ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 

OF THE 

AMENDMENT TO THE POLYMER EXEMPTION RULE 

TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN PERFLUORINATED POLYMERS 

— DOES NOT CONTAIN TSCA CBI — 

Prepared by: 

Wendy Hoffman 

Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

Economics, Exposure and Technology Division 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

1200 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

October 30, 2009 
ii
ABSTRACT 

This economic analysis estimates the cost of a final rule to amend the Polymer 

Exemption Rule. The Polymer Exemption Rule provides an exemption for certain polymers 

from the premanufacture notification (PMN) requirements under section 5 of the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 720. This 

amendment excludes from eligibility under the Polymer Exemption Rule those polymers 

containing as an integral part of their composition, except as impurities, certain perfluoroalkyl 

moieties consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length. 

Under the final rule, any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to 

include import) any of these polymers not already on the TSCA Inventory must complete the 

TSCA premanufacture review process prior to commencing the manufacture or import of such 

polymers. Alternatively, manufacturers or importers may submit a request for a different 

exemption, such as the Low Volume Exemption (LVE) or Low Environmental Release and 

Human Exposure Exemption (LoREX), for affected polymers that they reasonably believe may 

qualify for such exemptions. Those persons who are currently manufacturing or importing such 

polymers, or who have previously manufactured or imported them but are not doing so now, in 

full compliance with the 1995 polymer exemption rule, may continue manufacturing or 

importing them until 24 months after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. After 

that date, manufacture of these polymers will no longer be authorized under the polymer 

exemption rule, and continued manufacture or import must be authorized under a different 

section 5(h)(4) exemption or under a different section 5 authority, such as section 5(a)(1) or 

section 5(e). 

EPA estimates that the net cost for completing and submitting a PMN as a result of this 

amendment will be $7,897 per chemical for chemicals that are currently being manufactured 

under the exemption. EPA estimates that companies that are not manufacturing an affected 

polymer, but begin to manufacture these polymers in the future, may also incur costs associated 

with delays in commercialization of the new chemical of $14,522 per chemical, for a total of 

$22,419 per chemical. 

 EPA estimates that a maximum of 252 PMNs for previously exempt chemicals 

could be submitted during the first two years after publication of the final rule. However, 

because EPA has no way of predicting accurately the actual timing of the submissions, in 

this analysis, EPA is averaging the 252 PMNs over the two-year period and is assuming 

that 126 PMNs for previously exempt chemicals will be submitted each of the first two 

years. In addition, EPA is expecting a maximum of 18 PMNs to be submitted to the 

Agency each year after publication for new chemicals that were not previously 

manufactured under the exemption, for a total of 144 PMNs during each of the first two 

years of the rule. 

Using the estimated costs per chemical and the estimated anticipated number of 

PMNs, EPA estimates the potential PMN submission costs of the rule to industry in the 

first two years of the rule to be $1.4 million, including delay costs for the new chemicals 

that were not previously manufactured under the exemption. In the third and subsequent 

iii
years of the rule, the annual estimated cost for manufacturers of affected chemicals is 

estimated to be $403,542. 

Finally, the final rule clarifies that other TSCA section 5(h)(4) exemption requests 

may be submitted in lieu of PMNs. EPA estimates that the cost of preparing an LVE or a 

LoREX is equal to the cost of preparing a PMN. However, LVEs and LoREXs are not 

subject to the $2,500 user fee. Accordingly, if the Agency receives no LVE or LoREXs 

notices as a result of this clarification, then Agency estimated costs are not affected by 

this clarification. However, if the Agency does receive any LVE or LoREX notices, then 

estimated costs would be overstated because these notices would not be subject to the 

user fee. The Agency has never received a photographic film exemption request and does 

not expect to as a result of this final rule 

As was the case prior to the promulgation of the Polymer Exemption Rule in 1995, the 

Agency recognizes that the submission of a PMN may lead to other regulatory actions under 

TSCA; for example, consent orders issued under TSCA section 5(e). Any such actions are 

highly dependent on the circumstances surrounding the individual PMN (e.g., available 

information and scientific understanding about the chemical and its risks at the time the PMN is 

being reviewed). Such potential actions and any costs associated with them would not be a direct 

result of the amendments to the Polymer Exemption Rule, but this economic analysis does 

contain a brief discussion of the Agency’s previous and ongoing regulatory activities with 

respect to potentially affected polymers. 

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Page

ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... i 

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................1 

2.0 INDUSTRY BURDEN AND COSTS............................................................. .....3 

2.1 Potentially Affected Entities .........................................................................3 

2.2 Estimated Burden and Costs for Submitting a Premanufacture 

Notice (PMN)................................................................................4 

2.2.1 Estimated Burden and Costs for Submitting Other TCA Section 5(h)(4) 

Exemption Requests........................................................... .............6 

 2.3 Estimated Number of PMNs Anticipated .....................................................7 

2.4 Total Estimated Annual Industry Costs and Burdens ......................................8 

3.0 AGENCY COSTS .................................................................................................9 

4.0 POTENTIAL FOLLOW-ON ACTIONS FOR AFFECTED POLYMERS.......10 

4.1 Examples of Previous Follow-on Actions for Affected Polymers ..............10 

4.2 Potential Follow-on Actions for Affected Polymers ...................................11 

5.0 ADDITIONAL ANALYSES................................................................................13 

5.1 Executive Order 12866.............................................................13 

 5.2 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) ...............................................................13 

5.3 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) ................................................ 14 

5.4 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) ................................................................14 

5.5 Executive Order 13132 ................................................................................14

5.6 Executive Order 12898 ................................................................................15 

5.7 Executive Order 13045 ................................................................................15 

5.8 Executive Order 13175 ................................................................................15 

5.9 Executive Order 13211 ................................................................................16 

5.10 National Technology Transfer Advancement Act..............................16 

5.11 Congressional Review Act.......................................................................... ..16 

REFERENCES..................................................................................................................17 

APPENDIX A DERIVATION OF WAGE RATES......................................................... 19 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1 Industry Costs and Burden or Submitting a PMN..........................................5 

Table 2 Net Industry Costs and Burden for Submitting a PMN..................................6 

Table 3 Cost Estimates for Examples of Previous Testing Requested .......................11 

Table A-1 Former and Current EPA and BLS Labor Categories................................19 

Table A-2 Derivation of Loaded Wage Rates..............................................................21

v
1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This report presents the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of 

Pollution Prevention and Toxics’ (OPPT) analysis of the potential costs incurred as a 

result of amending the Polymer Exemption Rule. The Polymer Exemption Rule provides 

an exemption for certain polymers from the premanufacture notification (PMN) 

requirements under section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 720. This final rule excludes from eligibility 

under the Polymer Exemption Rule those polymers containing as an integral part of their 

composition, except as impurities, certain perfluoroalkyl moieties consisting of a CF3- or 

longer chain length. The exclusion includes polymers that contain any one or more of the 

following: perfluoroalkyl sulfonates (PFAS); perfluoroalkyl carboxylates (PFAC); 

fluorotelomers; or perfluoroalkyl moieties that are covalently bound to either a carbon or 

sulfur atom where the carbon or sulfur atom is an integral part of the polymer molecule. 

This change to the current regulation is necessary because, based on available 

information, EPA can no longer conclude that these polymers “will not present an 

unreasonable risk to human health or the environment,” under the terms of the Polymer 

Exemption Rule, which is the determination necessary to support an exemption under 

TSCA section 5(h)(4). 

In general, any person who intends to manufacture (or import) any affected polymers that 

are not already on the TSCA Inventory must complete the TSCA premanufacture review process 

prior to commencing the manufacture or import of such polymers. Alternatively, manufacturers 

or importers may submit a request for a different section 5(h)(4) exemption, such as the Low 

Volume Exemption (LVE) or Low Environmental Release and Human Exposure Exemption 

(LoREX), for affected polymers that they reasonably believe may qualify for such exemptions. 

The effective date of this final rule will be 30 days after its publication in the Federal 

Register, which is the minimum required by section 553(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act. 

Accordingly, the TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A) requirement to submit a PMN (or alternate exemption 

request, if appropriate) for a new chemical substance applies to all affected polymers beginning 

30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. However, EPA is providing 

an extended compliance date for those who, prior to the effective date of the final rule, had 

already initiated the manufacture or import of affected polymers in full compliance with the 1995 

polymer exemption rule. Specifically, this rule allows manufacturers or importers of affected 

polymers who are in full compliance with the terms of the 1995 polymer exemption rule, to 

continue manufacturing or importing them until 24 months after publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register. After that date, manufacture of these polymers will no longer be 

authorized under the polymer exemption rule, and continued manufacture or import must be 

authorized under a different section 5(h)(4) exemption or under a different section 5 authority, 

such as section 5(a)(1) or section 5(e). 

The remainder of this analysis is organized as follows. Chapter 2 presents 

estimates of the industry costs and burdens resulting from the amendment. Chapter 3 

discusses estimated Agency costs and burdens for reviewing the PMNs anticipated as a 

result of this amendment. Chapter 4 presents a discussion of potential follow-on actions 

 2
for companies submitting PMNs after the Polymer Exemption Rule is amended. Finally, 

Chapter 5 includes a review of additional analyses related to the potential impacts of this 

rulemaking, as required under various statutes and Executive Orders. 

2.0 INDUSTRY BURDEN AND COSTS

EPA has evaluated the industry costs that are expected to result from the 

amendment to exclude from eligibility under the Polymer Exemption Rule those 

polymers described in the final rule. 

2.1 Potentially Affected Entities 

Entities expected to be impacted by this final rule include: 

• Chemical Manufacturers or Importers (North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) code 325), e.g., Persons who manufacture 

(defined by statute to include import) one or more of the subject chemical 

substances. 

• Chemical Exporters (NAICS code 325), e.g., persons who export, or intend to 

export, one or more of the subject chemical substances. 

This listing and the NAICS codes that are provided are not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provide a guide for entities likely to be affected by this action. 

Other types of entities not listed also could be affected. 

Within this universe, a company may be impacted by this action if the company is 

currently manufacturing or importing polymers, or has previously done so, that contain as 

an integral part of their composition, except as impurities, certain perfluoroalkyl moieties 

consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length (“affected polymers”). A company may also 

be impacted by this action if the company intends to manufacture or import these 

polymers in the future. As specified in the regulatory text (§723.250(d)(6)), this action 

includes polymers that contain any one or more of the following: PFAS; PFAC; 

fluorotelomers; or perfluoroalkyl moieties that are covalently bound to either a carbon or 

sulfur atom where the carbon or sulfur atom is an integral part of the polymer molecule. 

Persons who import or intend to import polymers that are covered by the final rule 

are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements, 

and to the regulations codified at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127 and 127.28. Those 

persons must certify that they are in compliance with the PMN requirements. The EPA 

policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. 

Importers of formulated products that contain a polymer that is a subject of this final rule 

as a component (for example, for use as a water-proof coating for textiles or as a top antireflective coating (TARC) used to manufacture integrated circuits) also may be 

potentially affected. A list of potential monomers and reactants that could be used to 

 3
manufacture polymers that are affected by this rulemaking may be found in the public 

docket for this rulemaking. 

2.2 Estimated Burden and Costs for Submitting a Premanufacture Notice (PMN) 

In the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) (EPA 1994) prepared for amendments to 

the PMN regulations finalized in 1995, EPA relied on industry estimates of the effort 

needed to collect and compile all data required for a PMN, to prepare the form, and to 

submit the form and data to EPA. These estimates, based on a 1991 survey conducted by 

the Chemical Manufacturers Association (now called the American Chemistry Council), 

indicate that the average effort required to prepare and submit a PMN is between 95 and 

114 hours for reporting activities, plus two hours for recordkeeping, for a midpoint 

burden estimate of 107 hours. EPA expects that the burden and cost for submitting a 

PMN will decline when EPA’s proposed e-PMN rule, requiring electronic submission of 

all PMNs, is finalized (EPA, 2008b). However, because the final rule has not yet been 

published, the expected reduction in industry and cost burden from the e-PMN rule is not 

reflected in this analysis. 

 The labor mix includes categories that EPA had been labeling as managerial, 

technical, and clerical (EPA, 2003) in previous economic analyses. In 2004, the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics (BLS) switched from the Occupational Classification System (OCS), 

to the Standard Occupational Classification System (SOC). Labor category titles have 

thus been changed here to reflect the switch. However, the coverage of the old and new 

occupational groups is approximately the same. See Appendix A for the derivation of the 

wage rates. 

The cost for completion and submission of a PMN is estimated to be $5,769 (see 

Appendix A for derivation of wage rates). PMN submitters must also pay a standard 

$2,500 user fee, for a total cost of $8,269. See Table 1. Submitters of PMNs for new 

chemicals may also incur an estimated $24,094 in commercialization delay costs (BLS, 

2007, and EPA, 2003), which assumes that the product is ready for sale on the market 

and the PMN review process caused the company to forego production and profits for the 

duration of the PMN review period. In cases where the company has taken the delay into 

account in its product planning schedule, no delay costs may be incurred. However, for 

the purposes of this analysis, the delay cost is included. 

EPA has estimated previously that chemicals using the polymer exemption could 

incur $6,462 in commercialization delay costs (EPA 1994). Updating that figure for 

inflation using the Producer Price Index for Chemical Manufacturers results in an 

updated cost of $9,572 (BLS, 2007a). When the polymer exemption delay cost, which 

will no longer be incurred under the rule, is subtracted from the PMN delay cost, the net 

delay cost is $14,522. This figure is less than the figure of $19,416 that appeared in the 

Economic Analysis for the proposed rule because the $19,416 had not been updated for 

inflation since 2003, and did not reflect the subtraction of $9,572 in commercialization 

delay costs that would no longer be incurred as a result of ending the exemption for 

certain polymers. The Economic Analysis for the proposed rule, therefore, overestimated 

 4
the cost of submitting a PMN for a new chemical that is not already on the TSCA 

Inventory. 

Table 1. Industry Costs and Burden for Submitting a PMN 

Labor Category 

Average 

Hours1

Loaded Wage Rate2

(2007 dollars) 

Total Labor Cost 

(loaded wage × hours) 

Office and 

administrative support 14.0 $27.47 $384 

Professional and related 75.0 $55.44 $4,158 

Management, business, 

and financial 18.0 $68.18 $1,227 

Subtotal 107 $5,769

PMN User Fee $2,500 

TOTAL $8,269 

Figures may not equal totals due to rounding. 

1 

Hours range for each labor category is from the RIA for the PMN Amendments (EPA, 1994). 2

 Loaded wage rates include fringe benefits and overhead. See Appendix A for derivation. 

While the burden and cost for submitting a PMN are estimated to be 107 hours 

and $8,269 per chemical for the usual PMN case, the burden and cost for submitting a 

PMN as a result of this final rule is estimated to be 101 hours and $7,897 per chemical. 

The estimates for this final rule are lower than usual because the Agency has accounted 

for the elimination of the existing burden and costs related to the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements in the Polymer Exemption Rule, which are estimated to be six 

hours per chemical. This figure includes four hours for reporting, and two hours for 

recordkeeping (EPA, 2003). The net burden is therefore 101 hours (107 - 6). The 

reduction of six hours was apportioned across the three labor categories in the same 

percentages as each category contributes to the total burden hours, and results in the net 

cost and burden shown in Table 2. The net cost per PMN is therefore calculated as 

$7,897. 

 5
Table 2. Net Industry Costs and Burden for Submitting a PMN under the Rule 

Labor Category 

Average 

Hours1 

Loaded Wage Rate2 

(2007 dollars) 

Total Labor Cost 

(loaded wage × hours) 

Office and administrative 

support 13.0 $27.47 $357 

Professional and related 70.0 $55.44 $3,881 

Management, business, and 

financial 17.0 $68.18 $1,159 

Subtotal 101 $5,397 

PMN User Fee $2,500 

TOTAL $7,897 

Figures may not equal totals due to rounding. 

1 

Hours ranges for each labor category are from the RIA for the PMN Amendments (EPA, 1994). 2

 Loaded wage rates include fringe benefits and overhead. See Appendix A for derivation. 

Including PMN preparation and submission costs, the user fee, and net 

commercialization delay costs, the total cost for a company to submit a new PMN under 

this amendment is estimated at $22,419 ($7,897 + $14,522) per chemical. Small 

businesses with annual sales of less than $40 million are subject to a reduced PMN user 

fee of $100, so the total cost for a small business to submit a PMN for a new chemical is 

estimated to be $20,019 per chemical. Potential small business impacts are discussed in 

Chapter 5.1 of this EA. LVEs and LoREXs are not subject to any user fee, so to the 

extent that small businesses submit either of these two types of notices, the impact of the 

rule on small business also would be further reduced. 

 These net costs do not include the following per chemical costs that would have 

been incurred had a manufacturer of an affected polymer been allowed to continue to 

submit an exemption notification under the Polymer Exemption Rule (i.e., had this 

amendment to the Polymer Exemption Rule not been finalized): (1) $372 for 

recordkeeping and reporting costs, and (2) $9,572 commercialization delay cost. 

2.2.1 Estimated Burden and Costs for Submitting Other TSCA section 

5(h)(4) Exemptions Requests

EPA has clarified in the final rule that the Agency is allowing other section 

5(h)(4) exemption requests, such as Low Volume Exemptions (LVE) and Low Release 

and Exposure (LoREX) exemptions, and photographic film exemptions, to be submitted 

in lieu of a PMN. EPA estimates that the cost of preparing an LVE or a LoREX is equal 

 6
to the cost of preparing a PMN. However, LVEs and LoREXs are not subject to the 

$2,500 user fee. Accordingly, if the Agency receives no LVE or LoREXs notices as a 

result of this clarification, then Agency estimated costs are not affected by this 

clarification. However, if the Agency does receive any LVE or LoREX notices, then 

estimated costs would be overstated because these notices would not be subject to the 

user fee. The Agency has never received a photographic film exemption request and does 

not expect to as a result of this final rule 

It is possible that EPA may deny a request for a different section 5(h)(4) 

exemption. In that case, the manufacturer may choose to submit a PMN for the affected 

polymer. See, e.g., 40 CFR § 723.50(h). The additional costs of preparing and 

submitting the PMN in such “double submissions” are not estimated in this Economic 

Analysis. EPA is not able to track polymers that came in under the polymer exemption 

but which could have come in under a different exemption. EPA does not receive enough 

information in notifications submitted under the polymer exemption rule to make any 

reasonable judgments in that respect. Moreover, EPA does not regularly track “double 

submissions,” whether they pertain to affected polymers or other chemical substances. 

Thus, EPA cannot reasonably estimate the number of affected polymers for which double 

submissions might be necessary as a result of this rule. However, in 2007 and 2008 there 

were an average of 20 denials or withdrawals of LVE or LOREX submissions per fiscal 

year, for all chemical substances (EPA, 2009a). 

Based on the 20 withdrawals or denials averaged in 2007 and 2008 for all 

chemical substances, the Agency does not anticipate a significant number of “double 

submissions” for affected polymers as a result of this rule, and therefore, does not expect 

the costs to be significant. In addition, the cost of the PMN submission, after the denial 

of a request for a different section 5(h)(4) exemption, would not be a direct cost of this 

rule, but rather, of an independent EPA action (denial of the LVE/LoREX or 

photographic film exemption request). The direct cost of this rule is only the cost of 

submitting a single PMN or a single alternative section 5(h)(4) exemption request for 

each affected polymer. 

2.3 Estimated Number of PMNs Anticipated 

EPA searched for polymers in various databases, including the Science and 

Technology Network (STN) database maintained by the Chemical Abstracts Service of 

the American Chemical Society, which holds the public inventory for TSCA chemicals; 

the TSCA New Chemicals database, which includes the public STN database and the 

nonpublic Confidential Inventory; and other sources to obtain information on the number 

of polymers that could be affected by the rule. Based on these searches, EPA has 

estimated that this rule will affect approximately three to six percent of the average 292 

polymers reported annually since the polymer exemption took effect for chemicals 

affected by this rule (EPA, 2008a). EPA used the high end of six percent to estimate that 

18 polymers per year may be affected by this rule, and therefore, a maximum of 18 

additional PMNs could be anticipated each year under the final rule. While EPA believes 

 7
that this is an overestimate based on CBI and non-CBI data, it is using this figure to 

ensure that the estimated burdens and costs are not underestimated. 

Applying the same number of 18 chemicals per year to the 14 years the Polymer 

Exemption Rule has been in effect (1996 through 2009) for the polymers covered by this 

rule, EPA estimates that it could receive a maximum of 252 PMNs for previously exempt 

polymers (18 chemicals x 14 years) under this rule. The final rule allows those persons 

who are currently manufacturing or importing such polymers, or who have previously 

manufactured or imported them but are not doing so now, in full compliance with the 

1995 polymer exemption rule, to continue manufacturing or importing them until 24 

months after the effective date of the final rule. Current manufacturers and importers 

may submit PMNs as soon as the final rule is in effect. In light of comments EPA 

received on the proposed rule that one year was not sufficient time for companies to 

prepare, submit, and complete the PMN review process, EPA expects to receive the 

majority of PMNs for previously exempt chemicals during the second year of the 

proposed rule. However, because EPA has no way of predicting accurately the actual 

timing of the submissions, in this analysis, EPA is averaging the 252 expected PMNs for 

previously exempt chemicals over the two-year period and is assuming that 126 PMNs 

for previously exempt chemicals will be submitted each of the first two years after 

publication of the final rule. 

In addition, EPA estimates that a maximum 18 PMNs for new chemicals could be 

submitted each year after publication of the final rule. Therefore, in each of the first two 

years, EPA is expecting a total of 144 PMNs to be submitted; 126 PMNs for previously 

exempt chemicals and 18 PMNs for new chemicals. 

2.4 Total Estimated Annual Industry Costs and Burdens 

Companies that are currently manufacturing an affected polymer, or have 

previously done so in compliance with the 1995 polymer exemption, are estimated to 

incur a total cost of $7,897 per chemical under the final rule. Companies that are not 

manufacturing an affected polymer, but begin to manufacture such polymers in the 

future, are estimated to incur a total cost of $22,419 per chemical. 

Based on the estimated per chemical costs and the estimated number of PMNs 

anticipated, EPA estimates the potential first and second year costs for manufacturers and 

importers to be $1,398,564, or $1.4 million per year, including $995,022 for previously 

exempt chemicals (126 chemicals x $7,897 per chemical) + $403,542 (18 new chemicals 

x $22,419). This will decrease to an estimated annual cost of $403,542 in the third year 

and beyond for the maximum of 18 PMNs that EPA believes could be submitted annually 

by manufacturers and importers of new chemicals that are no longer eligible for the 

exemption. 

The industry burden associated with submitting a PMN as a result of this 

amendment is estimated to be a total of 101 hours per PMN submission. Based on the 

assumption of a total of 144 PMNs in each of the first two years after publication of the 

 8
final rule (126 PMNs for previously exempt chemicals and 18 PMNs for new chemicals), 

EPA estimates that the industry burden will be 14,544 hours per year (144 PMNs x 101 

hours per submission). This will decrease to an estimated annual burden of 1,818 hours in 

the third year and beyond for the maximum of 18 PMNs that EPA believes could be 

submitted annually by manufacturers and importers of new chemicals that are no longer 

eligible for the exemption. 

3.0 AGENCY COSTS 

EPA will incur costs associated with the staff time needed to review each PMN. 

Costs to the Agency include: 1) initial review of PMN substances, after which the 

majority of cases are dropped from further regulatory review, and 2) comprehensive 

reviews on a minority of chemicals. Under a comprehensive review, the Agency conducts 

a more thorough evaluation of the potential risks associated with manufacturing, 

processing, use and disposal of the PMN substance, including, if necessary, taking 

regulatory action under TSCA sections 5(e) or 5(f). 

The average Agency cost per PMN was calculated by multiplying the Agency’s 

64 labor hours for each PMN (EPA 1994) by the Agency labor cost per hour for a fully 

loaded GS-13, Step 5 employee in the Washington, D.C. area in 2007. Extramural costs 

for contractor support are also included in the Agency cost calculation. EPA expects that 

the cost to the Agency to process and review PMNs will decline when EPA’s proposed ePMN rule, requiring electronic submission of all PMNs, is finalized (EPA, 2008b). 

However, the expected reduction in cost is not reflected in these estimates. 

Agency wage rate data used to calculate labor costs were taken from the U.S. 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) salary table for a GS-13, step 5 employee in the 

Washington, D.C. area (OPM, 2007). A loading factor of 1.6 to reflect fringe benefits 

and overhead was applied to the base salary of $89,985 to arrive at the 2007 loaded salary 

of $143,976. The final loaded hourly wage of $69.22 was calculated by dividing the 

loaded salary by the 2,080 hours associated with a full-time employee (EPA 2003). 

Agency unit costs for review of full PMNs are estimated to average $5,550 per 

notice, including $4,430 in Agency labor costs and $1,120 in extramural costs for 

contractor support ((EPA, 2003) updated to 2007, and (BLS, 2007a)). Based on the 

assumption that EPA will receive PMNs for a maximum of 144 chemicals in each of the 

first two years after publication of the final rule, the annual Agency cost of the 

amendment is estimated to be $799,200 (126 PMNs x $5,550 per submission), or 

$800,000 for the first two years. This will decrease to an estimated annual cost of 

$99,900 in the third year and beyond for the maximum of 18 PMNs that EPA believes 

could be submitted annually by manufacturers and importers of new chemicals that are 

no longer eligible for the exemption. 

 9
4.0 POTENTIAL FOLLOW-ON ACTIONS FOR AFFECTED POLYMERS 

In addition, as was the case prior to the promulgation of the Polymer Exemption 

Rule in 1995, the Agency recognizes that the submission of a PMN may lead to other 

regulatory actions under TSCA, for example, consent orders issued under TSCA section 

5(e). Any such actions are highly dependent on the circumstances surrounding the 

individual PMN (e.g., available information and scientific understanding about the 

chemical and its risks at the time the PMN is being reviewed). Such potential actions and 

any costs associated with them would not be a direct result of the amendments to the 

Polymer Exemption Rule. Nevertheless, EPA is providing a brief discussion of the 

Agency’s previous and ongoing regulatory activities with respect to potentially affected 

polymers. 

4.1 Examples of Previous Follow-on Actions for Affected Polymers 

Prior to promulgation of the Polymer Exemption Rule amendment in 1995, which 

exempted fluorinated chemicals that met the criteria described in that amendment to the 

Polymer Exemption Rule from the PMN review process, manufacturers of those 

fluorinated chemicals were required to submit a PMN prior to manufacturing or 

importing those chemicals. As a result of the Agency’s PMN review, the Agency might 

have sought additional information or taken other regulatory actions under TSCA. For 

example, EPA may have requested under TSCA section 5(e) that those manufacturers 

submit additional test data about the polymer, either up-front, or when the manufacture of 

the chemical was in excess of certain quantities. By eliminating the polymer exemption 

for these fluorinated chemicals, this final rule returns those chemicals to their pre-1995 

status of being subject to the PMN review process. In addition to the costs and burden of 

submitting a PMN discussed in Chapter 2 of this analysis, chemical manufacturers 

potentially are also subject to costs from other regulatory activities that could be 

undertaken under TSCA that are distinct from the costs of submitting a PMN. 

During the past 13 years, a number of manufacturers have voluntarily submitted 

PMNs for their fluorinated chemicals despite their eligibility for the polymer exemption. 

Since 2000, when the Agency first identified concerns about fluorinated chemicals, the 

Agency has requested additional test data under TSCA section 5(e) on fewer than 80 

fluorochemicals that met the polymer exemption criteria but for which companies chose 

to submit PMNs. Because the follow-on actions are highly dependent on the 

circumstances surrounding the individual PMN (e.g., available information and scientific 

understanding about the chemical and its risks at the time the PMN is being reviewed), 

the Agency cannot predict future follow-on actions for individual fluorinated chemicals, 

including requests for specific test data. While prior experience with PMNs for these 

fluorinated chemicals shows the type of additional test data that has been requested in the 

past, PMNs submitted in the future for such chemicals might involve different requests 

for additional information to reflect the Agency’s evolving understanding of these 

substances. 

Typically, in the past, the Agency has requested test data from the following studies: 

 10
subacute oral toxicity (28 days); subchronic inhalation toxicity testing in very limited situations 

based on a commercial or consumer use that would involve spray application and where the 

Agency has special concerns for subchronic inhalation toxicity based on animal testing and 

Structural Activity Relationship (SAR); and the three-test aquatic panel in some cases where the 

chemical was expected to persist. In addition, the Agency has generally requested that 

companies use high temperature incineration (900○ C) for disposal, rather than other disposal 

methods such as landfilling. 

The Agency can request that the test data be provided before the manufacture of the 

chemical begins, or by setting a particular production volume trigger. In the trigger case, testing 

may be triggered as the production volume reaches levels where the Agency has calculated that 

the cost of the test would be recovered by profits earned by the chemical. 

Table 3 presents EPA’s ranges of estimated costs to conduct these examples of tests that 

previously have been requested. No data are available on the cost per pound or per ton for 

incineration. 

Table 3. Testing Costs for Examples of Previous Tests Requested for Polymer Exemption 

Chemicals 

Test 1 Estimate Range 

Subacute Oral Toxicity (28 Days) (OECD 407)2 $35,000 to $59,000 

Subchronic 90-Day Inhalation Toxicity in Rodents (OTS 

799.9346) $197,000 to $474,000 

Three Test Aquatic Panel (Daphnid Acute Toxicity, OPPT 

850.1010; Fish Acute Toxicity; OPPT 850.1075; Algal Toxicity 

Tiers I and II, OPPT 850.5400) $21,000 to $46,000 

1

These tests are examples of the types of tests that would have provided the test data requested in the past, 

and the related guidelines identified above were used to identify an estimated range for potential costs. The 

tests and related guidelines provided above do not necessarily represent actual tests or guidelines identified 

in any consent orders or testing agreements. 

2 

No equivalent OPPT Guideline was identified for this test. 

4.2 Potential Follow-on Actions for Affected Polymers 

EPA’s knowledge and understanding about fluorinated chemicals are continuing 

to evolve. Based on the Agency’s developing understanding of how these chemicals 

behave in the environment, including their persistence and potential to bioaccumulate, 

and incoming health effects data, the information the Agency may need when reviewing a 

PMN is also changing. For example, in some cases, such as incineration testing, based 

on: 1) data submitted to the New Chemicals program and other background data and 

information the Agency has obtained, 2) data the Agency will be receiving from 

incineration testing agreements with industry, and 3) where it is warranted because of the 

type of chemical that has been submitted, the Agency has no longer been asking for 

 11
additional incineration testing data that would identify degradation products and 

impurities, especially the presence of components that can lead to the formation of 

perfluoroalkyl acids after burning. 

In other cases, concerns related to the environmental fate and transport of these 

chemicals have arisen. Based on data submitted to the Agency showing that telomer 

alcohol can breakdown to form PFOA, concern has been raised that the larger polymer 

molecule can breakdown to form telomer alcohol, which could then breakdown to form 

PFOA. As a result, EPA currently is interested in data that addresses questions such as 

the rate at which the new fluorinated chemicals degrade, the identity of the degradation 

products, and what the fluorinated chemicals are specifically composed of, including any 

impurities. To address these concerns, the Agency has begun to request test data from 

environmental fate studies such as OPPT 835.5045, Modified SCAS Test for Insoluble 

and Volatile Chemicals; OECD 303A, Simulation Test Aerobic Sewage Treatment 

(Activated Sludge Units); OECD 307, Aerobic and Anaerobic Transformations in Soil; 

OECD 308, Aerobic and Anaerobic Transformations in Aquatic Sediment Systems; and, 

OECD 311, Anaerobic Biodegradability of Organic Compounds in Digested Sludge. 

EPA is working in a number of ways to avoid requesting unnecessary or 

duplicative testing of new fluorinated chemicals. Wherever possible in the New 

Chemicals Program, the Agency is sequencing testing and grouping together chemicals 

with similar structures or chemicals that are expected to behave similarly in the 

environment to take full advantage of the data that are coming in. EPA also evaluates 

data submitted by companies from studies done voluntarily or for other regulatory 

authorities. In addition, TSCA section 8(e) requires companies to submit to EPA any 

adverse effects data that is or becomes available about the chemicals. EPA is also 

studying relevant test data that are being generated abroad, and where possible, using 

those studies to inform its requests for testing in the New Chemicals Program. 

The Agency is adjusting its approach to new fluorinated chemicals based on new 

information that is continually coming into the Agency. Any follow-on actions are based 

on the individual chemical and the Agency’s knowledge at the time the PMN is 

undergoing review by the Agency. Therefore, it is very difficult to predict with accuracy 

what specific follow-on actions (e.g., other information, test data, or exposure 

protections), if any, the Agency may take when reviewing PMNs for new fluorinated 

chemicals submitted in the future. 

5.0 ADDITIONAL ANALYSES 

This chapter presents the additional analyses required under various statutes and 

Executive Orders. 

 12
5.1 Executive Order 12866 

 Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) 

of the Executive Order because it may raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of 

legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive 

Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in response to 

OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. 

5.2 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

 The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq) generally requires an 

agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and 

comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other 

statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, small entity is 

defined as: (1) a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201 based on the applicable NAICS code for the business 

sector impacted; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, 

county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and 

(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. 

The regulated community does not include any small governmental jurisdictions 

or small not-for-profit organizations. For small businesses, the Agency assessed the 

impacts on small chemical manufacturers in NAICS codes 325 and 324110. The SBA 

size standards for sectors under NAICS 325 range from 500 to 1,000 employees or fewer 

in order to be classified as small. The size standard for NAICS code 324110, Petroleum 

Refineries, is 1,500 employees. 

Based on estimates of the number of PMNs expected to be submitted as a result of 

this rule, EPA expects that 12 or fewer businesses would be affected per year (EPA, 

2009). Five companies that manufacture the majority of the volume of chemicals that are 

affected by these amendments to the Polymer Exemption Rule belong to either or both 

the Fluoropolymer Manufacturers Group, and the Telomer Research Program. These two 

groups, which have no other members beyond the five companies, have negotiated 

enforceable consent agreements and other voluntary testing arrangements with the 

Agency for testing specific chemicals that are affected by the Polymer Exemption Rule. 

The two groups have told the Agency that their member companies manufacture the 

majority of the volume of chemicals that are affected by the rule (OPPT-2003-0012-0013 

and -0016). None of these five companies meet the definition of small under the Small 

Business Administration employee size criteria. The remaining volume of chemicals that 

 13
could be affected by the rule is low enough so that even if a small company were to be 

affected, a significant number of businesses would not be affected. Small businesses are 

also entitled to a reduced user fee of $100 for submitting a PMN, rather than the $2,500 

user fee, which further reduces any impacts of the rule. 

5.3 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, 

or tribal governments or the private sector. Based on EPA's experience with past PMNs, 

State, local, and tribal governments have not been affected by this reporting requirement, 

and EPA does not have any reason to believe that any State, local, or tribal government 

will be affected by this rulemaking. As such, EPA has determined that this regulatory 

action does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or 

otherwise have any effect on small governments subject to the requirements of sections 

202 or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). 

5.4 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 USC 3501 et seq., an 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond, to a 

collection of information that requires Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a valid OMB 

control number. The information collection requirements related to the submission of 

PMNs are already approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. That Information Collection Request 

(ICR) document has been assigned EPA ICR number 0574 and OMB control number 

2070-0012. This rule does not impose any new requirements that require additional 

OMB approval. The existing paperwork burden is discussed in Section 2 of this EA. 

5.5 Executive Order 13132 

 Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 

requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input 

by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive 

Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” 

 EPA has determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications 

because it will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship 

between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in the Order, 

 14
because this rule simply amends the Polymer Exemption Rule (40 CFR 723.250) by 

removing the exemption from the premanufacture notification (PMN) requirements of 

TSCA that had previously existed for manufacturers of certain polymers; manufacturers 

of such polymers must now submit premanufacture notifications or alternate exemption 

requests, if appropriate, to EPA for review. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this rule. 

5.6 Executive Order 12898 

Executive Order (EO) 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 

1994)), establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 

directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their 

programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in 

the United States. 

EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations 

without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population. This rule 

amends the Polymer Exemption Rule (40 CFR 723.250) by removing the exemption from 

the premanufacture notification (PMN) requirements of TSCA that had previously 

existed for manufacturers of certain polymers; manufacturers of such polymers must now 

submit premanufacture notifications or alternate exemption requests, if appropriate, to 

EPA for review. 

5.7 Executive Order 13045 

 EPA interprets Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), as applying 

only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis 

required under section 5-501 of Executive Order 13045 has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not 

establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. 

 5.8. Executive Order 13175 

 As required by Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), EPA has determined 

that this final rule does not have tribal implications because it will not have any affect on 

tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian 

tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, as specified in the Order. Thus, Executive Order 13175 

 15
does not apply to this rule. 

 5.9. Executive Order 13211 

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 

13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have 

concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects because this rule 

simply amends the Polymer Exemption Rule (40 CFR 723.250) by removing the 

exemption from the premanufacture notification (PMN) requirements of TSCA that had 

previously existed for manufacturers of certain polymers; manufacturers of such 

polymers must now submit premanufacture notifications or alternate exemption requests, 

if appropriate, to EPA for review. 

 5.10 National Technology Transfer Advancement Act 

 Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use 

voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the 

Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. 

 This action does not involved technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not 

consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards. 

 5.11 Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides that 

before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report 

to each House of the Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA 

will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a “major 

rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

 16
REFERENCES 

BLS, 2006. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation: 

Changes to NAICS and SOC, Table 2. ECEC Occupational Comparability between SOC 

and OCS. Downloaded January 2007 from http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsm0003.htm. 

BLS, 2007. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables, 

September 2007. Supplementary Table 2. 

http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsuptc4.pdf.

BLS, 2007a. Producer Price Index for the Chemical Manufacturing Industry. Series Id 

PCU325, updated through September 2007. Downloaded May 2008 from 

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet.

EPA, 1994. Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 

Premanufacture Notifications. Washington, DC: EPA/OPPT/EETD/RIB. September 9, 

1994. 

EPA, 2001. Memo from Dr. Gregory Fritz to Mary Begley re: Polymer Exemption Rule 

Amendment. Washington, D.C.: EPA/OPPT/EETD. November 21, 2001. 

EPA, 2002. Cody Rice. Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory 

Program. Washington, DC: U.S.EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 

Economic and Policy Analysis Branch, June 10, 2002. 

EPA, 2002a. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. 

Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report. 

Washington, DC. August 2002. 

EPA, 2003. EPA ICR No. 0574.12, OMB Control No. 2070-0012. Washington, D.C.: 

EPA/OPPT. August 2003. 

EPA, 2008a. Email communication from Anna Coutlakis to Geraldine Hilton. February 

29, 2008. 

EPA, 2008b. TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture and Significant New Use Notification 

Electronic Reporting; Revisions to Notification Regulations; Proposed rule. 

Federal Register (73 FR 78261-78276), December 22, 2008) (FRL-8395-8). 

EPA, 2009. Email communication from Greg Fritz to Geraldine Hilton. March 27, 2009. 

EPA, 2009a. Email communication from Anna Coutlakis to Geraldine Hilton. April 9, 

2009. 

OPM, 2007. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Salary Table 2007-DCB (Washington – 

Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA). 2007. 

 17
OPPT-2003-0012-0013. APFO Users. Letter of Intent (LOI) for the APFO Users to Stephen L. 

Johnson, EPA. March 14, 2003. 

OPPT-2003-0012-0016. Telomer Research Program. Letter of Intent (LOI) for the Telomer 

Research Program to Stephen L. Johnson, EPA. March 14, 2003. 

Weinstein, 2004. Harriet G. Weinstein and Mark A. Loewenstein, U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. Comparing Current and Former Industry and Occupation ECEC Series.

Originally posted August 25, 2004 at 

http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/print/cm20040823ar01p1.htm.

 18
APPENDIX A 

DERIVATION OF WAGE RATES 

This appendix describes the derivation of the fully loaded labor rates and inflation factors 

used in calculating costs of labor, materials, and other inputs. Costs for this report are for yearend. 

A.1 Derivation of Loaded Wage Rates 

Unit labor costs are calculated by adding fringe benefits and overhead to the wage 

or salary to derive a fully loaded labor cost. The basic method is described in Wage 

Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (EPA, 2002). The 

resulting loaded labor rates are given in Table A-2. Costs are calculated for the labor 

categories of Managerial, Professional/ Technical, and Clerical. 

In March 2004, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) began using the North 

American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes instead of the Standard 

Industrial Classification (SIC) System, and the Standard Occupational Classification 

(SOC) system instead of the Occupational Classification System (OCS). The following 

table shows the crosswalk between old and new occupational titles. 

Table A-1. Former and Current EPA and BLS Labor Categories 

Source: Employer Costs for Employee Compensation: Changes to NAICS and SOC, Table 2. ECEC 

Occupational Comparability between SOC and OCS (BLS, 2006) and Weinstein, 2004. 

EPA Reports Labor 

Category BLS Old Title (OCS) BLS New Title (SOC) 

Managerial Executive, administrative, 

and managerial 

Management, business, 

and financial 

Professional/Technical Professional specialty and 

technical Professional and related 

Clerical Administrative support, 

including clerical 

Office and administrative 

support 

A.2. Derivation of Labor Rates for Managerial, Technical and Clerical Labor 

Wages and fringe benefits for the Management, business, and financial; 

Professional and related; and, Office and administrative support labor categories were 

taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employer Costs for Employee 

Compensation (ECEC) data, for September 2007, for manufacturing industries.1

 

 

1

 BLS Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, Supplementary Table 2. September 2007. 

http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsuptc4.pdf.

Past economic analyses used ECEC data for “All Goods Producing” sectors (manufacturing, mining, and construction). 

However, the manufacturing sector data seems more relevant because the rule mainly affects the chemical industry. 

 19
 20

 

The cost of fringe benefits such as paid leave and insurance, specific to each labor 

category, are taken from the same BLS series. An additional loading factor of 17 percent 

is applied to wages to account for overhead. This approach is used for consistency with 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics economic analyses for two major rulemakings: 

Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (EPA, 

2002), and the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final 

Report (EPA, 2002a). This overhead loading factor is added to the benefits loading 

factor, and the total is then applied to the base wage to derive the fully loaded wage. For 

example, the September 2007 fully loaded wage for technical labor is $33.25 + $16.54 + 

($33.25 x .17) = $55.44. Fully load wages for managerial and clerical labor were 

calculated in a similar manner, as shown in Table A-2. 
Table A-2 Derivation of Loaded Wage Rates 

EPA Labor 

Category Data Sources Date Wage Fringe Benefit Overhead % of wage1 Fringe + Overhead 

Managerial 

BLS Employer Costs for Employee Compensation. All workers in manufacturing;

Management, business, and financial.

Sept. 

2007 $41.40 $19.74 17% $26.

Technical 

BLS Employer Costs for Employee Compensation. All workers in manufacturing; Professional and related.

Sept. 

2007 $33.25 $16.54 17% $22.

Clerical 

BLS Employer Costs for Employee Compensation. All workers in manufacturing; Office and administrative support.

Sept. 

2007 $16.40 $8.28 17% $11.

EPA staff FTE 

Annual Federal staff cost: OPM WashingtonBaltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-PA-VAWV area, GS-13 Step 5 pay rates, with 60% overhead.3

Jan. 2007 $89,985 (annual) -- 60% 1.

1 An overhead rate of 17% was used based on assumptions in Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (EPA, 2002), 

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

2 Wages and fringe benefits are from BLS website http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsuptc4.pdf.3 The Federal salary is the unloaded Federal GS-13 Step 5 salary ($89,985) for 2007, from the Office of Personnel Management salary table for Washingt

(OPM, 2007). The 60% fringes-and-overhead rate is from an EPA guide, Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (OPPE, 199

21