# Economic Analy**sis of the Proposed Significant Ne w**  **Use Rule for Hexabromocy** **clododecane (HBCD) Economic Analy** **sis of the Proposed Significant Ne w** 

**February 6, 2012**



## —**Does not contain TSCA CBI**

Prepared b y: Economic and Policy

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

# Economic Analy**sis of the Proposed Significant Ne w**  **Hexabromocy clododecane (HBCD)** 

**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 N.W.Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Hexabromocyclododecane i Economic and Policy Analysis BranchEconomic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Hexabromocyclododecane ii Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

## CONTRIBUTORS The EPA analyst responsible for this report was Kristen Loughery. Analytical and draft preparation support was provided by Abt Associates Inc. under EPA Contract No. EP

- W

- 08

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

Hexabromocyclododecane iii Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

## TA **BLE OF CONTENTS**

CONTRIBUTORS

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... ii Table of contents

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ iii List of tables

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ v Chapter 1

– Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 1 1.1 Background

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 1 1.1.1 Uses

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 1 1.1.2 Production

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 3 1.2 Statutory

Authority ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 4 1.3 International Regulation

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4 1.4 Summary

of Methodology

................................ ................................ ............................... 4 1.5 Organization of this Report

................................ ................................ .............................. 5 Chapter 2

– Industry

compliance costs

................................ ................................ ........................... 6 2.1 Wage Rates

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 6 2.2 Unit Industry

Compliance Costs

................................ ................................ ...................... 7 2.2.1 Rule Familiarization

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 7 2.2.2 CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay .gov Account Setup

........... 8 2.2.3 Form Completion and Submission Fee

................................ ................................ ..... 9 2.2.4 Recordkeeping

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 10 2.2.5 Import Certification

................................ ................................ ................................ 10 2.2.6 Export Notification

................................ ................................ ................................ . 11 2.3 Industry

Costs of SNUR, by

Option

................................ ................................ .............. 12 2.4 Likelihood of a SNUN Submission

................................ ................................ ................ 13 2.5 Potential for Subsequent Regulatory Action

................................ ................................ .. 13 Chapter 3

– AGENCY COSTS

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 15 3.1 Labor Rates for EPA Staff

................................ ................................ ............................. 15 3. 2 SNUN Processing Costs

................................ ................................ ................................ . 16 3.3 Export Notification Cost

................................ ................................ ................................ 19 3.4 Total Agency

Cost of SNUR

................................ ................................ .......................... 19 Ch apter 4

– ADDITIONALANALYSES

................................ ................................ .................... 22 4.1 Regulatory

Flexibility

Act

................................ ................................ .............................. 22 4.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

................................ ................................ ................... 22 4.3 Paperwork Reduction Act

................................ ................................ .............................. 22 4.4 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

................................ ................... 23 4.5 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in M inority Populations and L ow - Income Populations

................................ ................................ ............... 23 4.6 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 23 4.7 Executive Order 13132: Federalism

................................ ................................ ............... 23 4.8 Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 23 4.9 Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy

Suppl y, Distribution, or Use 23Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Hexabromocyclododecane iv Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

### Appendix

– References

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



## LIST OF TA **BLES** Table 1: Industry and Agency Cost Estimate to Complete and Submit (Industry) or Review and Process (Agency) the SNUN Form

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ v Table 2: Loaded Industry Wage Rates, December 2010

................................ ................................ ............... 7 Table 3: Rule Familiarization Burden and Cost for SNUR Submitters

................................ ........................ 8 Table 4: CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup Burden and Cost for First

- Time Submitters

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 9 Table 5: Industry Cost Estimate to Complete the SNUN Form

................................ ................................ .. 10 Table 6: Industry Cost Estimate to Complete and Submit the SNUN Form

................................ ............... 10 Table 7: Derivation of Total Mailing Cost per Notification

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

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

...... 13 Table 10: Derivation of Loaded Agency Wage Rates

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

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

................................ .. 18 Table 13: TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost: Agency Burden per Activity (2010$)

........................... 19 Table 14: Total Agency Cost per SNUN (2010$)

................................ ................................ ....................... 20 Table 15: Total Agency Burden per SNUN

................................ ................................ ................................ 21Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Hexabromocyclododecane v Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

## EXECUTIVE SUMMA **RY** This is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s analysis of the potential costs incurred as a result of a proposed Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) for the use of hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) in consumer textiles. The HBCD use in textile applications is quite small and the majority of HBCD used in textiles is for flame retardancy in upholstered furniture (Morose , 2006). The HBCD textile coatings may also be used in carpets, vehicles, bed mattresses , furniture and home décor applications (Posner , 2006). However, EPA believes that the information gathered from research, industry, and consumer product organizations reasonably supports the proposed co nclusion that HBCD is no longer use d in consumer textile applications except for a small amount in certain products used by the automotive industry, predominantly as flame retardants for carpet products and headl iners in automobile interiors. EPA is propo si ng a significant new use rule for HBCD which would require persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture, import, or processing of HBCD for use in consumer textiles , excluding that use in textiles in motor vehicles. EPA intends to designate the use in consumer textiles other than for use in motor vehicles as a significant new use. The SNUR would also remove the article exemption at 40 CFR section 721.45(f) and therefore require notification of the import and/or processing of HB CD as part of articles for use in consumer textiles except for use in motor vehicles. EPA has removed this exemption because consumer textiles are articles, and are a primary concern associated with this SNUR. A firm intending to engage in these activities would be required to submit a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN). The SNUN provides EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs. When submitting a SNUN, a large business incurs a submission cost of $8,302 and a small business incurs a submission cost of $5,902. Table 1 below presents the overall industry cost ($2010) to complete and submit a SNUN form. However, EPA assumes HBCD is no longer being used in consumer textile applications , with the exception of use in motor vehicles which is excluded from the SNUR

. Therefore, EPA does not expect that any firm will incur a cost as the result of this rule. EPA does not require the development of test data for submission of a SNUN, although a firm may submit test data already in its possession or describe any other available data. Because EPA does not require the development of test data, EPA assumes that no firms will incur testing costs as a result of the proposed SNUR. The total Agency cost for receiving and processing a SNUN is $5,049 and is presented in Table 1

. However, EPA assumes HBCD is no longer manufactured or imported for use in consumer textile applications with the exception of use in motor vehicles which is excluded from the SNUR . Therefore, it does not expect to receive any SNUN submissions and do es not expect to incur any costs as a result of this rule.
**Table 1**  **: Industry and Agency Cost Estim ate to Complete and Submit (Industry) or Review and Process**  **(Agency) the SNUN Form Reporting or Reviewing Population**  **Labor Cost Submi**  **ssion Fee Total Submission**  **Cost (2010$)**  Large Business Submitters 1 $5,802 $2,500 **$8,302** Small Business Submitters 1 $5,802 $100 **$5,902** Agency SNUN Review and Processing Cost2 $5,049

-- **$5,049 Source**  : 1 EP A, 2009a; BLS, 2011 2 EP A, 1994; OPM, 2010.Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Hexabromocyclododecane vi Economic and Policy Analysis Branch In addition to the submission cost and fee, a business may incur other minor costs including a rule familiarization cost ($54.81), a CDX registration cost for first

-time submitters ($183.65), and an export notification cost if relevant ($80.80).Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Hexabromocyclododecane 1 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

## CHA **PTER 1**
**– INTRODUCTION**  This report is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ’s (EPA ’s) analysis of the potential costs incurred as a result of a proposed Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) for the use of hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) in consumer textiles. EPA intends to designate the use in consumer textiles other than for use in motor vehicle s as a significant new use

. Consumer textile means any cloth, fabric or other article produced during the milling process (including spinning, weaving, knitting, felting, or finishing), consisting in whole or in part as a product that is sold to or made available to a private individual who uses the product in or around a permanent or temporary household or residence, during recreation, or for any personal use or enjoyment. Consumer textiles include but are not limited to upholstered household furniture, mattresses, draperies, and automobile carpeting and headliners

. SNURs are proposed by EPA under the authority granted by Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA. The proposed SNUR would require persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture, import, or processing of HBCD for use in consumer textiles , excluding that use in textiles in motor vehicles

. E PA promulgates a SNUR for a substance after considering all rel evant factors, including those listed in TSCA Section 5(a)(2). 

### 1.1 **Background** Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), with a less than 10 percent share in the brominated flame retardants (BFR) market, is the third most commonly used BFR, following tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) which comprises approximately 50 percent of the market, and decabromodiphenyl ether (deca

- BDE) which has a 10 percent market share ( Dufton, 2003) . Brominated flame retardants are often used in construction materials, textiles and electronic appli cations, to prevent fires. HBCD is a high production volume chemical (produced or imported in the U.S. in quantities of 1 million pounds or more per year) that is listed on the EPA’s Inventory Update Rule (IUR) database (now known as the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule database) with two Chemical Abstracts Services (CAS) Registry Numbers (RN). The first, hexabromocyclododecane CASRN 25637

- 99

- 4, designates an unspecified mixture of all isomers, but is predominantly 1,2,5,6,9,10

-hexabromocyclododecane. The second CASRN (1,2,5,6,9,10 hexabromocyclododecane; CASRN 3194

- 55

- 6) is a mix of three diastereomers, alpha

- , beta

- , and gamma

- HBCD, and the final distribution of these diastereomers in technical HBCD varies with a range of about 70

- 95 % γ

- HBCD and 5

- 30 % α

- and β

- HBCD. **1.1.1 Use**  **s** The main use of HBCD is as an additive flame retardant in expanded polystyrene f oam (EPS) and extruded polystyrene foam (XPS) in buildings and construction. It is also used to a minor extent in high impact polystyrene (HIPS) in electronic products and in textile coatings in carpets, vehicles, furniture and upholstery, such as draperie s (Posner, 2006). This SNUR proposes to consider the use of HBCD in consumer textiles as a significant new use , excluding that use in textiles in motor vehicles , and upon finalization, would therefore require submission of a SNUN if an entity wishes to commence the manufacture, importation, or processing of HBCD for this use. The following explanation discusses EPA's understanding of the use of HBCD in consumer textiles. The HBCD use in textile applications is quite small and the majority of HBCD used in textiles is for upholstered furniture (Morose , 2006). In the 2006 IU R data, only one manufacturer/importer of HBCD (CAS RN 3194

- 55

- 6) reported the use of the substance under the NAICS code for textile and f abric finishing mills ( EPA , 2006). For this use, 1 percent of the total production volume of the substance was inEconomic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Hexabromocyclododecane 2 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch consumer and commercial products (EPA , 2006). EPA contacted industry to explore the use of HBCD in consumer textile applications. In March 2010, an expert from the Consumer Product Safety Co mmission (CPSC) expressed his understanding that HBCD is no longer used in consumer textiles, but was available for institutional protective clothing (CPSC , 2010). In April 2010, two of the manufacturers of HBCD confirmed that they sold HBCD for commercial use in the backcoating of upholstery (Chemtura , 2010 ; Albemarle , 2010). In February 2011, the American Chemistry Council polled three HBCD manufacturers and two confirmed they do not manufacture or process HBCD for use in textiles for which the end use is a consumer article (ACC , 2011a). The remaining company was uncertain of their customers’ end uses. The furniture manufacturer, Herman Miller, also confirmed that HBCD does not show up in their products (Herman Miller , 2011). In addition, EPA received info rmation from a group of textile formulator s that the end uses of HBCD

- containing textiles are for military, institutional, and aviation uses only ( EPP, 2011 ). EPA found that a small amount of HBCD is used in floor mats and other interior fabrics in automobiles made or imported to the U.S. However, some industry contacts confirmed these uses will be phased out by the sunset date of July 21, 2015 set forth in REACH regulations, which is further explained in Section 1.3. The automobile industry is also taking part in declaring and restricting the use of HBCD in automobiles. Many automakers require suppliers to identify (declare) whether their products contain chemicals found on a list called the Global Automotive Declarable Substance List (GADSL) , which was d eveloped by stakeholders in the automotive supply chain

. HBCD i s a substance declarable at 0.1% by weight (GADSL , 2011). The GADSL covers declaration of certain information about substances relevant to parts and materials supplied by the supply chain to automobile manufacturers (GADSL, 2011)

. The maj or auto industry manufacturers have incorporated similar lists to GADSL or refer to the GADSL as chemicals to be included in their own restricted substance management standards (RSMS) (Chr ysler , 2006 ; GM , 2008). Chrysler, GM and Ford require notification of all parts and materials that have greater than 0.1% HBCD content to be listed (Chrysler , 2006 ; GM , 2008 ; Ford Motor Company, 201 1 ). Ford also listed HBCD in their RSMS as prohibited for all vehicle interior fabrics after July 1, 2011 (Ford Motor Company, 2011). HBCD is listed as one of the substances that “shall be restricted in or excluded from parts, materials, equipment, packaging, office supplies, machinery and/or tooling” (Ford Motor Company, 201 1 ). In addition, Federal Mogul is a global supplier of automotive products and in their RSMS, adapted from the Ford RSMS (Ford Motor Company, 201 1 ), they designate HBCD as “Prohibited” (P), which means the chemical shall not be supplied in any products at a threshold greater than 0.1% in vehicle interior fabrics after July 1, 2011 (Federal Mogul , 2010). Acc ording to conversations with some of the automotive industry representatives, HBCD has been declared in various products in the Internati onal Material Data System ( IMDS ) database, primarily in carpeting and headliners in automobiles

. The IMDS is used throughout the automotive supply chain by almost all automobile manufacturers. IMDS uses GADSL as the default substance list for filling out Material Data Sheets and determining the declarable and prohibited materials used for car manufacturing. The different automotive industry representatives have also confirmed having a stockpile of HBCD

containing products that serve a s replacement parts for future installation into legacy vehicles. These same individuals noted that the industry wide intention for compliance with the future REACH restrictions would be in place by the July 21, 2015 sunset date for the last use of product s that contained HBCD , unless authorized. EPA believes that the information gathered from research, industry, and consumer product organizations reasonably supports the proposed conclusion that HBCD is no longer use d in consumer textile applications 

### other than those used in motor vehicles , predominantly as flame retardants for carpet products and headl iners in automobile interiors.Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Hexabromocyclododecane 3 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch **1.1.2 Production**  Below is a list of NAICS codes for the potential consumer textile uses of HBCD. T his list was derived from searching the existing NAICS codes in the following applications: upholstered furniture, upholstered seating in transportation vehicles, draperies, wall coverings, mattress ticking, and interior textiles like roller blinds. Potentially affected entiti es may include, but are not limited to : 325xxx

- Chemical Manufacturing 238320

- Painting and Wall Covering Contractors 314121

- Curtain and Drapery Mills 314129

- Other Household Textile Product Mills 313312

- Textile and Fabric Finishing ( except Broadwoven Fabric) Mills 314999

- All Other Miscellaneous Textile Product Mills 336111

- Automobile Manufacturing 336213

- Motor Home Manufacturing 336214

- Travel Trailer and Camper Manufacturing 336360

- Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturing 337 121

- Upholstered Household Furniture Manufacturing 337125

- Household Furniture (except Wood and Metal) Manufacturing 337910

- Mattress Manufacturing 337920

- Blind and Shade Manufacturing 423210

- Furniture Merchant Wholesalers 423220

- Home Furnishing M erchant Wholesalers 423990

- Other Miscellaneous Durable Goods Merchant Wholesalers 811420

- Reupholstery and Furniture Repair In 2006, five facilities reported either the manufacture or importation of at least 25,000 pounds of HBCD to the IUR : Albemarle (2 facilities), BASF, LG Chem America and Chemtura (EPA , 2006). In 2011, EPA determined that BASF is no longer a manufacturer of HBCD in the U.S. and EPA was informed that ICL

- IP is an additional manufacturer of HBCD (ACC , 2011b). Two CAS numbers for HB CD were listed in the TSCA Inventory. The annual U.S. import/production volume of CASRN 25637

- 99

- 4 was between 10,000 and 500,000 pounds as reported to EPA in 2002; no import/production was reported in 2006 (EPA , 2006). The annual U.S. import/production vo lume of CASRN 3194

- 55

- 6 was 10

- 50 million pounds reported in 2002 and 2006 (EPA , 2006). The U.S. International Trade Commission reported that 380,000 pounds of HBCD (1,3,5,7,9,11

- HBCD isomer) were imported in 2008 (US ITC , 2010). Based on data from past years, HBCD may still be imported into the U.S. Therefore, there is a possibility that HBCD

-treated consumer textiles may also be imported into the U.S. However, as discussed in Section 1.3, the European Union and other countries are beginning to regulate HBCD, which may decrease the likelihood of HBCD in consumer textiles being exported to the U.S. Without further information, it is not possible to verify whether the currently manufactured HBCD is being imported to the U.S. as part of articles. This propos ed rule would require notification of the import and/or processing of any consumer articles containing HBCD

- treated textiles . Based on information gathered from research, industry, and consumer product organizations , EPA does not believe it will receive any notifications on the import of HBCD

-treated consumer textiles.Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Hexabromocyclododecane 4 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

### 1.2 **Statutory Au**  **thority** Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determinatio n by rule after considering all relevant factors, including those listed in TSCA section 5(a)(2). Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a Significant New Use Noti ce (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before manufacturing, importing, or processing the chemical substance for that use (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(B)). The general SNUR provisions are found at 40 CFR Part 721, Subpart A. 

### 1.3 **International Regulation** HBCD has been regulated in several other nations around the world. In Japan, HBCD has been designated as a Type I Monitoring Chemical Substance because o f its persistence and high bio accumulation under the Act on the Evaluation of Chemical Substances and Regulation of Their Manufacture (commonly referred to as the Ch emical Substances Control Law: “ CSCL ” ). In Ukraine , HBCD is registered on the hazardous chemical list based on health effects (UNECE, 2010). In the European Union, REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorizatio n and restriction of Chemical substances) legislation will require the registration of more than 140,000 currently marketed chemicals, including HBCD and all other commercial flame retardants in use (UNECE, 2010) . Two legal obligations result from the inc lusion of a substance on the candidate list, which are linked not only to the listed substance on its own or in preparations but also to its presence in articles. Firstly, any producer or importer of an article containing HBCD has to notify the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of the presence of HBCD by June 2011. Secondly, the inclusion of a substance in the candidate list involves a “duty to inform” so the producer or importer must provide sufficient information, available to them, to their customers. Additionally, the WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) is a directive in the European Union which requires the separation of plastics containing brominated flame retardants prior to recycling (UNECE, 2010). In May 2009, HBCD was included in the E CHA recommendation list of priority substances to be subject to authorization under REACH, based on its hazardous properties, the volumes used and the likelihood of exposure to humans or the environment. With publication in the Official Journal on Februar y 18, 2011, HBCD was included in the amended Annex XIV list of substances requiring Authorization for any use (Official Journal, 2011). Title VII of REACH prohibits the manufacturing or importing of any chemical listed in Annex XIV of the regulations after the specified sunset date unless the manufacturer/importer is specifically authorized by ECHA

. HBCD is one of the first six substances added to Annex XIV and has a sunset date of July 21, 2015. HBCD, formally considered a Subs tance of Very High Concern (SVHC) and meeting the criteria of a PBT (persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic) substance pursuant to Article 57(d) in the REACH regulation, has been effectively banned. Applications for authorization for continued use must be filed by January 2014 (UNECE, 2010). 

### 1.4 **Summary**

**of Methodology** This analysis quantifies, to the extent possible, the costs to society of the proposed rule by identifying the costs to industry associated with performing the required reporting and recordkeeping, and the costs to EPA of administering the proposed rule. Industry costs may consist of rule familiarization; registration with the Central Data Exchange (CDX) electronic reporting tool; collection, compilation, and submission of required information for significant new uses of the subject chemicals; export notifi cation; and recordkeeping. Agency costs include reviewing and processing the data received as a result of the proposed rule. Data sources for this analysis include burden estimates derived from previous informationEconomic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Hexabromocyclododecane 5 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch collection requests and economic analyses for related rules, compensation data acquired from government publications, and supplementary market research. 

### 1.5 **Organization of this Report** The remainder of this report provides EPA’s economic analysis in support of the proposed rule. Chapter 2 presents estimates of the costs incurred by manufacturers, importers, and/or processors under the SNUR options. Chapter 3 shows estimates of the government costs associated with the administration of the proposed rule. Chapter 4 presents an analy sis of other impacts, as required by various statutes and executive orders. Note that all dollar amounts in this analysis are reported in December 20 10 dollars, the latest year with complete data.Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Hexabromocyclododecane 6 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

## CHA **PTER 2**
**– INDUSTRY COMPLIA**  **NCE COSTS**  The proposed SNUR discussed in this report spe cifies that the significant new use of HBCD 

### in consumer textiles other than for use in motor vehicles r equire s reporting under section 5(a)(2)(A) of TSCA including the manufacture, import , or processing of the chemical. Therefore, a firm intending to manufacture, import, or process HBCD subject to the proposed rule for any 

### use in consumer textiles other than for use in motor vehicles mus t submit a significant new use notice ( SNUN)

. Alternatively, a firm can decide not to manufa cture, import, and/or process HBCD for a significant new use in consumer textile applications. The firm, therefore, has two options:

 **Option 1: Submit a SNUN** . A SNUN indicates to EPA that the firm would like to manufacture, import, and/or process the chemical (s) for a significant new use, which, in this case, means the manufacture, import, an d/or processing of HBCD subject to the proposed rule for any use in consumer textiles other than for use in motor vehicles

. T he firm must submit the SNUN to EPA at least 90 days before it plans to commence these activities. T he SNUN provides EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs. If EPA allows for a significant new use, then the costs associated with this option are the costs of submitting the SNUN (including a user fee) plus, if there is any export of these products , the export notification costs that result from TSCA Section 12(b) requirements that are automatically triggered f or chemicals regulated under TSCA Section 5 ( see Section 2.2.6 for details ). There is evidence to suggest that in the U.S., HBCD is no longer use d in consumer textile applications except for certain products used by the automotive industry, predominantly as flame retardants for carpet products and headl iners in automobile interiors and EPA does not anticipate HBCD being used in consumer textiles in the future. Therefore, EPA expects no firms will choose this option.

 **Option 2: Decide not to manufacture, import, and/or process the chemical for the specified use** 

. The firm may decide simply not to proceed to manufacture, import, or process HBCD for us e as a flame retardant in consumer textile applications. While this option avoids the costs of submitting a SNUN, it entails the hidden cost of the profit that will be foregone as a result of not engaging in the commercial activity originally planned. Simi larly, if the firm would have used a given amount of HBCD in the production of a product, and must substitute to a more costly substance, it will incur those additional hidden costs of production. However, these hidden costs are expected to be minimal, if not zero, because there is no evidence to suggest that the current domestic manufacturers, importers, and processors of HBCD use the chemical for consumer textile applications, except for the use in motor vehicles, which is excluded from the SNUR. Becaus e there is no evidence to suggest that the currently manufactured HBCD is being used in the U.S. in consumer textiles other than for use in motor vehicles , EPA does not expect there to be compliance costs associated with either of the options. The remaind er of this chapter estimates the quantified portion of costs as sociated with the proposed SNUR

. Section 2.1 summarizes the wage rates used in this chapter. Section 2.2 provides the unit industry compliance costs, including the costs of rule familiarization, registration with the Central Data Exchange ( CDX) electronic reporting tool, completing the SNUN form, submission fee, import certification, and export notification. Total costs under each option are presented in Section 2.3

. 

### 2.1 **Wage Rates** The proposed rule involves activities that may require efforts by employees in three labor classifications: managerial, technical, and clerical. Costs for each activity are calculated by estimating the labor hoursEconomic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Hexabromocyclododecane 7 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch required in each labor category and multiplying those burdens by the wage rate for each labor category. This section presents the estimated wage rate in each labor category. Loaded wage rates for managerial, technical, and clerical personnel are derived by combining data on wages and fringe benefits with estimates of overhead rates, following the methodology described in “Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program” ( EPA, 2002b ). Wage data for each labor category in December 20 10 are provided by the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) Supplemental Tables available on the BLS website ( BLS, 201 1a). The loaded wage rate for managerial labor is $ 69.74 ; for technical labor, $ 61.71 ; and for clerical labor, $28. 98

. Table 2 presents the basic data used to calculate the loaded wage rates for all three labor categories.
**Table 2**  **: Loaded Industry Wage Rates, December 20**  **10**

**Labor Category**  **Data Sources Wage**  **(2010$) Fringe** 

**Benefit (2010$)**  **Fringes**

**as % wage**  **Over**
  ** head %** **wage 2**  **Fringe +**

**overhead factor**  **Loaded**

**Wages 1**  **(20 10**  **$)** (a) (b) (c)

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

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

(e) **Managerial** BLS ECEC, Private

Manufacturing industries, “M gt, Business, and Financial” 3 $42.82 $19.64 45.87% 17% 1.63 $69.74

**Professional/ Technical**  BLS ECEC, Private

Manufacturing industries, “Professional and related ” 3 $36.93 $18.50 50.09% 17% 1.67 $61.71

**Clerical** BLS ECEC, Private

Manufacturing industries, “Office and Administrative Support” 3 $17.36 $ 8. 6 7 49.94% 17% 1.67 $28.98

1 Wage data are rounded to the nearest cent in this table. 2 An overhead rate of 17% was used based on assumptions in Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (EP A, 2002b ), and the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report ( EP A, 2002a). 3 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables: December 20 10

. US Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 9 , 20 11

- (BLS, 20 11a). 

### 2.2 **Unit Industry**

**Compliance Costs 2.2.1**  **Rule Familiarization** The proposed rule requires submitters and their staff to become familiar with the SNUR and its various requirements. The per company burden associated with r ule familiarization is approximately 0. 27 hours of technical labor and 0. 55 hours of managerial labor, as described in the Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule ( EPA, 2009a)

. As shown in Table 3 , the total labor cost associated with rule familiarization by a first

- time reporter is $ 54.81

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 8 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch

**Table 3**  **: Rule Familiarization Burde n and Cost for SNUR Submitters**  **Reporting Activity Clerical Labor**  **($28. 98**  **/hour) Technical Labor** 

**($ 61.71**  **/hour) Managerial Labor**  **($ 69.74**  **/hour) Total Labor Cost**  **Burden (hours)**  **Cost**

**(2010$) Burden** 

**(hours) Cost** 

**(2010$) Burden** 

**(hours) Cost** 

**(2010$) Burden** 

**(hours) Cost** 

**(2010$)** Rule Familiarization 0.00 $0.00 0.27 $ 16.46 0.55 $ 38.36 0.82 $ 54.81 **Total 0.00**  **$0.00 0.27**  **$ 16.46**  **0.55 $**  **38.36 0.82**  **$ 54.81**  **Note:** Loaded wages include fringe benefits and overhead. 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

. **Source** : BLS, 201 1a (labor rates) ; EP A, 2009a (burden hours)

**2.2.2 CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov**  **Ac count Setup**  The proposed SNUR requires first

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

-payment account

. 1 These activities are only required of first

-time submitters (companies already registered with CDX would not need to re

-register for the purposes of complying with the proposed SNUR) . The burdens associated with these activities were estimated in the Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule ( EPA 2009a) and are described in more detail below :

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

 CDX electronic signature: EPA estimates that companies will spend 0.25 hours preparing, submitting, and filing an electronic signature agreement (Authentication of Identity) form to EPA per employee

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

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

. The total burd en incurred by companies submitting and then verifying electronic signature agreements is 1.75 hours

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

.

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

. This burden does not include the time required to click ‘submit’ on the form and wait for payment processing. As shown in Table 4 , the cost associated with CDX registration, CDX electronic signature, and Pay.gov account setup is $ 183.65, and this cost is only incurred by a first

- time submitter.

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

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 9 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch **Table 4**  **: CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup Burden and Cost for First** 
**- Time Submitters**  **Reporting Activity Clerical Labor**  **($28. 98**  **/hour) Technical Labor** 

**($ 61.71**  **/hour) Managerial Labor**  **($ 69.74**  **/hour) Total Cost**  **Burden (hours)**  **Cost**

**(2010$) Burden** 

**(hours) Cost** 

**(2010$) Burden** 

**(hours) Cost** 

**(2010$) Burden** 

**(hours) Cost** 

**(2010$)** CDX Registration 0.00 $0.00 0.73 $ 45.25 0.18 $12. 79 0.92 $ 58.04 CDX Electronic Signature 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $ 61.71 0.75 $ 52.30 1.75 $ 114.01 Mailing Cost $2.30 E

- Payment ( Pay .gov ID) 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.13 $9. 30 0.13 $ 9.30 **Total 0.00**  **$0.00 1.73**  **$10 6.96**  **1.07 $**  **74.39 2.80**  **$1 83.65**  **Note:** Loaded wages include fringe benefits and overhead. 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. **Source** : BLS, 2011a (labor rates) ; EP A, 2009a (burden hours); USPS, 2010 (mailing cost) **2.2.3 Form Completion and**  **Submission Fee** Respondents are required to gather and submit information regarding the data elements identified in the applicable SNUN reporting form

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

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

. Inaddition, this analysis focuses on the marginal costs of submitting information for the proposed rule and not the total costs for the company to comply with a range of other Federal and State environmental, health, and safety regulations or accounting requirements that rely on this type of information. Estimate s of the costs of completing a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN) form are based on the costs of completing a Premanufacture Notification (PMN) submission, since the data requirements are the same and the same form is used for both. The PMN submission costs are based on EPA ’ s 1994 Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications and the updates to th e s e estimates in 2009 (EPA , 2009a). The original 1994 estimates relied on industry estimates of the effort needed to collect and compile all data required for a PMN submission, prepare the form, submit the form and data to EPA, and maintain a file of the submission (EPA , 1994). The 1994 estimates were based on a survey conducted by the Chemical Manufacturers A ssociation (CMA , 1991), which became the American Chemistry Council. These burdens “ include the time spent reading and becoming familiar with the form, gathering the required information and preparing the report, producing sanitized responses for items claimed as confidential business information, and maintaining a f ile of the submission” (EPA , 1994). The burden associated with SNUN submission and preparation has been adjusted to reflect burden reductions resulting from the 2009 final PMN Electronic Reporting (ePMN) Rule that requires the electronic submission of all TSCA section 5 notices. Electronic submission of SNUN forms is expected to remove all clerical burden associated with preparing a SNUN (EPA , 2009a) 2

.

2 The Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009 a) estimates a 0.5 hour clerical burden and a 0.5 hour technical burden associated with recordkeeping in addition to the burden estimates from the 1994 Regulatory I mp act Analysis , which include the burden for recordkeeping ( EPA, 1994 ) . T hese burden estimates are based on the recordkeeping burde n for polymer exceptions and not the recordkeeping burden associated with PMN submissions. Therefore , this analysis assume s that any reduction in recordkeeping burden is captured in the reduction of the clerical burden, and do es not consider the one hour r ecordkeeping burden from the ePMN EA in order to avoid double counting

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 10 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch In addition, electronic submission is expected to generate an additional 0.18 hours of technical burden, f or the completion of the User Fee Payment Identification Number and email address data elements on the electronic SNUN form (EPA, 2009a)

. SNUN form completion and electronic submission is estimated to require 7 3

. 68 hours of technical labor and 18.00 hours of managerial labor (EPA, 1994). Table 5 combines the estimated reporting burden and loaded wage rates for all three labor categories to estimate the per - SNUN cost of form completion

. The labor cost incurred by a SNUN submission for both large and small business submitters is $5, 802

. **Table 5**  **: Industry Cost Estimate to Complete the SNUN Form Reporting**  **Activity Clerical Labor**  **1 ($28.**  **98 /hour)**  **Technical Labor 2** 

**($ 61.71**  **/hour) Managerial Labor**  **2 ($**  **69.74 /hour)**  **Total Labor Cost Burden**  **(hours) Cost** 

**(2010$) Burden** 

**(hours) Cost** 

**(2010$) Burden** 

**(hours) Cost** 

**(2010$) Burden** 

**(hours) Cost** 

**(2010$)** Form Co mp letion 0.00 $0.00 73.68 $4, 547 18.00 $1,2 55 **9 1.68**  **$5, 802**  **Notes:** Loaded wages include fringe benefits and overhead. 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 **Source** : 1 The estimate of no clerical burden is taken from the Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notice Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009a) 2 T echnical and managerial labor burden is from the PMN Amendments RIA (EPA , 1994 ). In addition, each submitting large business must pay a $2,500 per

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

- SNUN submission fee

. Table 6 adds the labor cost and submission fee to estimate the total cost of a SNUN submission , which is $8,302 for large business submitters and $5, 902 for small business submitters.

**Table 6**  **: Industry Cost Estimate to Complete and Submit the SNUN Form Reporting Population**  **Labor Cost Subm** **ission Fee Total Cost**  **(20 10$**  **)** Large Business Submitters $5, 802 $2,500 **$8, 302**  Small Business Submitters $5, 802 $100 **$5, 902**  **Source** : EPA, 2009a

. **2.2.4 Recordkeeping**  Companies submitting a SNUN must keep records under 40 CFR §721.40. Some EPA reports have assumed that SNUN recordkeeping hours would be five percent of SNUN submission hours, or about five to six hours. For this report, the SNUN reco rdkeeping hours were included in the SNUN submission hours (see Section 2.2.3 ) and were not separately estimated. 3 **2.2.5 Import Certification**  In general, promulgation of a final SNUR triggers a TSCA Section 13 import certification requirement and the corresponding regulations at 19 CFR 12.118 to 12.127 and 19 CFR 127.28 for all imports of the relevant chemical substances

. Thus, any U.S. manufacturer, importer, or processor receiving an imported shipment of the chemi cal subj ect to the proposed SNUR would have to certify that all chemical

3 SNUN submission costs estimated in Section 2.2.3 of this report were based on PMN submissi on costs from a 1994 report, Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSC Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications ( EPA, 1994)

. Page III

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

- 12 identifies “maintaining a file of the submission” as part of the labor hours for the PMN reporting form. These statements imply that the 95 to 114 total hours for a PMN submission (EPA, 1994) included recordkeeping hours.Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Hexabromocyclododecane 11 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch substances in the shipment either comply with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA or that all chemical s ubstances in the shipment are not subject to TSCA. In practice, import certification is fulfilled by checking a box on an invoice or entry document and generally imposes no additional burden or cost on the importer ( EPA, 2009b )

. Any potential burden assoc iated with a submitter’s familiarization with this requirement is assumed to be included in the more general SNUR familiarization burden discussed above. **2.2.6 Export Notification**  Under Section 12(b) of TSCA, exporters must notify EPA if they export or intend to export a chemical or an article subject to various TSCA sections ( 40 CFR §707.60 through 75 )

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

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

. After receiving a notification from a firm, EPA notifies the importing country and the U

. S

. State Department ( 40 CFR §707.70 )

. To calculate the burden associated with making export notific ations, EPA used the annual export notification burden for an exporter under the one

- time export notification requirement ( EPA, 2009b). These burdens include the burden to the exporter of compiling a list of their products that are subject to TSCA Section 12(b) requirements, writing or revising an export notification letter to EPA, checking the outgoing shipments, and sending the notification letters with the associated shipping costs

. EPA derive d the per notification cost and burden associated with preparing and submitting an export notification by dividing the annual export notification burden for an exporter by the average number of notifications sent per exporter

. This per -notification burden, as calculated from the total annual cost per company, was derived based on the assumption that the average exporter makes 12 notifications per year

. 4 Exporters making more notifications per year may benefit from economies of scale and have lower costs per notification; those making fewer notifications may have higher costs per notification. 

### Estimated Submission (Mailing) Costs Regulated companies will incur mailing costs for export notifications delivered to EPA

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

- class registered mail with a return receipt (USPS, 2010)

. The estimated per

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

. **Table 7**  **: Derivation of Total Mailing Cost per Notification**  Dates that the rates were verified on United States Postal Service web site: **April 2010** Postal services costs Registered mail, regular, with $0 declared value $10.60 Return receipt, requested at time of mailing (receive by mail) $2.30 Postage, regular First Class, up to 1 ounce $0.44 **Cost per export notice**

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

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

4 T he average number of export notifications per exporter wa s calculated in the 2009 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR ( EPA, 2009b) by dividing the estimated number of submitted notifications (3,500) by the estimated number of exporters (300 ).Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Hexabromocyclododecane 12 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

### Compile and Maintain the List of Products Since TSCA §12(b) information collection activity has been in place for twenty years, most respondents will have already developed a list of their p roducts subject to TSCA §12(b) export notification. Respondents need only check for new regulations promulgated and any new products exported by the company. Compiling and maintaining a list of products is estimated to take 9.3 hours of technical time per year for a company submitting 12 notices per year (EPA, 2009b). Therefore, the per

-notification burden to compile and maintain a list of products is 0.78 hours of technical time. 

### Write Letter or Revise Export Notification Companies that export chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) reporting must prepare an export notification to send to EPA when export shipments are made

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

. This step is estimated to take an average of one hour of technical time (which may also include some proportion of legal time) per firm per year for 12 notifications per year , or 0.08 hours per notification ( EPA, 2009b ). 

### Check Orders and Send Notifications Co mpanies 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 of one half hour of clerical time per export notification ( EPA, 2009b ). The burdens and associated costs for each notification activity are provided in Table 8 below.

**Table 8**  **: TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost per Notification**  **Notification Activity Technical**  **2, 3 Clerical**  **2, 3 Total**  **$/Hr Hours**  **20 10**  **$ $/Hr**  **Hours 20**  **10 $**  **20 10**  **$ Hours**  Com pile list $ 61.71 0.78 $ 47.82

-- -- -- $ 47.82 0.78 Write letter $ 61.71 0.08 $ 5.14

-- -- -- $ 5.14 0.08 Check order and send notice -- -- -- $28. 98 0.50 $14. 49 $14. 49 0.50 Mailing cost 1

-- -- -- $13.34

- **Total per n otification**  **0.86 $**  **52.97 0.50**  **$14. 49**  **$ 80.80**  **1.36 Notes:**  1 Mailing costs reflect April 2010 USPS rates and can be found in Table 7

. 2 Per notification costs are derived from average annual costs of a facility assumed to submit an average of 12 export notifications per year (EPA, 2009b). 3 Loaded wages include fringe benefits and overhead. 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 value s **Source:** ICR No.: 0795.13 [Inform ation Collection Request for ] Notification of Chemical Exports

- TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act (EPA , 2009b), and are updated to 2010 dollars. 

### 2.3 **Industry**

**Costs of SNUR, by Option** The num ber of firms affected by not making submissions to EPA is not known; therefore, costs are not aggregated across the affected entities. Table 9 summarizes the costs to comply with the proposed rule, as described in more detail in Section 2.2 above.Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Hexabromocyclododecane 13 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch **Table 9**  **: Com** **pliance Options and Associated Costs Incurred by a Firm**  **Due to the Proposed SNUR Option**  1 **Costs Quantified Costs per Che**  **mi cal (2010$)**  2

1. Electronic submission of a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN), indicating to EPA that the firm would like to manufacture, import, or process the chemical for a Significant New Use as defined in the SNUR

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

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

. $54.81 rule familiarization cost; $8,302 submission cost (including SNUN recordkeeping and $2,500 fee). EPA usually receives well under ten SNUNs per year. Based on review

of recent SNUNs, it appears that firms rarely conduct toxicity or fate testing to support a SNUN (such testing would be voluntary). 3 Export notifications costs are estimated at $80.80 per notification; total cost per co mp any will vary based on the number of countries of export. Those submitting information electronically through CDX for the first time would incur $183.65 for CDX registration and associated activities.

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

exempt uses. Cost of the profit foregone as a result of not engaging in the commercial activity originally planned (opportunity costs). Other costs include rule familiarization, and export notification costs. Opportunity costs are no t quantified. Other costs including rule familiarization ($54.81), and export notification costs ($80.80 per notification if the chemical is exported only) wo uld apply. **Notes:** 1 Firms may experience costs related to both options at once since submission of a SNUN results in profits foregone as a result of not manufacturing, importing, or processing HBCD subject to the proposed rule. Additionally, export notification costs are somewhat independent of the option because the production of HBCD subject to the proposed rule for export purposes only does not require notification under 40 CFR 721.25. 2 Quantified costs are attributable to the SNUR only if a firm would not otherwise foll ow the specified practices. Costs are detailed in Section 2.2

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

### 2.4 **Likelihood of a SNUN Submission**  As described in Section 1.1.1 , EPA contacted industry to explore the use of HBCD in consumer textile applications. Based on information from an expert from the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) , the American Chemical Council, a furniture manufacturer, textile formulators, and HBCD manufacturers, EPA concluded that HBCD is no longer used in consumer textiles except for certain products use d by the automotive industry (CPSC, 2010; ACC, 2011a; Herman Miller, 2011; EPP, 2011). EPA believes that the information gathered from research, industry, and consumer product organizations reasonably supports the proposed conclusion that HBCD is no lon ger use d in consumer textile applications except for a small amount of HBCD used as a flame retardant for carpet products and headl iners in automobile interiors. EPA intends to exclude this automotive use from the SNUR since it is ongoing. Based on this conclusion, EPA assumes it will not receive any SNUN submissions for HBCD use in consumer textile applications. 

### 2.5 **Potential for Subsequent Regulatory A** **ction** EPA recognizes that if submission of a SNUN does re sult from the proposed SNUR, the Agency may take a dditional regulatory actions under TSCA. These additional regulatory actions might be necessary to further evaluate an intended new use and associated activities, or to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs to prevent unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment. It is not known what specific subsequent regulatory actions, if any, the Agency may determine are necessary after reviewing aEconomic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Hexabromocyclododecane 14 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch SNUN. Any such actions are highly dependent on the circumstances surrounding the individual SNU N (e.g., available information and scientific understanding of the chemical and its risks at the time the SNUN is being reviewed). Should EPA’s review of the SNUN result in further regulatory actions, th e Agency will initiate and follow the appropriate procedures for taking those actions

. Included in those procedures would be an assessment of the costs and benefits of those actions.Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Hexabromocyclododecane 15 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

## CHA **PTER 3**
**– AG**  **ENCY COSTS** As described in the following sections, EPA’s costs to review and process SNUN submissions are assumed to be the same as EPA ’s costs to review PMNs. 

### 3.1 **Labor Rates for EPA Staff**  Agency labor costs are calculated based on annual Federal salaries for the Washington

- Baltimore area published by the O ffice of Personnel Management effective January 20 10 (OPM , 20 10 ) . EPA assumes that, on average, a federal GS

- 13, Step 5 full

- time equivalent (FTE) will conduct its collection and administrative activities under the proposed rule. 5 The average salary for a GS

- 13 Step 5 employee was $ 100,904 in 2010 without fringe benefits and overhead costs

. In order to derive the fully loaded salary, EPA multiplied the annual salary by an assumed loading factor of 1.6 to reflect federal fringe benefits and overhead, which results in a fully loaded annual salary of $ 161,446 (see Table 10 ). Divi ding the fully loaded annual salary by 2,080 hours (i.e., the number of hours in a work year) yields an hourly FTE compensation wage rate of $ 77.62. The Agency loading factor of 1.6 is from an EPA guide entitled Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) ( EPA , 1992). The 60 percent assumption was labeled “the b enefits multiplication factor” in the EPA guide, but has been used in many EPA OPPT ICRs to reflect both fringe benefits and overhead for federal staff. For example, it was used in a document supporting EPA ICR No. 1139.06 (EPA, 2000 ), with the following e xplanation: The annual costs per FTE are derived by multiplying the annual pay rate by 1.6 (the benefits multiplication factor)

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

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

. Fully loaded co sts for Agency labor are shown in Table 10

.

5 The GS

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

- 12 Step 1 and GS

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 16 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch **Table 10**  **: Derivation of Loaded Agency Wage Rates** 

**Labor Category**  **Data Source for Wage** 

**Information Date**  **Wage Fringe**  **Benefit Fringes as** 

**% w age**  **Overhead**

**as % wage**  **Fringe +**

**overhead factor**  **Loaded**

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

EPA staff FTE Annual federal staff cost:

OPM Washington

Baltimore

-Northern Virginia, DC

- MD

- PA

VA

- WV, area, GS

- 13 Step 5 pay rates 1 Dec

10 $ 100,904 (annual)

-- [Included

in 60% overhead] 60% 2 1.60 $ 161,446 (annual) $ 48.51 (hourly) $ 77.62 (hourly)
**Notes** : 1 The Agency salary is the unloaded federal GS

- 13 Step 5 salary ($ 100,904 for 20 10 ), from the OPM salary table for the Washington

- Baltimore

-Northern Virginia Locality Pay Area ( OPM, 2010 )

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

- and

- overhead rate is from an EPA guide, Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) ( EPA, 1992 ). 

### 3.2 **SNUN Processing Costs** The list of review steps, estimates of extramural costs, and the percent of chemicals requiring a particular review step are derived from the costs for processing PMN submissions in a 1994 EPA report entitled, Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Re gulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications ( EPA, 1994 ). The Agency burden associated with processing a PMN has been adjusted to reflect burden reductions resulting from the 2009 final PMN Electronic Reporting (ePMN) Rule that requires the el ectronic submission of all TSCA section 5 notices . Electronic submission of SNUN forms is expected to reduce Agency burden by 16.5 percent ( EPA, 2009a)

. For each review step, the “EPA staff” cost is calculated by multiplying the number of FTEs (in the firs t column of Table 11 ) by the fully loaded hourly salary. This shows EPA staff cost for chemicals requiring the selected review step. The Extramural Cost column shows costs for contractor support and other outside purchases for chemicals requiring the sele cted review step and is inflated from 1993 prices using the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employment Cost Index (ECI) data (BLS, 2011b). T he ECI (not seasonally adjusted) for total compensation of private industry professional and related workers (Serie s ID CIU2010000120000I) is used because it is the only series with continuous data since 1985 , and that includes professional and technical labor, which perform the majority of Agency extramural activities. Table 11 contains the derivation of inflation factors for Agency extramural costs.

**Table 11**  **: Derivation of**  **Inflation Factors for Agency Extram** **ural Costs**

**Item Inflation index**  **source Starting**  **year Index for** 

**starting year**  (a) **Index**

**for 20**  **10** (b) **Inflation factor**  (b)/(a) Agency Extramural costs White collar labor; equipment; supplies BLS ECI, Total comp, Private industry, **Professional and related** , 4 th Q [BLS , 2011b] 1993 67.0 113.5 1.6 94
**Source:** Bureau of Labor Statistics

. Employment Cost Index

– Total Compensation: Professional and Related Private Industry, Not Seasonally Adjusted. (Series ID: CIU2010000120000I) , extracted March 9, 2011 (BLS , 2011b). The Percent of Cases column in Table 12 is a weighting factor applied to reflect the fact that not all chemicals require each review step. For example, in the PMN process, all chemicals requireEconomic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Hexabromocyclododecane 17 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch Administrative Prescreening, but not all chemicals require the intensive scrutiny of “Standard Review. ” The three types of submissions resulting from a SNUR may have weighting factors that differ from each other and from the weighting factors for PMNs. Changes in weighting factors could cause actual review costs to be higher or lo wer than calculated here. For example, some SNUNs require little review because they are determined to be “invalid”

– i.e. not required in the first place. However, often a SNUN may take more Agency time than a typical PMN because of factors such as the need to retrieve old PMN rec ords from archives, and the likelihood that more data requiring EPA review is submitted with a SNUN than would be submitted , on average , with a PMN. Resources were not available to update the review hours to reflect the current review process or to tailor the cost estimates to SNUNs. Therefore, for this analysis, the review steps and weighting factors are assumed to be the same as those derived in 1994 for PMNs. The Weighted Cost column is calculated by multiplying the un -weighted Costs (EPA staff cost plus extramural costs) by the percentage of cases requiring this review step. Weighted costs are then multiplied by the burden reduction of 16.5 percent to account for burden savings generated from electronic submission. A s shown in Table 12 , t h is calculation yields total Agency costs of $ 5,049 per SNUN for submission , r eview and processing

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

Nine Benzidine Based Dyes 18 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch **Table 12**  **: Agency Costs for SNUN and Other Submission Review and Processing** 

**Review Steps**  **EPA staff (FTE) Cost Extram** **ural Cost 2**  **Unw eighted**  **Cost Pct. of** 

**Cases Weighted** 

**Cost 3**  **ePMN**

**Burden Reduction**  **4 Weighted Cost** 

**with ePMN Burden Reduction**  **FTE fraction**  **Cost per**

**FTE 1**  **FTE Total**

**($2 010**  **) 1993** 

**dollars 20**  **10**

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

- (i)) Pre

- notice consultation 0.0024 $161,446 $387 $4.00 $6.78 $394 41% $162 0.165 $135 Administrative prescreen/ notice receipt/user fee 0.0024 $161,446 $387 $92.00 $155.85 $543 100% $543 0.165 $454 CRSS (Chemical Review and Search Strategy) 0.0025 $161,446 $404 $268.00 $454.00 $858 100% $858 0.165 $716 SAT (Structure Activity Team) 0.0006 $161,446 $96.87 $14.00 $23.72 $121 100% $121 0.165 $101 Engineering/Exposure 0.0015 $161,446 $242 $56.00 $94.87 $337 100% $337 0.165 $281 Exposure/Fate 0.0008 $161,446 $129 $0.00 $0.00 $129 100% $129 0.165 $108 Focus 0.0009 $161,446 $145 $23.00 $38.96 $184 100% $184 0.165 $154 Standard Revie w Functions 0.0219 $161,446 $3,536 $511.00 $865.65 $4,401 29% $1,276 0.165 $1,066 Division Directors Meeting 0.0129 $161,446 $2,083 $113.00 $191.43 $2,274 15% $341 0.165 $285 Order Development/Negotiation Revie w 0.0171 $161,446 $2,761 $22.00 $37.27 $2,798 3% $84 0.165 $70.09 Post Order Data Review 0.0886 $161,446 $14,304 $0.00 $0.00 $14,304 3% $429 0.165 $358 Order Modification 0.2167 $161,446 $34,985 $0.00 $0.00 $34,985 3% $1,050 0.165 $876 New Chemical SNUR Development 0.0277 $161,446 $4,472 $85.00 $143.99 $4,616 7% $323 0.165 $270 Notices of Commencement 0.0012 $161,446 $194 $40.00 $67.76 $261 31% $81 0.165 $67.69 FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) Requests 0.0333 $161,446 $5,376 $287.00 $486.19 $5,862 1% $59 0.165 $48.95 CBI (Confidential Business Information) Substantiation 0.0004 $161,446 $64.58 $3.00 $5.08 $69.66 100% $69.66 0.165 $58.17 **TOTAL** $ 6,046 0.165 **$ 5,049**  **Notes:** 1 GS

- 13 Step 5 salaries loaded with benefits and overhead. See Table 10 for derivation. 2 Extramural costs consist of contracting support and other purchases directly attributable to the PMN/SNUR review process inflated from 1993 prices using the factors presented in Table 11

. 3 Weighted costs were calculated using unrounded unit cost estimates, so results may differ from calculations using the rounded values shown in this table. 4 Electronic submission is expec ted to generate a cost savings of 16.5% to the Agency (EPA , 2009 b ). **Sources:** FTEs per review step, 1993 extramural costs, and percents of cases are from ( EPA , 1994 ), GS

- 13 salaries are from (OPM, 20 10).EO 12866 Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or R elease during Review

Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Hexabromocyclododecane 19 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

### 3.3 **Export Notification Cost** The Agency burden and cost due to TSCA §12(b) export notification result s from three tasks. In the first task, EPA receives export notifications from companies that inten d to export one of the chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) ( EPA, 2009b ). In the second task, EPA staff prepares separate notification letters that are subsequently reviewed and delivered to importing countries, their embassies, or representatives, and to the importing country’s US embassies ( EPA, 2009b ). The third task is comprised of EPA staff responses to public inquiries and other TSCA § 12(b) activities. The work of responding to non

-routine requests for information and clarification from industry and importing countries, and of handling other tasks associated with the TSCA §12(b) program, was esti mated to require approximately 400 hours per year for all chemicals that fall under the TSCA §12(b) ( EPA, 2009b ). Since the current rulemaking covers o nly one of the chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) reporting, a very small percent of the third task activity will be attributable to the current rulemaking . Therefore, the per

-notification burden and cost associated with the work of responding to non

-routine requests for information and clarification from industry and importing countries, and of handling other tasks associated with the TSCA §12(b) program were not quantified in this report. EPA does not expect to receive or send any export notifications. Nevertheless, should there be any notifications as a result of the current rulemaking, the costs to the Agency are presented per activity. The burden for the first two Agency activities is provided in Table 13 below. To estimate the Agency cost, hourly burdens are multiplied by the loaded wage rate of a GS

- 13, Step 5 (see Table 10 )

. **Table 13**  **: TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost: Agency Burden per Activity (20 10**  **$)**
**Agency Activity Hours per** 

**Activity FTE per** 

**Activity 1**  **Loaded Mailing**  **Cost Total Agency Cost** 

**per Activity GS** 
**- 13, Step**  **5 FTE Wage Rate**  (a) (b) =

(a)/2,080 (c) (d) (e) = ((b)*(c))+(d) Process an incoming notification from an exporting com

pany 0.1 0 0.000048 $ 161,446 $0.00 $7. 76
P repare and mail a notification to an im porting country 0.5 0 0.000240 $ 161,446 $13.34 $ 52.15 **Total Per Notification**  0.60 0.00029 $13.34 $59.91 **Notes** : 1 The burden associated with an Agency activity is the burden for the Agency to process one incoming notification, or to prepare and mail an outgoing notification Source: Table 10 of this report derives Agency labor costs. Mailing costs are from Table 7 of this report

. Other burdens are from ( EPA , 2009 b) , updated for inflation. 

### 3.4 **Total A gency** **Cost of SNUR** As described in Section 2.4 , EPA does not expect to receive any SNUN submissions as a result of this proposed rule. Therefore, the agency costs associated with this proposed rule are assumed to be zero. However, Table 14 s ummarizes the agency costs and Table 15 s ummarizes the agency burden per SNUN , as described in Section 3.2 and 3.3 , if a SNUN were submitted.EO 12866 Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or R elease during Review

Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Hexabromocyclododecane 20 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch **Table 14**  **: Total Agency Cost per**  **SNU N**  **(2010$) Agency Activity**  **Total Agency Cost per Activity**  SNUN Review and Processing Cost 1 $5,049 Export Notification Cost 2 $59.91 **Total** $5,109 **Note:** Total costs per activity that are presented in this table are rounded values; however, unrounded values are used to calculate total costs per activity. For this reason, total costs per activity may not sum to the total agency cost. **Source:** 1 Table 12 2 Table 13EO 12866 Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or R elease during Review

Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Hexabromocyclododecane 21 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch **Table 15**  **: Total Agency Burden per**  **SNUN Agency Activity**  **FTE**

**Fraction 1**  **(a) Burden Hours** 

**(b)=(a)*2,080** **Percent**

**of Cases**  **1 (c)**  **ePMN**

**Burden Reduction**  **1 (d)**  **Final Agency**

**Burden 2,3**  **(e)=(b)*(c)*(1**
**- d)**  **Review and Processing** Pre

- notice consultation 0.0024 4.992 41% 0.165 1.71 Administrative prescreen/ notice receipt/user fee 0.0024 4.992 100% 0.165 4.17 CRSS (Chemical Review and Search Strategy) 0.0025 5.2 100% 0.165 4.34 SAT (Structure Activity Team) 0.0006 1.248 100% 0.165 1.04 Engineering/Exposure 0.0015 3.12 100% 0.165 2.61 Exposure/Fate 0.0008 1.664 100% 0.165 1.39 Focus 0.0009 1.872 100% 0.165 1.56 Standard Revie w Functions 0.0219 45.552 29% 0.165 11.03 Division Directors Meeting 0.0129 26.832 15% 0.165 3.36 Order Development/Negotiatio n Review 0.0171 35.568 3% 0.165 0.89 Post Order Data Review 0.0886 184.288 3% 0.165 4.62 Order Modification 0.2167 450.736 3% 0.165 11.29 New Chemical SNUR Development 0.0277 57.616 7% 0.165 3.37 Notices of Commencement 0.0012 2.496 31% 0.165 0.65 FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) Requests 0.0333 69.264 1% 0.165 0.58 CBI (Confidential Business Information) Substantiation 0.0004 0.832 100% 0.165 0.69 Pre

- notice consultation 0.0024 4.992 41% 0.165 1.71 Administrative prescreen/ notice receipt/user fee 0.0024 4.992 100% 0.165 4.17 CRSS (Chemical Review and Search Strategy) 0.0025 5.2 100% 0.165 4.34 **Review and Processing Total 53.30**  Export Notification4 0.60 **SNUN Total 53.90**  Notes: 1 Taken from Table 12

. 2 Final Agency burden reflects the total burden to EPA; however, the final Agency cost includes extramural costs, which are not quantified in this table. Therefore, the final Agency burden h ours multiplied by the Agency wage rate will not equal the final Agency cost. 3 Total burdens per activity that are presented in this table are rounded values; however, unrounded values are used to calculate total burdens per activity. For this reason, tot al burdens per activity may not sum to the total agency burden. 4 Taken from Table 13

.EO 12866 Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or R elease during Review

Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Hexabromocyclododecane 22 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

## CHA **PTER 4**
**– A**  **DDITIONA L**  **AN ALYSES**  This section presents additional analysis of other potential impacts of this proposed rulemaking, as required under various statutes and executive orders. 

### 4.1 **Regulatory**

**Flexibility A ct**  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

. EPA ’ s experience to date is that, in response to the promulgation of SNUR s covering over 1,000 chemicals, the Agency receives only a handful of notices per year

. For ex ample, the number of SNUNs was four in Federal FY2005, eight in FY2006, six in FY2007, eight in FY2008, and seven in FY2009. 6 During this five

- year period, three small e ntities submitted a SNUN

- the criteria for ‘ small business ’ was that the company checked the box on the PMN form, page 2, statin g that it was a small business for the purpose of paying the $100 fee instead of the normal fee

. 7 , 8 

### 4.2 **Unfunded Mandates Reform A** **ct** Based on EPA’s experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not expect that any State, local, or Tribal government would be impacted by this propos ed rulemaking. 

### 4.3 **Paperwork Reduction A ct**  According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) , an Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’ s regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register , are listed in 40 CFR, part 9, and are included on the related collection instrument, or form, if applicable. The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control number 207 0

- 0038 (EPA ICR No. 1188). If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average 97 hours per response

– 0.82 hours for rule familiarization (Section 2.2.1 ), 2.80 hours for CDX registration, CDX electronic signature, and pay.gov account setup (Section 2.2.2 ), 91.68 hours for form completion and submission (Section 2.2.3 ), and 1.36 hours for export notification (Section 2.2.5 ). The annual agency burden is estimated to average 53.9 hours per response

– 53.3 hours for review and processing (Section 3.2 ) and 0.60 hours for receiving an export notification (Section 3.3 ). Table 15 presents the total agency burden per response (Section 3.4 ).

6 February 5, 2009 email from Carol Rawie, EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, to Tulika Narayan and Kimberly Wilson, Abt Associates. The counts include both “valid” and “i nvalid” SNUNs. SNUN numbering is according to Federal fiscal year, ending September 30. 7 February 5, 2009 email from Carol Rawie, EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics to Tulika Narayan and Kimberly Wilson, Abt Associates. 8 In order to submit S NUN as a “small business” a company needs to be classified as small using the TSCA based definition of annual revenue of less than $4,000,000 per year. This definition is not consistent with the definition of a small business using Small Busi ness Administr ation (SBA) NAICS based definitions.EO 12866 Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or R elease during Review

Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Hexabromocyclododecane 23 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

### 4.4 **National Technology Transfer and A** **dv ancement A** **ct** The proposed SNUR does not involve any technical standards. 

### 4.5 **Executive Order 12898: Federal A ctions to A** **ddress Environmental Justice in**  **Minority**

**Populations and Low -**  **Income Populations** The proposed SNUR does not involve special considerations of environmental justice

-related issues as required by Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

### 4.6 **Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety**  **Risks** Th e proposed SNUR is not an economically significant regulatory action and does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children. 

### 4.7 **Executive Order 13132: Federalism** Th e proposed SNUR is not expected to have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or o n the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). 

### 4.8 **Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination w ith Indian**  **Tribal Gover nments**  This proposed SNUR would not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This proposed rule would not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor wo uld it involve or impose any requireme nts that affect Indian Tribes. 

### 4.9 **Executive Order 13211: A ctions that Significantly**  **A ffect Energy**  **Supply , Distribution, or Use**  This proposed SNUR is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use.EO 12866 Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or R elease during Review

Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Hexabromocyclododecane 24 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

## AP **PENDIX**
**– REFERENCES**  15 U.S.C. 272, National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104

– 113, Section 12(d). 64 FR 43255, Federalism , Federal Register, Volume 65, August 10, 1999. ACC, 2011a. Personal communication with Jackson Morrill of the American Chemistry Council. February 16, 2011. ACC, 2011b. Personal communication with Jackson Morrill of the American Chemistry Council. February 25, 2011. Albemarle, 2010. Phone conversation between Kristen Loughery (EPA) and Marcia Hardy (Albemarle). April 7, 2010. BLS, 2011a. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables December 2010.” (March 9, 20 11) at http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsuptc17.pdf. BLS, 2011b. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Cost Index

– Total Compensation: Professional and Related Private Industry, Not Seasonally Adjusted. (Series ID: CIU2010000120000I) , extracted March 9, 2011. Chemtura, 2010. Phone conversation between Kristen Loughery (EPA) and Caroline Maselli and Richard Heinrich (Chemtura). April 7, 2010. Chrysler, 2006. Environmental, Health, and Occupational Safety Requirements for Regulated Substances or Processe s and Product Recycling Reporting Requirements. CS

- 9003. Daimler Chrysler. Revised March 9, 2006. CPSC, 2010. Phone conversation between HBCD Action Plan work group (EPA) and Dr. Michael Babich from the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). March 16, 2010. CMA, 1991. Chemical Manufacturers Association. Responses to Questions on Burden Associated with PMN Submissions . Distributed by the Chemical Manufacturers Association, Washington, DC. Dow Chemical, 2011. “Dow Develops New Polymeric FR Tech.” Downstream Today. March 29, 2011. Available at: http://www.downstreamtoday.com/(X(1)S(vsqiddiudfyo5qyqz13fdr55))/news/article.asp x?a_id=26172&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1. Dufton, 2003. PW Dufton, Flame Retardants for Plastics . Rapra Technologies, Shrew sbury UK 2003. EPP, 2011. Personal communication between Emma Lavoie (EPA) and John Friddle (Eagle Performance Products). March 3, 2011.EO 12866 Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or R elease during Review

Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Hexabromocyclododecane 25 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch ECHA, 2009. European Chemicals Agency, “Data on Manufacture, Import, Export Uses and Releases of HBCD as Well as Inf ormation on Potential Alternatives to its Use” December, 2009. 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 o f Toxic Substances, Regulatory Impacts Branch. Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications . Washington, DC: U.S. EPA/OPPT/EETD/RIB, September 9, 1994. EPA, 2000. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Pre vention and Toxics, 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 Paperwork Redu ction Act . Attachment 5, Wage Rates Estimation, August 29, 2000. EPA, 2002a. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report. Washingto n, DC. August 2002. EPA, 2002b. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program. Washington, DC, June 10, 2002. EPA, 2003. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 65 Chemical Substances . Washington, DC, 2003. Available in docket EPA

- HQ

- OPPTS

- 2002

- 0078 at http://www.regulations.gov. EPA, 2005. U.S. EPA. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Change to TSCA Section 12(b) Export Notification Requirements, November 2005, available from the Federal Docket Management System as EPA

- HQ

- OPPT

- 2005

- 005 8

- 0017 at http://www.regulations.gov. EPA, 2006. Inventory Update Reporting (IUR): Non

- Confidential 2006 TSCA Inventory Update Rule (IUR) Records. Available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/iursearch/index.cfm?s=chem

. EPA, 2007a. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 38 Chemical Substances (EPA Dock et OPPT

- 2006

- 0898

), August 17, 2007. EPA, 2007b. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, ICR No. 0574.14. [Information Collection Request for] Pre

- Manufacture Review Reporting and Exemption Requirements for New Chemical Substances and Signifi cant New Use Reporting Requirements for Chemical Substances: Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under The Paperwork Reduction Act , December 6, 2007. EPA, 2009a. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule

. (EPA

- HQ

- OPPT

- 2008

- 0296) . July 13, 2009.EO 12866 Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or R elease during Review

Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Hexabromocyclododecane 26 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch EPA, 2009b. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. ICR No.: 0795.13 [Information Collection Reques t for] Notification of Chemical Exports

- TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act . March 6, 2009 at http://www.regulations.gov. Federal Mogul, 2010. Restricted Substance Management Standard. January 19, 2010. Ford Motor Company , 201 1 . 201 1 Restricted Substance Management Standard. WSS

– M99P9999

–A1. F ord Motor Company. Global Automotive Declarable Substance List (GADSL) 2011 Version 1.0. Global Automotive Stakeholder Group (GASG). <http://www. americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/doc. asp?CID=1106&DID=9291>. GM, 2008. Restricted and Reportable Substances for Parts. Worldwide Engineering Standards. Material Specification General. GMW3059. General Motors Corporation. October 2008. Herman Miller, 201 1. Personal communication with Gabe Wing of Herman Miller. March 30, 2011. ICL, 2008. ICL Industrial Products. SaFRon 9025: Flame Retardant dispersion for Coating and Backcoating Formulations for Textile Fabrics. Morose, 2006. Gregory Morose. “An Overvie w of Alternatives to Tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) and Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD)”. March, 2006. Available at http://www.chemicalspolicy.org/downloads/AternativestoTBBPAandHBCD.pdf Official Journal, 2011. Official Journal of the European Union. COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 143/2011 of 17 February 2011 amending Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals ( ‘ REACH ’ )

. Feb. 18, 201 1. OPM, 2010. Office of Personnel Management, Salary Table 2010

-DCB, Washington

Baltimore/Northern Virginia, DC

-MD

-PA

- VA

- WV. Accessed from http://www.opm.gov/oca/10tables/pdf/DCB.pdf Posner, 2006. “Survey and technical assessment of alternatives to TBBP A and HBCDD.” Kemi PM. January 2006. UBA, 2000. Umweltbundesamt, German Federal Environmental Agency. Leisewitz, Andre et al. Substituting Enviro n mentally Relevant Flame Retardants: Assessment Fundamentals. December 2000. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), 2010. “Exploration of management options for Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD).” August 18, 2010. USITC, 2010. US International Trade Commission “Interactive Tariff and Data Web: US Imports for Consumption” Available at http://dataweb.usitc.gov/EO 12866 Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or R elease during Review

Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Hexabromocyclododecane 27 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch USPS, 2010. U.S. Postal Service Mailing and postage rates. <http://www.usps.com/prices>. Accessed 16 August 2010.