysis. Other costs, such as of complying with water release restrictions, limiting volume, avoiding domestic manufacture, and foregoing non-PMN uses, may exist but are not quantified. Typically, annual costs for recordkeeping are under $472. For the few SNUR chemicals where these apply, annual costs for worker protection may be $37,123 or more and for haz-comm are $1,163

2 Submit a request for modification
or revocation of the SNUR (§721.185). Costs of submitting a request for modification or revocation, including costs of developing supporting data (e.g., testing, if needed). $7,092 submission cost plus any testing costs.3 EPA receives very few such requests, typically 0-3 per year

3 Submit 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-- i.e., in some way other than what is specified as allowable in
the SNUR. Costs of submitting a SNUN, including associated recordkeeping and user fee. 3 Testing costs are also possible, but only for a small minority of chemicals, and so are not assigned to this option in Table 9. $9,592 submission cost (including SNUN recordkeeping and $2,500 fee) 4,5 plus ongoing recordkeeping costs of under $472. EPA usually receives well under ten SNUNs in a year. Based on review of recent SNUNs, it appears that firms rarely conduct toxicity or fate testing to support a SNUN (such testing would be voluntary).

4 Petition EPA for an equivalency
determination to consider alternative controls to prevent release or exposure that are equivalent to those identified in the SNUR (§721.30). Costs of submitting a request for equivalency determination. $7,092 one-time submission cost.

5 Do not manufacture, import, or process the substance except for R&D (the R&D exemption is covered in 40 CFR §721.47). Cost of profits foregone due to delaying or avoiding commercial activity originally that would otherwise be pursued. R&D recordkeeping costs if
manufacture for R&D. Costs not quantified.

Notes: Section numbers refer to 40 CFR §721 (i n the Code of Federal Regulations).

1 Firms may follow multiple Options simultaneously.

2 Quantified costs are attributable to the SNUR Significant New Use definition only if a firm would not otherwise follow the spe cified practices. $37,123 is the annual cost for dermal protection select ion; impermeability testing, heavy-duty gloves, and a lower-c ost respirator (see Table 5). Some firms may have export notification costs (see Chapter 3 of this report).

3 See APPENDIX D: for costs of individual tests recommended in current and recent SNURs.

4 EPA charges a nominal flat fee of $2,500 for a PMN or SNUN submission.

5 SNUR chemicals not on the TSCA Inventory are “new” chemicals requiring a PMN, so some firms may need to make a submission before commercial production or import, even in the absence of a SNUR (see Section 2.3 of this report).
Sources: Costs come from Table 3 through Table 8Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 1-1 

## 1 Introduction

This report presents the U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency (EPA), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention’s (OCSPP) ’s analysis of the potential costs in curred as a result of direct final Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) being promulgated for fifty-five chemical substances which have gone through premanufacture notice (PMN) review. 1 

### The SNURs are being published under the rulemaking docket number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0810. APPENDIX A: lists the generic or specific
chemical name and Chemical Abstr act Service Registry Number (CASRN) (if non-confidential) for each

PMN.



### 1.1 Statutory Authority and Significant New Uses under the Proposed SNURs

EPA may promulgate a SNUR for a substance when (1) the substance is the subject of a section 5(e) Consent Order (40 CFR §721.160), or (2) the Agency de termines that activities other than those described in the PMN may result in significant changes in human exposure or environmental release levels and/or
that concern exists about the substance’s health or environmental effects (40 CFR §721.170). In contrast to PMN requirements, whic h apply mainly to manufacturers and importers (TSCA § 5(a)(1)(A), 40 CFR §720.22), the SNUR applies to processors as well as to manufacturers and importers (TSCA § 5(a)(1)(B), 40 CFR §721.5).

Each substance analyzed here was the subject of at least one premanufacture notice submitted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and is now be ing regulated as a result of PMN review. For the current rulemaking, twenty-nine of the fifty-five chemicals have commenced commercial manufacture or import and so are listed on the TSCA Inventory; th ey are no longer “new” chemicals. For chemicals in this type of rulemaking, SNUR requirements are so metimes based on past Consent Orders entered intowith a PMN or SNUN submitter under TSCA Section 5(e). For the current rulemaking, ten of the fiftyfive substances have SNUR requirements are based on prior Consent Orders.

EPA promulgates a SNUR to designate specific activit ies involving the chemical substance that EPA has determined constitute a “significant new use.” No pers on may manufacture or process a chemical substance for a significant new use, unless they submit a signifi cant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days in advance. Examples of typical “significant new uses” th at can trigger the requirement to submit a SNUN (if EPA has promulgated a SNUR applying these requirements to a specific chemical) include:

 Domestic manufacture in the United States

 Manufacture of a particular aggregate or annual volume

 Use other than that specified in the PMN

1 This report covers chemicals that went through PMN review and are part of an expedited rulemaking. The relevant Office of Management and Budget Information Collection Request number is ICR No. 0574 (OMB Control Number 2070-0012). EPA also promulgates SNURs through conventional rulemaking that are covered by ICR No. 1188 (OMB Control Number 2070-0038).Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 1-2 

###  Releases to water resulting in a surface wate r concentration exceeding a specified amount

 Handling the chemical without employing specifie d personal protective equipment (e.g., gloves, goggles, respirators) or hazard communication (haz-comm) measures (e.g., label, MSDS, worker training)

If EPA does not promulgate a S NUR for a given chemical, then th ese requirements would not apply (unless they apply to a PMN submitter via a §5(e ) Consent Order). If EPA has promulgated a SNUR containing these types of significant new use designations, as long as the person does not engage (nor intend to engage) in any activities defined by the SNUR as a significant new use, then that person may proceed to handle the chemical without submitting a SNUN.



### 1.2 Summary of Methodology

This analysis quantifies, to the extent possible, the co sts to society of the propos ed rule by identifying the costs to industry associated with complying with the rule, and the costs to EPA of administering the rule. Types of industry costs analyzed include those for worker protection, hazard communication, testing, submission of required informati on, export notification, and record keeping. 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 economic analyses for related rules, compensation data acquired from government publications, and supplementary market research to produce an estimate of the universe of affected entiti es and measure the impact of the proposed rule on
small entities.

In previous economic analyses of SNURs, EPA identified those requirements under Subparts A, B, C, and D of 40 CFR §721 that may indirectly impose costs on manufacturers, importers, and processors of PMN substances (e.g., EPA, 1989). Some of these costs, such as providing personal protective equipment under §721.63, were estimated in earlier SNUR economic anal yses and are presented as part of this analysis. Resources were not available to quantify other costs, su ch as for limiting releases to water, avoiding uses not listed in the PMN, or keeping production be low a specified level; they are described only qualitatively.

It was not feasible within available resources to ag gregate costs, or to estimate how often costs are actually incurred as a result of SNURs, except for costs of SNUN submissions.



### 1.3 Organization of this Report

The remainder of this report estimates the quantified portion of costs potentially associated with SNURs
such as those included in th is rulemaking. Chapter 2 presents estimates of the costs that could be incurred by manufacturers, importers, and/or processors under the various SNUR options. Chapter 3 addresses export notification costs. Chapter 4 addresses costs to EPA of administering the SNURs, while Chapter 5 presents an analysis of other impacts, as required by various statutes and executive orders. APPENDIX A: lists the chemicals that are subject to the propose d SNURs. Appendix B provides the wage rates and inflators used in this analysis . Other appendices give cost estimation details and references.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 2-1 

## 2 Costs of a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR), by Option

A SNUR specifies requirements that a firm must meet if it chooses to manufacture, import, or process a PMN chemical without engaging in a Significant New Use that would trigger notification to EPA. A SNUR also requires recordkeeping for anyone ma nufacturing, importing, or processing the SNUR chemical. A SNUR recommends testing, but does not require testing. EP A rarely receives results of tests performed specifically to support a SNUN

. Table 1 sets forth possible responses to a SNUR. A firm may select more than one course of action. For example, it may produce a chemical in a way that avoids a Significant New Use, while simultaneously submitting a Significant New Use No tice for a proposed new use. These options are described below along with their costs.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 2-2 

### Table 1. Summary of Compliance Options an d Associated Costs Potentially due to a
SNUR

Option 1 Costs Quantified Costs per Chemical (2015$) 2

1 Satisfy the limits and/or requirements specified in the SNUR, such as limiting water releases, engaging in PMN uses only, importing only, limiting volumes, providing workplace protection, or providing hazard communications. Costs of meeting haz-comm, personal protective equipment, and recordkeeping requirements are quantified in this analysis. Other costs, such as of complying with water release restrictions, limiting volume, avoiding domestic manufacture, and foregoing non-PMN uses, may exist but are not quantified. Typically, annual costs for recordkeeping are under $472. For the few SNUR chemicals where these apply, annual costs for worker protection may be $37,123 or more and for haz-comm are $1,163

2 Submit a request for modification or revocation of the SNUR (§721.185). Costs of submitting a request for modification or revocation, including costs of developing supporting data (e.g., testing, if needed). $7,092 submission cost plus any testing costs.3 EPA receives very few such requests, typically 0-3 per year

3 Submit 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-- i.e., in some way other than what is specified as
allowable in the SNUR. Costs of submitting a SNUN, including associated recordkeeping and user fee. 3 Testing costs are also possible, but only for a small minority of chemicals, and so are not assigned to this option in Table 9. $9,592 submission cost (including SNUN recordkeeping and $2,500 fee) 4,5 plus ongoing recordkeeping costs of under $472. EPA usually receives well under ten SNUNs in a year. Based on review of recent SNUNs, it appears that firms rarely conduct toxicity or fate testing to support a SNUN (such testing would be voluntary).

4 Petition EPA for an equivalency
determination to consider alternative controls to prevent release or exposure that are equivalent to those identified in the SNUR (§721.30). Costs of submitting a request for equivalency
determination. $7,092 one-time submission cost.

5 Do not manufacture, import, or process the substance except for R&D (the R&D exemption is covered in 40 CFR §721.47). Cost of profits foregone due to delaying or avoiding commercial activity originally that would otherwise be pursued. R&D recordkeeping costs if manufacture for R&D. Costs not quantified.

Notes: Section numbers refer to 40 CFR §721 (i n the Code of Federal Regulations).

1 Firms may follow multiple Options simultaneously.

2 Quantified costs are attributable to the SNUR Significant New Use definition only if a firm would not otherwise follow the spe cified practices. $37,123 is the annual cost for dermal protection select ion; impermeability testing, heavy-duty gloves, and a lower-c ost respirator (see Table 5). Some firms may have export notification costs (see Chapter 3 of this report).

3 See APPENDIX D: for costs of individual tests recommended in current and recent SNURs.

4 EPA charges a nominal flat fee of $2,500 for a PMN or SNUN submission.

5 SNUR chemicals not on the TSCA Inventory are “new” chemicals requiring a PMN, so some firms may need to make a submission before commercial production or import, even in the ab sence of a SNUR (see Section 2.3 of this report).
Sources: Costs come from Table 3 through Table 8Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 2-3 

### 2.1 Comply with SNUR Limits (Option 1)

A firm can avoid engaging in a Significant New Us e and submitting a SNUN by meeting all applicable SNUR requirements. The firm may also pursue th is option temporarily by complying with SNUR restrictions while also pursuing other options such as making a submission to EPA. If it does avoid engaging in a Significant New Use (and if the chemical is on the TSCA Inventory or if the firm has already submitted a PMN), no notice to EPA is required. 2 

### Table 2 shows the types of requirements a firm must meet to avoid engaging in a Significant New Use.

The Significant New Use designation in a SNUR for a specific chemical reflects either the use scenario described in the PMN for that chemical (what th e submitter was already planning to do) or the requirements in the 5(e) Consent Order resulting from the PMN submission. Thus, it is likely that the typical PMN submitter will incur no added costs of complying with the SNUR requirements so as to avoid a Significant New Use. However, if there is any export of these chemicals, there will be export
notification costs that result from the TSCA Section 12 (b) requirements that are automatically triggered for chemicals regulated under TSCA Section 5 (see Chapter 3 for details).

2 Under the Toxic Substances Control Act § 3(9), if a chemical is not on the TSCA Inventory, it is a “new chemical.” Prior to manufacture or import of a new chemical for general commercial use, a notice must be filed with EPA under Section 5(a)(1)(A) of TSCA (40 CFR §720.3 and 40 CFR §720.22).Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 2-4 

### Table 2. Production and Use Restrictions/Requirements

40 CFR Reference (Code of Federal

Regulations) Restriction/Requirement Number of
Chemicals
Affected 1 Sample Costs Per
Chemical (2015$)

§ 721.63 Work p lace p rotection 15 $18,272 to $37,123 §721.72 Hazard communication 5 $1,163 Industrial Commercial, and Consumer Activities (§721.80) §721.80(a, b, c) Enclosed use only 0 Not quantified §721.80(d, e) Use at site only 0 Not quantified §721.80(f) Import only (do not manufacture) 3 Not quantified §721.80(g, h, i) Use only as intermediate 5 Not quantified §721.80(j, k) Engage only in uses listed in PMN or Consent Order 31 Not quantified §721.80(l, m, n, o) Limits non-industrial uses 5 Not quantified §721.80(p, q, s, t) Limit production volume 7 Not quantified §721.80(r, u) Volume-triggered testing 0 Not quantified §721.80(v, w, x, y) Restricts physical form of chemical 4 Not quantified Disposal, water release, recordkeeping §721.85 Disposal 7 Not quantified §721.90 Limit releases to water 29 Not quantified

§721.1253 Recordkeeping for all manufacturers, importers, and

processors 55 Up to $472

Notes:

1 Some chemicals have more than one type of restriction.

2 $18,272 is the annual cost for dermal protection selection and heavy duty gloves. $37,123 is the annual cost for dermal protection selection; heavy duty gloves, impermeability testi ng/evaluation of manufacturer specifications, and a lower-cost respirator (see Table 5).

3 This excludes SNUN recordkeeping under §721.40. S ee the recordkeeping discussion in APPENDIX C:.
Sources : Costs are summarized in Table 3, Table 4, and Table 6, and derived in APPENDIX C:.



### The costs of meeting the haz-comm, protective equipment, and recordkeeping requirements are quantified for this report. APPENDIX C: presents a more deta iled derivation of these cost s. The export notification costs are summarized in Chapter 3. Complying with requirements to avoid a Significant New Use also may result in additional costs that affect a significant number of the chemicals, such as costs associated with limiting releases to water, that were not quanti fied for this report; these costs are also summarized
below.

2.1.1 Hazard Communication

Requirements. Each SNUR may require firms that manufact ure, import, or process one of the PMN substances to implement a haz-comm program for the applicable chemical, or else submit a SNUN. For purposes of the economic analysis, it is assumed th at each facility has in place a haz-comm program consistent with that required by OSHA’s Hazard Co mmunication standard (29 CFR 1910; November 25, 1983). Much of the haz-comm cost methodology used in this analysis came from a 1989 EPA report, Economic Analysis of Final Significant New Use Rule s: General Provisions fo r New Chemic al FollowupEconomic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 2-5 

### (EPA, 1989). The cost estimates provided here are for one chemical produced at one site, assumed to have 25 exposed workers and roughly a 10,000 kilogram annual shipment volume. Higher volumes would increase costs, although not necessarily proportionately. The major elements of a haz-comm program that could apply to a SNUR chemical, based on the requirements in §721.72, are:

 Revision of the existing written haz-comm pr ogram to incorporate information about the chemical [§721.72(a)];

 Creation of labels and application of labels to containers used for distributing the chemical in commerce [§721.72(b)];

 Creation of labels or signage and posting of hazard data in areas of the facility where the chemical is used or stored [§721.72(b)];

 Creation and distribution of material safety data sheets (MSDSs) [§721.72(c)]; and

 Employee awareness training on where and how the chemical is used, the hazards associated and availability of hazard information about the chemical, and protective equipment and other measures in place to reduce and minimize e xposure to the chem ical [§721.72(d)].

Costs. The annual costs of compliance with the haz-comm requirements for PMN substances subject to haz-comm requirements appear in Table 3. Further, the costs are for substances with full haz-comm requirements, and may overstate haz-comm costs for substances with partial requirements. Appendix C gives the detailed cost derivation.

Table 3. Annual Costs of Hazard Communication Requirements

Requirement Cost (2015$) Hours

Update written program $227 4

Labeling Distribution in commerce $145 0.5 Use in the workplace $395 1.5 MSDS preparation $164 2.25 Employee training $231 6.75

TOTAL $1,163

Notes:

1 Figures are rounded to whole dollars. Substances not subject to all of these requirements may have lower

costs. Sources : See Table C-1 through Table C-4, and Section C.1.1 for derivations. Hourly labor costs are derived in Table B-1.



### 2.1.2 Protection in the Workplace

Requirements. Under 40 CFR §721.63, manufacturers, importers, or processors must comply with worker protection requirements as specified in the SNUR on th e regulated chemical, or else submit a SNUN. TheEconomic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 2-6 

### core components of the worker protection requirements include provision of personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves, goggles, protective clothing, and respirators.

In some cases, EPA specifies the type of PPE requ ired. In other cases, EPA requires adequate dermal protection but does not specify particular PPE. Instead , it requires the employer to evaluate worker exposure conditions and hazards, and select appropriate PPE. Generally the employer is also required to determine that dermal PPE is impervious to the PMN substance by one or both of the following methods: (1) perform impermeability testing on the PPE under th e expected conditions of ex posure, and/or (2) rely on equipment manufacturers' specifications. Employer s not already providing ade quate dermal protection
would need to do so.

Costs. Annual costs for worker protection items are shown in Table 4 below. The derivation of the sample minimum and maximum annual costs for worker protection is found in Table 5. The costs of worker protection were originally estimated in a 1989 EPA report, Economic Analysis of Final Sign ificant New Use Rules: General Provisions for New Chemical Follow-Up (EPA, 1989), as a range of costs, depending on the assumed number of worker-days of exposure. This report uses the high end of the assumptions about worker-day exposure, updated to adjust for infla tion. The estimates are for one chemical at one site with 25 exposed workers; actual costs would vary with the number of workers. APPENDIX C: gives the
detailed cost derivation.

Table 4. Annual Costs of Workplace Protection Requirement

Personal Protective Equipment and Requirement Citation at 40
CFR Unit Cost ($2015) 1 Quantity Required 1 Total Annual Cost 2 ($2015)

Dermal Protection Selection §721.63(a)(1) 10 hours industrial hygienist (IH) time $56.83 10 $568 Impermeability Testing §721.63(a)(3) Impermeability Test $1,444 1 $1,444 Evaluation of Manufacturer's Specifications $227 1 $227 Gloves §721.63(a)(2)(i) Standard (disposable) $0.44 6,250 $2,764 Heavy-duty butyl $70.81 250 $17,704 Protective clothing §721.63(a)(2) [ii] - Full- b ody (coverall with hood) $118.08 75 $8,856 [iv] - Coverall (no hood) $41.05 75 $3,079 Eyewear §721.63(a)(2)(iii) Standard goggles $8.74 75 $656 Heavy-duty goggles $11.96 75 $897 Respirator Types 3 Supplied-air respirator operated in pressure demand or continuous flow mode and equipped with a tight-fitting full facepiece. [similar to §721.63(a)(5)(ii)] $1,859 25 $46,480

Supplied-air respirator operated in pressure demand or continuous flow mode and equipped with a hood or helmet or tight-fitting facepiece (either half- or full-face). [similar to §721.63(a)(5)(iii)] $2,346 25 $58,645Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 2-7 Personal Protective Equipment and Requirement Citation at 40
CFR Unit Cost ($2015) 1 Quantity Required 1 Total Annual Cost 2 ($2015)
Air-purifying respirator equipped with a tight-fitting full facepiece and High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters.[similar to §721.63(a)(5)(iv)] $687 25 $17,179

Air-purifying, tight-fitting respirator (either half- or full-face) equipped with N100 (if aerosols absent), R100, or P100 filters. [similar to §721.63(a)(5)(iv)] $687 25 $17,179

Powered air-purifying, tight-fitting full-face respirator equipped with N100 (if oil aerosols absent), R100, or P100 filters. [similar to §721.63(a)(5)(v)] $2,489 25 $62,224

Powered air-purifying respirator equipped with a tight-fitting facepiece (either half- or full-face) and HEPA filters. [similar to §721.63(a)(5)(v)] $2,489 25 $62,224

Powered air-purifying respirator equipped with a loose-fitting hood or helmet and High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters. [similar to §721.63(a)(5)(vi)] $5,271 25 $131,763

Notes:

1 Quantities assume: 1) 25 workers exposed 250 days per year; 2) standard gloves replaced daily and heavy-duty gloves replaced ev ery 25 days; 3) respirator units replaced annually and cartridge sets replaced every five days (50 cartridges sets per year); 4) go ggles and protective clothing replaced three times yearly.

2 Total annual costs were calculated using unrounded unit cost es timates, and may not equal the product of the rounded estimates shown
in this table.

3 This table lists respirator choices that typically would satisfy SNUR requirements for a particular chemical, for current and r ecent SNURs. Future SNURs may list different choi ces. The citations in brackets refer to respirator types listed at 40 CFR. While the SNURs no longer reference the §721.63(a)(5) categories, costs in this analysis are based on costs estimated in 2014 for the §721.63(a )(5) categories. See Table C-10 for the crosswalk between respirator types in SNURs and in this table. The respirator “unit cost” is per worker. Total respirator costs include costs of the respirator plus the costs of any add-on items such as hoods, helmets, cartr idges, filters, and caps, if these items are required for a particular respirator.
Sources: APPENDIX C:, Table C-5 through Table C-11.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 2-8 

### The costs of purchasing protective equipment are derived in APPENDIX C:, and have been annualized based on the assumptions listed ab ove regarding their use and lifetim e in the workplace. Costs for evaluating hazards when PPE is not specified in the SNUR are based on estimates of the reasonable time required for a safety professional to perform su ch evaluations. Costs for conducting impermeability testing are based on consultation with PPE vendors, as described in APPENDIX C:. Table 4 summarizes the annual costs associated with protection in the wor kplace, including the PPE itself, as well as selecting required dermal protection, and performing impe rmeability testing and/or evaluating manufacturer's
information.

Table 5 shows a sample of the minimum and maximum annual cost of workplace protection, assuming 25 workers who are exposed for 250 hours per year. The mi nimum cost includes the cost of heavy-duty butyl gloves, and 10 hours of an industrial hygienist’s time for dermal protection selection. The maximum cost includes the cost of gloves, dermal protection, impe rmeability testing, and the annual cost of the least expensive respirator and filters for 25 workers.

Table 5. Sample Costs of Workplace Protection

Cost Element Annual Cost (2015$)

Example #1: Gloves and Dermal Protection Selection Heavy-duty butyl Gloves $17,704
Dermal Protection Selection $568 Total per site with 25 workers $18,272 Example #2: Gloves , Testing, and Respirator Heavy-duty butyl Gloves $17,704

Dermal Protection Selection $568 Impermeability Test $1,444 Evaluation of Manufacturer's Specifications $227 Least Cost Respirator $17,179 Total per site with 25 workers $37,123

Source : Table 4.



### In cases where the SNUR specifies the type of prot ective gear, the estimates assume workers would not otherwise wear adequate protective equipment. To the extent that workers would otherwise be adequately protected (as a result of the company’s own safety program related to other chemical hazards, or to comply with OSHA’s PPE standards), these costs may be an overestimate of the actual costs.

In some cases, the SNUR requires dermal protection but does not specify any particular gear, allowing regulated companies to make that determinatio n. Table 4 shows costs of assessing needs and demonstrating impermeability. These cost estimates w ould reflect a situation where the dermal protection is already in place but the manufacturer must demonstr ate that it is adequate. If companies also have to purchase additional protective gear, incremental cost s attributable to the SNUR would include the added items. For example, if a firm already providing glove s and goggles determined that it would have to addEconomic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 2-9 

### protective clothing to avoid engagi ng in a Significant New Use, th is would increase costs even if particular protective clothing is not specified in the SNUR.

2.1.3 Recordkeeping

Requirements. Under 40 CFR §721.40, recordkeeping is required for SNUN submitters. This recordkeeping cost was included in the SNUN submi ssion cost and is not separately estimated here. 3



### In addition, the SNURs specify recordkeeping requir ements for manufacturers, importers, and processors, by identifying paragraphs selected from 40 CFR §721.125(a) through (k). These recordkeeping requirements apply even if the firm does not engage in a reportable New Use or make a submission to EPA, so long as it manufactures, imports, or proce sses the chemical. The recordkeeping requirements vary by chemical. For example, only chemicals that must establish a Hazard Communications program to avoid a Significant New Use would be required to k eep records documenting their haz-comm program. (For firms producing under the R&D exemption, R&D recordkeeping would be needed. R&D recordkeeping costs were not estimated for this report.)

SNUR recordkeeping requirements e ssentially involve electr onically storing relevant records, including those related to manufacturing, importing, or processing volumes; shipment amounts and customer information; clothing impermeability determinations; the hazard communication program including labels and MSDS copies; compliance with disposal and water discharge limitations; and/or compliance with restrictions on volumes, nature of manufacture or use, or on the chemical’s physical form (powder, liquid etc.).

Costs. Annual costs for compliance with 40 CFR §721.125 recordkeeping requirements are low, but do potentially apply to all SNUR chemicals, and the re cordkeeping could continue for years. Costs are presented in Table 6 and derived in APPENDIX C:. They are estimated for one chemical at one site, and include technical and clerical labor time, photoc opying charges, and costs for records storage.

Table 6 summarizes recordkeeping costs by requirement at 40 CFR §721.125. The totals in Table 6 provide the cost if all recordkeepin g requirements in paragraphs §721.125 (a) through (k) were required; this would seldom, if ever, be the case for a single chemical.

3 For example, OPPT’s Information Collection Request (ICR) for TSCA Section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rules for Existing Chemicals (Renewal), October 11, 2005, estimated SNUN recordkeeping costs at 5.67 hours (EPA, 2005b, page 12).Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 2-10 

### Table 6. Annual Costs of Recordkeeping Requirements (40 CFR §721.125)

40CFR §721.1252 Cost Element Cost (2015$) 1 Hours (a)(b)(c) Volumes & sales/transfer data $133 3.56

(d)(e) Protective clothing [§721.63] and $5.50 0.15

(f) Haz com program [§721.72] $69 1.83 (g) Label copies [§721.72(b)] $1.38 0.04 (h) MSDS copies [§721.72(c)] $1.38 0.04 (i) Use limitations compliance [§721.80] $69 1.83 (j) Disposal compliance [§721.80] $165 4.40 (k) Water discharge compliance [§721.90] $27.50 0.73 TOTAL $472 12.58

Notes:

1 Recordkeeping applies to all SNUR chemicals. This ta ble does not cover recordkeeping for SNUN submissions.
Sources:
See APPENDIX C: Table C-14 for derivations.



### 2.1.4 Hidden Costs: production volume limi ts, limiting releases to water, PMN uses, import-only, and disposal

Several types of costs that may be incurred by complying with the significant new use designations are not quantified in this report, including production volume limits, releases to water, disposal, and other use restrictions. For example:

 Keeping production volume below specified limits to avoid a Significant New Use could result in a decrease in profits; a potential “hidden” cost. A firm producing for sale may have to restrict its
sales of the chemical. If the chemical is for internal use, it may have to substitute to a less costeffective chemical.

 A producer could incur costs of determining wh ether discharges to water would constitute a Significant New Use and of limiting releases in order to avoid the Significant New Use.

 Similarly, avoiding uses not listed in the original PMN could result in “hidden” costs of foregone profits if the firm cannot market the chemical for certain applications. If the firm wants to use the chemical for internal use, it may have to substitu te to other chemicals or technologies that cost more or have lesser performance resulting in higher production costs.

 Importing could be costlier than manufact uring a PMN substance in the United States.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 2-11 

### 2.2 Request Modification or Revocation of a SNUR (Option 2)

Under 40 CFR §721.185, EPA may modify or revoke a SNUR upon review of a subm ittal from a manufacturer, importer, or processor. Consequently, the second option for a firm is to request modification or revocation of the SNUR. According to New Chemical Program records EPA receives few modify/revoke requests (typically up to three per year) due to SNURs.

This option may have some or all of the following associated costs:

 One-time costs of testing to deve lop health and environmental effects data for a chemical subject to the SNUR;

 One-time costs of submitting a requ est for modification or revocation;

 Ongoing costs of complying with SNUR restrictions (Option 1 in this report) or of avoiding production while the modification re quest is being processed (Option 5). The firm may also incur costs of complying with any SNUR restrictions that are not ultimately revoked or may incur hidden costs of avoiding production altogether.

These costs are discussed below.

2.2.1 Costs of Developing and Submitting Testing Data

40 CFR §721.185(b)(1) requires that a modification requ est include “information sufficient to support the request.” For each PMN substa nce, the SNUR identifies health, ecological, and/or fate/transport/transformation testing that would help ch aracterize the risks associat ed with the substance. However, there is no requirement for a requester to perform the recommended tests or even to perform testing at all. It is possible that some of the recommended tests, or other tests, would be performed by the submitter to support a request for modification and revocation of a SNUR. For informational purposes,
costs for various tests recommended in SNURs over the years are listed in Appendix D. If no additional testing is performed to support a modification request, costs may be similar to costs of a SNUN – discussed
later in this section – minus the user fee.

Table 7 below provides an example of potential costs if a firm were to perform a standard set of basic ecotoxicity tests to support a request to modify or revoke a SNUR.

Table 7. Sample Costs of Recommended Testing

Test Guideline Test Description Estimated Cost (2015$)

Ecotoxicity Base Set OPPTS 850.5400 Algal Toxicity, Tiers I and II $20,431 OPPTS 850.1010 Daphnid Acute Toxicity $16,908 OPPTS 850.1075 Fish Acute Toxicity $23,301 Sample TOTAL Testing Cost: $60,640

Source: Costs are from Table D-1.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 2-12 

### 2.2.2 Costs for Submitting a Request for Modification or Revocation of a SNUR

The costs associated with submitting a request for modification and revocation of a SNUR (or of submitting a SNUN) are estimated to be similar to th e costs for preparing a PMN submission, except that there is no user fee for the modify/revoke request. The PMN submission costs came from EPA’s 1994 Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications, which relied on industry estimates of the effo rt needed to collect and compile all data required for a PMN submission, prepare the form, submit the form and data to EPA, and maintain a file of the submission (EPA, 1994, Table III-2 and pages III-11, -12, and -13). The 1994 estimates were based on a survey conducted by the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA, 1991), which became the American Chemistry Council. The burden associated with PMN submission and preparation has been adjusted to reflect burden reductions resulting from the 2009 final PMN Electronic Reporting (ePMN) Rule that requires the el ectronic submission of all TSCA section 5 notices. 4 

### Electronic submission of SNUN forms is expected to remove all clerical burden associated with preparing a SNUN (EPA, 2009a, p.7). In addition, electronic submission is expected reduce all recordkeeping burden associated with SNUN submissions by fifty percent. Because, the re cordkeeping burden for PMNs was not estimated separately, for the purposes of this report we assume this burden reduction is captured in the removal of
all clerical burden. 5



### In the 1994 EPA report, the average effort required to prepare and submit a PMN was 95 to 114 hours. This burden is reduced to 83 to 100 hours after accounting for the ePMN savings (EPA, 2009a). This included recordkeeping for the subm ission, but the recordkeeping cost was not broken out. For this analysis, the costs of a preparing a SNUN were derive d using the averages of the hours for each type of labor from the 1994 report, after adjusting for the ePMN savings. The method of calculating hourly loaded labor costs is described in Appendix B.

4 Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 25 Chemical Substances: EPA Docket OPPT-2009-
092 2, was the first report to consider the burden reductions resulting from electronic submission of SNUN forms and requests for equivalency determination. Previously, all burdens were based upon 1994 paper
submission estimates.

5 The Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009a) reported a 0.5 hour clerical and a 0.5 hour technical burden associated with recordkeeping in addition to the burden estimates from the 1994 RIA (EPA, 1994, p. III-14). These burden estimates (the 0.5 for clerical burden and 0.5 for technical burden) are based on the 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 Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 2-13 

### 2.2.3 Other Costs

EPA’s review of the submitter’s request may cause delays in the start of manufacturing or processing activities. Such delays could cause the company to fo rego opportunities to earn pr ofits for the duration of the review period. Alternatively, the submitter may el ect to produce under the constraints of the SNUR during the review period, so as to avoid a Si gnificant New Use. EPA may not revoke all SNUR provisions as a result of the request. If the company is allowed to continue production and chooses to do so, it would bear costs of complying with any SNUR re strictions that are not revoked. Costs of complying with SNUR restrictions pending EPA modification or revocation were discussed under Option 1.

Table 8. Costs of Requirement to Modify/Revoke SNUR or Submit SNUN

Labor Category Average
Hours Loaded Wage
Rate 1 (2015$) Total Labor Cost (Loaded Wage x Average Hours)
Request to Modify
SNUR (Option 2) SNUN (Option 3) Equivalency
Determination

(Option 4)

Clerical 2 0 $33.66 $0 $0 $0

Technical 3 74.2 $75.89 $5,631 $5,631 $5,631
Managerial 3 18 $81.18 $1,461 $1,461 $1,461

Subtotal 92.2 -- $7,092 $7,092 $7,092
User Fees (SNUN only) $0 $2,500 $0

TOTAL $7,092 $9,592 $7,092
Test Costs Sometimes Rarely

Notes:

1 Loaded wages include fringe benefits and overhead. See Appendi x B of this report for deriva tion. Wage rates presented in this table are rounded values; however, unrounded values are used to calculate total labor costs. For this reason, total labor costs may not equal the product of rounded values.

2 The estimate of no clerical burden is taken from the Economic Analysis of the Premanuf acture Notice Electronic Reporting
Final Rule (EPA, 2009a, page 7).

3 Hours range for each technical and managerial labor is from the PMN Amendments RIA (EPA, 1994, Table III-2).



### 2.2.4 Total Costs for Option 2

The total costs associated with requesting a modifica tion or revocation of a SNUR include the costs of generating new supporting data plus the administrative cost of preparing the submission.



### 2.3 Submit SNUN (Option 3)

Under 40 CFR §721.5, manufacturers, importers, or pr ocessors who would like to undertake a Significant New Use of a substance listed in a SNUR are requir ed to submit a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN) at least 90 days before the firm plans to commence the manufacture, import, or processing of the substance. For example, they could submit a SNUN if they wish to produce above the volu me limit listed in the SNUR for a given chemical, since any production beyond that volume would be defined as a Significant

New Use.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 2-14 

### The SNUN provides EPA with the oppor tunity to evaluate the intended us e and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occu rs. The notice form used to submit a SNUN is the same as that for a PMN, and the costs of submitting a SNUN are estimated based on the costs incurred to submit a PMN.

This option could have the following costs:

 One-time costs of the SNUN and $2,500 user fee. (However, in some cases, a notification may be needed for reasons other than the SNUR; see Section 2.3.1 below.)

 Ongoing costs of complying with SNUR restrictions to avoid engaging in a Significant New Use (Option 1 in this report) or of avoiding production while the S NUN is being processed (Option 5); costs of recordkeeping, and of complying with any restrictions resulting from the SNUN review.

 Rarely, the SNUN submitter may elect to perform some of the testing r ecommended in the SNUR as a way to characterize effects of a chemical. These tests are not mandatory, and firms do not usually conduct testing to support a SNUN, so any such costs are likely to be zero or low.

The assumption regarding testing is based on an analysis of the 18 SNUNs submitted over a three-year period, from 2005 through 2007. A list of human health tests submitted to EPA with PMNs and SNUNs
was also available from a confidential database ma intained by EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Risk Assessment Division. Only one SNUN desc ribed toxicity or environmental fate testing that seemed reasonably likely to have been performed to support a SNUN. In that case, two relatively low-cost tests (fish acute toxicity and daphnid acute toxici ty) may have been conducted to support a SNUN, although it is also possible that the testing was done for some other reason not apparent in the SNUN itself. A substantial portion of the SNUNs did provide or reference test results. However, in almost all cases, the testing appeared to ha ve been conducted for reasons othe r than a SNUR. For example, the SNUN might include laboratory reports that had already been submitted for a PMN for the same
chemical.

2.3.1 SNUR “New” Chemicals

If a SNUR chemical is not on the TSCA Inventory and a potential manufacturer or importer has not yet filed a PMN, submission costs may be incurred but are not attributable to the SNUR.

All SNUR chemicals in this rulemaking were the subj ect of at least one PMN. For PMN chemicals to be added to the TSCA Inventory, manufacturing (or import) must have commenced, with notification to EPA through a Notice of Commencement, or NOC. Thus, SNUR chemicals not yet in commercial manufacture (or import) are not on the TSCA Inventor y. They legally remain “new” chemicals subject to PMN requirements.

For “new” chemicals, firms who have not yet submitted a PMN must notify EPA 90 days before manufacturing/importing the chemical for commercial purposes. This submission is still designated a PMN but may contain information dem onstrating the submitter intends to engage in a significant new use. Either way, the firm uses the same submission form and provides the data listed at 40 CFR §720.45. Consequently, for this special situa tion, the submission cost is incurred due to PMN requirements, not dueEconomic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 2-15 

### to the SNUR. (See EPA’s 1997 Chemistry Assistance Manual for Premanufacture Notification Submitters for an overview of New Chemicals requirements [EPA, 1997]).

2.3.2 Advance Compliance Exemption

Another option available to firms before the SNUR is promulgated is to seek an advance compliance exemption under 40 CFR §721.45(h). The submission cost for this option is the same as that for a SNUN, but by negotiating an advance compliance agreement with EPA a firm might diminish any loss of profits due to delay. This option is not available after the SNUR is promulgated.

2.3.3 Costs for Submitting a SNUN

As with Option 2 above (Request Modification or Revocation of a SNUR), the costs for submitting a SNUN are estimated to be equivalent to the cost s of completing a PMN submission. If the SNUN is submitted at the same time as a request to modify a SN UR (Option 2), the added cost would be less than shown here due to overlap in information in the two submissions. Table 8 shows the costs of preparing a
SNUN.

2.3.4 Potential for Subsequent Regulatory Actions

The Agency recognizes that if submission of a SNUN does result from a SNUR, the Agency may take additional regulatory actions under TSCA. These ad ditional regulatory actions might be necessary to
further evaluate an intended new use and associated activ ities, or to prohibit or lim it that activity before it occurs to prevent unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment. It is not known what specific subsequent regulatory actions , if any, the Agency may determine are necessary after reviewing a SNUN. Any such actions are highly dependent on the circumstances surro unding the individual SNUN (e.g., available information and sc ientific understanding about the chem ical and its risks at the time the SNUN is being reviewed).

Should the Agency’s review of the SNUN result in furt her regulatory actions, the Agency will initiate and follow the appropriate procedures for taking those act ions. Included in those procedures would be an
assessment of the costs and benefits of those actions.

Subsequent regulatory action may be a Consent Orde r under TSCA Section 5(e). Assessments of costs and benefits for a Consent Order would be limited, similar to those supporting PMN reviews leading to Consent Orders, in contrast to th e in-depth benefit-cost analyses prepared under some other TSCA
Sections.

The description above was adapted from text in Economic Analysis of the Significant New Use Rule for
Chloranil , January 8, 2008, Section 2.4; and Economic Analysis of the Fi nal Significant New Use Rule for 183 Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonates , August 20, 2007, Section 3.4. Both reports are from the U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. The nature of the follow-up regulatory action and benefit/cost analysis may differ between SNUNs for newer chemicals submitted as a result of a direct final rulemaking such as this one, and SNUNs for older chemicals such as chloranil and most perfluoroalkyl sulfonates.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 2-16 

### 2.4 Request Equivalency Determination (Option 4)

Under 40 CFR §721.30, EPA may review applications from facilities who propose alternative methods of controlling or preventing exposures or releases to those specified in the SNUR. In these cases, EPA evaluates the alternatives using an abbreviated revi ew process. As shown in Table 8, the costs of submitting an equivalency determination request are expected to be the same as those for submitting a SNUN except that no user fee is required.

For this option the EPA review period is 45 days compared to 90 days for a SNUN, therefore any potential loss of profits due to delays may be less than for a SNUN under Option 3.

In addition to the costs of submitting the equivalency determination request, each submitter will also incur costs to develop data to support the request. However, total costs of the equivalency option should be no more than the costs of complying with controls in the SNUR to avoid a significant new use -- for example, controls related to workplace protection or environmental release. Otherwise, presumably there would be no incentive for the submitter to choose this alternative. Finally, to produce the chemical following EPA review, the submitter would incur costs from recordkeeping and from any restrictions not waived (see Option 1).



### 2.5 Decide Not to Produce Chemical (Option 5)

Some firms may find that the costs of meeting the SNUR requirements and/or restrictions (Option 1) or preparing a SNUN or other submission (O ptions 2, 3, or 4) are financially unattractive. In these cases, the firm could choose not to manufacture, import, or process the PMN substance.

While this option avoids the costs of meeting the sp ecifications in the SNUR or submitting a request for some alternative, it entails the “hidden” cost of the profit that will be foregone as a result of not engaging in the commercial activity originally planned. For example, if the firm does not produce the SNUR substance, then it will forego the profit it would have achieved by producing it. That foregone profit is a potential “hidden” cost of Option 5. Similarly, if the firm would have used the SNUR substance in the production of another product and must substitute to a more costly substance, it will incur those additional costs of production. If the firm elects to produce for R&D purposes only, it may have costs associated with R&D recordkeeping a ttributable to the SNUR.

Firms that exercise Option 5 may still incur export notification costs, if they export any existing stockpiles of the product. This cost is quantified in Chapter 3 below.



### 2.6 Summary of Costs for Each Option

Table 1, above, gave an overview of compliance options. Table 3 through Table 6 summarized the quantified portion of potential costs of either following restrictions to avoid engaging in a Significant New Use, or of making a submission to EPA. Table 7 presented sample testing costs. Costs are for one chemical at one site, and – where volume is relevant – are based on standard assumptions that include 25 exposed workers per site and, for haz-comm costs, annual shipments of about 10,000 kilograms per site. Costs are not otherwise adjusted for the nature of the chemical or process, volume, location, or other firmspecific or chemical-specific factors.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 2-17 

### As mentioned above, costs are estimated for one chem ical at one site, not for aggregate production. Resources were not available to estimate aggregate costs. Among other things, it is not known how many firms are affected by the SNURs. EPA receives a hand ful of Significant New Use Notices per year due to SNURs. However, if a SNUR chemical is on the TSCA Inventory, a firm may use the chemical in a way that avoids a Significant New Use (Option 1), and ne ver make a submission. It is not known how many
firms are affected but do not make a submission. Also , it is not known whether firms avoid the chemical altogether specifically due to the SNUR. However, at least for the years immediately following SNUR promulgation, these numbers are likely to be small. Th is is because the chemicals in this type of SNUR rulemaking are still relatively new – as Appendix A indicates, most were submitte d to EPA as PMNs in the past four Federal fiscal years – and ofte n have confidential chemical identities.

 For firms manufacturing, importing, or proce ssing within SNUR restrictions to avoid a Significant New Use (Option 1), quantifiable costs can range from about $475 (if the only added cost is for recordkeeping) to over $37,100 per ch emical if the firm must add worker protection measures such as gloves, protective clothing, and respirators that it would not otherwise use

. Most chemicals are also subject to costs that co uld be significant but are not quantified in this report, such as restrictions on releases to water or on other aspects of use.

 For submissions to EPA (Options 2, 3, and 4), th e basic one-time submission cost is estimated at $7,092, including recordkeeping for the submissi on. For the SNUN (Option 3), EPA also collects a $2,500 fee.

 One objective of the rule is that EPA will be able to regulate prospective manufacturers, importers, or processors of a listed chemical substance before the described significant new use of that chemical substance occurs, provided that regul ation is warranted pursuant to TSCA sections 5(e), 5(f), 6 or 7. Consequently , after submitting a SNUN, the fi rm may need to comply with restrictions as a result of the SNUN review pro cess, possibly leading to further costs similar to those in Option 1.

 Rarely, firms may choose to perform toxicity an d/or environmental fate testing to support a SNUN (Option 3). Such testing is not mandatory. Costs for such te sting are expected to be zero for most SNUNs and expected to be low fo r the few SNUNs for which a submitter might voluntarily perform such testing.

 Companies that might have manufactured, imported, or processed a chemic al in the absence of the SNUR may incur “hidden” costs, such as loss of profits from delayed or foregone sales, if they avoid the chemical altogether (Option 5). These costs were not quantified.

 Companies may incur costs from more than one Option, for example if they temporarily produce in
conformance with SNUR restrict ions while submitting a SNUN and waiting the required 90 days plus any extensions.

For some firms, costs may be attrib utable to EPA’s New Chemicals review process, but not to the SNUR itself. For example, a firm may already be bound by a TSCA Section 5(e) Consent Order following review of its PMN, so that the SNUR based on the 5(e) order imposes no added costs for that firm. As another example, in rulemakings where a SNUR chemi cal is not on the TSCA Inventory, firms that haveEconomic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 2-18 

### not yet submitted a PMN must submit one to EPA before commercial production/import, with or without the SNUR (see Section 2.3, SNUR “New” Chemicals).

If the SNUR reflects the PMN use scenario, and the PMN submitter would stick to the PMN uses even in the absence of a SNUR, then there would be no adde d costs for the PMN submitter attributable to the SNUR. Also, firms may also incur worker protection, haz-comm and other costs for reasons other than the SNUR, so that SNUR requirem ents may impose no added costs. 6

6 Earlier SNUR economic analyses calculated possible haz-comm, worker protection, testing, and other costs for each PMN chemical (EPA, 2007b, Tables 9, 10, D-4). The chemical-specific tables were dropped from a later SNUR economic analysis (EPA, 2007c). They reflected SNUR requirements and “recommended” testing, but were not otherwise tailored to the particular situation, and so were unreliable predictors of actual SNUR costs.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 3-1 

## 3 Export Notification Costs

Under Section 12(b) of TSCA, exporters must notify EP A 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) an d certain other TSCA sections, this is a one-time notification requirement 7 

### per destination country for each expo rter 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 export notifications, EPA first estimated the average annual nu mber of export notifications made by an exporter, in Section 3.1. EPA then derived the annual and per notification bu rden associated with pr eparing and submitting an export notification, in Section 3.2. 8



### EPA estimated the average burden associated with making a single notification, but did not estimate either the total number of exporters of a SNUR ch emical or the number of notifications per SNUR chemical. This is because the SNURs apply to a variet y of different chemicals with a variety of unrelated uses, manufactures, and processors, making it impractical within the resources avai lable for this report to assess the potential number of exporters and importing countries per chemical.

Most underlying data in this section come from the 2012 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR, ICR No.: 0795.14 [Information Collection Request fo r] Notification of Chemical Export s - TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act (EPA, 2012), with updating
for inflation.



### 3.1 Estimated Number of Annual Export Notifications per Exporter

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

. 9 

### This includes notifications resultin g from SNURs and notifications resulting from other TSCA activities. A notification is typica lly no more than one page per chemical/country combination, and one notification mailing often includes multiple chemicals and/or destination
countries. 10

7 On November 14, 2006, EPA revised the export notification requirement for chemicals subject to TSCA §5(a)(2), 5(b), 5(e)(1) and 5(e)(2) from an annual to a one-time requirement per destination country for each exporter (November 14, 2006, 71 FR 66234).

8 Beginning with this report ( Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 25 Chemical
Substances: EPA Docket OPPT-2009-0922 ), the cost per notification is presented as well as the cost for the average submitter making export notifications.

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

10 Based on review by an EPA economist of notifications received under TSCA Sections 4, 5 and 6 over approximately three weeks in early 2010.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 3-2 

### The percent of notifications due to PMN SNURs is unknown, and it is also unknown how many notifications may result from this rulemaking, as not all manufacturers may choose to export a chemical, or they may make several notifi cations for a single chemical.



### 3.2 Exporter Costs

The 2012 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR (EPA, 2012, pa ge 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 thei r products that are subject to TSCA Section 12(b) requirements, writing or revising an export notifica tion letter to EPA, checking the outgoing shipments, and sending the notification letters w ith the associated shipping costs.

The per-notification cost was calculated based on the average burden per firm making notifications. Exporters making more notifications per year may be nefit from economies of scale and have lower costs per notification; those making fewer notificatio ns may have higher costs per notification.

3.2.1 Estimated Submission (Mailing) Costs

Regulated companies will incur mailing costs for export notifications delivered to EPA. Notifications are assumed shipped via the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) as first-class registered mail with a return receipt (USPS, 2014). The estimated per-shipment and annual mailing costs incurred by individual submitters are
detailed in Table 9.

Table 9. Derivation of Total Mailing Cost for 13 Notices

Postal Service 1 Cost Registered mail, regular, with $0 declared value $12.20 Return receipt, requested at time of mailing 2 $2.10 Postage, regular First Class, up to 1 ounce $0.49 Cost per export notice - Subtotal $14.79

× 13
Total Mailing Cost for 13 Notices $192.27

Sources: 1. Mailing rates are from the US Postal Service web site as of April 2016 (https://www.usps.com/ship/service-chart.htm). The ma iling
method comes from the Economic Analysis of the Proposed Change to TSCA Section 12(b) Export Notification Requirements, November 2005 (EPA, 2005a), as clarified in a later SNUR economic analysis (EPA, 2007c, Table 8). 2.Starting with the Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-five Chemical Substances(EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT2015-081 0) the cost for return receipts service is the average of a th e cost of receiving a physical return receipt by mail and the cos t of receiving an electronic return by email. Prior SNUR economic analysis only used the cost for a physical return receipt.



### 3.2.2 Compile and Maintain the List of Products

Since TSCA §12(b) information collection activity has been in place for over twenty years, most respondents will have already developed a list of their products subject to TSCA §12(b) export notification. Respondents need only check for new regulations promulgated and any new products exported by the company. Updating the list is estimated to take an average of one hour of technical time, which may also include some proportion of legal time (EPA, 2012). The total burden can vary from twoEconomic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 3-3 

### 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, 2012).

The number of submitters per year who report under TSCA §12(b) has varied over time, rising from around 160 in 1991 to over 460 in 2000, and declinin g since. In the most recent TSCA §12(b) ICR, EPA estimated there would be approximately 240 submitters per year in near-future years (EPA, 2012). Of these 240 submitters, EPA estimated that 160 companie s were near the lower burden estimate of 2 hours per year, and 80 companies were near the upper estima te of 24 hours per year. Compiling the list for all respondents was therefore estimated to take 2,240 hours (2 hours × 

### 160 firms plus 24 hours × 

### 80 firms), or an average of about 9.3 hours of technical time per firm per year for 13 notifications per year (EPA, 2012).

3.2.3 Write or Revise Export Notification

Companies that export chemicals subj ect to TSCA §12(b) reporting must prepare an export notification to send to EPA when export shipments are made. Time for initial preparation of the export notice may vary depending on whether the company has prior experience wi th this requirement. This step is estimated to take an average of one hour of technical time (which may also include some proportion of legal time) per firm per year for 13 notifications per year (EPA, 2012).

3.2.4 Check Orders and Send Notifications

Companies that export chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) reporting must check outgoing shipments against the list of their products described above. A form letter notifying EPA and providing the required data must be printed and mailed within the required time period. This process is estimated to take an average one half hour of clerical time per export notification or 6.5 hours for 13 notifications (EPA, 2012).

The burdens and associated costs for each notification activity are provided in Table 10 below.

Table 10. TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost per Notification

Technical Clerical Total

$/Hr Hours 2015$ $/Hr Hours 2015$ 2015$ Hours Compile list $75.89 9.3 $706 -- -- -- $706 9.3

Write letter $75.89 1 $75.89 -- -- -- $76 1

Check order and send -- -- -- $33.66 6.5 $219 $219 6.5 Mailing cost 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- $165 - Total per facility 2` 10.3 $782 6.5 $219 $1,165 16.8 Total per Notification 0.79 $60.13 0.50 $16.83 $89.65 1.29

Notes:

1 Mailing costs reflect April 2016 USPS rates and can be found in Table 9.

2 An average facility submitting notifications is assumed to submit 13 export notifications per year.
Sources: Appendix B of this report derives technical and cl erical hourly labor costs. Other costs are from ICR No.: 0795.14 [Information Collection Request for] Notification of Ch emical Exports - TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act (EPA, 2012, p.10), and are updated to 2015 dollars.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 3-4Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 4-1 

## 4 Agency Costs

This SNUR is expected to gene rate Agency costs for both SNUN re view and processing, and export notification processing. Because it is unknown how many SNUNs and export notifications will be
submitted as a result of this rulema king, all Agency costs are estimate d at the per-case level and are not aggregated to estimate the total Agency burden. S ection 4.1 describes the burden to the Agency of reviewing and processing a single SNUN submission. Section 4. 2 derives the Agency burden of processing and reviewing export notifications.



### 4.1 SNUN Processing Costs

EPA’s costs to review and proce ss industry submissions (SNUNs, requests to modify or revoke the SNUR, and requests for equivalency determinations) are assumed to be the same as EPA costs to review PMNs and are presented in Error! Reference source not found. . Costs to review and process industry submissions – SNUNs, requests to modify a SNUR, and requests for equivalency determination – are
assumed to be similar to EPA costs to review PMNs. 11



### The list of review steps, estimates of staff-year full- time equivalents (FTEs), estimates of extramural costs, and the percent of chemicals requiring a particular review step are derived from the costs for processing PMN submissions in Table VII-1 of a 1994 EPA report, Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications (EPA, 1994). The Agency burden associated with processing a SNUN has been adjusted to reflec t burden reductions resulting from the 2009 final PMN Electronic Repo rting (ePMN) Rule that requires the electronic submission of all
TSCA section 5 notices. 12 

### The ePMN rule affects SNUN submissions and requests for equivalency determination, but not requests to modify or revo ke a SNUR. However, for si mplicity, this analysis continues to assume that Agency per-submission costs are the same for all three types of submissions.
Electronic submission of SNUN forms is expected to reduce Agency burden by 16.5 percent (EPA, 2009a, p.28).

The GS levels used for Agency staff reflect the ju dgment of Agency staff familiar with the PMN/SNUN review process. The salary of a Full Time Equivalent EPA staff was calculated using GS-13 Step 5 salary data (OPM, 2013). The original PM N cost estimates were for GS 12 and were presented as low and high estimates, based on the most junior (Step 1) and the most senior (Step 10) GS-12 pay rates, respectively. However, this analysis uses the higher GS-13 staff level and, for si mplicity, a single intermediate pay rate (Step 5) within that GS level. A lo ading factor of 1.6 was applied to th e salary to reflect fringe benefits and overhead (EPA, 1992). The loaded salary calculations are described in Appendix B.

11 For an overview of the PMN review process, see the Chemistry Assistance Manual for Premanufacture Notification Submitters, EPA, 1997.

12 Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 25 Chemical Substances: EPA Docket OPPT2009-092 2, was the first report to consider the burden reductions resulting from electronic submission of SNUN forms and requests for equivalency determination. Previously, all burdens were based upon 1994 paper
submission estimates.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 4-2 

### For each review step, the “EPA staff” cost is calcul ated by multiplying the number of FTEs (in the first column) by the fully loaded average salary. This shows EPA staff cost for chemicals requiring the selected review step.

The Extramural Cost column shows costs for cont ractor support and other outside purchases for chemicals requiring the selected review step, inflated from 1993 prices, as explained in Appendix B

.

The Percent of Cases is a weighting factor applied to reflect the fa ct that not all chemicals require each review step. For example, in the PMN process, all chemicals requir e Administrative Prescreening, but not all chemicals require the intensive scrutiny of “Standard Review.” The thr ee types of submissions resulting from a SNUR may have weighting factors th at differ from each other and from the weighting factors for PMNs. Changes in weightin g 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 th e first place. However, often a SNUN may take more Agency time than a typical PMN because of factors such as the need to retrieve old PM N records from archives, and the likelihood that more data requiring EPA review is submitted with a SNUN than would be submitted on average with a PMN. Resources were not available to update the review hour s to reflect the current review process or to tailor the cost estimates to SNUNs. Therefore, for this analysis, the review steps and weighting factors are assumed to be the same as those derived in 1994 for PMNs.

The Weighted Cost column is calculated by mult iplying the Unweighted Cost s (EPA staff cost plus extramural costs) by the percentage of cases requiri ng this review step. Weighted costs are then multiplied by the burden reduction of 16.5 percent to account for burden savings generated electronic submission. This calculation yields total Agency costs for submission review and processing shown in Error!
Reference source not found.

.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0810)April 22, 2016 4-3Table 11. Agency Costs for SNUN and Other Submission Review and ProcessingReview StepsEPA staff (FTE) CostExtramural Cost2UnweightedCostPct. ofCasesWeightedCost3ePMNBurdenReduction4Weighted Costwith ePMNBurdenReductionFTEfractionCost perFTE1FTE Total(2015$)1993$2015$(a)(b)(c)=(a)*(b)(d)(e)(f)=(c)+(e)(g)(h)=(f)*(g)(i)(j)=(h)*(1-(i))Pre-notice Consultation0.0020 $167,093 $401 $4.00 $7.46 $408 41% $167 0.165 $140Administrative Prescreen/NoticeReceipt/User Fee0.0020 $167,093 $401 $92.00 $171.50 $573 100% $573 0.165 $478CRSS (Chemical Review and SearchStrategy)0.0021 $167,093 $418 $268.00 $499.60 $917 100% $917 0.165 $766SAT (Structure Activity Team)0.0005 $167,093 $100.26 $14.00 $26.10 $126 100% $126 0.165 $105.51Engineering/Exposure0.0013 $167,093 $251 $56.00 $104.39 $355 100% $355 0.165 $296Exposure/Fate0.0007 $167,093 $134 $0.00 $0.00 $134 100% $134 0.165 $112Focus0.0008 $167,093 $150 $23.00 $42.88 $193 100% $193 0.165 $161Standard Review Functions0.0183 $167,093 $3,659 $511.00 $952.60 $4,612 29% $1,337 0.165 $1,117Division Directors Meeting0.0108 $167,093 $2,155 $113.00 $210.65 $2,366 15% $355 0.165 $296Order Development/Negotiation Review0.0143 $167,093 $2,857 $22.00 $41.01 $2,898 3% $86.95 0.165 $72.60Post Order Data Review0.0740 $167,093 $14,804 $0.00 $0.00 $14,804 3% $444 0.165 $371Order Modification0.1809 $167,093 $36,209 $0.00 $0.00 $36,209 3% $1,086 0.165 $907New Chemical SNUR Development0.0231 $167,093 $4,628 $85.00 $158.46 $4,787 7% $335 0.165 $280Notices of Commencement0.0010 $167,093 $201 $40.00 $74.57 $275 31% $85.27 0.165 $71.20FOIA (Freedom of Information Act)Requests0.0278 $167,093 $5,564 $287.00 $535.02 $6,099 1% $60.99 0.165 $50.93CBI (Confidential Business Information)Substantiation0.0003 $167,093 $66.84 $3.00 $5.59 $72.43 100% $72.43 0.165 $60.48TOTAL$2,830$74,830 $6,329 0.165 $5,285Notes:1GS-13 Step 5 salaries loaded with benefits and overhead. See Table B-1 derivation.2Extramural costs consist of contracting support and other purchases directly attributable to the PMN review process inflated from 1993 prices as described in Appendix B.3Weighted costs were calculated using unrounded unit cost estimates, so results may differ from calculations using the rounded values shown in this table.4Electronic submission is expected to generate a cost savings of 16.5% to the Agency (EPA 2009a, p. 28).Sources:FTEsper review step,1993 extramural costs,andpercent of cases are from EPA,1994 Table VII-1,GS-13 salaries are from OPM,2015.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 4-4 

### 4.2 Export Notification Processing Burden

Under TSCA Section 12(b), exporters must notify EP A if they intend to export chemicals subject to SNURs, as described in Chapter 3 above. The Agen cy burden and cost due to TSCA §12(b) export
notification result from three tasks. In the first task, EPA receives e xport notifications from companies that intend to export one of the chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) (EPA, 2012). In the second task, EPA staff prepares separate notificati on letters that are subsequently re viewed and delivered to importing countries, their embassies, or representatives, a nd to the importing country’s US embassies (EPA, 2012). (See Table 9 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 fr om industry and importing countries, and of handling other tasks associated with the TSCA §12(b) program, was es timated to require roughly 400 hours per year (EPA, 2012). Since the current rulemaking covers only a very small percent of the chemicals subject to TSCA 12(b) reporting, a very small percent of such activity will be attributable to the current rulemaking.

Because it is unknown how many, if any, notifications EPA will receive or send as a result of the current rulemaking, the costs to the Agency are presented per activity. 13 

### The burden for the first two Agency activities is provided in Table 12 below. To estimate the Agency cost, hourly bu rdens are multiplied by the loaded wage rate of a GS-13, Step 5, which is derived in Appendix B.

Table 12. TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost: Agency Burden per Activity ($2015)

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

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

Process notices from companies 0.1 0.000048 $167,093 $8.03

Process notices to importing countries 0.5 0.000240 $167,093 $14.79 $54.96

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
Sources: APPENDIX B: of this report derives Agency labor costs. Mailing costs are from Table 9 of this report. Other burdens are from IC R No.: 0795.14 [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 2012), updated for inflation.

13 Beginning with the report Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 25 Chemical
Substances: EPA Docket OPPT-2009-0922 , the Agency cost per activity is presented, and not the entire Agency costs resulting from export notifications.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 5-1 

## 5 Additional Analyses

This chapter presents additional anal ysis of other potential impacts of this rulemaking, as required under
various statutes and executive orders.



### 5.1 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, requires regulators to consider the impact of regulations on small entities, in particular small businesses. The require ment to submit a SNUN applies to any person (including small or large entities) who intends to engage in any act ivity described in the rule as a significant new use. Where a use is new, by definition no small or large entities presently engage in such activities. Although some small entitie s may decide to manufacture or process a substance for the new use after the SNUR is promulgated, EP A receives very few SNUNs, and f ew of those are submitted by small entities. In response to the promulgation of SNURs covering over 1000 chemical subs tances, 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, ei ght 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 would alter the pattern of SNUN submissions that EPA has hi storically seen. In addition, the estimated reporting cost for submission of a SNUN is minimal regardless of the size of the firm, averaging about $8,600 including SNUN recordkeeping and reporting costs. The Agency currently offers
some relief to certain small businesse s with sales (including those of subsidiary/paren t 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 $6,800 for smaller firms. During the six year period from 2005-2010, only thre e submitters self-identified as small in their SNUN submission 14 

### (EPA, 2012). EPA believes the cost of submitting a SNUN is relatively small compared the cost of developing and marketing a chemical new to firm and that the requirement to submit a SNUN generally does not have a significant economic impact.

In response to a SNUR, firms could also decide to request an equivalency determination or a request for
SNUR modification or revocation. The submission cost for these requests is about $6,100. EPA believes this cost to be low comp ared to the cost of developing and ma rketing a chemical new to the firm. The expected number of requests is also expected to be small. In general, EPA receives from zero to three modification/revocation requests per year due to SNURs, therefore it is unlikely that a substantial number
of small entities would be affected.



### 5.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

EPA has determined that this re gulatory action does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect on small governments subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).

14 The three “small” submitters were identified by review of actual SNUN submissions from the years 2005-2010.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 5-2 

### 5.3 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 USC 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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The in formation collection requir ements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA, 2007a). This action does not impose a ny additional burden requiring OMB approval.



### 5.4 Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, requires OMB review for rules with an impact on the economy of $100 m illion or more, or with any other po tential significant impact. OMB has previously determined that these types of SNURs are not a “significant regulatory action” that would require OMB review under this Executive Order.



### 5.5 Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and time ly input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federa lism implications.” This action will not have a
substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between th e national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federa lism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).



### 5.6 Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice

This action does not involve special considerations of environmental just ice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmenta l Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).



### 5.7 Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children

Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 27, 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 these SNURs will be less than $100 million and therefore no analysis of such impacts on children is required.



### 5.8 Executive Order 13175, Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175 is Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000). This rule does not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have
substantial direct effe cts on Indian Tribes.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 5-3 

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

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy S upply, Distribu tion, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 A-1 

## APPENDIX A: List of PMNs and their Chemical Names

Table A-1. PMNs Referenced in this Economic Analysis

No PMN Name 2 CAS RN 2
1 P-11-0150 Alkali transition metal oxide (generic) N/A 2 P-11-0484 Perfluoroalkyl substitu ted alkyl sulfonate (generic) N/A 3 P-11-0543 Polyfluorinated alkyl quaternary ammonium chloride (generic) N/A
4 P-14-0067 Polyfluorinatedalkylsulfonyl substituted alkane derivative (generic) N/A

5 P-14-0125 1-Octadecanaminium, N-(3-chloro-2-hydroxypropyl)-N,N-dimethyl-, chloride (1:1) 3001-63-6

6 P-14-0153 Fatty acid rxn products with aminoalkylamines (generic) N/A
7 P-14-0154 Fatty acid rxn products with aminoalkylamines (generic) N/A
8 P-14-0155 Fatty acid amide (generic) N/A
9 P-14-0156 Fatty acid amide (generic) N/A
10 P-14-0198 Trialkylammonium borodibenzoate (generic) N/A

11 P-14-0324 Fatty ester derivatives, reaction products with alkanolamine, hydroxylated, borated (generic) N/A

12 P-14-0397 Benzenepropanol, 1-benzoate 60045-26-3
13 P-14-0448 Alcohols, C12-22, distn. residues. 1476777-83-9

14 P-14-0501 Phosphoric acid, mixed Bu and decyl and octyl and 2-(2- phenoxyethoxy)ethyl and 2-phenoxyethyl esters 1502809-48-4

15 P-14-0502 Phosphoric acid, mixed Bu and decyl and octyl and 2-(2- phenoxyethoxy)ethyl and 2-phenoxyet hyl esters, potassium salts 1502809-56-4

16 P-15-0059 Siloxanes and Silicones, 3-[(2-aminoethyl)amino)propyl Me, di-Me, reaction products with cadmium zinc selenide sulfide, lauric acid and oleylamine 1623456-05-2

17 P-15-0060 Dodecanoic acid, reaction products with cadmium zinc selenide sulfide and oleylamine 1773514-92-3

18 P-15-0079 Fatty acid rxn products with aminoalkylamines (generic) N/A
19 P-15-0080 Fatty acid rxn products with aminoalkylamines (generic) N/A

20 P-15-0081 Alkyl silicate, polymer with 2-(chloromethyl)oxirane and 4,4'-(1- methylethylidene)bis[phenol], alkoxylated (generic) N/A

21 P-15-0104 Phosphonic acid, P-tetradecyl-, reaction products with cadmium selenide (CdSe) 1773514-66-1

22 P-15-0109 Reaction product of a mixture of aromatic dianhydrides and aliphatic esters with an aromatic diamine (generic) N/A

23 P-15-0111 Fatty acids, tall-oil, reaction products with an ether and triethylenetetramine (generic) N/A

24 P-15-0120 Substituted benzyl acrylate (generic) N/A
25 P-15-0154 Fluoroalkyl acrylate copolymer (generic) N/A
26 P-15-0176 1-Hexanol, 6-mercapto- 1633-78-9

27 P-15-0177 Phenol, 2,2'-[1,2-disubstituted-1,2-ethanediyl]bis(iminomethylene)bis [substituted- (generic) N/A

28 P-15-0188 Carbomonocycles, polymer with substituted heteromonocycle, succinate, methyl acrylate (generic) N/A

29 P-15-0190 Halogenated alkyl trimethylaminium halide (generic) N/A
30 P-15-0252 Titanium salt, reaction products with silica (generic) N/A

31 P-15-0272 Formaldehyde, reaction products with aniline and aromatic mono- and di-phenol mixture (generic) N/AEconomic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 A-2 No PMN Name 2 CAS RN 2
32 P-15-0276 Functionalized carbon nanotubes (generic) N/A
33 P-15-0295 Acrylated mixed metal oxides (generic) N/A
34 P-15-0306 Phenol, 1,1-dimethylalkyl derivatives (generic) N/A
35 P-15-0319 Butanedioic acid, 2-methylene-, dialkyl ester (generic) N/A
36 P-15-0324 Magnesium alkaryl sulfonate (generic) N/A
37 P-15-0326 Polyfluorohydrocarbon (generic) N/A
38 P-15-0328 Aluminum calcium oxide salt (generic) N/A
39 P-15-0332 Polyalkyltrisiloxane (generic) N/A

40 P-15-0356, Chemical A Oxirane, 2,2'-[[1-[4-[1-methyl-1-[4-(2- oxiranylmethoxy)phenyl]ethyl]phenyl]ethylidene]bis(4,1-phenyleneoxymethylene)]bis115254-47-2

41 P-15-0356, Chemical B 2-Propanol, 1,3-bis[4-[1-[4-[1-methyl-1-[4-(2- oxiranylmethoxy)phenyl]ethyl]phenyl]-1-[4-(2- oxiranylmethoxy)phenyl]ethyl]phenoxy]- 180063-56-3

42 P-15-0363 Aliphatic acrylate (generic) N/A

43 P-15-0378 Diisocyanato hexane, homopolymer, alkanoic acid-polyalkylene glycol ether with substituted alkane (3:1) reaction products-blocked (generic) N/A

44 P-15-0382 Polyitaconic acid, sodium zinc salt (generic) N/A
45 P-15-0411 Fatty acid esters with polyols polyalkyl ethers (generic) N/A

46 P-15-0435 2,7-Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 4-amino-3-[substituted]-5-hydroxy-6- [(1E)-2-phenyldiazenyl]-, lithium salt (1:3) (generic) N/A

47 P-15-0492 Polymethylsiloxane, distillation residues (generic) N/A

48 P-15-0502 Perfluorobutanesulfonamide and polyoxyalkylene containing polyurethane (generic) N/A

49 P-15-0542 Quaternary ammonium compounds, (3-chloro-2-hydroxypropyl)coco alkyldimethyl, chlorides 690995-44-9

50 P-15-0559 Modified diphenylmethane diisocyanate prepolymer with polyol (generic) N/A

51 P-15-0573 2-Furancarboxyaldehyde, 5-(chloromethyl)- 1623-88-7

52 P-15-0607 1,2,4,5,7,8-Hexoxonane, 3,6,9-trimethyl-, 3,6,9-tris(alkyl) derivs. (generic) N/A

53 P-15-0671 9-Octadecen-1-amine, hydr ochloride (1:1), (9Z)- 41130-29-4 54 P-15-0689 Vegetable fatty acid alkyl esters (generic) N/A 55 P-15-0690 Vegetable fatty acid alkyl esters (generic) N/A

Notes:

1 The PMN number reflects the Federal Fiscal Year and seque nce of submission. For exampl e, those starting “P-015” were submitted in the twelve months in Fiscal Year 2015, October 1st 2014 – September 30, 2015.

2 If a CAS RN is identified as “N/A” meaning “Not available” a nd/or the chemical name is indicated to be “generic” then the chemical identity is indicated to be confidential.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 B-1 

## APPENDIX B: Inflators and Wage Rates

This appendix describes the derivation of the fully loaded labor rates and inflation factors used in calculating costs of labor, materials, and other inputs. Costs for this report are for year-end 2013.



### B.1 Derivation of Loaded Wage Rates

Unit labor costs are calculated by adding fringe benef its and overhead to the wage or salary to derive a fully loaded labor co st. The basic method is described in Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (EPA, 2002b). The resulting loaded labor rates are given in Table B-1. Costs are calculated for several labor categories: Manage rial, Professional/ Technical, Clerical, Production Workers, Industrial Hygienists, and EPA staff.

In March 2004, BLS began using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes instead of the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) System, and the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system instead of the Occupational Classificat ion 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.



### B.2 Derivation of Labor Rates for Managerial, Professional/Technical, Clerical,
and Production Labor

Wages and fringe benefits for mana gerial, professional/technical, clerical and production labor were taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) data, 15 

### for December, for manufacturing industries. 16

15 This follows the approach introduced in Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 65
Chemical Substances: EPA Do cket OPPT-2003-0063 (EPA, 2007b). In earlier PMN SNUR economic analyses, such as EPA, 2003a, wage rates for production workers came from the BLS National Employment, Hours, and Earnings, Average Hourly Earnings of Production Workers, while fringe benefits were taken from the ECEC data. Here, as in EPA, 2007b, both wages and fringes for production workers come from ECEC data, for better consistency with the method of estimating labor costs for other labor categories.

16 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables December 2015 (BLS, 2016). This follows the approach introduced in EPA, 2007b. Earlier PM N SNUR economic analyses, such as EPA, 2003a, usedEconomic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 B-2 

### The cost of fringe benefits such as paid leave and insurance, specific to each labor category, are taken from the same ECEC series. Fringe benefits as a percent of wages are calculated separately for each labor category. For example, for December 2015, th e average wage rate for professional/technical 17 

### labor was $44.06; the average fringe benefit was $24.34. Fringe benefits as a percent of wages were $24.34 /$44.06, or approximately 55.24%.

An additional loading factor of 17 percent is applie d to wages to account for ov erhead. This approach is used for consistency with Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics economic analyses for two major rulemakings: Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (EPA, 2002b),
and the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report (EPA, 2002a). This overhead loading factor is adde d to the benefits loading factor, a nd the total is then applied to the base wage to derive the fully loaded wage. For example, the December 2015 fully loaded wage for professional/technical labor is $44.06× (1 + 0.5524 + 0.17) = $$75.89.

Fully loaded costs for managerial, clerical, and production labor are calculated in a similar manner, as
shown in Table B-1.



### B.3 Derivation of Labor Rates for Industrial Hygienists

For industrial hygienists, wages were based on another BLS data series, Occupational Employment Statistics [OES], National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. OES data
were used because ECEC data were not available fo r very specific occupatio ns. However, the OES data covers only wages, not fringe benefits. Therefore, the Industrial Hygienist fringe benefits continue to be
based on ECEC data. 18



### The wage rate for Industrial Hygienists is a weighted average of th e hourly mean wage for Occupational Health and Safety Specialists, Standard Occupational Classi fication (SOC) 29-9011, and Occupational Health and Safety Technicians, SOC 29-9012, in Manufacturing. The wage rate for each occupation was weighted by employment for the occupation. Th e North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes for Manufacturing are 31, 32, and 33 (BLS, 2015). The calculations are shown in Table
B-2.

ECEC data for “All Goods Producing” sectors (manufacturing, mining, and construction). However, the manufacturing sector data seem more relevant since the SNURs mainly affect the chemicals industry.

17 This follows terminology introduced in EPA, 2007b. 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, th e coverage of the old and ne w occupational groups is approximately the same. See the BLS article, C omparing Current and Former Industry and Occupation ECEC
Series (Weinstein, 2004 ).

18 This follows the approach for calculating Industry Hygienist wages introduced in EPA, 2007b and is a change from the method used in earlier PMN SNUR economic reports such as EPA, 2003a, which used data from a 1997 professional journal salary survey.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 B-3 

### As with other labor categories, the frin ge benefits factor came from the BLS Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables December 2015 (BLS, 2016a). Benefits for “professional specialty and technical” occupations were used, and loaded wages were calculated as for other types of
labor. An additional loading factor of 17 percent of wages wa s applied for overhead. Calculations are
shown in Table B-1.



### B.4 Derivation of Labor Rates for EPA Staff

Agency labor costs are calculated based on annual Fe deral salaries for the Wa shington-Baltimore area published by the Office of Personnel Management effective January 2016 (OPM, 2016). The average salary for one Full Time Equivalent (FTE) staff is estimated as the salary for a GS-13 Step 5 employee. 19



### Multiplying the annual pay by an assumed loading factor of 1.6 to reflect Federal fringe benefits and overhead, the loaded annual salary of EPA staff was calculated to be $167,093.

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 Guid e, but has been used in many EPA Office of Po llution Prevention and Toxics ICRs to reflect both fringe benefits and overhead for Federal staff. For example, it was used in an August 2000 document supporting ICR No. 1139.06 (EPA, 2000), with the following explanation:

“The annual costs per FTE are derived by multiplying the annual pay rate by 1.6 (the benefits multiplication factor). The multiplication factor used is recommended in EPA's Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation's Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (June 1, 1992). An EPA internal phone ca ll 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.” (EPA, 2000)

19 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. Th at report represented a change from an earlier PMN SNUR economic analysis (EPA, 2003a), which used an averag e of GS-12 Step 1 and GS-12 Step 10 salaries.`April 22, 2016 B-4Table B-1. Derivation of Loaded Wage RatesEPABLaborCategoryData SourcesDateWageFringeBenefitFringes as% wageOver-head %wage2Fringe +OverheadFactorLoadedWages1(a)(b)(c) =(b)/(a)(d)(e)=(c)+(d)+1(f)=(a) x (e)ManagerialBLSECEC, Private Manufacturing industries,“Mgt, Business, and Financial”3Dec-15 $48.66 $24.25 49.84% 17% 1.67 $81.18Professional/TechnicalBLSECEC, Private Manufacturing industries,“Professional and related“3Dec-15 $44.06 $24.34 55.24% 17% 1.72 $75.89ClericalBLSECEC, Private Manufacturing industries,“Office and Administrative Support”3Dec-15 $19.91 $10.37 52.08% 17% 1.69 $33.66ProductionWorkerBLSECEC, Private Manufacturing industries,“Production, transport, and material moving.”3Dec-15 $17.97 $9.89 55.04% 17% 1.72 $30.91IndustrialHygienistWage: BLS OES Occupat. Employ. and Wages,forManufacturing (NAICS 31, 32, 33), average ofwages forOccup. Health/ Safety Specialists(SOC29-9011) andOccup. Health/Safety Technicians(SOC 29-9012), weighted by employment.4Fringes: BLSECEC, Private Manufacturingindustries, “Professional and related”3Wage:May-15Fringe:Dec-15$32.99 -- 55.24% 17% 1.72 $56.83EPA staffFTEAnnual Federal staff cost: OPM WashingtonBaltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-PA-VAWV, area, GS-13 Step 5 pay rates, with 60%overhead.5Jan-15 $50.04--[Included in60%overhead]60%1.6$80.06167,093(annual)Notes:1Wage data are rounded to the closest pennies in this table; however, in calculations using these numbers for this report, unrounded values were used.2An overhead rate of 17% was used based on assumptions inWage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program(EPA, 2002b), and theRevisedEconomic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report(EPA, 2002a).3Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables Historical DataDecember 2006 – December 2015, US Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 10, 2016 (BLS, 2016a).4Employment and unweighted wages are from BLSOccupational Employment Statistics (National Industry-Specific Employment and Wage Estimates),May 2015 (BLS, 2015).5The salary is unloaded Federal GS-13 Step 5 salary for calendar 2015, from the Office of Personnel Management salary table forWashington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia(OPM, 2016). The 60% fringes-and-overhead rate is from an EPA guide,Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs)(EPA, 1992, page 30, footnote 9).Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 B-5



### Table B-2. Derivation of Industrial Hygienist Wage Rate (NAICS 31, 32, 33)

Occupation Title (SOC Code) Employment Mean Hourly Wage Weight Weighted Wage 1

(a) (b) (c) (d) = (c) × (b)

Occupational Health & Safety Specialists (29-9011) 11,820 $35.11 0.813 $28.56

Occupational Health & Safety Technicians (29-9012) 2,710 $23.76 0.187 $4.43

Industrial Hygienist (weighted average) 14,530 -- 1 $32.99

Notes:

1 Wage data are rounded to the closest pennies in this table; how ever, in calculations using these numbers for this report, unro unded
values were used.
Sources : Employment and unweighted wages are for manufacturing (NAICS 31, 32, 33) from BLS Occupational Employment Statistics (Occupational Employment and Wages) , for May 2015 (BLS, 2015).



### B.5 Derivation of Inflation Factors

Costs of equipment and supplies were inflated using the Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers; wages were inflated using the appropriate Employment Cost Index (ECI). Where both labor and equipment/supplies were involved, we used the inflation factor corresponding to the dominant cost
category. 20 

### For example, test costs incl ude a mix of labor, equipment, and supplies. Assuming that the largest component of test costs comes from labor, we used the ECI for private industry, all workers. Complete information on the derivation of the inflation factors used is given in Table B-3 below.

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

20 Prior SNUR economic analyses used the seasonally adjusted ECI for the total compensation, private industry white collar workers (Series ID CIS2010000W00000I) to inflate export notification and Agency extramural cost. However, in 2008 BLS retired both the “white-collar” and “blue-collar” series (BLS, 2008, p. BLS-45). Therefore, beginning with the report, Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 25 Chemical Substances:
EPA Docket OPPT-2009-092 2, the “white-collar” series was replaced with the not seasonally adjusted ECI for total compensation of private industry professional and related workers (Series ID CIU2010000120000I). The “professional and related workers” series was chosen because it is the only series with continuous data since 1985, and the majority of export notification and Agency extramural activities are performed by professional and technical
labor.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 B-6 

### Under a mandate from OMB, BLS changed its classi fication of industries and occupations from the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and Occupa tional Classification System (OCS) to the North American Industry Cla ssification System (NAICS) and Stand ard Occupational Classification (SOC) system. In 2006, BLS adjusted all EC I series to reflect this change.

In addition to changing the industr y and occupational classification sy stems, in 2006, BLS rebased the
ECI from June 1989 = 100 to December 2005 = 100 for all current and historical non-seasonally adjusted series, including the NAICS and SIC based series. (Seas onally adjusted indices, including those in Table B-3 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 year s 1975-2005 is the SIC-OCS based series, and for subsequent years, the official ECI is the NAICS-SOC based series (Sleemi, 2006, p.8). 21



### “Starting year” indices in Table B-3 continue to be SIC-SOC based. Current year indices are NAICS-SOC
based. We use indices from both the NAICS-SOC an d the SIC-OCS based ECI series because neither series spans the entire period over which testing and other costs need to be inflated.

21 BLS has been publishing the NAICS-SOC based ECI series since March 2001 and it became official in March 2006. The SICOCS based series and NAICS-SOC series have different series ID numbers, even when they describe essentially the same population. For example the series ID for seasonally adjusted total compensation for all private industry workers is ECS10002I

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



### .Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 B-7 

### Table B-3. Derivation of Inflation Factors

Item Inflation Index Source 1 Starting
Year Index for Starting

Year (a) Index
for
2015 (b) Inflation
Factor (b)/(a) 2

Chemical testing (toxicity, ecological effects etc.) BLS ECI, SA, Total comp, Private industry, All Workers, 4 th Q [BLS 2006d and 2015c] varies varies 124.6 varies

White collar/other labor mix; equipment; supplies. Example for item costed in 1993 1993 66.5 124.6 1.874

Tests were first costed out in various years, depending on the test; inflation factors vary depending original cost date. Example for test costed in 2000 2000 83.8 124.6 1.487

Impermeability testing of gloves and other gear 3 BLS ECI, SA, Total comp, Private industry, All Workers, 4 th Q [BLS 2006d and 2015c] 1997 74.9 124.6 1.664

Export notification BLS ECI, ,Total comp, Private industry, Professional and related, 4 th Q [BLS 2015d] 4 1992 64.9 124.9 1.924

Agency Extramural costs White collar labor; equipment; supplies BLS ECI, Total comp, Private industry, Professional and related, 4 th Q [BLS 2015d] 4 1993 67.0 124.9 1.864

File Cabinet BLS CPI, All urban consumers, not SA. CUUR0000SA0, Annual [BLS 2015b] 1997 160.5 237.017 1.477

Photocopies BLS CPI, All urban consumers, not SA. CUUR0000SA0, Annual [BLS 2015b] 1988 118.3 237.017 2.004

Placards BLS CPI, All urban consumers, not SA. CUUR0000SA0, Annual [BLS 2015b] 2013 232.957 237.017 1.017

Respirators, clothing, eyewear, Labels, gloves BLS CPI, All urban consumers, not SA. CUUR0000SA0, Annual [BLS 2015b] 2014 236.736 237.017 1.001

Notes:

1 In 2006, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employment Cost Index (ECI) series “were rebased to December 2005 = 100 from June 198 9 = 100.” The change is reflected in the indices in this table and explained on the BLS website, Employment Cost Index News Release Text: Employment Cost Index, March 2006 (BLS, 2006b). The Consumer Price Index (CPI) was not rebased. “Starting year” ECI indices are SIC-OCS based: Seasonally Adjust ed (SA) ECS10002I for private industry All Workers, and not SA ECU11122I for private industry Professional and Related Workers. After 2006, ECI indices are NAICS-SOC based: Seasonally Adjust ed (SA) CIS2010000000000I for private industry All Workers, and n ot SA CIU2010000120000I (B) for private industry Professional, and Related workers.

2 Inflation factors are rounded to three decimal places in this table, but calculations in this report use the unrounded values. BLS CPI values were published with one decimal place through 2006 and with three decimal places after that.

3 We began using the ECI for Private Industry All Workers in EPA, 2007b, to better reflect the labor mix for impermeability testi ng. Earlier PMN SNUR economic analyses used the ECI fo r Private Industry White Collar Workers.

4 Beginning with the report, Economic Analysis of Expedited Si gnificant New Use Rules for 25 Chemical Substances: EPA Docket OPPT-2009-
0922 , we began to use the not-seasonally adjusted CIU2010000120000I fo r private industry Professional, and Related workers, instead of SA CIS2010000W00000I for private industry white collar workers because BLS retired the “white-collar” series.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 B-8Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQOPPT-2015-0810)

November 25, 2013 C-1 

## APPENDIX C: Costs of Hazard Communication, Protection in the Workplace, and Recordkeeping Requirements

Section 2.1 of the main text of this report discusses costs of worker protection, hazard communication (hazcomm), and recordkeeping for SNURs. This appendix presents dollar costs and labor hours of these requirements, for one chemical at one site. Some requirements listed here may not be cited in the current rulemaking, but have been cited in past SNUR rulemakings.

The haz-comm costs reflect the annual costs of updating the written program, labeling for chemical distribution and storage, creating and distributing material safety data sheets (MSDS), and employee training. The personal protective equipment (PPE) costs reflect the annualized costs of providing required equipment (i.e., gloves, goggles, clothing, or respirators), assessing de rmal protection needs associated with the chemical, and performing required impermeability testing, and/or evaluating manufacturer’s information. Finally, the annual recordkeeping costs include labor, photocopying, and record storage costs.

To estimate the costs of haz-comm, worker protec tion, and recordkeeping requirements, a number of assumptions were made, based on the original EPA analysis for generic SNUR provisions, Economic Analysis of Final Significant New Use Rule: General Provisions for New Chemical Followup (EPA, 1989). In that report, EPA estimated that the number of workers exposed to any one substance would range from 10 to 25, and that a worker potentially would be exposed to a substance for a minimum of 50 days per year to a maximum of 250 days per year. The current analysis uses the high ends of those two ranges. Thus, each site is assumed to have 25 chemically-exposed workers requir ing training and/or protective equipment, with each of them assumed to be exposed for 250 days per year.

Labor costs are derived from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics sources as described in Appendix B. Material costs were primarily obtained from a nati onal industrial equipment supply website (Grainger,
2014.

Costs of haz-comm, workplace protection, and recordkeeping are discussed in Sections C.1, C.2, and 0, respectively. Table 4 and Table 6 in the main text summarize these costs by SNUR requirement.



### C.1 Modifying the Hazard Communication Program

As mentioned in Section 2.1, it is assumed that each facility has in place a haz-comm program consistent with that required by OSHA’s Hazard Communication sta ndard (29 CFR 1910; November 25, 1983), so that costs attributable to the SNUR are costs of adding one chemical to the program. Much of the haz-comm methodology and assumptions came from the EPA report, Economic Analysis of Final Significant New Use Rules: General Provisions for New Chemical Followup (EPA, 1989), which in turn relied partly on the 1983 OSHA study, Final Regulatory Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analyses of the Hazard Communication
Standard OSHA, 1983).

It was assumed that the haz-comm costs would be incurred each year. For example, there would be worker turnover and need for refresher training, the MSDS wo uld need revision due to changing information, placards would wear out (EPA, 1989). To the extent that some steps would not need repeating each year,Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQOPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 C-2 

### costs could be lower than estimated here. The hazard communication costs summarized in Table 3 above are
detailed here.

C.1.1 Updating the Written Program

If the SNUR cites 40 CFR §721.72(a), then to avoid engaging in a Significant New Use, which would trigger other SNUR requirements, manufacturers must update their written haz-comm program to incorporate information about the chemical. The written part of the program includes data and information about hazardous chemicals present in the workplace, the hazards associated with such chemicals, procedures for employees who routinely work with or around such chemicals, procedures for non-routine tasks that may involve exposure (e.g., tank cleaning), and personal protective equipment requirements when working with or
around such chemicals.

While material safety data sheets may provide much of the information needed to update the written hazcomm program, many employers may perform a more detailed assessment of exposure risks associated with the chemical and develop more site-specific procedures for workers potentially exposed to such chemicals. For purposes of the economic analysis, EPA assumes that each employer will engage the services of a professional industrial hygienist (IH), either in-house or on a consulting basis, for four hours to perform such an assessment. Loaded hourly rates for IH services were calculated based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data, as described in Table B-1and Table B-2. Costs for the written haz-comm program, in 2015 dollars, are as
follows 22



### 4 hours Industrial Hygienist time × $56.83per hour = $227

The estimates of IH hours to update the program come from a 1998 EPA report (EPA, 1998).

C.1.2 Labeling

If the SNUR cites 40 CFR §721.72(b), then to avoid engaging in a Significant New Use, manufacturers must ensure that containers used to distribute the PMN substance in commerce are labeled with the necessary hazardous substance warnings and procedures. In addi tion, containers used in the workplace must bear similar labels or, alternatively, the employer must provi de equivalent signage, operating procedures, or other written material to communicate hazard information to workers. The cost of providing such labeling was estimated in a 1989 EPA report (EPA, 1989) and has been updated here using more recent cost information.

Standard formats are assumed to be used for creating labels or other signage, and the information required for the labels is assumed to be already available from the MSDS for the chemical (see below).

Chemicals Distributed in Commerce

. For chemicals distributed in commerce, the labeling process is assumed to require 0.5 hours of technical labor time per chemical to compile label information. It is assumed to require 480 labels per chemical. The assumption of 480 labels per chemical is from a 1989 EPA report (EPA, 1989), and is based on the assumption that, on average, each ch emical is shipped twice monthly to 20

22 Figures presented here are rounded.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQOPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 C-3 

### customers. This is consistent with roughly 10,000 kilograms of chemical per year shipped in 40 five-gallon containers per month (EPA, 1989). 23



### Technical labor is fully loaded with fringe benefits and overhead, as described in Appendix B. Labeling
materials costs were obtained from a national sa fety equipment supply website (Grainger, 2014). The resulting costs of labeling for chemicals distributed in commerce, per chemical substance at one site, are shown
in Table C-1.

Table C-1. Annual Costs of Labeling for Distri bution in Commerce [40 CFR §721.72(b)(2)]

Cost Element Unit Cost (2013$) Inflation Factor Unit Cost (2015$) Hours Total
Cost

0.5 hours technical time

-- -- $75.89 per hour 0.5 $37.95

480 labels $0.22 per label 1.017 $0.22 per label -- $107.44

TOTAL 0.5 $145

Notes: Total costs were calculated using unrounded unit cost values and inflation factors (see Appendix B), so results may differ from calculations using the rounded values shown in this table.
Sources: Label cost, Grainger, 2014; cost elements, quantities, RIB 1989; inflators, labor , Table B-1 and Table B-3.



### Chemicals Used in the Workplace. Costs for workplace labeling requirements are estimated by assuming that the facility purchases six large signs, priced at $54.30 each in 2014 dollars (Grainger, 2014). These signs will be mounted in areas where the chemicals are used or formulated. For example, a placard might be posted at each of six vessels: a mixing tank, a reactor, two separators, and two storage vessels (EPA, 1989). The labeling process is also assumed to require 0.5 hours of technical time to compile label information and ten minutes of production worker time to post each placard. Technical labor costs include wages, fringe benefits, and overhead, as described in Appendix B.

The resulting per chemical, per site costs of labeling for chemicals in the workplace are shown in Table C-2.

23 Data on PMN notices suggest that some PMN submitters expected to produce less than 10,000 kilograms per year of the SNUR chemicals, but many expected to produce much more. It is not known whether volumes listed in the PMNs were realized in practice. Production volumes of secondary suppliers affect ed by the SNUR are also unknown. Annual volumes significantly greater than 10,000 kg could lead to higher haz-comm costs than those estimated here.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQOPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 C-4 

### Table C-2. Annual Costs of Labeling for Use in Workplace [40 CFR §721.72(b)(1)]

Cost Element Unit Cost (2014$) Inflation
Factor Unit Cost (2015$) Hours Total Cost

0.5 hours technical time -- -- $75.89 per hour 0.5 $37.95
6 labels or placards $54.30 per item 1.001 $54.36 per item -- $326

10 minutes per label/placard production worker time -- -- $30.91 per hour 1.0 $30.91

TOTAL 1.5 $395

Notes: Total costs were calculated using unrounded unit cost values and inflation factors (see Appendix B), so results may differ from calculations using the rounded values shown in this table.
Sources: Placard cost, Grainger 2014; cost elements and quantities, EPA, 1989; inflators and labor unit costs, Table B-1 and Table B-3.



### C.1.3 Preparing Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) Information

If the SNUR cites 40 CFR §721.72(c), then to avoid engaging in a Significant New Use, each facility is required to create, post, and distribute material safety data sheets (MSDSs). Based on estimates in OSHA 1983, the 1989 EPA report (EPA, 1989) has estimated that creation of an MSDS for a chemical substance requires 2.0 hours of technical labor time and 0.25 ho urs of clerical time. Further, EPA assumes that the manufacturer provides 20 copies of the MSDS to customers and retains 20 copies for use onsite, for a total of 40 copies (EPA, 1989). The loaded hourly wage rates and the inflator used in estimating unit photocopy costs are derived in Appendix B. The resulting cost of MSDS preparation is shown in Table C-3.

Table C-3. Annual Costs for Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) [40 CFR §721.72(c)]

Cost Element Unit Cost (1988$) Inflation
Factor Unit Cost (2015$) Hours Total Cost

2.0 hours technical time -- -- $75.89 per hour 2 $152

0.25 hours clerical time -- -- $33.66 per hour 0.25 $8.42
40 copies $0.05 2.004 $0.10 per copy -- $4.01

TOTAL 2.25 $164

Note: Total costs were calculated using unrounded unit cost values and inflation factors (see Appendix B), so results may differ from calculations using the rounded values shown in this table.
Sources: Cost elements, quantities, and 1988 copy cost, RIB 1989; inflators and labor unit costs, Table B-1 and Table B-3.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQOPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 C-5 

### C.1.4 Employee Training

The final required component of the haz-comm program is employee training, based on 40 CFR §721.72(d). The 1989 EPA report, Economic Analysis of Final Significant New Use Rules: General Provisions for New Chemical Follow-up (EPA, 1989), assumes that a training program currently is in place, but the existing program must be modified to add new information pertaining to the PMN substance. Subsequently, the training program must be expanded to include such material each time the training course is presented. Costs of modifying the program and presenting the modified program are mainly labor costs for the trainer and the
trainees.

Inserting the new information about the PMN substance into the training program and conducting the revised training is assumed to require 0.5 hours of the trainer’s time. An additional 0.25 hours per trainee is estimated to be required, and an av erage of 25 affected workers is assu med per facility (EPA, 1989). If additional production workers needed to be trained, fo r example because they might come into contact with the chemical due to spills or leaks, training cost s could be higher than estimated here (EPA, 1989).

Labor rates for training are based on the loaded rates derived in Appendix B for chemical technicians and chemical industry production workers. The total cost of the employee training requirement is shown in Table
C-4.

Table C-4. Annual Costs for Employee Trai ning, Per Chemical [40 CFR §721.72(d)]

Cost Element Unit Cost (2015$) Hours Total Cost

0.5 hours technical time (trainer) $75.89 per hour 0.5 $37.95

0.25 hours per production employee X average of 25 workers per plant = 6.25 hours $30.91 per hour 6.25 $193

TOTAL 6.75 $231

Notes: Total costs were calculated using unrounded values from (see Appendix B), so results may differ from calculations using the
rounded values shown in this table.
Sources: Cost elements and quantities, EPA, 1989; labor unit costs, Table B-1



### C.2 Protection in the Workplace

The following section estimates costs of assessing needs for dermal protection and evaluating protective gear for impermeability, as well as the costs of gloves, goggles, protective clothing, and respirators.

C.2.1 Dermal Protection Selection

If the SNUR cites 40 CFR §721.63(a)(1), then to av oid engaging in a Significant New Use, the employer must ensure that each person who is likely to experience dermal exposure to a PMN chemical, must be provided with and is required to wear personal protective equipment (e.g., gloves) that will prevent dermal exposure to the substance. The equipment must be selected and used in accordance with 29 CFR § § 1910.132 and 1910.133 (promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA). TheEconomic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQOPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 C-6 

### selection and administration of this dermal protection is estimated to require 10 hours labor by an industrial hygienist, annually (EPA, 1999). The wage rate of the hygienist was calculated as described in Appendix B. The cost calculations for the dermal protection selection requirement are given in Table C-5. This covers only costs of selecting the dermal protection needed, not costs of the items themselves. For costs of purchasing dermal protective items, see the sections below on costs of gloves, eyewear, and clothing.

Table C-5. Annual Costs for Dermal Protection Selection [40 CFR §721.63(a)(1)]

Cost Element Unit Cost (2015$) Hours Total Cost 1

10 hours industrial hygienist (IH) time $56.83 

### per hour 10 $568

Notes: Total costs were calculated using unrounded values (see Appendix B), so results may differ from calculations using the rounded
values shown in this table.
Sources: Labor rates, Table B-1; cost elements and quantities, EPA, 1999.



### C.2.2 Impermeability Testing

As part of the workplace protection requirements sp ecified under 40 CFR §721.63( a)(3), to avoid engaging in a Significant New Use, the SNUR may require that em ployers demonstrate that each item of protective equipment provided (e.g., gloves) provides an impervious barrier, to protect employees from dermal exposure. Requirements outlined in §7 21.63(a)(3) are provided in two parts, §721 .63(a)(3)(i) and (ii). The employer may use a combination of (i) testing and/or (ii) evaluating manufacturer specifications. The following discussion is based on the Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 168
Chemical Substances and Background Support Document for Economic Analysis of Significant New Use
Rules (EPA, 1998) and assumes that the manufacturer uses both testing and evaluation of manufacturer specifications. The analysis assume s that costs are incurred annually.

The first step, described at 40 CFR §721.63(a)(3)(i), is to perform actual impermeability testing. To determine the costs of impermeability testing compliance, Best Manufacturing Company, a leading manufacturer and
tester of chemical resistant arti cles, was consulted (Best, 1997).

As described in EPA, 1998, Best used one of two methodologies for impermeability testing. In the first method, chemical samples were submitted to Best with a specific article to be tested for impermeability. This method was cheaper, costing $200 (1997 dollars) per chemical, but the burden of finding an appropriate article of protection lay with the chemical manufacturer. In the second method, the chemical manufacturer simply submitted chemical samples to Best, who in turn determined the most appropriate product, even if a competitor manufactured the product. This method wa s more costly at $800 (1997 dollars) per chemical.

The second method of impermeability testing is favored in this analysis for several reasons. First, the burden of finding and submitting an article of protection is shifted from the chemical manufacturer to the testing company, who would have greater experience in Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) selection. Second, should the article submitted fail the impermeability test, other articles may have to be submitted until satisfactory test results are obtained. Furthermore, substances subject to SNURs may include new and/or rare chemicals, which may have undiscovered or unknown properties. This uncertainty may impede chemicalEconomic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQOPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 C-7 

### manufacturers’ ability to effectively submit appropriate PPE articles for testing. Finally, the first method is essentially a pass-fail test. If an article passes the impermeability test, then it is acceptable. In the second method, several articles may be tested and compared, and, while one or more acceptable articles may result, the most impermeable article is always determined for the chemical. To obtain the best article rather than merely a satisfactory article of protection, the second method of testing is more appropriate. For these reasons, unit costs of $800 per chemical (1997 dollars) are assumed for impermeability testing. The cost of the impermeability testing is assumed to be driven by labor costs of the company performing the testing, thus test costs were inflated with an Employment Cost Index as described in Appendix B. The administration of this test would also require two hours of industrial hygienist labor (EPA, 1999).

The second step to compliance with the workplace pr otection requirements at §721.63 (a)(3)(ii) is the evaluation of specifications from the manufacturer or supplier of the protective equipment. This requirement helps ensure that the protective equipment will be impervious to the PMN chemical(s). The evaluation of manufacturer specifications requires an estimated four hours of industrial hygienist labor.

Annual costs of the impermeability testing requirements are presented in Table C-6.

Table C-6. Annual Costs of Impermeability Testing [40 CFR §721.63(a)(3)]

Cost Element Unit Cost (1997$) Inflation
Factor Unit Cost (2015$) Hours Total Cost 1

Impermeability Testing [§721.63(a)(3)(i)]

Impermeability Test $800 per chemical 1.664 $1,331 per chemical $1,331

Industrial Hygienist time $56.83 per hour 2 $114

Subtotal 2 $1,444

Evaluation of Manufacturer’s Specifications [§721.63(a)(3)(ii)]

Industrial Hygienist time $56.83 per hour 4 $227

Subtotal 4 $227

TOTAL 6 $1,672

Note:

1 Total costs were calculated using unrounded unit cost values and inflation factors (see Appendix B), so results may differ from calculations using the rounded values shown in this table.
Sources: 1997 costs, Best, 1997; cost elements and quantities, EPA, 1998 and EPA, 1999; inflators and labor rates, Table B-1 through
Table B-3.



### C.2.3 Gloves

If the SNUR cites 40 CFR §721.63(a)(2)(i), then gloves must be worn to avoid engaging in a Significant New Use. Gloves may also be acquired as a result of th e dermal protection selection at §721.63 (a)( 1). If standard, disposable medical-grade gloves are used, th ey are assumed to be wo rn and discarded by the worker following each day of exposure. Each site is assumed to have 25 workers, each of them exposed 250 days per year. This reflects the high-side assumptions in EPA, 1989 (page 25) for the number of workers and exposure days. Each pair was estimated to cost $0.44 in 2014 (Grainger, 2014). Total annual costs of providing disposable gloves are developed by applying the assumptions above regarding the number ofEconomic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQOPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 C-8 

### workers exposed (25 per site) and frequency of replacement (one pair per worker per day of exposure H 250 days of exposure per year). For some chemicals, he avy-duty gloves may be used. They are generally not disposed of daily, but are more expensive. The estimated costs of gloves purchased in compliance with SNUR Personal Protective Equipment requirements are presente d below in Table C-7. The cost estimates for each chemical assume that the more expensive heavy-duty gloves are used in cases where the SNUR explicitly requires gloves.

Table C-7. Annual Cost of Gloves [40 CFR §721.63(a)(2)(i)]

Cost Element Unit Cost (2014$ per

pair) Inflation
Factor Unit Cost (2015$ per pair) Number of
Pairs Required 1 Total Cost (2015$) 2

Disposable nitrile gloves (replaced daily) $0.44 1.001 $0.44 6,250 $2,764

Heavy duty butyl gloves (replaced every 25 work days) $70.73 1.001 $70.81 250 $17,704

Notes :

1 The analysis assumes that 25 workers who are exposed 250 days/year replace disposable gloves daily and replace heavy duty gloves every 25 work days.

2 Total costs were calculated using unrounded unit cost values and inflation factors (Table B-3), so results may differ from calculations using the rounded values shown in this table.
Sources : Item costs, Grainger, 2014; item type and quantity, EPA, 1998; inflator, Table B-3.



### C.2.4 Eyewear

If the SNUR cites 40 CFR §721.63(a)(2)(iii), then to avoid engaging in a Significant New Use, employer must provide eye protection. Eye protection may also be acquired as a result of the dermal protection selection at §721.63 (a)( 1). Protective goggles are expected to be used at a rate of one set per worker and replaced every four months. Each site is assumed to have 25 workers, each of them exposed 250 days per year. The SNUR may not specify the exact type of eyewear required. OSHA guidelines in 29 CFR § 1910.133 (b)( 1), however, state that protective eye and face devices pur chased after July 5, 1994 shall comply with ANSI Z87.1-1989. To determine the cost of goggles that meet this standard, EPA consulted with eyewear specialists at equipment supplier LSS. A standard pair of goggles that meets the ANSI Z87.1-1989specification was priced at $8.73 per pair in 2014 (Grainger, 2014; RIB, 1998). A price estimate for a heavyduty pair of goggles compliant with the ANSI standard is also included in Table C-8.

The cost estimates for each chemical assume that the more expensive heavy-duty goggles are used in cases where the SNUR explicitly requires goggles. Costs of protective eyewear were inflated as described in Appendix B and are presented in Table C-8 below.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQOPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 C-9 

### Table C-8. Annual Cost of Protective Eyewear [40 CFR §721.63(a)(2)(iii)]

Cost Element Unit Cost (2014$ per pair) Inflation
Factor Unit Cost (2015$ per pair) Number of
Pairs
Re q uired 1 Total Cost (2015$) 2

Standard Goggles $8.73 1.001 $8.74 75 $656 Heavy duty chemical-splash/impact goggles $11.95 1.001 $11.96 75 $897

Notes :

1 The analysis assumes 25 workers replacing goggles three times per year.

2 Total costs were calculated using unrounded unit cost values and inflation factors (see Appendix B), so results may differ from calculations using the rounded values shown in this table.
Sources: Item costs, Grainger, 2014; item type and quantity, EPA, 1998; inflator, Table B-3.



### C.2.5 Clothing

Costs for a standard coverall clothing set, estimated at $36.25 in 1997 (LSS, 1997), were inflated as described in Appendix B and are shown in Table C-9 below. Costs for full-body protective clothing are based on the coverall clothing set with a hood (LSS, 1997) as shown in Table C-9.

If the SNUR cites 40 CFR §721.63(a)(2)(ii) or (iv), then to avoid engaging in a Significant New Use, employers must provide protective clothing. Protective clothing may also be acquired as a result of the dermal protection selection at §721.63(a)(1). Protective clothing, (a)(2)(iv), and full-body chemical resistant clothing, (a)(2)(ii), are assumed to last four months. Each site is assumed to have 25 workers, each of them exposed 250 days per year.

Table C-9 shows estimated costs, after inflating as described in Appendix B, for a standard coverall clothing set that cost $41.00 in 2014 (Grainger, 2014) and for full-body protective clothing – the coverall clothing set
with a hood – costing $117.94 in 2014 (Grainger, 2014).

Table C-9. Annual Cost of Protective Clothing [40 CFR §721.63(a)(2)]

Cost Element Unit Cost (2014$ per set) Inflation
Factor Unit Cost (2015$ per set) Number Required 1 Total Cost (2015$) 2

Coverall with hood [full-body clothing] §721.63(a)(2)(ii) $117.94 1.001 $118.08 75 $8,856

Coverall §721.63(a)(2)(iv) $41.00 1.001 $41.05 75 $3,079

Notes : 1 The analysis assumes 25 workers replacing coverall three times per year.

2 Totals were calculated using unrounded unit cost values and inflation factors (see Table B-3), so results may differ from calculations using the rounded values shown in this table.
Sources: Item costs, Grainger, 2014; item type and qua ntity, EPA, 1998; inflation factor, Table B-3.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQOPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 C-10 

### C.2.6 Respirators

For some PMN chemicals, to avoid en gaging in a Significant New Use, th e SNUR requires either the use of respirators or compliance with a New Chemical Exposure Limit (NCEL). Both requirements differ by
chemical. 18 24 

### For costing purposes, this analysis assumes th at respirators are used. Earlier, PMN SNURs referenced specific paragraphs at 40 CFR §721.63 (a)(5) that identified fifteen types of NIOSH-approved respirator units. However, with rulemaking docket OPPT-2003-0063 (EPA, 2007b), PMN SNURs began to describe respirator choices directly. Costs of the SNUR respirator choices were estimated based on the costs of the respirator in §721.63 (a)(5) that appeared to best match the SNUR descriptions.

24 EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/pubs/ncelmain.htm explains that in Consent Orders and subsequent SNURs, EPA can require respirators unless workplace air measurements show that air-borne concentrations of the chemical are below a New Chemical Exposure Limit established by EPA to protect health. NCEL provisions are modeled after Occupational Safety and Health Administration Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs), and also cover sampling and analytical methods, monitoring, respiratory protection, and recordkeeping.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQOPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 C-11 

### Table C-10. Crosswalk Between SNUR Text and Respirator Types at 40 CFR §721.63(a)(5)

Respirator types at 40 CFR §721.63 (a)(5) 1 Requirement Stated in SNUR (exact SNUR wording may differ)

(ii) Category 19C Type C supplied-air respirator operated in pressure demand or continuous flow mode and equipped with a tight-fitting facepiece. Some SNURs may specify “full” facepiece
Some SNURs may specify “or ot her positive pressure mode” Supplied-air respirator operated in pressure demandor continuous flow mode and equipped with a tightfitting full facepiece.

Supplied-air respirator operated in pressure demand or other positive pressure mode and equipped with a tight-fitting full facepiece
(iii) Category 19C Type C supplied-air respirator operated in pressure demand or continuous flow mode and equipped with a hood or helmet or tight-fitting facepiece. Some SNURs may specify “half” or “full” facepiece. Supplied-air respirator operated in pressure demand or continuous flow mode and equipped with a hood or helmet or tight-fitting facepiece (either half- or
full-face).

(iv) Category 21C air-purifying respirator equipped with a full facepiece and high efficiency particulate filters. Some SNURs may specify a “half" or "full" facepiece.

Some SNURs may specify “if oil aerosols absent” or other
restrictions related to oil aerosols. Air-purifying respirator equipped with a tight-fitting full facepiece and High Efficiency Particulate Air
(HEPA) filters.

Air-purifying, tight-fitting respirator equipped with N100 (if oil aerosols absent), R100, or P100 filters (either half- or full-face).

Air-purifying, tight-fitting respirator (either half- or full-face) equipped with N100 (if oil aerosols absent), R100 (restricted use when oil aerosols present), or P100 (appropriate when oil aerosols present) filters.

Air purifying, tight-fitting full-face respirator equipped with the appropriate combination cartridges tested and approved for the gas/vapor substance (i.e., organic vapor, acid gas, or substance-specific cartridge), with a particulate filter (N100 if oil aerosols are absent, R100, or P100).

(v) Category 21C powered air-purifying respirator equipped with a tight-fitting facepiece and high efficiency particulate
filters. Some SNURs may specify a “half" or "full" facepiece. Powered air-purifying, tight-fitting full-face respirator equipped with N100 (if oil aerosols absent), R100, or P100 filters. Powered air-purifying respirator equipped with a tight-fitting facepiece (either half- or full-face) and
HEPA filters.
(vi) Category 21C powered air-purifying respirator equipped with a loose-fitting hood or helmet and high efficiency particulate filters. Powered air-purifying respirator equipped with a loose-fitting hood or helmet and High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQOPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 C-12 Respirator types at 40 CFR §721.63 (a)(5) 1 Requirement Stated in SNUR (exact SNUR wording may differ)
Note:

1 The table specifies respirator types at 40 CFR §721.63 (a)(5) that are most similar to the equipment described in the SNUR text for the current and recent SNUR rulemakings. Any significant differences between the specified respirator type at 40 CFR §721.63 (a)(5) and the SNUR text respirator type are noted in italics.



### Table C-11 gives average costs of various respirator types, both as originally estimated in 2014. It also estimates costs per plant site for a chemical requiring respirators.

The respirators specified in the SNURs are typically comprised of a respirator unit and any number of the following: special cartridges (such as high efficiency particulate filters, organic vapor cartridges, and paint, lacquer, and enamel filters), hoods or helmets, and filter caps. The costs for each site of providing respirators to chemically-exposed workers, shown in Table 4 of Chapter 2 of the report, are calculated based on the assumptions stated there, that (1) there are 25 chemically-exposed workers requiring protective equipment, (2) respirators are replaced once a year, and (3) cartridges (and cartridge filters and caps) are replaced at a rate of one pair (two cartridges) every five of the 250 days that workers are exposed, or 50 times per year. For example, for the respirator type described at 40 CFR §721.63(a)(5)(xv), the annual cost per worker in 2015
dollars would be as follows:

$29.54 per respirator + ($6.39 per cartridge × 50 cartridges/year) = $348.91 per worker.

Typically a SNUR describes more than one type of resp irator, but only one type of respirator is needed to comply with the workplace protection requirements.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0810)April 22, 2016 C-13Table C-11. Annual Per-Chemical Costs forRespiratory Protection [40 CFR §721.63(a)(4)]721.63(a)(5)par.NIOSH approval type at 40 CFR §721.63 (a)(5)(See Table C-10 for cross-walk to respirators in SNUR)Annual Average Costs(2014$)Annual Average Costs(2015$)1RespiratorUnitCartridgeSetPerWorker2InflationFactorAnnualPerWorkerAnnual PerSite (25workers)3(i)19C Type C Supplied-air with full facepiece$1,857 $0.00 $1,857 1.001 $1,859 $46,480(ii)19C Type C Supplied-air with tight-fitting facepiece$1,857 $0.00 $1,857 1.001 $1,859 $46,480(iii)19C Type C Supplied-air with hoodor helmet or tight-fitting facepiece$2,343 $0.00 $2,343 1.001 $2,346 $58,645(iv)21C Air-purifying with full facepiece and high efficiency particulate filters (HEPAs)$258 $8.57 $686 1.001 $687 $17,179(v)21C Powered air-purifying (PAPR) with tight fitting facepiece and HEPAs$1,086 $28.00 $2,486 1.001 $2,489 $62,224(vi)21C PAPR with loose hood or helmet and HEPAs$2,497 $55.35 $5,264 1.001 $5,271 $131,763(vii)21C Air-purifying with HEPA and disposable respirators$29.50 $6.38 $349 1.001 $349 $8,723(viii)23C air-purifying with full facepiece and combination cartridges approved for paints,lacquers and enamels (PLE)$252 $18.34 $1,169 1.001 $1,170 $29,260(ix)23C PAPR with tight-fitting facepiece and combination cartridges approved PLE$1,086 $116 $6,886 1.001 $6,894 $172,354(x)23C PAPR with loose-fitting hood or helmet and combination cartridges for PLE$2,362 $112 $7,981 1.001 $7,990 $199,760(xi)23C Air-purifying with combination cartridgesfor PLE, including disposable respirators$29.50 $8.16 $438 1.001 $438 $10,950(xii)23C Air-purifying with full-facepiece and organic gas/vapor cartridges$258 $8.97 $707 1.001 $707 $17,683(xiii)23C PAPR with tight-fitting facepiece and organic gas/vapor cartridges$1,086 $95.00 $5,836 1.001 $5,843 $146,073(xiv)23C PAPR with a loose-fitting hood or helmet and organic gas/vapor cartridges$2,362 $87.23 $6,723 1.001 $6,731 $168,286(xv)23C Air-purifying with organic gas/vapor cartridges, including disposable cartridges$29.50 $6.38 $349 1.001 $349 $8,723Notes:1Annual average costs were inflated as described in Table B-3.2“Respirator unit” costs include both the respirator and any required add-ons such as hoods and helmets. A “cartridge set” includes two cartridges and any filters or caps required. Assumescartridge sets are replaced every five days (50 times during 250 exposure days) so that each worker requires one respirator unit and 50 cartridge sets per year.3Totals were estimated from unrounded unit costs and inflation factors, so results may differ from calculations using the rounded values shown in this tableEconomic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 C-14 

### Table C-12 shows how the average costs per NIOSH-type respirator were calculated, based on prices of respirators listed in on an industrial supply website. To calculate the cost of respirators that meet the NIOSH criteria, the prices of units listed on the website that meet each NIOSH criteria were averaged. Costs of additional items such as hoods, helmets, cartr idges, and filter caps were also obtained. These are added to the cost of the basic respirator unit if they are required under the SNUR regulation and if the unit does not already include the item. For example, §721.63(a)(5)(x) requires a hood or helmet. One model in the catalog that satisfies the requirement already includes a hood, while another unit requires that a separate hood be purchased. The cost of the hood was added to the unit cost and the combined cost was then averaged with the m odel with integrated hood.

Many respirator specifications also require cartridge s. The costs of the cartridges were averaged for the corresponding requirements. In some instances, certain cartridges or filters require a secondary cartridge to function properly (e.g., some paint, lacquer and enamel filters required the organic vapors cartridges and filter retainer caps). These additio nal items were priced and added to the cost for the basic cartridge before averages were taken.

Some cartridge prices were unavailable, for instance, §721.63(a)(5)(ix) and (x) require a powered airpurifying respirator (PAPR) with a paint, lacquer and enamel cartridge . The only cartridges available for these models of respirators are HEPA cartridges. In these cases the cost s of a paint, lacquer, and enamel cartridge are assumed to be the same as for a HEPA cartridge.

The 2014 purchase costs of the varying types of resp iratory protective equipment are shown in Table C12.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0810)April 22, 2016 C-15Table C-12. Respirator Prices and Average Costs in 2014, by NIOSH Type40CFRNIOSHType2014 Average Cost2§721.63(a)(5)ItemNumberRespirator Description12014CostItemNumberFilter/Cartridge Description12014CostRespirator UnitCartridgeSet(i)19C Type C Supplied-air with full facepiece$1,857--11W0283M: Supplied Air Kit, Belt-Mounted$1,32322RP31SPERIAN: Supplied Air Respirators$2,390(ii)19C Type C Supplied-air with tight-fitting facepiece$1,857--11W0283M: Supplied Air Kit, Belt-Mounted$1,32322RP31SPERIAN: Supplied Air Respirators$2,390(iii)19C Type C Supplied-air with hood or helmet or tight-fitting facepiece$2,343--2V152SPEEDGLAS: Supplied Air System, PPA Hood$2,09323UA35ALLEGRO: Supplied Air System$2,593(iv)21C Air-purifying with full facepiece andhigh efficiency particulate filters (HEPAs)$258$8.574JG193M: Low Maintenance Full Face Respirator,Silicone/Thermoplastic Elastomer Facepiece$2323PB423M P100 Filters for Half and Full FaceRespirator$6.905WZA23M Ultimate FX Respirator$3403A183North by Honeywell: Full Face Respirator, SiliconeFacepiece$384T451North by Honeywell: Filter, Magenta$9.055VD41North by Honeywell: Low Maintenance Full FaceRespirator, Thermoplastic Elastomer Facepiece$1945HB59Honeywell: Full Face Respirator, Silicone Facepiece.5 point, Bayonet$1653NVJ9Honeywell: Bayonet Filter, P100$9.953NVJ2Honeywell: Full Face Respirator, Silicone Facepiece,5 point Bayonet with Mesh$2763NVT7Honeywell: Full Face Respirator, Silicone Facepiece,5 point, Threaded$1803NVL3Honeywell: Threaded Filter, P100$8.113NVT4Honeywell: Full Face Respirator, Silicone Facepiece,5 point Threaded with Mesh$2693PPP3MSA: Full Face Respirator, Silicone Facepiece 4point, Bayonet$226LN08MSA: Bayonet Magenta Filter$5.953PB94MSA: Full Face Respirator, Silicone FacepieceEuropean Style 4 point, Bayonet$2004LR28MSA: Full Face Respirator, Silicone FacepieceEuropean Style 5 point threaded$3724LR74MSA: Threaded Magenta Filter$11.44Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0810)April 22, 2016 C-1640CFRNIOSHType2014 Average Cost2§721.63(a)(5)ItemNumberRespirator Description12014CostItemNumberFilter/Cartridge Description12014CostRespirator UnitCartridgeSet(v)21C Powered air-purifying (PAPR) with tight fitting facepiece and HEPAs$1,086$28.008EM743M: PAPR System, L, Rechargeable NiMH$1,0109W5463M: PAPR HEPA Cartridge for 3M PAPRSystems$32.299CRJ83M: PAPR System, M, Rechargeable NiMH$9545JGF6MSA: PAPR System, 4 Point Suspension$1,4462YRD2MSA:PAPR HEPA Cartridge for MSA TLPAPR$23.935KB69MSA: PAPR System, 5 Point Suspension$933(vi)21C PAPR with loose hood or helmet and HEPAs$2,497$55.3511W0523M: PAPR System, Belt-Mounted, PETG, with hood$2,1449W5463M:PAPR HEPA Cartridge for 3M PAPRSystems$32.2911W0533M: PAPR System, Li-Ion, Polycarbonate, withhelmet$2,83832HD65ALLEGRO: Pureflo PAPR White Helmet/Hood HEFilter$3,03632HD72ALLEGRO: Pureflo HE (HEPA) Filter$10416M251,16M257,16M249North by Honeywell: PAPR System Backpack +Hood+Breathing Tube$2,2481AAN4North by Honeywell: Magenta$29.7516M250,16M257,16M249North by Honeywell: PAPR System Belted +Hood+Breathing Tube$2,218(vii)21C Air-purifying with HEPA and disposable respirators$29.50$6.388CCM33M 6000 Series Low-Maintenance Respirator$29.505WYZ43M: Disk Filter P100$6.38Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0810)April 22, 2016 C-1740CFRNIOSHType2014 Average Cost2§721.63(a)(5)ItemNumberRespirator Description12014CostItemNumberFilter/Cartridge Description12014CostRespirator UnitCartridgeSet(viii)23C air-purifying with full facepiece and combination cartridges approved for paints,lacquers and enamels (PLE)$252$18.344JG193M: Low Maintenance Full Face Respirator,Silicone/Thermoplastic Elastomer Facepiece$2323PB423M: Black/Magenta Cartridge for Half andFull Face Respirator$19.885WZA23M Ultimate FX Respirator$3403A183North by Honeywell: Full Face Respirator, SiliconeFacepiece$3844JG10North by Honeywell: Black/MagentaCartridge$18.255VD41North by Honeywell: Low Maintenance Full FaceRespirator, Thermoplastic Elastomer Facepiece$1944EU80Honeywell: Combination Cartridge,Bayonet$19.205HB59Honeywell: Full Face Respirator, Silicone Facepiece.5 point, Bayonet$1653NVJ2Honeywell: Full Face Respirator, Silicone Facepiece.5 point mesh$2763NVT7Honeywell: Full Face Respirator, Silicone Facepiece.5 point threaded$1803NVN9Honeywell: Combination Cartridge,Threaded$18.293NVT4Honeywell: Full Face Respirator, Silicone Facepiece.5 point mesh, threaded$2693PPP3MSA: Full Face Respirator, Silicone Facepiece 4point, Bayonet$2264LN01MSA: Combination Cartridge Bayonet$15.133PB94MSA: Full Face Respirator, Silicone FacepieceEuropean Style 4 point, Bayonet$2004LR28MSA: Full Face Respirator, Silicone FacepieceEuropean Style 5 point threaded$3724MG01MSA: Combination Cartridge, Threaded$19.31(ix)23C PAPR with tight-fitting facepiece and combination cartridges approved PLE$1,086$1168EM743M: PAPR System, L, Rechargeable NiMH$1,0105F7933M: PAPR OV, HEPA Filter$1719CRJ83M: PAPR System, M, Rechargeable NiMH$9545JGF6MSA: PAPR System, 4 Point Suspension$1,4463NNF7MSA: PAPR Black/Magenta Filter$60.175KB69MSA: PAPR System, 5 Point Suspension$933Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0810)April 22, 2016 C-1840CFRNIOSHType2014 Average Cost2§721.63(a)(5)ItemNumberRespirator Description12014CostItemNumberFilter/Cartridge Description12014CostRespirator UnitCartridgeSet(x)23C PAPR with loose-fitting hood or helmet and combination cartridges for PLE$2,362$11211W0523M: PAPR System, Belt-Mounted, PETG, with hood$2,1445F7933M: PAPR OV, HEPA Filter$17111W0533M: PAPR System, Li-Ion, Polycarbonate, withhelmet$2,83816M251,16M257,16M249North by Honeywell PAPR System Backpack +Hood+Breathing Tube$2,2481AAN4North by Honeywell: Black and Magenta$53.7516M250,16M257,16M249North by Honeywell PAPR System Belted +Hood+Breathing Tube$2,218(xi)23C Air-purifying with combination cartridges for PLE, including disposable respirators$29.50$8.168CCM33M 6000 Series Low-Maintenance Respirator$29.505WYZ43M: Disk Filter P100$8.16Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0810)April 22, 2016 C-1940CFRNIOSHType2014 Average Cost2§721.63(a)(5)ItemNumberRespirator Description12014CostItemNumberFilter/Cartridge Description12014CostRespirator UnitCartridgeSet(xii)23C Air-purifying with full-facepiece and organic gas/vapor cartridges$258$8.974JG193M: Low Maintenance Full Face Respirator,Silicone/Thermoplastic Elastomer Facepiece$2326AM373M OV Filters for Half and Full FaceRespirator$8.055WZA23M Ultimate FX Respirator$3403A183North by Honeywell: Full Face Respirator, SiliconeFacepiece$38416M237North by Honeywell: Respirator Cartridge,Black$9.515VD41North by Honeywell: Low Maintenance Full FaceRespirator, Thermoplastic Elastomer Facepiece$1945HB59Honeywell: Full Face Respirator, Silicone Facepiece.5 point, Bayonet$1654EU73Honeywell: OV Chemical Cartridge,Bayonet$9.523NVJ2Honeywell: Full Face Respirator, Silicone Facepiece,5 point Bayonet with Mesh$2763NVT7Honeywell: Full Face Respirator, Silicone Facepiece,5 point, Threaded$1804EU73Honeywell: OV Chemical Cartridge,Threaded , Bayonet$9.253NVT4Honeywell: Full Face Respirator, Silicone Facepiece,5 point Threaded with Mesh$2693PPP3MSA: Full Face Respirator, Silicone Facepiece 4point, Bayonet$2264LM93MSA: Black Chemical Cartridge$7.813PB94MSA: Full Face Respirator, Silicone FacepieceEuropean Style 4 point, Bayonet$2004LR28MSA: Full Face Respirator, Silicone FacepieceEuropean Styl 5 point threaded$3724LR57MSA: Black Chemical Cartridge, Threaded$9.71(xiii)23C PAPR with tight-fitting facepiece and organic gas/vapor cartridges$1,086$958EM743M: PAPR System, L, Rechargeable NiMH$1,0105F7893M: PAPR Black Cartridge for 3M PAPRSystems$1309CRJ83M: PAPR System, M, Rechargeable NiMH$9545JGF6MSA: PAPR System, 4 Point Suspension$1,4463NNF7MSA: PAPR Black/Magenta Filter$60.175KB69MSA: PAPR System, 5 Point Suspension$933Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0810)April 22, 2016 C-2040CFRNIOSHType2014 Average Cost2§721.63(a)(5)ItemNumberRespirator Description12014CostItemNumberFilter/Cartridge Description12014CostRespirator UnitCartridgeSet(xiv)23C PAPR with a loose-fitting hood or helmet and organic gas/vapor cartridges$2,362$87.2311W0523M: PAPR System, Belt-Mounted, PETG, with hood$2,1445F7893M: PAPR Black Cartridge for 3M PAPRSystems$13011W0533M: PAPR System, Li-Ion, Polycarbonate, withhelmet$2,83816M251,16M257,16M249North by Honeywell PAPR System Backpack +Hood+Breathing Tube$2,2481AAN4North by Honeywell: Black Cartidge$44.4516M250,16M257,16M249North by Honeywell PAPR System Belted +Hood+Breathing Tube$2,218(xv)23C Air-purifying with organic gas/vapor cartridges, including disposable cartridges$29.50$6.388CCM33M 6000 Series Low-Maintenance Respirator$29.505WYZ43M: OV Filter4$6.38Notes:1See Table C-10 for the cross-walk between respirator types in the SNUR and in this table.2Average costs presented in this table are rounded to the nearest dollar figure, so results may differ from calculations using the rounded values shown in this table.3Paint, lacquer and enamel (PLE) cartridges for PAPRs were not listed in the catalog. The costs for PLE cartridges are assumed to be the same as combination HEPA and OV cartridges, as both particulate andvapor filters are recommended for paints (US Safety, 2011).4Organic Vapor cartridges were not listed in the catalog for disposable respirators. The costs for OV cartridges are assumed tobe the same as HEPA cartridges.Sources:Grainger, 2014; EPAB 1999Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 C-21 

### C.3 Recordkeeping

There are two main types of recordkeeping requirement s for the substances liste d in the current SNURs: those for companies submitting a SNUN, and those for all companies that manufact ure, import or process SNUR-regulated substances, rega rdless of whether they have made a submission to EPA.

C.3.1 SNUN Submitters

Companies submitting a SNUN must keep record s under 40 CFR §721.40. Some EPA reports have assumed that SNUN recordkeeping hours would be 5 percent of SNUN submission hours, or about five to
six hours. 25 

### Other EPA reports have estimated that electron ic submission of SNUNs is expected to reduce the recordkeeping burden to approximately one hour (EPA, 2009a, p. 16) For this report, the SNUN recordkeeping hours were included in the SNUN submission hours (see Table 8) and the SNUN recordkeeping cost was not separately estimated. 26



### C.3.2 All Manufacturers, Importers, and Processors

Whether or not they submit a SNUN, firms that ma nufacture, import, or process the SNUR substance must keep records based on 40 CFR §721.125(a) through (k), to document compliance with SNUR conditions for avoiding a Significant New Use. (For firms prod ucing under the R&D exemption, R&D recordkeeping would be needed. R&D recordkeeping costs were not estimated for this report.)

Recordkeeping requirements vary between PMN chemic als, reflecting differences in SNUR restrictions.
For all chemicals in the current SNURs, manufacturers, importer s, and processors must keep records on quantities supplied or purchased under 40 CFR §721.125 (a), (b), and (c). For chemicals with water discharge restrictions, companies must keep reco rds concerning water discharge compliance, under §721.125(k). For chemicals with other use restrict ions, or for those few chemicals with workplace protection or hazard communication restrictions, companies must keep records under other 40CFR §721.125 paragraphs, to document compliance.

The 2009 final PMN Electronic Report ing (ePMN) Rule that requires the electronic subm ission of all TSCA section 5 notices. Therefore, EPA expects th at records supporting TSCA section 5 submissions, including SNUNs, will be created a nd stored electronically, including re cords related to: manufacturing, importing, or processing volumes; sh ipment amounts and customer info rmation; clothing impermeability

25 For example, OPPT’s Information Collection Request (ICR) for TSCA Section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rules for Existing Chemicals (Renewal), October 11, 2005, estimates SNUN recordkeeping costs at 5.67 hours (EPA 2005b, page 12).

26 SNUN submission costs estimated in Table 8 of this report were based on PMN submission costs from a 1994
report, Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSC Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications (EPA, 1994). Page III-14 of the 1994 report refers to “the normal records kept with a PMN
submission which are included in the estimates for submis sion costs.” Page III-12 ident ifies “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 RIB 1994) included recordkeeping hours.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 C-22 

### determinations; the hazard communication program in cluding labels and MSDS copies; compliance with other use restrictions; and/or compliance with dispos al and release to water li mitations. Records must be maintained for five years from the date of their creation.

Costs for compliance with the recor dkeeping requirements for substances subject to a SNUR are based on the approach in Economic Analysis of Final Significant New Use Rules: General Provisions for New Chemical Followup (EPA, 1989) which in turn was based on Recordkeeping Costs for a Generic SNUR

, prepared for EPA in 1988 by Kearney/Centaur (Kea rney, 1988a). These repor ts drew on recordkeeping costs estimated for the Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule, CAIR. Industry recordkeeping costs for CAIR compliance were estimated in reports Kearney prepared for EPA, including Estimated Cost of the Final Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule , June 1, 1988 (Kearney, 1988b, pages 63 to 65). To account for the burden redu ctions resulting from for electro nic reporting, these recordkeeping costs were updated using the approach outlined in The Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electroni c Reporting Rule (EPA, 2009a).

This report uses the basic Kearney (1988a and 1988b) estimates and assumptions to estimate recordkeeping costs for SNUR requirements and adjusts for efficiencies and costs savings generated by electronic submissions. Unlike Kearney (1988a), this report presents costs for each §721.125 recordkeeping requirement separately. This report also avoids minor rounding errors by calculating from unrounded data. However, the underlying methodology is identical to the Kearney 1988a/RIB 1989 reports, resulting in identical costs per chemical excep t for differences due to inflation and rounding. The paragraphs that follow describe estimates and assumptions used from Kearney (1988a and 1988b).

Cost per page. Kearney (1988a) based recordkeep ing costs on a cost per page basis and assumes that the ratios of labor hours to page count for each labor category, file drawer space to page count, and cost of miscellaneous supplies such as folders and labels to page count, are the same as the per-page ratios estimated for EPA’s Comprehensive Assessment and Reporting Rule. The CAIR estimates are given in the 1988 report, Estimated Cost of the Final Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule, June 1, 1988, page 65 (Kearney, 1988b). EPA (2009a) assumes that 

### the recordkeeping burden for SNURs will be reduced by half because of the efficiencies in creating and storing section 5 notices and supporting documents electronically. Therefore the per-page labor burden estimates from the CAIR report (Kearney, 1988b) have b een reduced by half. In addition, a ll material costs associated with paper records, such as paper, and, filing cabinets have been removed, as files will now be stored electronically.

Table C-13 summarizes estimates from Kearney 1988a and the CAIR report (Kearney, 1988b) and adjusts for electronic reporting.. It also shows the derivation of costs from these estima tes, after inflation. The
method is as follows:

 Technical labor was estimated at 1 hour for 750 pages in the CAIR report (Kearney, 1988b, page 65), or .00133 hours per page. Adjusting for electronic submissions this burden is now .00067 hours per page. The analysis estimates a cost per hour and per page using fully loaded labor rates
from Table B-1.

 Clerical labor was estimated at 10 hours for 750 pages in the CAIR report (Kearney, 1988b, page 65), or .01333 hours per page. Adjusting for electronic submissions this burden is now .00667Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 C-23 

### hours per page. The analysis estimates a cost per hour and per page using fully loaded labor rates
from Table B-1.

 The photocopying cost of $0.05 per page (Kearne y 1988a), file storage costs of $0.065 per page, and miscellaneous materials costs of $0.0133 (Kearney, 1988b, page 65) were removed to account for the cost savings from keeping electronic files. 27 28 

### . It should be noted that none of the
costs listed above account for inflation

27 The file storage needs from CAIR were estimated at 1⁄4 of a four-drawer file cabinet for 750 pages (Kearney, 1988b, page 65) or 0.000333 of a cabinet per page. A standard, four-drawer, full-suspension file cabinet was priced from a national office products supplier at $195 in 1997 (BT Office Products, 1997; Item #LGM-202401; EPA, 1998). This results in $0.065 per page cost for file space, before inflation ($195 × 0.25 file cabinet/750 pages).

28 Miscellaneous materials costs were estimated at $10.00 for 750 pages in the CAIR report (Kearney, 1988b, page 65), or $0.0133/page before inflationEconomic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 C-24 

### Table C-13. Recordkeeping Estimates from Kearney 1988a and 1988b

Labor Costs Kearney Estimates for CAIR Rule (1988a, b) Adjusted for Inflation Per Page Cost - 2015$

Estimate ePMN Cost Savings CAIR Pages Cost Per Page Cost Per
Hour Cost Per Page
(a) (b) (c) (d) = [(a) *(1-(b))]/(c)

Labor Costs

Technical 1 hour 50% 750 0.00067 

### $75.89 $0.0506

Clerical 10 hours 50% 750 0.00667 

### $33.66 $0.2244

Total Labor 0.00733 hours $0.2750

Material Costs

Photocopying $0.05 [1988 dollars] 100% 1 $0.00 $0.00

File Cabinet 1/4 of cabinet priced at $195 [1997 dollars] 100% 750 $0.00 $0.00

Misc.
Materials $10 total [1988 dollars] 100% 750 $0.00 $0.00

Total
Materials $0.00

Total Cost per Page (Labor & Materials) $0.2750

Notes:

1 Per-page labor hours and materials costs were originally estimated in Kearney 1988b for the CAIR rule. The CAIR per-page costs were then used to estimate SNUR recordkeeping per-page cost s in Kearney 1988a, and adjusted for the burden reductions from electronic reporting using the approach outlined in EPA, 2009a. This clarifies the method by which the original CAIR per-page
costs and hours were calculated. It also adjusts costs for inflation using labor rates from Table B-1 and inflation factors fro m Table
B-3.

2 Cost per page is $0 because paper copies are no longer kept.



### Pages per chemical at one site. In order to estimate recordkeeping co sts, the analysis multiplies the costs per page for each recordkeeping elem ent estimated in Table C-13 by the number of pages required for each SNUR recordkeeping requirem ent at 40 CFR §721.12 5 as estimated by Kearney (1998a). The Kearney data was used by EPA in its original ex pedited-SNUR economic analysis (EPA, 1989). For example, maintainin g MSDS copies as required at §721.125(h ) would require 5 pages. The following estimates from Kearney (1988a) are also used:

 Manufacture and import volume, and sales and transfer data require 485 pages of records per year. This reflects 40 invoices per month (see haz-comm Section C.1 above), 480 for sales/transfer and 5 for manufacturer/import (Kearney, 1988a, p.11).Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 C-25 

###  Disposal compliance reco rds, if required, cover items such as waste production, shipping manifests, permits, and transfer receipts. The 600 disposal compliance pages assume 50 pages per month (Kearney, 1988a, p.11).

(This report uses slightly different terminology from EPA, 1989: “Protective clothing” instead of “protective gloves,” “haz-comm” instead of “employe e information and training.” Recordkeeping for “impermeability determination” was not separately costed out in EPA, 1989. This report assumes it is included under “protective clothing” recordkeeping.)

Cost per chemical. Table C-14 shows annual record keeping activities at one s ite for one SNUR chemical, by CFR requirement. If all recordkeeping requirements at 40 CFR §721.125 applied to a single chemical,
there would be costs for 1.1 hours of technical time and 11.4 hours of clerical time. However, in reality, few if any chemicals will have all of the recordk eeping requirements listed in Table C-14. Recordkeeping costs would be lower for chemicals with relatively fe w SNUR restrictions because fewer pages would be
needed to document SNUR compliance.

Table C-14 does not include costs of recordkeeping resulting from a SNUN submission; those costs were
included in the SNUN submission cost.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 C-26 

### Table C-14. Annual Per-Chemic al Costs of Record keeping Requirement [40 CFR 721.125]

40CFR §721.125 2 Requirement Pages (a) Labor and Materials Cost 1 (2015$) Hours

Per Page (b) Per Chemical (c)=(a)*(b) Per Page (d) Per Chemical (e)=(a)*(d) (a)(b)(c) Volumes & sales/transfer data 485 $0.2750 $133 0.00733 3.56

(d)(e) Protective clothing [§721.63] and impermeability [§721.63(a)(3)] 20 $0.2750 $5.50 0.00733 0.15

(f) Haz-comm program [§721.72] 250 $0.2750 $69 0.00733 1.83 (g) Label copies [§721.72(b)] 5 $0.2750 $1.38 0.00733 0.04 (h) MSDS copies [§721.72(c)] 5 $0.2750 $1.38 0.00733 0.04

(i) Use limitations compliance [§721.80] 250 $0.2750 $69 0.00733 1.83

(j) Disposal compliance [§721.80] 600 $0.2750 $165 0.00733 4.40

(k) Release to water compliance [§721.90] 100 $0.2750 $27.50 0.00733 0.73

TOTAL 1,715 $0.2750 $472 0.00733 12.58

Notes:

1 This table multiplies cost per page estima tes from Table C-13 by the number of pa ges estimated for each recordkeeping cost element. (This table does not include recordkeeping for SNUN submissions required by 40 CFR §721.40.) Total costs are calculated from unrounded values and may not equa l the sum and/or product of rounded values.

2 40 CFR 721.125(a) through (k) list recordkeeping that may be specified in the SNUR. The recordkeeping specified depends on which 40 CFR §721 provisions [in brackets] were used by th e SNUR to define reportable New Uses (§721.63, §721.72, §721.80, and/or §721.90). Few if any SNUR chemicals would require all of the recordkeeping costs listed above since few if any chemicals are subject to all of the requirements (a) through (k).

3 Pages count estimates for each SNUR requirement are from Kearney, 1988a.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 D-1 

## APPENDIX D: Costs of Testing

EPA recognizes that TSCA Section 5 does not requ ire developing any particular test data before submission of a Significant New Use Notice. Persons ar e required only to submit test data in their possession or control and to describe any other data kn own to or reasonably ascertainable by them. (Upon review of a SNUN, the Agency has th e authority to require appropriate testing, but that is a cost of regulatory follow-up, not of the SNUN submissi on itself.) For informatio nal purposes, the SNURs describe tests recommended by EPA to provide sufficien t information to evaluate the chemical substance. However, as was explained in the discussion of SNUNs earlier in this report, it appears that firms rarely elect to do these recommended tests to support a S NUN, and especially not the higher-cost tests. For informational purposes, this appendix presents es timated costs for testing often recommended for chemicals that have been the subj ect of PMNs and are subject to Significant New Use Rules (SNURs).



### D.1 Testing Guidelines

In the SNURs, EPA identifies a set of tests for eac h PMN chemical that can be used by firms making Significant New Use Notice or other submissions to EP A to characterize risks of the chemical. The tests are recommended in the SNUR, not mandatory. They are identified by guideline numbers which can be used to look up published test protocols. Table D-1 lists test guidelines cited in the current and recent SNUR rulemakings, and their associated costs, Tabl e D-2 presents certain as sumptions used in the analysis, and Table D-3 presents Pe rsistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT ) tiered testing requirements. The types of guidelines are described below.

D.1.1 OPPTS Harmonized Test Guidelines

Most SNUR tests are identified by their OPPTS nu mber from the series of OPPTS Harmonized Test
Guidelines and OPPT S harmonized public drafts not yet promulgated as OPPTS guidelines. These guidelines blended testin g guidance from OPPT (published in the Code of Federal Regulations), EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and other sources. The harmonized guidelines fall into several categories, including the following:

 Series 835--Fate, Transport and Transformation Test Guidelines

 Series 850--Ecological E ffects Test Guidelines

 Series 870--Health Effects Test Guidelines

They are available electronically on EPA’s website (EPA, 2006). Cross-references for health effects guidelines are listed at 63 FR 41847, August 5, 1998.

D.1.2 Code of Federal Regulations

SNUR tests may also come from the Code of Federa l Regulations (CFR), identified for example as “40 CFR 799.9370” or just “799.9370.” In addition, in costing out test guidelines, this report sometimes usesEconomic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 D-2 

### costs for a CFR guideline when costs have not been developed for the equivalent OPPTS harmonized guideline. 40 CFR parts 795 through 798 include pr e-harmonization test guide lines, typically updated before 1990. 40 CFR part 799 includes more recent TSCA test guidelines, based on harmonized test guidelines. (63 FR 41845, August 5, 1998).

D.1.3 OECD

A few SNUR tests are identified by their OECD number. The OECD guidelines may have OPPTS equivalents. For example, OECD 407 28-Day Oral Toxi city in Rats is essentia lly equivalent to OPPTS
870.3050.

D.1.4 OECD’s Guidance Manual for the Testin g of Manufactured Nanomaterials

For some nanomaterials SNUR tests may refer to OECD’s Guidance Manual for the Testing of Manufactured Nanomaterials . Because of the newness of nanoma terial testing tests may not have protocol numbers, but rather refer to the guidelines described in the manual.

D.1.5 PBT Category

For some chemicals, the SNUR cites tiered testing acco rding to a testing strategy published in the Federal Register (FR), Category for Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic New Chemical Substances, November 4, 1999 (64 FR 60194), which in turn refers to a number of tests by OPPTS or OECD guideline number.

D.1.6 ASTM, NTIS, and Other Sources

Test guidelines may also come from the American Society for Testing and Materials (for example, ASTM D2035-80 Modified Coagulation-flocculation Jar Test of Water) (www.astm.org) or other sources. The guideline for a neurotoxicit y functional observatio nal battery, NTIS PB 91-15 4617, is available from the
National Technical Informatio n Service (www.ntis.gov).Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0810)April 22, 2016 D-3Table D-1. Cost Estimates for Test Guidelines Cited in SNURsGuidelineTestSpeciesRoute/MethodCost2015$Product Properties830.6315 Flammability NA NA$2,490830.7050Absorption in Aqueous Solution: ultraviolet/visiblespectraNA NA$2,517830.7200 Melting Point / Melting Range NA 8-test average$1,494830.7550 Partition Coefficient (n-Octanol/Water) NA Shake Flask Method$7,807830.7560 Partition Coefficient (n-Oct/Water) NA Generator Column$8,298830.7570 Partition Coefficient (n-Oct/Water) NA Liquid Chromatography$5,461830.7840 Water Solubility NA Flask Method$11,283830.7860 (796.1860)xWater Solubility: Column Generator Method NA Generator Column$23,815Described EPAConsent OrderAtmospheric Half Life Test NA NA*Karel VershuerenHandbook, odor andtaste testOdor and taste test (in Handbook of EnvironmentalData on Organic Chemicals, by Karel Vershueren, 4thEd, Vol. 1, Page 22)NA NA$2,490Fate, Transport, Transformation835.1110 Activated Sludge Sorption Isotherm NA NA$21,817835.1220 Sediment and Soil Adsorption/Desorption Isotherm NA NA$33,462835.1230Sediment and Soil Adsorption/Desorption (batchequilibrium)NA NA$47,254835.1240 Leaching and adsorption/desorption NA NA$62,141835.2110 Hydrolysis as a Function of pH NA NA$65,744Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0810)April 22, 2016 D-4GuidelineTestSpeciesRoute/MethodCost2015$835.2120 Hydrolysis test NA NA$46,366835.2130 Hydrolysis as a Function of pH and Temperature NA NA*835.2210 (796.3700) Photolysis in Aqueous Solution in Sunlight NA NA$131,513835.3100 (796.3100) Aerobic Aquatic Biodegradation NA NA$18,054835.3110 Ready Biodegradation NA Average of six methods$14,106835.3120 Sealed-Vessel CO2 Production Test NA NA$8,748835.3140 CO2 in Sealed Vessels Test NA NA*835.3170 Shake Flask Die-Away Test NA NA$57,522835.3180 Sediment/Water Microcosm Biodegradation NA Flow-through$145,288835.3190Aerobic Mineralization in Surface Water – SimulationBiodegradation TestNA NA*835.3200(OECD 302B)Inherent Biodegradation: Modified Zahn-Wellens NA NA$11,431835.3210 Modified SCAS Test NA NA$33,685835.3220 Porous Pot Test NA NA$36,484835.3400 Anaerobic Biodegradability of Organic Chemicals NA NA$13,886835.5045 (OECD302A)Inherent Biodegradability: Modified SCAS Test NA NA$16,045835.5270 (795.7000)Sunlight Photolysis in Waters Containing DissolvedHumic Substances (Indirect Photolysis Screening Test)NA NA$27,739D2035-80 (ASTM D2035-80)Standard Practice for Coagulation-Flocculation JarTest of WaterNA NA$4,791OECD 303ASimulation Test - Aerobic Sewage Treatment, withmeasurement of loss of the parentNA NA$48,248Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0810)April 22, 2016 D-5GuidelineTestSpeciesRoute/MethodCost2015$OECD 307 Aerobic and Anaerobic Transformation in Soil NA Flow-through$316,402OECD 307 Aerobic and Anaerobic Transformation in Soil NA Bio-meter type flasks$299,093OECD 308 Anaerobic transformation in aquatic sediment systems NA NA*OECD 309 Aerobic mineralisation in surface water NA NA*OECD 310Ready biodegradability-CO2 in Sealed Vessels(headspace test)NANA*OECD 311 (835.3400)Anaerobic biodegradability of organic compounds indigested sludgeNA NA*OECD TG 310 CO2in Sealed Vessels – Headspace Test NA NA*Draft OECD Jan 2002Phototransformation of chemicals on soil surfaces-2soilsNA NA$48,248Ecological Effects850.1000Special Considerations for Conducting AquaticLaboratory StudiesNA NA *850.1010 (797.1300) Daphnid Acute Toxicity Daphnid Flow-through$16,908850.1010 (797.1300) Daphnid Acute Toxicity Daphnid Static$16,684850.1075 (797.1400) Fish Acute ToxicityFatheadMinnowFlow-through$23,301850.1075 (797.1400) Fish Acute Toxicity NA Static$18,872850.1085 Fish Acute Toxicity Test mitigated by humic acidFatheadMinnowFlow-through*850.1085 Fish Acute Toxicity Test mitigated by humic acidFatheadMinnowStatic$19,672850.1300 Daphnid Chronic Toxicity Test Daphnid Flow-through$151,441Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0810)April 22, 2016 D-6GuidelineTestSpeciesRoute/MethodCost2015$850.1350 Mysid Chronic ToxicityTest Mysid Flow-through$49,708850.1400 Fish Early Life Stage Toxicity Rainbow Trout Flow-through$77,229850.1400 Fish Early Life Stage ToxicityFatheadMinnowFlow-through$52,209850.1730 Fish BCFFatheadMinnowFlow-through$168,958850.1925 Site-Specific AquaticMicrocosm Test NA NA*850.1950 Field testing for Aquatic Organisms3NA NA$751,335850.5400 Algal Toxicity, Tiers I and II NA NA$20,431850.5400Shake-Flask Test for Estimation of Biodegradability ofToxic Organic Substances in the Aquatic Environment.Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 14:239-251on P-08-513 utilizing a 96-Hour Bioassay in AlgaeNA NA *OECD 218 Chironomid Sediment Toxicity NA NA $32,223OECD 225 Effects on Sediment Species (Lumbriculus) NA Spiked Sediment$32,317Cripe, C.R., Walker,W.W., Pritchard, P.H.,Borquin, A.W. (1987)Modified Shake-Flask Biodegradation Test NA NA *Health Effects870.1100 Acute Oral Toxicity Rats Gavage$8,806870.1300 Acute Inhalation Toxicity Rats4Inhalation$19,419870.2500 Acute Dermal Irritation Test Rabbits Dermal$6,972870.2600 Dermal Sensitization Test Guinea Pigs NA$13,369870.3050 Repeated Dose 28-day Oral Toxicity Test Rodents NA*Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0810)April 22, 2016 D-7GuidelineTestSpeciesRoute/MethodCost2015$870.3100 90-Day Oral Toxicity Rats Gavage$176,390870.3250 Subchronic Dermal Toxicity - 90 days Rats Dermal$150,564870.34651Subchronic Inhalation Toxicity Rats Inhalation$578,156870.3465 (mod)Subchronic Inhalation Toxicity (w/ 60 day recoverygroup)Rats Inhalation$275,790870.3465 (OECD413)1Subchronic Inhalation Toxicity (90-day exposure/180-day retention)Rats Inhalation$481,850870.3550 Reproductive/Developmental Toxicity Screening Test NA Oral*870.3650Combined repeated dose toxicity test with thereproductive/developmental screening testRats NA*870.3700 Prenatal Developmental Toxicity {2 species} Rats Gavage$133,895870.3800Reproduction/Fertility Effects (2-GenerationReproduction)Rats Gavage$445,721870.4200 Carcinogenicity {2 species} (24 months) Rats Gavage$1,777,232870.4200 Carcinogenicity {2 species} Rats Inhalation$1,410,397870.4300 Combined Chronic Toxicity/Carcinogenicity Test Rats Gavage$1,357,430870.5100 Bacterial reverse mutation test NA Direct plate$10,137870.5265Salmonella typhimurium Reverse Mutation Assay(Ames Test)NAAverage of direct plateand Azo reduction$14,630870.5385Mammalian Bone Marrow Chromosomal AberrationTestRats Gavage$41,830Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0810)April 22, 2016 D-8GuidelineTestSpeciesRoute/MethodCost2015$870.5395In Vivo Mammalian Bone Marrow Cytogenetics Tests:Erythrocyte Micronucleus Assay (Average of 1 and 3day dosings)MiceGavage (Average of 1 and3 day)$24,811870.5395In Vivo Mammalian Bone Marrow Cytogenetics Tests:Erythrocyte Micronucleus Assay (Average of 1 and 3day dosings)MiceIntravenous (Two testaverage)$24,811870.5550Unscheduled DNA Synthesis in Mammalian Cells inCultureRatHepatocytesNA$25,621870.6100Delayed Neurotoxicity of OrganophosphorusSubstances (Acute)Hens Gavage (Acute)$43,804870.6100Delayed Neurotoxicity of OrganophosphorusSubstances (Subchronic 28-day)Hens Gavage (Subchronic)$86,890870.6200Neurotoxicity Screening Battery (Acute)RatsGavage$176,512870.7485Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics (Tier I)RatsGavage$218,467870.7800ImmunotoxicityRatsGavage$74,995ASTM F739 -91(ASTM F739)2Standard Test Method for Resistance of ProtectiveClothing Materials to Permeation by Liquids or GasesUnder Conditions of Continuous ContactNAAverage (Gases andLiquids)$16,394OECD 105Water Solubility TestNAFlask Method$7,926OECD 112Dissociation Constant in Water TestNAConductometric Method$6,945OECD 206Avian Reproduction TestBobwhiteQuailNA$114,805OECD 206Avian Reproduction TestMallard DucksNA$124,146OECD 303ASimulation Test - Aerobic Sewage Treatment:Activated Sludge UnitsNANA$48,248Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0810)April 22, 2016 D-9GuidelineTestSpeciesRoute/MethodCost2015$OECD 307Aerobic and Anaerobic Transformation in Soil TestNAFlow Through$316,402OECD 307Aerobic and Anaerobic Transformation in Soil TestNABio-meter Type Flasks$316,402OECD 308Aerobic and Anaerobic Transformation in AquaticSediment Systems TestNANA*OECD 311Anaerobic Biodegradability of Organic Compounds inDigested Sludge TestNANA*OECD 314Simulation Test to Assess the Biodegradability ofChemicals Discharged in WastewaterNANA*OECD 404 (870.2500)Acute Dermal IrritationRabbitsDermal$6,972OECD 405 (870.2400)Acute Eye IrritationRabbitsEye$6,972OECD 407 (870.3050)Repeated dose 28-day oral toxicity study in rodentsRatsGavage (28 Days)$65,035OECD 412Repeated Dose Inhalation Toxicity (28-Day Study)RatsInhalation (28 Days)$145,610OECD 416Two-Generation Reproduction Toxicity TestRatsDietary$479,879OECD 421 (870.3550)Reproduction/developmental toxicity screening testsRatsGavage$76,281OECD 422 (870.3650)Combined Repeated Dose Study withReproductive/Developmental Toxicity ScreenRats Gavage$152,052OECD 422 (mod)Combined Repeated Dose Study withReproductive/Developmental Toxicity Screen (90 daysw/ histopathology)Rats Gavage$285,872OECD 425 Acute Oral toxicity: Up-and-down Procedure Rats Gavage$6,735OECD 428 Skin Absorption: In Vitro Method NA NA*OECD 453 Combined Chronic Toxicity/Carcinogenicity Test Rats Inhalation$3,987,297Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0810)April 22, 2016 D-10GuidelineTestSpeciesRoute/MethodCost2015$ASTM D6007-02Small Scale Chamber Test to DeterminingFormaldehyde Concentration in Air from WoodProductsNA NA *EPA draft Inhalation Monitoring Data Collection Guidelines NA NA *Described in EPAConsent OrderInformation to Address Cardiac Sensitization NA NA *Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program Tests890.1200Aromatase (human recombinant) testNANA*OCSPP 890.1550(OECD 456)Steriodogenesis (human cell line-H295R) testNANA*Nanomaterial Specific Tests5, 6ASTM D2565-99(2008)Release of MWCNTs after exposure of liquid polymerforms to sunlight:NAConsult Standard Practicefor Xenon-Arc Exposureof Plastics Intended forOutdoor Applications*ASTM E1354-09Release of MWCNTs during the burning of liquidpolymer forms:NAConsult Standard TestMethod for Heat andVisible Smoke ReleaseRates for Materials andProducts Using anOxygen ConsumptionCalorimeter*ASTM E2865-12Standard Guide for Measurement of ElectrophoreticMobility and Zeta Potential of Nanosized BiologicalMaterialsNASurface Charge byElectrophoresis*Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0810)April 22, 2016 D-11GuidelineTestSpeciesRoute/MethodCost2015$EPA method 1320 Release of MWCNTs after landfill disposal: NAMultiple ExtractionProcedure to determinethe fraction of MWCNTsreleased during theleaching that the liquidpolymer forms willundergo from repetitiveprecipitation of acid rain*NCL Method PCC-2 Measuring the Zeta Potential of Nanoparticles NA NA *OECD's GuidanceManual for the Testingof ManufacturedNanomaterialsDustiness Test NA EN 15051 Method$2,841OECD's GuidanceManual for the Testingof ManufacturedNanomaterialsDry particle size distribution by count for each PMNsubstance in a form which has the highest content ofparticles smaller than 10 microns as manufactured,processed or used in the workplace at sites controlledby the CompanyNASTEM (scanningtransmission electronmicroscopy) method*OECD's GuidanceManual for the Testingof ManufacturedNanomaterialsSurface chemistry NAAverage of ThreeMethods$669OECD's GuidanceManual for the Testingof ManufacturedNanomaterialsConfiguration of Carbon Nanotube ends NA NA $829Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0810)April 22, 2016 D-12GuidelineTestSpeciesRoute/MethodCost2015$OECD's GuidanceManual for the Testingof ManufacturedNanomaterialsRelease of MWCNTs during solid polymer formshipping and useNAA simple short-term testconsisting of placing thesolid polymer forms in astandard rock tumbler anddetermining the amountof free MWCNTs after aperiod of l, 5, 15, and 30days to screen forsignificant release ofMWCNTs from the solidpolymer forms.*OECD's GuidanceManual for the Testingof ManufacturedNanomaterialsGRAPHISTRENGTH TM C100 (>90% MWCNTs. <7% aluminia and <5% of iron oxide)NA NA *OECD's GuidanceManual for the Testingof ManufacturedNanomaterialsGRAPHISTRENGTH TM U100 (>97% MWCNTs.<3% of iron oxide, 1% alumnia)NA NA *OECD's GuidanceManual for the Testingof ManufacturedNanomaterialsGRAPHISTRENGTH TM CSI-015, a viscous resin(honey-like) comprised of 98.5% epoxy resin, 1,5%GRAPHISTRENGTH TM C100NA NA *OECD's GuidanceManual for the Testingof ManufacturedNanomaterialsGRAPHISTRENGTH TM PEB-201, a very highlyviscous resin (tar-like paste) comprised of 64.3%polyester, 31.6% styrene, remainderGRAPHISTRENGTH TM C100NA NA *Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0810)April 22, 2016 D-13GuidelineTestSpeciesRoute/MethodCost2015$OECD's GuidanceManual for the Testingof ManufacturedNanomaterialsGRAPHISTRENGTH TM CM1-20, a pellet comprisedof 79% polyamide, 12.5% white mineral oil, remainderGRAPHISTRENGTH TM C100NA NA *OECD's GuidanceManual for the Testingof ManufacturedNanomaterialsGRAPHISTRENGTH TM CM2-20 a pellet comprisedof 78% polyamid resin, 22% GRAPHISTRENGTHTM C100NA NA *OECD's GuidanceManual for the Testingof ManufacturedNanomaterialsGRAPHISTRENGTH TM CM3-20 a pellet comprisedof 79% polyamid 11, 21% GRAPHISTRENGTH TMC100NA NA *OECD's GuidanceManual for the Testingof ManufacturedNanomaterialsGRAPHISTRENGTH TM CM5-20 a pellet comprisedof 60% polycarbonate, 20% flame retardant, 20%GRAPHISTRENGTH TM C100NA NA *OECD's GuidanceManual for the Testingof ManufacturedNanomaterialsGRAPHISTRENGTH TM CM12-30, a pelletcomprised of cyclic butylenes trephthalate (CBT), 30%GRAPHISTRENGTH C100NA NA *OECD's GuidanceManual for the Testingof ManufacturedNanomaterialsGRAPHISTRENGTH TM CM13-30, a pelletcomprised of 65% polyacrylic-polyolefin, 15%acrlonitrile-butadiene copolymer, 20%GRAPHISTRENGTHTM C100NA NA *OECD's GuidanceManual for the Testingof ManufacturedNanomaterialsGRAPHISTRENGTH TM C M6-20 a granulecomprised of 80%polyamid6, 20%GRAPHISTRENGTH TM C100NA NA *Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0810)April 22, 2016 D-14GuidelineTestSpeciesRoute/MethodCost2015$OECD's GuidanceManual for the Testingof ManufacturedNanomaterialsWorkplace exposure monitoring and characterizationtesting (including byproducts)NA NA *OECD's GuidanceManual for the Testingof ManufacturedNanomaterialsCertain material characterization data NA NA *Notes:* Indicates this cost has not been calculated for this report.+Indicates that EPA, EPAB staff estimated this test cost in fall of 2009 and it is more recent that the other EPA, OPPTS EPAB test cost estimates presented in thetable, the majority of which were estimated prior to 1990.1For some PMNs, recommended testing under guideline 870.3465 would involve an additional 3 monthrecovery group, as well as other evaluation beyond the standardrequirements in the test guideline. These activities would raise testing cost substantially.1The recommended testing for some PMN chemicals may include a glove permeation test following ASTM F739 and F1194-99 guidelines.ASTM F1194-99 is astandard guide for documenting the results of chemical permeation tests (seewww.astm.org). The additional costs of followingASTM F1194-99 (average of gasesand liquids) were not estimated for this report.2Costs for field testing will be site-specific, with a wide range of actual costs. A report from EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs estimated an average test cost of$600,000 ($2008) for guideline 850.1950, for simulated or actual field testing for aquatic organisms (EPA, 2008a, Appendix C).3Performing the test on species other than rats may change the test costs. For example, testing onrabbits is likely to increase costs.4Fate, transport and transformation, ecological effects, and health effects testing may be required for nanomaterials, howevernano-specific costs for these tests werenot estimated for this report.5While the Agency expects that analytical methodology validation costs may be more expensive for nanomaterials than for traditional chemicals, EPA was unable togather any information on nanomaterial-specific analytical methodology validation and therefore uses the traditional chemical costs as a proxy.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 D-15 

### D.2 Test Costs by Guideline

Table D-1 gives dollar cost for each test, based on a ssumptions and adjustments discussed below. This section describes the development of individual test costs.

EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Analysis Branch, regularly develops cost estimates of test guidelines to support TSCA ru le development. Estimates are based on assumptions about species, route of administration, study duration, and other aspects of methodology. Costs are calculated based on costs of labor, materials, and eq uipment needed to perform testing, with overhead and fee. Many of the test costs were developed in the 1990s. Test costs have been inflated using Employment Cost Index inflators from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (see Appendix B). However, generally they have not been updated to reflect subsequent changes in laboratory technologies.

Testing laboratories perform analytical method validati on to ensure that proper dose concentrations are used in toxicity studies (EPA, 2005a, p. 3-9). This an alysis assumes that for health effects tests (e.g. 870series guidelines), tests of up to 90 days in duration have method validation costs of $3,500, and longerterm tests have validation costs of $8,500 in 2004 dollars. Using the inflation rates found in Appendix B, validation costs are $4,482 and $10,885 in 2015 dollars. For simplicity, the method validation cost for ecological effects tests (e.g. 850 series guidelines) was assumed to be $4,482 for each test. In addition, this analysis assumes that analytical method validation costs are the same for both nanomaterials and
traditional chemicals.

In cases where costs have not been estimated for the specified guide line, EPA uses the cost from an approximately equivalent guideline (listed in Table D-1 and Table D-3 in parentheses). Many of these equivalents are listed in the Federal Register at 63 FR 41847, August 5, 1998. In some cases the test protocol itself states that it is essentially equivale nt to another test upon which it was based. Sometimes judgment was needed to select the closest equivalent(s)

.

In some cases, EPA has not costed out the test for th e species, route, duration, and/or other method listed in the SNUR, or the SNUR specifies a guideline but do es not specify these detail s. In such cases, EPA has made the adjustments described below. The adjustme nts were selected based on discussions with EPA scientists and on SNUR language, published test guide lines, assumptions underlying the cost estimates in EPAB's test cost database, EPA review and Consent Order history for specific PMNs, or other sources.

D.2.1 Default Parameters

Costs for many of the guidelines have been estimated fo r different combinations of species, route, length of study and other aspects of methodology, but in some cases the SNUR may not specify all of these variables. Where this occurs, EPA has used certa in default parameters, listed in Table D-2.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 D-16 

### Table D-2. Default Pa rameters for Species, Route, and Study Type

Variable Default

Species Mammals

Fish

Invertebrates Algae Rats

Fathead minnow 1
Daphnids [Four species -- see text]

Route/Method Mammalian

Fish

Invertebrates Gavage Flow-through Flow-through

Notes:

1 For guideline 850.1400 tests also in PBT tier tests, rainbow trout is the default species. (See PBT discussion below.)



### D.2.2 SNUR Testing Tiers

A SNUR may recommend tiered testing. In such cases, costs are lower if only the first-tier tests are performed, and higher if all tests listed for the chemical are performed. Testing is “tiered” if later tests are contingent on the results of earlier tests, and/or if some tests are contingent on the firm reaching a certain chemical volume or time limit. Some tiers are expl icit in the SNUR text; others result because the SNUR references the tiered PBT Category testing described at 64 FR 60194.

D.2.3 Test Cost Assumptions and Comments

This section explains treatment of certain test s listed in this or past SNUR rulemakings.

 A SNUR may recommend algal acute toxicity te sting according to OPPTS Guideline 850.5400. This guideline has been previously costed by EPA for four separate algal species ( Navicula pelliculosa, Skeletonema costatum, Anabaena flos-aquae, and Selenastrum capricornutum ). If a SNUR does not specify the algal species to be used, the average costs of the four algal species
tests are used.

 For OPPTS test guideline 835.3100 (Aerobic Aquatic Biodegradation), a SNUR may call for an additional analytical methodology to identify the isononyl phenol degradation product, which may be a substantial add-on to the basic cost. Table D-1 gives costs for 835.3100 but not for the
extended test.

 A SNUR may recommend a “modified” version ofASTM test guideline D2035-80 (CoagulationFlocculation Jar Test of Water). Table D-1 gives costs for D2035-80 but not for the additional analytical methodology.

 For test guideline OECD 422 (Combined Repeat ed Dose Oral Toxicity with Reproductive/ Developmental Toxicity Screening), a SNUR may recommend extended histopathology. Although the OECD 422 protocol does include hist opathology, it is possible that extending the histopathology would increase the cost beyond that shown in Table D-1.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 D-17 

###  A SNUR may recommend two variations of test guideline OECD 218 (Chironomid Sediment Toxicity), one using the acute portion of the sediment and the other using the chronic portion.
Costs were not determined for th ese two variants. The cost of the test performed on midge under flow through conditions was used for both.

 A SNUR may recommend “a fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine (OPPTS 850.1075 test guideline)”. “Freshwater and marine” refers to the name of the test, not the number of species required by EPA. The cost estimates assume only one species is used.

D.2.4 Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) tiered testing

A SNUR may cite tiered testing for Persistent Bi oaccumulative Toxic chemical substances (PBTs) according to the testing strategy in EPA’s New Ch emicals Program PBT Category document, published in the Federal Register notice, Category for Persistent, Bioaccumu lative, and Toxic New Chemical Substances, November 4, 1999, at 64 FR 60194.

In 64 FR 60194, there are three tiers of testing. The results of Tier 1 determine whether Tier 2 testing is needed and the results of Tier 2 testing determine wh ether Tier 3 testing is needed. Table D-3 lists the tests in the PBT category document. Thes e tests are also listed in Table D-1.

To obtain a cost estimate for SNURs that cite PBT Ca tegory testing (64 FR 60194), costs of individual tests from 64 FR 60194 would have to be added up as appropriate, depending on the specific SNUR language. The test list would also need to be adjust ed to avoid double counting tests listed in the SNUR both explicitly by guideline number, and implicitly due to their inclusion in PBT Category tiers.

Other assumptions related to PBT testing are described below:

 The PBT category tests at 64 FR 60194 specify rainbow trout as the species for the chronic fish toxicity test, 850.1400. For SNURs that recommend PBT Category testing, 850.1400 costs would be based on using rainbow trout. If 850.1400 is recommended without PBT testing, costs would be based on using fathead minnows.

 For PBT Tier 1 ready biodegradability tests, firms may either choose among six methods in test guideline 835.3110 or follow test guideline 835.3120. The cost of 835.3110 is calculated as the average cost of its six possible methods. The cost estimates assume an equal chance of using
either 835.3110 or 835.3120.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 D-18 

### Table D-3. Persistent Bioa ccumulative Toxic (PBT) Ti ered Testing Requirements

PBT
Tier Guideline Test Cost 2015$

1 OPPTS 830.7560*

-orOPPTS 830.7570* Partition Coefficient (n-Oct/Water), Generator Column method

-orPartition Coefficient (n-Oct/Water), Liquid Chromatography method
Average $8,298

$5,461
$6,880
1 OPPTS 835.2110 Hydrolysis as a Function of pH $64,744

1 OPPTS 835.3110

-orOPPTS 835.3120 Ready Biodegradability (choose one of 6 methods; cost is average of the 6)

-or- [Ready biodegradability] Sealed-vessel CO 2 Production Test
Average $14,106

$8,748 $11,427

2 OPPTS 835.3170 Shake-flask Die-away Test [measures biodegradability] $57,522

2 OPPTS 850.1730 Fish Bioconcentration $168,958
3 OPPTS 835.3180 Sediment/Water Microcosm Biodegradation $145,288

3 40CFR 797.1330
or 850.1300** Daphnid Chronic Toxicity Test $151,441

3 40CFR 797.1600
or 850.1400** Fish Early Life Stage Toxicity (in rainbow trout) $77,229

3 OECD 422 Combined Repeated Dose Oral Toxicity with Reproductive/ Developmental Toxicity Screening (in rats) $152,052

Total cost, All tiers*** $836,541

Sources: 64 FR 60194, Category for Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic New Chemical Substances , November 4, 1999, at http://www.epa.gov/EPA-TOX/1999/November/Day-04/t28888.htm . Tests costs are from Table D-1. * The PBT FR notice cites 830.7560 and 830.7570. This table used costs for similar tests 796.1720 and 796.1570, respectively. Tests 830.7550 (Partition Coefficient using Shake Flask method) and “the new ‘slow-stir’ method currently under development by the OECD” are also mentioned as options for determining the Oct/Water partition coefficient, in the PBT FR notice Response to Comments but not in the main Testing Strategy discussion. ** PBT FR notice cites both tests as equivalents. This table us es costs for 850.1300 and 850.1400 since they were costed out mo re recently by EPA.

*** Assuming all tests are conducted. Commented [SG 21]: I was confused about the 4 tests provided by EPA. Was I suppossed to search for costs on the internet for them. I couldn't find them in our test cost spread sheet. One was there but had not cost, just an asterisc. (Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 D-19 

### D.3 Testing Costs by Chemical

Test costs attributable to a SNUN are likely to be much lower than the costs that would be implied by adding up costs of all of the testing recommended in the SNUR for that chemical, and usually are zero. 29 

### See the main text of this report for a discussion of testing.

29 A prior SNUR economic analysis calculated chemical-specific test costs (EPA, 2007b, Table D-4). The chemicalspecific table was dropped from a later SNUR economic analysis (EPA, 2007c).Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 E-1 

## APPENDIX E: References

29 CFR 1910. Occupational Safety and Health Standards. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1910, Title 29, November 25, 1983.

63 FR 41847. Test Guidelines; Notice of Availability, Federal Register, Volume 63, August 5, 1998.

64 FR 60914. Category for Persistent, Bioaccumulati ve, and Toxic New Chemical Substances, Federal Register, Volume 64, November 8, 1999.

71 FR 6733. Export Notification; Proposed Change to Reporting Requirements, Federal Register, Volume 71, February 9, 2006. Available from the Federal Docket Management System as docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-005 8 at http://www.regulations.gov

.

75 FR 773. TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture and Significant New Use Notification Electronic Reporting; Revisions to Notification Regulations, Federal Register, Volume 75, January 6, 2010.

ASTM. American Society for Standards and Materials. http://www.astm.org

.

Best, 1997. Personal communication between Tom De Coff of Eastern Research Group, Lexington, MA and Best Manufacturing Co. technical sup port services, Austin, TX, December 1997.

BLS, 2006a. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation: Ch anges to NAICS and SOC, Table 2. ECEC Occupational Compa rability between SOC and OCS. Downloaded February 2006 from http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsm0003 .htm.

BLS, 2006b. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index News Release Text: Employment Cost Index, March 2006 (April 28, 2006), at http://www.bls.gov

.

BLS, 2006c. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Change has Come to the ECI (June 14, 2006) at http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ ect/sp/ecsm0001.htm

BLS, 2006d. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Cost Index, Historical Listing Current-Dollar 1975-2005 (May 10, 2006) at http://www.bls.gov/web/ecconst.pdf

.

BLS, 2008. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008 Congressional Budget Submission (2008) at http://www.dol.gov/dol/budget /2008/PDF/CBJ-2008-V3-01.pdf

BLS, 2014. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics [OES]. May 2013 National Industry-Specific Occupati onal Employment and Wage Estimates Sectors 31, 32, and 33 – Manufacturing. (May 2014) at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_31-33.htmEconomic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 E-2 

### BLS, 2016a. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “ Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables Historical Data December 2006 – December 2015”

. ” March 10, 2016

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

BLS, 2016b. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index- All Ur ban Consumers, U.S. City Average (Series ID: CUUR0000SA0), extracted April 2016. Available through http:/data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgate

BLS, 2016c. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Cost Index – Total Compensation: All Workers, Private Industry, Seasonally Adjusted. (Series ID: CIS2010000000000I), extracted April 2016. Available through http:/data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgate

.

BLS, 2016d. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Cost Index – Total Compensation: Professional and Related Private Industry, Not Seasonally Adjusted. (Series ID: CIU2010000120000I (B))

, extracted April 2016. http:/data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgate

.

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

.

BT Office Products, 1997. BT Office Products International. Office Products Catalog, 1997.

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

CMA, 1991. Chemical Manufacturers Association. Responses to Questions on Burden Associated with
PMN Submissions. Distributed by the Chemical Manufacturers Association, Washington, DC.

EPA, 1989. U.S. EPA, Office of Toxic Substances, Regulatory Impacts Branch. Economic Analysis of Final Significant New Use Rules: General Pr ovisions for New Chemical Follow- Up. Washington, DC, July 19, 1989. (OTS/RIB later became OPPT/EPAB.)

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

EPA, 1994. U. S. EPA, Office of Toxic Substances, Regulatory Impacts Branch. Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications. Washington, DC, September 9, 1994. (O TS/RIB later became OPPT/EPAB.)Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 E-3 

### EPA, 1997. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Chemistry Assistance Manual for Premanufacture Notification Submitters, EPA 744-R-97-003, March 1997. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/pubs/chem-pmn/

EPA, 1998. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prev ention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis
Branch. Economic Analysis of Expedited Signifi cant New Use Rules for 168 Chemical
Substances and Background Support Document for Economic Analysis of Significant New Use
Rules. Washington, DC, January 1998.

EPA, 1999. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Preventi on and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 41 Chemical Substances and Background Support Document for Economic Analysis of Significant New Use Rules. Washington, DC, July 20, 1999. (Docket OPPTS-50635.)

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

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

EPA, 2002b. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Preventio n and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch, Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program. Washington, DC: June 10, 2002.

EPA, 2003a. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Preven tion and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis
Branch. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 65 Chemical Substances.Washington, DC, 2003. Available from the Federal Docket Management System as EPA-HQOPPTS-2002-0078 at http://www.regulations.gov

.

EPA, 2003b. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Significant New Uses of Certain Chemical Substances, 68 FR 15061, March 28, 2003. EPA Docket No. OPPT2002-0060.

EPA, 2005a. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Change to TSCA Section 12(b) Export Notification Requirements, November 2005, available from the Federal Docket Manageme nt System as EPA-HQ-OPPT2005-005 8-0017 at http://www.regulations.gov

.Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 E-4 

### EPA, 2005b. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ICR No. 118.08. [Information Collection Request for] TSCA Section 5(a) (2) Significant New Use Rules for Existing Chemicals (Renewal). Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act , October 11, 2005.

EPA, 2006. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Harmonized Test Guidelines,
available at http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/publications/OPPTS_Harmonized/870_Health_Effects_Test _Guidelines/index.html

EPA, 2007a. 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, 2007b. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis
Branch. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 65 Chemical Substances (EPA Docket OPPT-2003-0063), December 4, 2006 (Revis ed March 12, 2007).

EPA, 2007c. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis
Branch. Economic Analysis of Expedited Sign ificant New Use Rules for 38 Chemical Substances (EPA Docket OPPT- 2006-0898 ), August 17, 2007

EPA, 2008a. U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticides Programs, Economic Analysis of the Proposed Change in Data Requirements for Antimicrobial Pesticides , June 2008, available from the Federal Docket Management System as EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0110-0046 at http://www.regulations.gov

.

EPA, 2008b. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis
Branch. Economic Analysis of the Final Significant New Use Rule for 183 Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonates , August 20, 2007.

EPA, 2008c. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prev ention and Toxics, “New Chemicals Program: Is a Filing Necessary for my Chemical,” (U pdated June 23, 2008) web page at www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/pubs/whofiles.htm

EPA, 2008d. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of the Signific ant New Use Rule for Chloranil , January 8, 2008.

EPA, 2009a. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Preven tion and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis
Branch . Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule

. (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0296). July 13, 2009Economic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 E-5 

### EPA, 2012. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. ICR No.: 0795.14 [Information Collection Request for] Notification of Chemical Exports - TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act . December 18, 2012

at http://www.regulations.gov

.
Grainger, 2014. Grainger Industrial Supply Online Catalog. Accessed June 2014 at http://www.grainger.com/

Kearney, 1988a. Memorandum to Bill Massouda, Reporting and recordkeeping costs for a generic SNUR, February 3, 1988. [Memo submitted to U.S. EPA/O ffice of Toxic Substances (now OPPT) under
contract 68-02-3980 with A.T.Kearney, Inc.].

Kearney, 1988b. Estimated Cost of the Final Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule, June 1, 1988. Prepared by Kearney/Centaur for US EPA.

NTIS. National Technical Information Service. http://www.ntis.gov

.

OECD. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. http://www.oecd.org

.

OECD, 2010. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Guidance Manual for the Testing of Manufactured Nanomaterials. June 2010. Accessed from http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/displaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono(2009)20/rev&d oclanguage=en

OPM, 2014. Office of Personnel Management, Salary Table 2014-DCB, Wash ington Baltimore Northern Virginia, DC-MD-PA-VA-WV. Accessed from http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/payleave/salaries-wages/2014/gen eral-schedule/dcb.pdf.

OSHA, 1983. US Dept of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, Final Regulatory Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analyses of the Hazard Communication Standard. Washington DC, August 9, 1983.

Sleemi, 2006. Fehimida Sleemi. U.S. Bureau of La bor Statistics, “Employment Cost Index Publication
Plans ”

. Monthly Labor Review . Vol. 129, No. 4, April 2006. available at www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2006/04/art2full.pdf

U.S. Postal Service (USPS). 2013. “Prices” < https ://www.usps.com/ship/servic e-chart.htm >. Accessed
2013.

U.S. Safety, 2011. “Cartridge & Filter Selection Guide”, available at http://www.ussafety.com/media_vault/documents/1343332743.pdfEconomic Analysis of Expedited New Use Rule for Fifty-Five Chemical Substances (EPA Docket EPAHQ-OPPT-2015-0810)

April 22, 2016 E-6 

### Weinstein, 2004. Harriet G. Weinstein and Mark A. Loewenstein, U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics. C omparing Current and Former Industr y and Occupation ECEC Series. Originally posted August 25, 2004 at http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20040823ar01p1.htm