## Economic **An aly** **sis of**  **the Significant**  **New Use Rule**  **for Perfluoroalky**  **l Sulfonates and Long**  **- Chain Perfluoroalky**  **l Carbox** **yl ate Chemical** 

**Substa nces**  **(EPA DOCKET EPA** **- HQ**  **- OPPT**  ****

**2012 -**  **0268 )** 

**Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

August 6, 2012

-- Does not contain TSCA CBI --

Prepared for: **Economic and Policy**

**A naly** **sis Branch** Economics, Exposure and Technology Division Office of Pollution, Prevention, and Toxics U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Wa shington, DC 20460This P age I ntentionally Left Blank**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Front Matter ▌**  **pg. i**  

### Economic A **naly sis**  **of the Significant New Use Rule for Perfluoroalky**  **l Sulfonates and**  **Long -** **Chain Perfluoroalky l Carboxy**  **late Chemical Substa nces**  **(EPA DOCKET EPA** **- HQ**  **- OPPT**  **- 2012**  **- 0268**  **) Table of Contents**  **List of Exhibits ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ .....**  **iii Contributors**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **......... iv**  **Executive Summary ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **............................. v**  **1. Introduction**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ .............................**  **1 -**  **1** 1.1 Statutory Authority
................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 1
-2 1.2 Summary of Methodology
................................ ................................ .............................. 1
-2 1.3 Organization of this Report
................................ ................................ ............................ 1
-2 **2. Chemical**  **Uses and Manufacturers ................................**  **................................ .......................**  **2 -**  **1** 2.1 Chemicals Subject to the Proposed Rule
................................ ................................ ........ 2
- 1 2.1.1 PFAS Chemical Substances
................................ ................................ .............. 2
- 1 2.1.2 LCPFAC Chemical Substances
................................ ................................ ........ 2
- 1 2.2 Significant New Uses under the Proposed SNUR
................................ .......................... 2
-2 2.3 Chemical Uses
................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 2
- 3 2.3.1 PFAS Chemical Substances
................................ ................................ .............. 2
- 3 2.3.2 LCPFAC Chemical Substances
................................ ................................ ........ 2
- 6 2.4 Potentially Affected Companies
................................ ................................ ..................... 2
- 6 2.4.1 PFAS Chemical Substances
................................ ................................ .............. 2
- 6 2.4.2 LCPFAC Chemical Substances
................................ ................................ ........ 2
- 6 **3. Industry Compliance Costs**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ....**  **3 -**  **1** 3. 1 Wage Rates
................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 3
-2 3.2 Unit Industry Compliance Costs
................................ ................................ ..................... 3
- 3 3.2.1 Rule Familiarization
................................ ................................ ......................... 3
- 3 3.2.2 CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup
... 3
- 3 3.2.3 Form Completion and Submission Fee
................................ ............................. 3
- 5**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Front Matter ▌**  **pg. ii**  3.2.4 Recordkeeping for Companies Choosing to Submit a SNUN
.......................... 3
- 7 Recordkeeping for Companies that Do Not Submit a SNUN
................................ ........ 3
- 7 3.2.5 Customer Notification
................................ ................................ ...................... 3
- 8 3.2.6 Import Certification
................................ ................................ .......................... 3
- 8 3.2.7 Export Notification
................................ ................................ ........................... 3
- 8 3.3 Summary of per Submission Costs, by Option
................................ ............................. 3
- 11 3.4 Likelihood of SNUN Submission
................................ ................................ ................. 3
- 12 3.5 Potential for Subsequent Regulatory Actions
................................ ............................... 3
- 12 **4. Agency Costs**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ............................**  **4 -**  **1** 4.1 Labor Rates for EPA Staff
................................ ................................ .............................. 4
- 1 4.2 SNUN Processing Costs
................................ ................................ ................................ . 4
- 1 4.3 Export Notification Cost
................................ ................................ ................................ . 4
- 6 **5. Benefits**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **..... 5**  **- 1**  **6. Additional Analyses**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ................**  **6 -**  **1** 6.1 Regulatory Flexibility Act
................................ ................................ .............................. 6
- 1 6.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
................................ ................................ .... 6
- 1 6.3 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
................................ ................................ ................... 6
- 1 6.4 Executive Order 13132, Federalism
................................ ................................ ............... 6
-2 6.5 Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice
................................ ............................. 6
-2 6.6 Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children
................................ ............................. 6
- 3 6.7 Executive Order 13175, Tribal Governments
................................ ................................ . 6
- 3 6.8 Executive Order 13211, Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
................................ ....... 6
- 3 **7. References**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **7 -**  **1 Appendix A** 

**– Wage Rate Calculations** **SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Front Matter ▌**  **pg. iii**  

### List of Exhibits Exhibit 2
- 1: PFAS Chemicals Added to the SNUR
................................ ................................ ............ 2
- 1 Exhibit 2
-2: Articles Containing PFAS Chemical Substances
................................ ............................ 2
- 5 Exhibit 3
- 1: Loaded Industry Wage Rates, December 2011
................................ .............................. 3
-2 Exhibit 3
-2: Rule Familiarization Burden and Cost for SNUR Submitters
................................ ........ 3
- 3 Exhibit 3
- 3: CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup Burden and

Cost for First
- Time Submitters
................................ ................................ ....................... 3
- 5 Exhibit 3
-4: Industry Cost Estimate to Complete the SNUN Form
................................ .................... 3
- 6 Exhibit 3
- 5: Industry Cost Estimate to Complete and Submit the SNUN Form
................................ 3
- 7 Exhibit 3
- 6: Annual Per
- Chemical Costs of Recordkeeping Requirement for Companies that Choose

not to Submit a SNUN
................................ ................................ ................................ .... 3
- 7 Exhibit 3
- 7: Derivation of Total Mailing Cost for 12 Notices
................................ .......................... 3
- 10 Exhibit 3
- 8 : TSCA 12(b) Export Notif ication Cost per Notification
................................ ............... 3
- 11 Exhibit 3
- 9: Compliance Options and Associated Costs Incurred by a Firm Due to the Proposed

SNUR
................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 3
- 12 Exhibit 4
- 1: Derivation of Loaded Agency Wage Rates, 2011
................................ .......................... 4
- 1 Exhibit 4
-2: Derivation of Inflation Factors for Agency Extramural Costs
................................ ....... 4
-2 Exhibit 4
- 3: Agency Costs for SNUN and Other Submission Review and Processing
...................... 4
-4 Exhibit 4
-4: TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost: Agency Burden per Activity (2011$)
............... 4
- 6 Exhibit 7
- 1: Derivation of Loaded Wage Rates
................................ ................................ ................. A
- 3 Exhibit 7
-2: Derivation of Inflation Factors
................................ ................................ ...................... A
- 5**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Front Matter ▌**  **pg. iv**  

### Contributors The EPA analyst responsible for this report was Timothy Lehman. Analytical and draft preparation support was provided by Abt Associates Inc. under EPA Contract No. EP
-W
- 08
- 010.**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Front Matter ▌**  **pg. v**  

### Executive Summary U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend a significant new use rule (SNUR) for perfluoroalkyl sulfonate (PFAS) chemical substances 1 to add PFAS chemical substances that have completed the TSCA new chemical review process but have not yet commenced production or import, and to designate processing as a “significant new use.” EPA is also proposing to add a SNUR for long
- chain perfluoroalkyl car boxylate (LCPFAC) chemical substances that would designate manufacturing, importing, or processing for use as part of carpets or for treating carpet as a significant new use. For this SNUR, EPA is also proposing to make the article exemption inapplicable to the import of LCPFAC chemical substances as part of carpets. This report estimates the costs of the Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) being proposed by the EPA. Since the manufacture , import, and processing of PFAS and LCPFAC chemical substances for the proposed uses have been discontinued, EPA expects their presence in humans and the environment to decline over time as has been observed in the past when production and use of other persistent chemicals has ceased. Persons subject to these SNURs would be req uired to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing any significant new use. The required notifications would provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs. A signifi cant new use is defined as: 1) the manufacture, import, processing of any of the PFAS chemical substances subject to this proposed rule, for any use except ongoing uses specified in the 2007 PFAS Chemical Substances SNUR at § 721.9582(a)(3) through (a)(5) and 2) the manufacture, import, processing, or import as part of carpet, of any of the LCPFAC chemical substances subject to this proposed rule for use as par t of carpet or to treat carpets
. A firm intending to engage in these activities would be required to submit a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN), incurring an estimated submission cost of $8, 571 for large businesses per chemical 2 , and potentially other minor costs. The required notification would provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prevent or limit potentially adverse effects from chemical use before it occurs. In addition to any firms that may make a SNUN submission, the proposed SNUR may als o affect firms that do not make a submission. By avoiding a significant new use, a firm can avoid submission and testing costs but may incur other compliance costs. The firm may also incur “hidden” costs; for example, it could forego profitable opportuniti es to use the chemical in an application that would be a significant new use, or limit production volume to avoid a significant new use. Costs in this report are estimated at the firm level and reflect the burden of a SNUR on the firms that make a submissi on. The potential hidden costs to the firms that do not make a submission are not quantified. EPA receives only a handful of SNUNs per year. The number of firms affected by not making submissions to EPA is not known; therefore, costs are not aggregated across the affected entities.

1 On March 10, 2006 (71 FR 12311) (FRL
- 7740
- 6), EPA proposed to add 183 PFAS chemical substances to the SNUR at 40 CFR 721.9582, and published a final rule for these 183 PFAS chemical substances on October 9, 2007 (71 FR 12311) (FRL
- 8150
- 4) (EPA, 2007d). 2 F or small businesses, the estimated cost is $6,171 to complete and submit a SNUN. See section 3.2.3 for details.**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 1**  **- 1**  

## 1. **Introduction** This report presents the estimated costs of the proposed Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) for specific perfluoroalkyl sulfonates chemicals (PFAS) and for long
- chain p erfluoroalkyl c arboxylate chemicals ( LCPFACs ) used in carpet treatments
. EPA is proposing to amend a SNUR at § 721.9582 for PFAS chemical substances to add PFAS chemical substances that have completed the TSCA new chemical review process but have not yet commenced production or import, and to designate (for all listed PFAS chemical substances) processing as a “significant new use.” EPA is also proposing to add a SNUR for LCPFAC chemical substances that would designate manufacturing, importing, or processing for use as part of carpets or for treating carpet (e.g., for use in the carpet aftercare market) as a “ signifi cant new use .” For this SNUR, EPA is also proposing to make the article exemption at § 721.45(f) inapplicable to persons who import LCPFAC chemical substances as part of carpets. The article exemption at § 721.45(f) remains in effect for persons who import LCPFAC chemical substances as part of other sorts of articles
. The article exemption at § 721.45(f) relating to persons who process chemical substances as part of an article would also remain in effect, for both the PFAS SNUR and the LCPFAC SNUR
. Person s subject to these SNURs would be required to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing any significant new use. The required notifications would provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs. 

### PFAS Chemical Substances In this propos ed SNUR, the term PFAS refers to a general category of perfluorinated sulfonate chemical substances of any chain length. The PFAS chemical substances for which EPA is proposing to modify an existing SNUR are currently listed in the 2007 SNUR at § 721.9582. The PFAS chemical substances that EPA is proposing to add to the existing SNUR would be added to this list. See 2.1.1 for the list of additional chemicals. All of these chemical substances are referred collectively in this proposed rule as perfluoroalkyl sulfonates, or PFAS chemical substances. The proposed SNUR requires manufacturers, importers, or processors of PFAS chemical substances to notify EPA at least 90 days prior to the occurrence of any significant new use. A significant new use is defined as : the manufacture, import, processing of any of the PFAS chemical substances subject to this proposed rule, for any use except ongoing uses specified in the 2007 PFAS Chemical Substances SNUR at § 721.9582(a)(3) through (a)(5)
. 

### LCPFAC Chemical Substances The term LCPFAC refers to the long
- chain category of perfluorinated carboxylate chemical substances with perfluorinated carbon chain lengths equal to or greater than seven carbons. The category of LCPFAC chemical substances also includes the salts and precursors of these perfluorinated carboxylates (See section 2.1.2 for further details)
. The proposed SNUR requires manufacturers, importers, or processors of LCPF ACs for use in carpet treatments to notify EPA at least 90 days prior to the occurrence of any significant new use. A significant new use is defined as ; the manufacture, import, processing, or import as part of carpet, of**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 1**  **- 2**  any of the LCPFAC chemical substances subject to this proposed rule for use as part of carpet or to treat carpets . 

### 1.1 **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 determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including those listed in TSCA section 5(a)(2). Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a SNUN to EPA at least 90 days before manufacturing, importing, or processing the chemical substance f

or that use (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(B)). The general SNUR provisions are found at 40 CFR Part 721, Subpart A. 

### 1.2 **Summary**

**of Methodology** This analysis quantifies, to the extent possible, the costs of the proposed rule to society by identifying the costs to indu stry associated with performing the required reporting and recordkeeping activities , and the costs to EPA of administering the rule. Industry costs consist of rule familiarization; registration with the Central Data Exchange (CDX) electronic reporting tool ; collection, compilation, and submission of required information for significant new uses of the subject chemicals; export notification; and recordkeeping. Agency costs include reviewing and processing the data received as a result of the rule. Data sourc es for this analysis include burden estimates derived from previous information collection requests and economic analyses for related rules, compensation data acquired from government publications, and supplementary market research
. In addition to estimate d costs, this report qualitatively discusses the benefits of the proposed rule based on the value of the information it would provide. 

### 1.3 **Organization of this Report** The remainder of this report presents EPA’s economic analysis in support of the proposed rul e. A description of the PFAS chemicals affected by this SNUR as well as the LCPFACs and their use in carpet treatments is provided in Chapter 2 . Chapter 3 contains estimates of the industry costs to comply with the proposed rule, and Chapter 4 shows estimates of the government costs associated with the administration of the proposed rule. Chapter 5 addresses the benefits of the proposed rule. Several additional impact analyses are presented in Chapter 6 , including: small entity impact analysis, as mandated by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA); a burden hour analysis that responds to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA); an analysis of unfunded mandates that pertains to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA); an analysis of environmental justice implications that addresses the requirements of Executive Order 12898; and an analysis of children’s health pertinent to Executive Order 13045. Note that all dollar values in this analysis are reported in 20 11 dollars , except for the U.S. Postal service mailing rates, which were acquired in January 2012.**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 2**  **- 1**  

## 2. **Chemical Uses and Manufacturers 2.1**  **Chemicals Subject to the Proposed Rule 2.1.1**  **PF AS**  **Chemical Substances**  EPA is proposing to amend a SNUR at § 721.9582 for PFAS chemical substances to add PFAS chemical substances that have completed the TSCA new chemical review process but have not yet commenced production or import, and to designate (for all liste d PFAS chemical substances) processing as a significant new use. Exhibit 2
- 1 presents seven PMN case numbers and the generic chemical names of the PFAS chemical substances being added to the list of 183 PFAS chemicals (listed in the SNUR at § 721.9582)
.

**Exhibit 2**  **- 1**  **: PFA** **S Chemicals A dded to**  **the SNUR**  **PMN Case Numbers Generic Chemical Name**  P - 83 - 0126 N /A P - 90 - 0110 N /A P - 94 - 1508 Fluorinated polysiloxane P - 94 - 1509B Fluorinated polysiloxane P - 98 - 0809 N /A P - 99 - 0296 Fluoroalkyl derivative P - 01 - 0035 Perfluorooctane sulfonate EPA believes that the commencement of manufacturing, import, or processing of these chemicals would significantly increase the magnitude and duration of exposure to humans and the environment. Given the structural similarity of these chemicals to the PFAS chemicals covered under 40 CFR 721.9582, EPA believes that action on these PFAS chemicals is warranted. **2.1.2 LCPF**  **AC Chemical Substances** This SNUR applies to LCPF ACs used to treat carpets. PF ACs are substances with special properties that have a variety of industrial applications. PF ACs are used widely in the textile industry because of their thermo
- stability, ability to adapt to a variety of surface characteristics, high chemical stability, and other characteristics
. 3 Specifically, LCPFAC chemical substances are synthetic chemicals that do not occur naturally in the environment. The LCPFAC chemical substances are identified as follows, 

### > 5 or m > 6: i. CF 3 

### (CF 2 

### ) n 

### - COO

-

### M where M = H+ 

### or any other group where a formal dissociation can be made; ii. CF 3 

### (CF 2 

### ) n 

### - CH=CH 2 

### ; iii. CF 3 

### (CF 2 

### ) n 

### - C(=O)
- X where X is any chemical moiety; iv. CF 3 

### (CF 2 

### ) m

### - CH 2 

### - X where X is any chemical moiety; v. CF 3 

### (CF 2 

### ) m

### - Y
- X where Y = non
- S, non
-N hetero atom and where X is any chemical moiety ; and

3 Armeduri, Bruno; Bouterin, Bernard. Well

- Architectured Floropolymers: Synthesis, Properties, and Applications . “Applications of Flourinated Telomers,” (p. 71).**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 2**  **- 2**  

### vi. structurally

similar degradation products of any of the compounds in ii. through v. above. This category definition of LCPFAC, based on the chemical structures above, refers to a large group of chemical substances c ontaining perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and its higher homologues. The category also includes the salts and precursors of these chemical substances. The precursors may be simple derivatives of PFOA and higher homologues or polymers that contain or may degrade to PFOA or higher homologues. PF ACs are used in carpets to impart stain, soil, and grease repellant properties. During the manufacturing process, PFACs are utilized in the impregnation of carpets or as a chemical finish which endows fabrics with those characteristics. Long
- chain perfluorinated chemicals (LCPFCs) are found world
-wide in the environment, wildlife, and humans. They are bioaccumulative in wildlife and humans, and are persistent in the environment (Danish Ministry of the Environment, 2008)
. To date, significant adverse effects have not been found in the general human population4 ; however, LCPFCs have been linked to a number of health effects, including thyroid disease and reproductive function (Knox, et al., 2011; Melzer, et al., 2010)
. Because of their bioaccumulative and persistent properties, EPA is proposing a SNUR for all LCPF ACs used in carpet treatments and carpet treatment products. The Agency believes that the LCPFAC chemical substances included in this proposal are no longer being manufactured, processed, or imported for use as part of carpet or for treating carpet (e.g., for use in the carpet aftercare market) in the United States. The Agency also believes that LCPFAC chemical substances are not being imported as part of carpet. EPA is proposing a SNUR for any commercial uses of these chemicals, so that the Agency may be informed of any intended use of these chemicals in commerce. 

### 2.2 **Significant New Uses under the Proposed SNUR** EPA may promulgate a SNUR for a substance when potential use could result in significant changes in human exposure or environmental release levels and/or that concern exists about the substance’s health or environmental effects (40 CFR §721.170). According to TSCA Section 5(a)(2), the determination that a chemical use qualifies as a significant new use must consider all relevant factors, including:

 The projected volume of manufacturing , importation, and processing of the chemical substance;
 The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance;
 The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance; and
 The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance. EPA is proposing to define the significant new use as: 1) the manufacture, import, processing of any of the PFAS chemical substances subject to this proposed rule, for any use except ongoing uses specified in the 2007 PFAS Chemical Substances SNUR at § 721.9582(a)(3) through (a)(5) ; and 2) the manufacture, import, processing, or import as part of carpet, of any of the LCPFAC chemical

4 Based on review

of a number of studies examining health effects of LCPFCs.**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 2**  **- 3**  substances subject to this proposed rule for use as part of carpet or to treat carpets, is a significant new use. A company would be expected to submit a SNUN for any PFAS chemical substances or for any LCPFAC substances used in carpet treatment products included in the proposed SNUR prior to initiating a new use. 

### 2.3 **Chemical Uses 2.3.1**  **PF AS**  **Chemical Substances** In the past, PFAS chemical substances were used in a variety of products, which can be divided into three main use categories: surface treatments, paper protection, and performance chemicals
.**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 2**  **- 4**  **Exhibit 2**  **- 2**  presents a list of the applications PFAS Chemical Substances and their end products.**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 2**  **- 5**  **Exhibit 2**  **- 2**  **: A rticles Containing PFA** **S Chemical Substances**  **Category Application**  **( s**  **) End Product**  **( s**  **)**

Surface Treatments Treatment of fabrics Automotive interiors Carpet protector Carpets Fabric/ Upholstery protector Fabrics, furniture Apparel and leather protector Apparel, leather Protective products for after markets and consumer applications Other products Mist suppressant corrosion inhibitors Acid mist suppressants for metal plating and electronic etching baths Treatment of metal and glass Surface of metals (mostly chromium), glass
Paper Protection Wa ter/ O il/ G rease/ S olvent repellent Masking papers Folding cartons Plates and food containers Bags and wraps Food packaging Carbonless forms (an alternative to carbon paper that makes copies of documents without electronics)

Paper products, paperboard

Performance Chemicals Surfactants Fire -fighting foams Alkaline cleaners (help remove oil and grease off

metals) Mining and oil well surfactants Cleaning agents Denture cleaners Carpet spot cleaners Mold release agents Glass cleaning waxes; floor polishes

Shampoos Inks Printing inks Chemical synthesis Chemical intermediates Pesticide s / Insecticides Pesticides active ingredient; Insecticide in bait stations for ants Photography Antistatic agents; Surfactants for paper, films, photographic plates Photolithography Coatings for semiconductors (anti - reflective coatings) Paints and vanishes Floor paints Medical applications Wa terproofing casts; Wo und dressings Waxes and polishes Emulsifier in wax and floor polishes Coatings Coating additives Aviation - hydraulic fluids Hydraulic fluid agents Sources: EPA, 2005c; 3M Company, 1999; Carolini, 2009; OSPAR, 2006.**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 2**  **- 6**  **2.3.2 LCPF**  **AC Chemical Substances** LCPFAC chemical substances were used in carpets to impart stain, soil, and grease repellant properties (Kissa, 2001). There are four typical scenarios for chemical application that could lead to the presence of these chemical substances in carpet products. First, these chemical substances could be applied to carpet at a carpet and rug mill during the manufacturing process. Secondly, these chemical substances could be applied to carpet after the manufacturing process at a separate finishing facility. Thirdly, treatment products containing these chemical substances could be applied to carpets by final consumers in the post manufacturing stage. In the described scenarios, LCPFAC chemical substances could be domestically produced or imported. In addition, domestically produced carpets could be made using imported fabrics that had been treated with PFAS or LCPFAC chemical substances. Finally, carpet containing these chemical substances could be imported into the United States as a final product. The Agency believes that the LCPFAC chemical substances included in this proposal are no longer being manufactured, processed, or imported for use as part of carpet or for treating carpet (e.g., for use in the carpet aftercare market) in the United States. The Agency also believes that LCPFAC chemi cal substances are not being imported as part of carpet. 

### 2.4 **Potentially**

**A ffected Companies**  The proposed SNUR applies to processors as well as to manufacturers and importers (40 CFR §721.5). It would require manuf acturers, importers, and processors to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture, import, or processing of any of the subject chemicals for any significant new use. The proposed SNUR may also affect firms that currently do not manufacture, import, or process any of the chemicals, but who may be interested in manufacturing, importing, or processing these chemicals in the future. **2.4.1 PF**  **AS Chemical Substances**  The PFAS chemical substances that EPA is propos ing to add to the existing PFAS SNUR are chemical substances that have completed the TSCA new chemical review process but have not yet commenced production or import. Any person who commences the manufacture or import of a new chemical substance for which that person previously submitted a section 5(a) notice must submit a notice of commencement of manufacture or import (40 CFR 720.102 )
. EPA has not received any notices of commencements for these chemical substances, and there is currently no production or import of these chemical substances. If commenced, these chemical substances could be used for the PFAS uses described above, significantly increasing the magnitude and duration of exposure to humans and the environment
. **2.4.2 LCPF**  **AC Chemical Substances** The Agency believes that the LCPFAC chemical substances included in this proposal are no longer being manufactured, processed, or imported for use as part of carpet or for treating carpet (e.g., for use in the carpet aftercare market) in the United States. The Agency also believes that LCPFAC chemical substances are not being imported as part of carpet. Potentially affected entities would include chemical manufacturers as primary producers of LCPFCs and carpet manufacturers as secondary manufacturers that purchas e LCPFCs from domestic or**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 2**  **- 7**  foreign chemical manufacturers for use in carpets
. This SNUR might also affect entities that are involved in importing of LCPFAC chemical substances. Although industry phase
- out of LCPFCs in carpet treatment products was voluntary, EPA’s recent focus on the chemicals leads the Agency to believe that LCPFCs used in carpet s subj ect to this SNUR are no longer manufactured in or imported into the United States . Therefore, there are likely to be no entities affected by this proposed SNUR.**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 3**  **- 1**  

## 3. **Industry Compliance**  **Costs** The proposed SNUR discussed in this report specifies that any manufacture, import, or processing of PFAS chemical substances and LCPFCs as pa rt of carpet or to treat carpets for a designated significant new use would require reporting under section 5(a)(1)(A) of TSCA
. Therefore, a firm intending to manufacture, import, and/or process any of these chemical s for these applications must submit a SNUN
. Alternatively, a firm can decide not to manufacture, import, and/or process the s e chemical s or to manufacture, import, and/or process these chemicals in such a way that it is not considered a significant new use
. The firm, therefore, has two options:

 **Option 1: Submit a SNUN.** A SNUN indicates to EPA that the firm would like to manufacture, import, and/or process the chemical for a significant new use, which, in this case, means ( 1) : the manufacture, import, processing of any of the PFAS chemical substances subject to this proposed rule, for any use except ongoing uses specified in the 2007 PFAS Chemical Substances SNUR at § 721.9582(a)(3) through (a)(5) ; and (2) the manufacture, import, processing, or import as part of carpet, of any of the LCPFAC chemical substances subject to this proposed rule for use as part of carpet or to treat carpets. The firm must submit the SNUN to EPA at least 90 days before it plans to commence the manufacture, import, and/or processing of the new use of the substance; the SNUN provides EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs. If EPA allows the manufacture, import, and/or processing of any LCPF ACs for use as part of carpet or to treat car pets 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 chemicals, the export notification costs that result from TSCA Section 12 (b) requirements that are automatically triggered for chemicals regulated under TSCA Section 5 (see Section 3.2.7 for details).
 **Option 2: Comply with SNUR limits (not manufa cture, import, and/or process a new use of the**  **chemical** ). A firm can avoid engaging in a Significant New Use and submitting a SNUN by not manufacturing , importing, and/or processing any of the chemical substances in a manner such that they would be considered new uses. That is, if the firm does not use ( 1) : the manufacture, import, processing of any of the PFAS chemical substances subject to this proposed rule, for any use except ongoing uses specified in the 2007 PFAS Chemical Substances SNUR at § 7 21.9582(a)(3) through (a)(5) ; and (2) does not use the manufacture, import, processing, or import as part of carpet, of any of the LCPFAC chemical substances subject to this proposed rule for use as part of carpet or to treat carpets, then it would meet all applicable SNUR requirements. While this option avoids the costs of submitting a SNUN, it may entail the “hidden” cost of the foregone profit as a result of not engaging in the commercial activity originally planned, and may involve substituting one of the subject chemicals for another, more costly substance. If the firm elects to produce the chemical for research and development (R&D) purposes only (an exemption for R&D purposes is provided in 40 CFR §721.47), it may have costs associated with R&D recordkeeping. In addition, if the firm exports any existing stockpiles of the chemicals, it would incur the export notification costs. The firm may also pursue this option temporarily by complying with SNUR restrictions while also pursuing Option 1. Due to the uncertainty related to this option, and EPA’s expectation that affected entities would select Option 1 , the costs of Option 2 are not fully quantified in this report.**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 3**  **- 2**  The remainder of this chapter estimates the quantified portion of costs associated with the proposed SNUR
. Section 3.1 summarize s the wage rates used in this chapter
. Section 3.2 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 3.3
. 

### 3.1 **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 hours required in each labor category and multiplying those burden hours by the wage rate for the corresponding 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 for December 2011 are provided by the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) Supplemental Tables available on the BLS website (BLS, 201 2 a). The loaded wage rate is $ 70.72 for managerial labor; $ 64.66 for technical labor; and $ 29.63 for clerical labor. Exhibit 3
- 1 presents the data used to calculate the loaded wage rates for the three labor categories. Appendix A provides more information on the wage rates and inflation factors used in this analysis. **Exhibit 3**  **- 1**  **: Loaded Industry**  **Wage Rates, December**  **2011**

**Labor Category**  **Data Source Date**  **Wage Fringe**  **Benefit Fringe** 

**as % W** **age Over** ****

**head %**  **W age**  **Fringe +** 

**O verhead**  **Loaded**

**Wages 1**  **(a) (b)**  **(c)**

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

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

Manufacturing industries , “Mgt, Business, and Financial” 3 12/11 $43.01 $20.40 47.43% 17% 1.64 $70.72

Professional/ Technical BLS ECEC , Private

Manufacturing industries, “Professional and related“ 3 12/11 $38.48 $19.64 51.04% 17% 1.68 $64.66

Clerical BLS ECEC , Private

Manufacturing industries, “Office and Administrative Support” 3 12/11 $17.69 $8.93 50.48% 17% 1.67 $29.63**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 3**  **- 3**  **Notes:** 1 Wa ge rates are rounded to the closest pennies; however, unrounded values were used in calculations
. 2 An overhead rate of 17 percent was used based on assumptions in Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (EPA, 2002b), and the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report (EPA, 2002a). 3 Employer Costs for Employee Compe nsation Supplementary Tables December 2011 , U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 14, 2012 (BLS, 201 2a

). 

### 3.2 **Unit Industry**

**Compliance Costs 3.2.1**  **Rule Familiarization** The proposed rule requires submitters and their staff to become familiar with the SNUR and its various requirements. Rule familiarization is estimated to require 0.55 hours of technical labor and 0.27 hours of managerial labor, as described in the Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009a), which measures the costs of mandatory electronic reporting of SNUNs and other TSCA Section 5 notices. As shown in Exhibit 3
- 2 , the total labor cost associated with rule familiarization is estimated at $ 54.43
. **Exhibit 3**  **- 2**  **: Rule Familiarization Burden and Cost for SNUR Submitters**  **Rep orting**  **Activit y**  **Clerical Labor**

**($ 29.63**  **/hour) Technical Labor**  **($ 64.66** **/hour) Managerial Labor**  **($ 70.72**  **/ hour)**  **Total Labor Cost (**  **201 1**  **$ )**  **Burden Cost**  **Burden Cost**  **Burden Cost**  **Burden Cost**  Rule Familiarization 0.00 $0.00 0.55 $35.56 0.27 $18.86 **0.82 $54.43**  **Note:** Costs may not equal labor wage rate multiplied by burden hours as shown, due to rounding. U nrounded values were used in calculations
. **Source s**  **:** Wa ge rates: Exhibit 3 - 1 ; Burden estimates: EPA, 2009a
. **3.2.2 CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov A** **ccount Setup** The proposed SNUR requires submission of a SNUN for any firm that chooses to manufacture, import, and/or process a chemical for a significant new use
. F irst
- time submitters of any TSCA section 5 notice (including Premanufacture Notices (PMNs), SNUNs, Test Market Exemption (TME) applications, Low Volume Exemption (LVE) notices, Low Exposure/Low Release (LoREX) exemption notices, Biotechnology Notices for genetically modified microorganisms, Notices of Commencement of Manufacture or Import (NOCs), and support documents to Section 5 notices) are required to 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. 5 These activities are only required of first

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

5 Although the proposed rule does not require submitters to establish and use a Pay .gov account, the burden estimates in this analysis are conservative insofar as to include the use of Pay.gov as a required activity.**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 3**  **- 4**   **CDX registration .**  EPA estimates that companies would spend approximately 0.18 hours per employee to register with CDX, and that an average of four technical staff members and one manager would need to register for each company, totaling approximately 0.92 hours of burden per company.
 **CDX electronic signature .**  EPA estimates that companies would spend 0.25 hours preparing, submitting, and filing an electronic signature agreement (Authentication of Identity) form to EPA per employee. This burden would apply to four technical staff members and one manager per company, totaling 1.25 hours of burden per company. In addition, EPA estimates that a manager would spend an additional 0.50 hours accessing, preparing, and submitting verification forms (Verification of Authorization) for all authorized submitters to EPA. The total burden incurred by comp anies 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 elect ronic signature agreement requires an additional mailing cost of $2.55 per company (including five $0.45 stamps 6 and five $0.06 business envelopes 7 ).
 **Payment via Pay.gov account .**  EPA estimates that one manager per company would 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 Exhibit 3
- 3 , the labor cost consist s of CDX registration, CDX electronic signature, and Pay.gov account setup by a first
-time submitter
. As noted above, an additional $ 2.55 in mailing cost per company is attributable to these activities, for a total cost of approximately $ 190 per company.

6 Price for a stamp was taken from the U.S. Postal Service website on January 24, 2012. (See U.S. PS , 2012) 7 Price for an envelope was determined based on the per unit price of a regular business envelope. See “ Staples® #10, Self

- Sealing Envelopes, 500/Box ." Available at: http://www.staples.com/ (Accessed 1/25/2012).**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 3**  **- 5**  **Exhibit 3**  **- 3**  **: CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay**  **.gov Ac**  **count**

**Setup Burden and Cost for First**  **- Time Submitters**  **Reporting Activit y**  **Clerical Labor ($**  **29.63 /hour)**  **Technical Labor**

**($ 64.66** **/hour) Managerial Labor**  **($ 70.72**  **/ hour)**  **Total Labor Cost (**  **201 1**  **$ )**  **Burden Cost**  **Burden Cost**  **Burden Cost**  **Burden Cost**  CDX Registration 0.00 $0.00 0.73 $47.42 0.18 $12.96 0.92 $60.38 CDX Electronic Signature 0.00 $0.00 1 $64.66 0.75 $53.04 1.75 $11 8 Mailing Cost $2.55 E - Payment (Pay.gov ID) 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.13 $9.43 0.13 $9.43 **Total 0.00**  **$0.00 1.73**  **$112 1.07**  **$75.43 2.80**  **$190 Note:**  Costs may not equal labor wage rate multiplied by burden hours as shown, due to rounding. Unrounded values were used in calculations
. **Source s**  **:** Wa ge rates: see Exhibit 3 - 1 ; Burden estimates: EPA, 2009a. **3.2.3 Form Completion and Submission Fee**  Respondents who choose to submit a SNUN are required to gather and submit information regarding the data elements identified in the applicable SNUN reporting form. The methodology and calculations used in this analysis assume that the employee responsible for collecting, filling out, and submitting the requested information has a reasonable level of familiarity with the company and knowledge of operations at the site. It is assumed that for most entities these tasks are similar to other employee duties that require familiarity with EPA, State, and other Federal agency requests for chemical information and do not require additional familiarization or training beyond the basic rule famil iarization described above. In addition, 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. Estimates of the costs of completing a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN) form are based on the costs of completing a PMN submission, since the data requirements are the same and the same form is used for both. The PMN submission costs came from EPA's 1994 Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications, which relied on industry estimates of the effort needed to collect and compile all data required for a PMN submission, prepare the form, submit the form and data to EPA, and maintain a file of the submission (EPA, 1994, Table III
- 2 and pages III
- 11,
- 12, and
- 13). The 1994 estimates were based on a survey conducted by the Chemical Manufacturers Association, which became the American Chemistry Council. These burdens include “the time spent reading and becoming familiar with the form, gathering the required information and preparing the report, producing sanitized responses for items claimed as confidential business information, and maintaining a file of the submission” (EPA, 1994. p. III 11
- 13). The burden associated with SNUN submission and preparation has been adjusted to reflect burden reductions resulting from the 2009 final PMN Electronic Reporting (ePMN) Rule that requires the electronic submission of all TSCA section 5 notices. Electronic submission of SNUN forms is expected to**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 3**  **- 6**  remove all clerical burden and reduce the recordkeeping burden associated with preparing a SNUN (EPA, 2009a). 8 In addition, electronic submission is expected to generate and an additional 0.18 hours of technical burden, for the completion of the User Fee Payment Identification Number and email address data elements on the electronic SNUN form. SNUN form completion and electronic submission is estimated to require approximately 74 hours of technical labor and 18 hours of managerial labor (EPA, 2009a). Exhibit 3
-4 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 estimated at $ 6,071
. **Exhibit 3**  **- 4**  **: Industry**  **Cost Estimate to Complete the SNUN Form Reporting**  **Activit y**  **Clerical Labor**

**($ 29.63**  **/hour) Technical Labor**  **($ 64.66** **/hour) Managerial Labor**  **($ 70.72**  **/ hour)**  **Total Labor Cost**  **( 201**  **1 $**  **) Burden**  **Cost Burden**  **1 Cost**  **Burden Cost**  **Burden Cost**  Form Completion 0.00 $0.00 74.2 $4,798 18 $1,27 3 **92.2 $6,071**  **Note:** 1. Costs may not equal labor wage rate multiplied by burden hours as shown, due to rounding. 2. Loaded wages include fringe benefits and overhead. See Exhibit 3 - 1 of this report for derivation. Wage rates presented in this table are rounded; however, unrounded values were used in calculations . For this reason, total labor costs may not equal the product of rounded values. 3. The estimate of zero clerical burden is taken from the Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notice Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009a, page 7)
. 4. Technical and managerial labor burden is from the PMN Amendments RIA (EPA , 1994, Table III - 2). An additional eleven minutes (0.18 hours) of technical burden is estimated to complete the User Fee Payment Identification Number and Email Address data elements on the Electronic SNUN form (EPA, 2009a, page 15). **Sources** : Burden esti mated: EPA, 1994 and EPA, 2009a; Wage rates: see Exhibit 3 - 1
. 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. Exhibit 3
- 5 adds the labor cost and submission fee to estimate the total cost of a SNUN submission. The total cost of a SNUN submission is $ 8,571 for large business submitters and $ 6,171 for small busine ss submitters.

8 The Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009a) reported a 0.5 hour clerical and a 0.5 hour technical burden associated with recordkeeping in addition to the burden estimates from the 1994 RIA (EPA, 1994, p. III
- 14). These burden estimates (the 0.5 for clerical burden and 0.5 for technical burden) are based on the recordkeeping burden for polymer exceptions and not the recordkeeping burden associated with PMN submissions. Therefore, for this analysis, the 0.5 hour for clerical labor and the 0.5 hour for technical labor were removed. It is important to note that for this analysis, clerical burden changes are not applicable because the entire clerical burden is assumed to be eliminated under the electronic reporting requirements . In summary, we do not include the one hour recordkeeping burden (0.5 hour for clerical, 0.5 for technical) reported in the ePMN EA.**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 3**  **- 7**  **Exhibit 3**  **- 5**  **: Industry**  **Cost Estimate to Complete and Submit the SNUN Form Reporting Population**  **Labor Cost Submission Fee**  **Total Cost (**  **2011 $**  **)** Large Business Submitters $6,071 $2,500 **$8,571** Small Business Submitters $6,071 $100 **$6,171 Source**  : Labor cost: see Exhibit 3 -4 ; Submission fees: EPA, 1994 **3.2.4 Recordkeeping for Companies Choosing to Submit a**  **SNUN** Companies submitting a SNUN must, under 40 CFR §721.40, keep records of the information contained in the SNUN. Some EPA reports have assumed that SNUN recordkeeping hours would be five percent of SNUN submission hours, or about five to six hours. For this report, the SNUN recordkeeping hours were included in the SNUN submission hours (see Section 3.2.3) and the SNUN recordkeeping costs under 40 CFR §721.40 were not separately estimated. **Recordkeeping for Companies t**  **hat D**  **o N**  **ot Submit a SNUN** If a firm that manufactures, imports, or processes a substance subject to the proposed SNUR chooses not to submit a SNUN, they must keep records that document compliance with SNUR conditions for avoiding a Significant New Use. Such recordkeeping requirements essentially involve copying and filing relevant records, including those related to category of use. Records must be maintained for five years from the date of their creation (40 CFR 721.40). For firms that choose to not submit a SNUN, costs for compliance with the recordkeeping requirements are estimated to be five percent of the reporting burden for reporting information for a specific section of the SNUN form and are performed by clerical staff (EPA, 2005b, pages 10 and 14). EPA used the per
- activity burden for reporting, human exposure, category of use and releases to the environment presented in the Information Collection Request (ICR) for TSCA Section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rules for Existing Chemicals (Renewal) (EPA, 2005b, page 12). Any clerical burden a ssociated with these activities was removed to reflect the burden reduction associated with electronic submissions (EPA, 2009a). The recordkeeping burden for a company that does not submit a SNUN is estimated at 0.15 hours and $ 9.70 and is derived in Exhibit 3
- 6
. **Exhibit 3**  **- 6**  **: An**  **nual Per -**  **Chemical Costs of Recordkeeping Requirement for**

**Companies that Choose not to Submit a SNUN**  **Reporting Activit**  **y P**  **er Activit y**  **Burden (Hours)**  **% of Reporting** 

**Burden Attributed to**  **Recordkeeping Total**  **Labor Cost**  **( 2011**  **$ )**  **Burden Cost**  Category of Use 1 3 5% **0.15 $**  **9.70** Notes: For the category of use reporting activity, the burden is associated with technical labor
. See Exhibit 3 - 1 for the technical wage rate. **Source** : 1 US EPA, 2005b Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Information Collection Request (ICR) for TSCA Section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rules for Existing Chemicals (Renewal) , page 13
.**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 3**  **- 8**  **3.2.5 Customer Notification**  Manufacturers, processors, and importers of chemicals subject to SNURs must notify recipients of such chemicals of the SNUR or verify that knowledge of the SNUR has been otherwise acquired by recipients, or that the recipients are unable to engage in significant new uses. Since it is not expected that all such entities would have complete knowledge of all uses of any products subject to a SNUR, and because filing a SNUN could require significantly more burden, it is assumed that manufacturers, processors, and importers would most often choose to notify their customers of SNUR regulatory activities. As this notification may be accomplished by simply annotating an MSDS, EPA estimates the associated burden to be about one hour of a technical employee's time or $ 64.66 per manufacturer, processor, or importer per chemical. The proposed SNUR would cover PFAS Chemical Substances and LCPFACs for use as part of carpet or to treat carpets ; however EPA believes these chemicals are not used in the U.S. and therefore no manufacturer s , processor s , or importer s would be affected
. Therefore, customer notifications would not be necessary. **3.2.6 Import Certification**  In general, promulgation of a SNUR triggers a TSCA Section 13 import certification requirement and the corresponding regulations at 19 CFR §12.118 to 12.127 and 19 CFR §127.28 for all imports of the relevant chemical substances. Thus, any U.S. manufacturer, importer, or processor receiving an imported shipment of chemicals subject to the proposed SNUR would have to certify that all chemical substances in the shipment either comply with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA or that all chemical substances in the shipment are not subject to TSCA. 9 The statement must be on or attached to a commercial invoice or entry document belonging to the imported shipment. Import certification is fulfilled by checking a box on an invoice or entry document and EPA assumes that it generally imposes no additional burden or cost on the importer. Any potential burden associated with submitter’s familiarization with this requirement is assumed to be included in the more general SNUR familiarization burden discussed above. **3.2.7 Export Notification**  Under Section 12(b) of TSCA, exporters must notify EPA if they export or intend to export a chemical subject to various TSCA sections (40 CFR §707.60 through 75). For TSCA 5(a)(2) (the secti on under which EPA promulgates significant new use rules) and certain other TSCA sections, this is a one
-time notification requirement 10 per destination country for each exporter of a chemical substance. After receiving a notification from a firm, EPA notif ies the importing country and the

9 The exact statements are as fol lows: For imports of chemical substances subject to TSCA, “I certify that all chemical substances in this shipment comply with all applicable rules or orders under TSCA and that I am not offering a chemical substance for entry in violation of TSCA or any applicable rule or order under TSCA.” For imports of chemical substances not subject to TSCA (e.g., pesticides), “I certify that all chemicals in this shipment are not subject to TSCA.” (40 CFR 707.20 ) 10 On November 14, 2006, EPA revised the export notific ation requirement for chemicals subject to TSCA §5(a)(2), 5(b), 5(e)(1) and 5(e)(2) from an annual to a one
-time requirement per destination country for each exporter (November 14, 2006, 71 FR 66234).**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 3**  **- 9**  United States State Department (40 CFR §707.70). To calculate the burden associated with making a single export notification, EPA first estimated the average annual number of export notifications made by an exporter. EPA t hen derived the annual and per notification burden associated with preparing and submitting an export notification. EPA estimated the average burden associated with making a single notification, but did not estimate either the total number of exporters of a SNUR chemical or the number of notifications per SNUR chemical. This is because the SNURs apply to a variety of different chemicals with a variety of unrelated uses, manufacturer s, and processors, making it impractical within the resources available for this report to assess the potential number of exporters and importing countries per chemical. Most underlying data in this section come from the (2009 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR), ICR No.: 0795.13 OMB Control Number 2070
- 0030 [Information Collection Request for] Notification of Chemical Exports
- TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act (EPA, 2009b)
. **Estimated Number of A nnual Export Notifications per Exporter**  EPA’s 2009 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR estimated that the average exporter making notifications would make 12 notifications per year
. 11 This includes notifications resulting from SNURs and notifications resulting from other TSCA activities. Therefore, it is likely that an exporter would make less than 12 notifications per year as a result of this proposed SNUR. A notification is typically no more than one page per chemical/country combination, and one notification mailing often includes multiple chemicals and/or destination countries. 12 The percent of notifications resulting from SNURs in general is unknown, and it is also unknown how many notifications may result from this rulemaking, as not all manufacturers may choose to export a chemical, or they may make several notifications for a single chemical. **Exporter Costs** The 2009 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR (EPA, 2009b, page 11, Table 3), estimated the annual export notification cost for an exporter under the one
-time export notification requirement. These costs include the co st 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 associate d shipping costs
. The per-notification cost was calculated based on the average burden per firm. Exporters who make a larger number of notifications per year may benefit from economies of scale and have lower costs per notification; conversely firms making fewer notifications may have a higher cost per notification.

11 EPA calculated the average num ber of export notific ations per exporter in the 2009 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR (EPA, 2009b) by dividing the estimated number of submitted notifications (3,500) by the estimated number of exporters (300 ). 12 Based on review

by an EPA economist of notifications received under TSCA Sections 4, 5 and 6 over approximately three weeks in early 2010.**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 3**  **- 10**  **Estimated Submission (Mailing) Costs.** Regulated companies would incur mailing costs for export notifications delivered to EPA. Notifications are assumed shipped via the U.S. Postal Service (U
. S
. PS) as first
- class registered mail with a return receipt (U
. S
. PS, 20 12 ). The estimated per
- shipment and annual mailing costs incurred by individual submitters are detailed in Exhibit 3
- 7
. **Exhibit 3**  **- 7**  **: Derivation of Total Mailing Cost for 12 Notices**  **Postal S**  **ervice Cost**  Registered mail, regular, with $0 declared value $10.95 Return receipt, requested at time of mailing (receive by mail) $2.35 Postage, regular First Class, up to 1 ounce $0.45 **Cost per export notice -**  **Subtotal $13.75**  × 12 **Total Mailing Cost for 12 Notices $165**  **Source:** Mailing rates are from the U
. S
. Postal Service web site as of January 2012 ( http://www.usps.com/prices/ )
. The assumption on the mailing method is based on th e Economic Analysis of the Proposed Change to TSCA Section 12(b) Export Notification Requirements, November 2005 (EPA, 2005a), as clarified in a later SNUR economic analysis (EPA, 2007c, Table 8). **Com pile and Maintain the List of Products.**  Since TSCA §12(b) information collection activity has been in place for twenty years, most respondents would have already developed a list of their products subject to TSCA §12(b) export notification. Respondents need only check for new regulations promulgated and any new products exported by the company. Updating the list is estimated to take an average of one hour of technical time, which may also include some proportion of legal time (EPA, 2009b) . The total burden can vary from two hours per year up to two hou rs per month, depending on the number of products exported by the company and the number of their products subject to TSCA §12 (b) (EPA, 2009b). The number of submitters per year who report under TSCA §12(b) has varied over time, rising from around 160 in 1991 to over 460 in 2000, and declining since. In the most recent TSCA §12(b) ICR, EPA estimated that there would be approximately 300 submitters per year in near
- future years (EPA, 2009b ). Of these 300 submitters, EPA estimated that 200 companies were near the lower burden estimate of two hours per year, and 100 companies were near the upper estimate of 24 hours per year. Compiling the list for all respondents was therefore estimated to take 2,800 hours (2 hours x 200 firms plus 24 hours x 100 firms), or an average of about 9.3 hours of technical time per firm per year for 12 notifications per year (EPA, 2009b ). **Write or Revise Ex**

**port 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 (EPA, 2009b ). **Check Orders and Send Notifications.**  Companies that export chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) reporting must check outgoing shipments against the list of their products described above. A form letter notifying EPA and providing the required data must be printed and mailed within the required**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 3**  **- 11**  time period. This process is estimated to take an average one half hour of clerical time per export notification or six hours for 12 notifications (EPA, 2009b). The burdens and associated costs for each notification activity are provided in Exhibit 3
- 8 . EPA estimates that the burden associated with making one notification is approximately 1. 4 hours and $ 84
. **Exhibit 3**  **- 8**  **: TSC**  **A 12(b) Export Not**  **ification Cost per Notification Notification Activit**  **y Technical**  **Labor Clerical**  **Labor Total**  **Wage Rate**  **( $/**  **h r** **) Burden**  **Cost Wage**  **Rate (**  **$/ h**  **r )**  **Burden Cost**  **Burden Cost**  Compile list $64.66 9.3 $601
-- -- -- 9.3 $601 Write letter $64.66 1 $65
-- -- -- 1 $65 Check order and send notice -- -- -- $29.63 6 $178 6 $178 Mailing cost 1

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- $165 Total per average facility2` 10.30 $666 6.00 $17 8 16.30 $1,008 **Total per Notification $0.86**  **$55.50 0.50**  **$14.81 1.36**  **$84.06 Notes:**  Costs may not equal labor wage rate multiplied by burden hours as shown due to rounding. U nrounded values were used in calculations
. 1 Mailing costs reflect January 2012 USPS rates and can be found in Exhibit 3 - 7
. 2 An average facility submitting notifications is assumed to submit 12 export notifications per year. **Source:** Appendix A of this report derives technical and clerical hourly labo r costs. Burden hour estimates are from ICR No.: 0795.13 ICR for Notification of Chemical Exports - TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act (EPA, 2009b, p.10)
. 

### 3.3 **Summary**

**of p er Submission Costs,**  **by Option**  The number of firms affected that do not make submissions to EPA (see Option 2 in Exhibit 3
- 9 ) is not known; therefore, costs are not aggregated across the affected entities. The following table summarizes the per- company per- chemical costs to comply with the proposed rule amendment, as described in more detail in section 3.2 above.**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 3**  **- 12**  **Exhibit 3**  **- 9**  **: Compliance Options and A**  **ssociated Co sts Incurred by**  **a Firm Due to the Proposed SNUR**  **Option 1**  **Costs Quantified Costs per Chemical (20**  **11 $)**  **2**

1. Electronic submission of a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN), indicating to EPA that the firm would like to manufacture, import, or process the chemical for a Significant New Use as defined in the SNUR. Costs of submitting a SNUN, including rule familiarization, CDX registration (for companies that are first -time submitters), form completion,user fee, export notification, and any test costs
. $ 54.43 rule familiarization cost; $8, 571 submission cost (including SNUN recordkeeping under 40 CFR §721.40 and fe e $2,500 for large businesses). EPA usually receives well under ten SNUNs per year. Export notifications costs are estimated at $8 4.06 per noti fication; total cost per company would vary. First time submitters would incur $ 190 for CDX registration and associated activities. Companies manufacturing, importing, or processing a chemical cur rently used in commerce in the United States would incur a cost $ 64.66 for notifying consumers of SNUR regulatory activities
.
2. Manufacture, import, or process in a way that avoids a Significant New Use. Cost of the profit foregone as a result of not engaging in the commercial activity originally planned (opport unity costs), recordkeeping , and export notification costs. Opportunity costs are not quantified. Other costs include rule familiarization ($ 54.43 ), recordkeeping ( $ 9.70 ), export notification costs ($ 84.06 per notification), and customer notification ($ 64.66 ) may appl y. **Notes:** 1 Firms may be subject to both options at once since submission of a SNUN results in profits foregone as a result of not manufa cturing, im porting, or processing the chemical. 2 Quantified costs are attributable to the SNUR only if a firm would not otherwise follow the specified practices. Costs are detailed in Section 3.2
. 3 EPA does not require the development of test data for submission of a SNUN, although a firm may submit 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 t hat no firms would incur testing costs as a result of the proposed SNUR. 

### 3.4 **Likelihood of SNUN Submission** This analysis assumes that no entities are expected to submit a SNUN. EPA has, over the years, promulgated SNURs that cover a total of more than 1,000 chemicals. In response, the Agency receives only a handful of SNUNs per year. For example, the number of SNUNs received was six in Federal fiscal year (FY) 2007, eight in FY2008, seven in FY2009 , two in FY2010, and ten in FY2011
. 13 In addition, as discussed in sections 2.3 , all of the chemicals subject to this proposed rule are currently not being manufactured , imported or processed. Itis im portant to note that LCPFCs have recently been a focus of EPA activities aimed to reduce these chemicals , which resulted in a drive by industry to stop using LCPF ACs as part of carpet or to treat carpets
. Therefore, it is unlikely that manufacturers would resume use of LCPF ACs in carpets or carpet treatments . This suggests that it is unlikely a firm would submit a SNUN
. 

### 3.5 **Potential for Subsequent Regulatory A** **ctions** The Agency recognizes that if submission of a SNUN does result from a SNUR, the Agency may take additional regulatory actions under TSCA. These additional regulatory actions might be necessary to further evaluate an intended new use and associated activities, or to prohibit or limit that activity

13 Values based on US EPA’s PMN Gold (V1.1) record keeping system as of September 1, 2011 (EPA, 2011a)
.**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 3**  **- 13**  before it occurs to prevent unreasonable risk of in jury to human health or the environment. It is not known what specific subsequent regulatory actions, if any, the Agency may determine are necessary after reviewing a SNUN. Any such actions are highly dependent on the circumstances surrounding the individual SNUN (e.g., available information and scientific understanding about the chemical and its risks at the time the SNUN is being reviewed). Should the Agency’s review of the SNUN result in further regulatory actions, the Agency would 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.**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 4**  **- 1** 



## 4. **Agenc y**  **Costs** As described in the following sections, EPA’s costs to review and process SNUN submissions are assumed to be the same as EPA costs to review PMNs. 

### 4.1 **Labor Rates for EPA Staff**  Agency labor costs are calculated based on annual Federal salaries for the Washington -Baltimore area published by the Office of Personnel Management effective January 2011 (OPM, 20 11 ). EPA assumes that, on average, a federal GS
- 13, Step 5 full
-time equivalent (FTE) would conduct its collection and administrative activities under the proposed rule. 14 The average salary for a GS
- 13 Step 5 employee was $100,904 in 2011 without fringe benefits and overhead costs. In order to derive the fully loaded salary, EPA multiplied the annual salary by an assumed loading factor of 1.6 to reflect federal fringe benefits and overhead (EPA, 2009c) , which results in a fully loaded annual salary of $161,446 (see Exhibit 4
- 1 ). Dividing the fully loaded annual salary by 2,080 hours (i.e., the number of hours in a work year) yields an estimated hourly FTE wage rate of $77.62. Fully loaded costs for Agency labor are shown in Exhibit 4
- 1
. **Exhibit 4**  **- 1**  **: Derivation of Loaded A** **gency Wage Rates**  **, 2011**  **Labor Category**  **Data Source Date**  **Wage Fringe**  **Benefit Fringes** 

**as % wage**  **Overhead**

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

**overhead factor**  **Loaded**

**Wages (a)**  **(b) (c)=(b)/(a)**  **(d) (e)=(c)+(d)+1**  **(f)=(a)*(e)**
EPA staff FTE Annual Federal staff cost:

OPM W ashington - Baltimore Northern Virginia, DC - MD PA-VA-WV , area, GS - 13 Step 5 pay rates, with 60% overhead 1 Jan 201 1 $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 11 ), from the OPM salary table for the Wa shington - Baltimore - Northern Virginia Locality Pay Area (OPM, 20 11 ). Hourly rates are based on annual salary divided by 2,080 hours. 2 The 60% fringes - and - overhead rate is from an EPA guide, Instructions for Preparing Inf ormation Collection Requests (ICRs) (EPA, 2009c)
. 

### 4.2 **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 Table VII
- 1 of a

14 The GS
- 13 Step 5 is consistent with ICR No. 0574.14 (12/18/2007) ( EPA, 2007a), whic h covers PMN SNURs. Use of this grade level follows the approach introduced in EPA , 2007b . That report represented a change from an earlier PMN SNUR economic analysis ( EPA, 2003 ), which used an average of GS
- 12 Step 1 and GS
- 12 Step 10 salaries.**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 4**  **- 2** 

1994 EPA report, Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications (EPA, 1994 ). The Agency burden associated with processing a PMN 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 reduce Agency burden by 16.5 percent (EPA, 2009b, p.28 ). For each review step, the “EPA staff” cost is calculated by multiplying the number of FTEs (in the first column) 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 cont ractor support and other outside purchases for chemicals requiring the selected review step , and is inflated from 1993 prices using the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employment Cost Index (ECI) data (BLS, 201 2b ). The ECI for total compensation (not seas onally adjusted) of private industry professional and related workers (Series ID CIU2010000120000I) is used be cause 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
. Exhibit 4
-2 contains the derivation of inflation factors for Agency extramural costs. **Exhibit 4**  **- 2**  **: Derivation of Inflation Factors for A** **gency Extramural Costs**
**Item Inflation Index Source**  **1 Starting**  **ye ar**  **Index**

**for starting**  **ye ar**  **(a) Index for**  **2011**

**(b) Inflation** 

**factor (b)/(a)**  **2** Agency Extramural costs Professional and Related Private Industry BLS ECI, Total comp, Private industry, **Professional and related**  , 4 th Q [BLS, 2012b ] 3 1993 67.0 0 115.7 1.73 **Notes:** 1 In 2006, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employment Cost Index (ECI) series “were rebased to December 2005 = 100 from June 1989 = 100.” The change is reflected in the indices in this table and explained on the BLS website, Employment Cost Index News Rel ease Text: Employment Cost Index, March 2006 (BLS, 2006b ). The Consumer Price Index (CPI) was not rebased
. 2 Inflation factors are rounded ; unrounded values were used in calculations
. 3 Beginning with the report Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 25 Chemical Substances: EPA Docket OPPT - 2009 - 0922 (EPA 201 1b ), we began to use the not- seasonally adjusted CIU2010000120000I for private industry Professional, and Related workers, instead of SA CIS2010000W00000I for private i ndustry white collar workers because BL S retired the “white - collar” series. **Source:** (BLS 201 2 b ) Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Cost Index
– Total Compensation: Professional and Related Private Industry, Not Seasonally Adjusted. (Series ID: CIU20100 00120000I (B)), extracted March 22, 2012. http:/data.bls.gov/cgi - bin/srgate. (BLS 2012b)
. The Percent of Cases column in Exhibit 4
- 3 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 require Administrative Prescreening, but not all chemicals require the intensive scrutiny of “Standard Review .” The three types of submissions resulting from a SNUR may have weighting factors that differ from each other and from the weighting factors for PMNs. Changes in weighting factors could cause actual review costs to be higher or lower than calculated here . For example, some SNUNs**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 4**  **- 3** 

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 records from archives, and the likelihood that more data requiring EPA review are 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. Values in the Weighted Cost column is calculated by multiplying the un
-weighted c osts (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 electronic submission. This calculation yields total Agency costs of $ 5,066 per SNUN, for submission review and processing, as shown in Exhibit 4
- 3
.**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 4**  **- 4**  **Exhibit 4**  **- 3**  **: Ag**  **ency Costs for SNUN and Other Submission Review and Processing Review Steps**  **EPA S**  **taff (FTE) Cost Extramural Cost**  **2 Unw**  **eighted Cost**  **% of** 

**Cases Weighte** 

**d Cost 3**  **Burden**

**Reductio n**  **4 Weighted** 

**Cost with Burden**  **Reduction FTE**  **F raction**  **Cost per**

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

**( 2011**  **$ )**  **1993 $**  **2011 $**  **(a) (b)**  **(c)=(a)*(b)** **(d) (e)**  **(f)=(c)+(e) (g)**  **(h)=(f)*(** **g) (i)**  **(j)=(h)*(1** **- (i))**  Pre - notice consultation 0.0024 $161,446 $387.47 $4.00 $6.91 $394 41% $161.70 0.165 $135 Administrative prescreen/ notice receipt/user fee 0.0024 $161,446 $387.47 $92.00 $158.87 $546 100% $546.34 0.165 $456 CRSS (Chemical Review and Search Strategy) 0.0025 $161,446 $403.62 $268.00 $462.80 $866 100% $866.42 0.165 $723 SAT (Structure Activity Team) 0.0006 $161,446 $96.87 $14.00 $24.18 $121 100% $121.04 0.165 $101 Engineering/Exposure 0.0015 $161,446 $242.17 $56.00 $96.70 $339 100% $338.87 0.165 $283 Ex posure/Fate 0.0008 $161,446 $129.16 $0.00 $0.00 $129 100% $129.16 0.165 $108 Focus 0.0009 $161,446 $145.30 $23.00 $39.72 $185 100% $185.02 0.165 $154 Standard Review Functions 0.0219 $161,446 $3,535.68 $511.00 $882.43 $4,418 29% $1,281.2 5 0.165 $1,070 Division Directors Meeting 0.0129 $161,446 $2,082.66 $113.00 $195.14 $2,278 15% $341.67 0.165 $285 Order Development/Negotiatio n Review 0.0171 $161,446 $2,760.73 $22.00 $37.99 $2,799 3% $83.96 0.165 $70 Post Order Data Review 0.0886 $161,446 $14,304.15 $0.00 $0.00 $14,304 3% $429.12 0.165 $358 Order Modification 0.2167 $161,446 $34,985.43 $0.00 $0.00 $34,985 3% $1,049.5 6 0.165 $876 New Chemical SNUR Development 0.0277 $161,446 $4,472.07 $85.00 $146.78 $4,619 7% $323.32 0.165 $270 Notices of Commencement 0.0012 $161,446 $193.74 $40.00 $69.07 $263 31% $81.47 0.165 $68 FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) 0.0333 $161,446 $5,376.17 $287.00 $495.61 $5,872 1% $58.72 0.165 $49**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 4**  **- 5**  **Review Steps EPA**  **S taff (FTE) Cost**  **Extramural Cost 2**  **Unw eighted**  **Cost %**  **of**

**Cases Weighte** 

**d Cost 3**  **Burden**

**Reductio n**  **4 Weighted** 

**Cost with Burden**  **Reduction FTE**  **F raction**  **Cost per**

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

**( 2011**  **$ )**  **1993 $**  **2011 $**  **(a) (b)**  **(c)=(a)*(b)** **(d) (e)**  **(f)=(c)+(e) (g)**  **(h)=(f)*(** **g) (i)**  **(j)=(h)*(1** **- (i))**  Requests CBI (Confidential Business Information) Substantiation 0.0004 $161,446 $64.58 $3.00 $5.18 $70 100% $69.76 0.165 $58 **TOTAL $**  **6,067 0**  **.165 $**  **5,066 Notes:**  1 GS - 13 Step 5 salaries loaded with benefits and overhead. See Exhibit 4 - 1 for derivation. 2 Extramural costs consist of contracting support and other purchases directly attributable to the PMN review process inflated from 1993 prices using Exhibit 4 - 2
. 3 We ighted cost s were calculated using unrounded unit cost estimates. 4 Electronic submission is expected to generate a cost savings of 16.5% to the Agency (EPA 2009a, p. 28). **Sources:** FTEs per review step, 1993 extramural costs, and percent of cases are from EPA, 1994 Table VII - 1 ; GS - 13 salaries are from OPM, 20 11
.**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 4**  **- 6**  

### 4.3 **Export Notification Cost** Under TSCA Section 12(b), exporters must notify EPA if they intend to export chemicals subject to SNURs, as described in Section 3.2.7 . The Agency burden and cost due to TSCA §12(b) export notification result from three tasks. In the first task, EPA receives export notifications from companies that intend to export one of the chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) (EPA, 2009b ). In the second task, EPA staff prepares separate notification letters that are subsequently reviewed and delivered to importing countries, their embassies, or representatives, and to the importing country’s U
. S
. embassies (EPA, 2009b ). (See Exhibit 3
- 7 for the cost of mailing one notification). The third task is comprised of EPA staff responses to public inquiries and other TSCA 12(b) activities. The work of responding to non
-routine requests for information and clarification from industry and importing countries, and of handling other tasks associated with the TSCA §12(b) program, was estimated to require roughly 400 hours per year (EPA, 2009b). Since the current rulemaking covers only a very small percent of the chemicals subject to TSCA 12(b) reporting, a very small percent of such activity would be attributable to the current rulemaking. Because it is unknown how many, if any, notifications EPA would receive or send as a result o f the current rulemaking, the costs to the Agency are presented per activity. The estimated burden for the first two Agency activities is provided in Exhibit 4
-4 . To estimate the Agency cost, hourly burdens are multiplied by the loaded wage rate of a GS
- 13, Step 5, which is derive d in Exhibit 4
- 1
. **Exhibit 4**  **- 4**  **: TSC**  **A 12(b) Export Notification Cost: A** **gency Burden per A ctivity** 

**( 2011**  **$) Agenc**  **y Activit**  **y Hours per**  **Activit y**  **FTE per Activit y**  **1 Loaded**  **Wage s**  **Mailing Cost**  **Total Agency** 

**Cost per Activit y**  **GS -**  **13, Step 5 FTE (a)**  **(b) = (a)/2,080 (c)**  **(d)** **(e) = ((b)*(c))+(d)** Process an incoming notification from an exporting company 0.1 0.00005 $161,446 $0.00 $7.76 Prepare and mail a notification to an importing country 0.5 0.00024 $161,446 $13.75 $52.56 **Notes:** 1 The burden associated with an Agency activity is the burden for the Agency to process one incoming notification, or to prepare and mail an outgoing notification
. **Source:** Appendix A of this report derives Agency labor costs. Mailing costs are from Exhibit 3 - 7 of this report. Other burden estimates are from ICR No.: 0795.13 [Information Collection Request for] Notification of Chemical Exports - TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act (EPA 2009b), adjusted for inflation.**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 5**  **- 1**  

## 5. **Benefits** A SNUN submission provides EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs. It allows the Agency to take immediate action to mitigate an activity that the Agency deems harmful to the environment or human health. The proposed SNUR allows EPA to evaluate the use of, or exposure to these chemicals and allow the Agency to take preventive action to limit or prohibit any Significant New Use. EPA also expects that the proposed rule may re strict future uses or exposure to the chemicals, as a company may choose to modify planned uses in such a way that does not trigger a SNUR, as opposed to submitting a SNUN. Therefore, the proposed SNUR may limit future exposure to the chemicals.**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 6**  **- 1**  

## 6. **Ad ditiona**  **l Anal ys**  **es 6.1**  **Regulatory**

**Flexibility A ct**  Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq .), the Agency hereby certifies that promulgation of this SNUR would not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substanti al number of small entities. The rationale supporting this conclusion is as follows. The requirement to submit a SNUN applies to any person (including small or large entities) who intends to engage in any activity described in the rule as a significant new use. Where a use is new, by definition no small or large entities presently engage in such activities. Although some small entities may decide to manufacture or process a substance for the new use after the SNUR is promulgated, EPA receives very few SNUNs , and few of those are submitted by small entities. In response to the promulgation of SNURs covering over 1 , 000 chemical substances, the Agency receives only a handful of SNUNs per year. For example, the number of SNUNs was four in Federal fiscal year 20 05, eight in FY2006, six in FY2007, eight in FY2008, seven in FY2009, two in 2010, and ten in 2011 (EPA, 2012), for an average of 6 per year from all SNURs. EPA has no reason to believe that this SNUR would alter the pattern of SNUN submissions that EPA has historically seen. In addition, the estimated reporting cost for submission of a SNUN is minimal regardless of the size of the firm, averaging about $8, 6 00 including SNUN recordkeeping and reporting costs. The Agency currently offers some relief to certain small businesses with sales (including those of subsidiary/parent companies) of less than $40 million per year by reducing the SNUN submission fee from $2,500 to $100. This lower fee reduces the cost of submitting a SNUN to about $ 6,200 for smaller firms. During the six year period from 2005
- 2010, only three submitters self
- identified as small in their SNUN submission 15 (EPA, 2012). EPA believes the cost of submitting a SNUN is relatively small compared the cost of developing and marketing a chemical new to a firm and that the requirement to submit a SNUN generally does not have a signific ant economic impact. EPA believes that the potential economic impact of complying with a SNUR is not expected to be significant or adversely affect a substantial number of small entities
. 

### 6.2 **Unfunded Mandates Reform A ct (UMRA** **)** The proposed rule does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect on small governments because none of the current producers of the sub ject chemicals are governments. Additionally, it is not expected that any governments would initiate production of these chemicals. 

### 6.3 **Paperwork Reduction A ct (PRA** **)** According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., an Agency may not cond uct 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 C ontrol number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after

15 The thre e “small” submitters were identified by review of actual SNUN submissions from the years 2005
- 2010.**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 6**  **- 2**  appearing in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR, part 9, and included on the related collection instrument, or form, if applicable. The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control numbers 2070
- 0038 (EPA ICR No. 1188) and 2070
- 0030 (EPA ICR No. 0795). If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average 98.2 hours per response: 0.82 hours for rule familiarization (Section 3.2.1 ), 2.80 hours for CDX registration, CDX electronic signature, and pay.gov account setup (Section 3.2.2 ), 92.2 hours for form completion, submission and recordkeeping under CFR §721.40 (Sections 3.2.3 ), 1 hour for consumer notifications (Section 3.2.5 ) and 1.36 hours for export notification (Section 3.2.7 ). The burdens for rule familiarization, CDX registration, CDX electronic signature, pay.gov account setup form completion, submission, and recordkeeping consumer notifications are approved under EPA ICR No. 1188 (OMB control number 207 0
- 0038 ). The burden for export notification is approved under EPA ICR No. 0795 (OMB control number 2070
- 0030). 

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

### 6.5 **Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice** Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low
- income populations in the United States. The information collecte d under this proposed rule, if finalized, would assist EPA and others in determining the potential hazards and risks associated with various chemicals manufactured and used at high production volumes. Although not directly impacting environmental justice
-related concerns, this information would enable the Agency to better protect human health and the environment, including in low
- income and minority communities.**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 6**  **- 3**  

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

### 6.7 **Executive Order 13175, Tribal Governments** Executive Order 13175 is Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000). This rule does not have Tribal implications because EPA has no information to indicate that any tribal government manufactures or processes the chemical substance s covered by this action. 

### 6.8 **Executive Order 13211, Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use**  This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use.**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 7**  **- 1**  

## 7. **References** 3M Company. 1999. Fluorochemical Use, Distribution, and Release Overview. St. Paul, Minnesota. May 6, 1999. (AR226
- 0550). 40 CFR 7 21 Toxic Substances Control Act, Significant New Uses for Chemical Substances Code of Federal Regulations . Part 721 Title 40, July 27, 1988, as amended, June 23, 1993 Armeduri, Bruno; Bouterin, Bernard. Well

- Architectured Floropolymers: Synthesis, Properties, and Applications . “Applications of Flourinated Telomers,” (p. 71). BLS, 2006a. 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 February 2006 from http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsm0003.htm. BLS, 2006b. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index News Release Text: Employment Cost Index, March 2006 (April 28, 2006), at http://www.bls.gov. BLS, 2006c. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Change has Come to the ECI (June 14, 2006) at http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsm0001.htm BLS, 2012 a . U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables December 2011.” (Accessed on March 14, 2 012.) Available at: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsuptc21.pdf. (Note: The BLS report title and content is updated periodically to include more recent data, on the same website.) BLS, 201 2b
. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Cost Index

– Total Compensation: Professional and Related Private Industry, Not Seasonally Adjusted. (Series ID: CIU2010000120000I (B)), extracted March 22, 2012. Available at: http:/data.bls.gov/cgi
-bin/srgate. BLS, 201 2 c . U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index
- All Urban Consumers, U.S. City Average (Series ID: CUUR0000SA0), extracted March 22, 2012. Available at; http:/data.bls.gov/cgi
-bin/srgate
. Branch, 2006. Raphael E. Branch and Lowell Mason. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Seasonal adjustment in the ECI and the conversion to NAICS and SOC.” Monthly Labor Review . Vol. 129, No. 4, April 2006. Available at www.bls.gov
. Carolini, Dorian. 2009. Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) Production and Use: Past and Current Evidence. Prepared for UNIDO. December 2009. Caroll, 2006. Richard E. Caroll. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Changes affecting the Employment Cost Index: an overview.” Monthly Labor Review . Vol. 129, No. 4, April 2006 . Available at www.bls.gov Danish Ministry of the Environment. 2008. Survey and Environmental/Health Assessment of Fluorinated Substances in Impregnated Consumer Products and Impregnating Agents: Survey of Chemical Substances in Consumer Products, No. 99
. EPA, 1992. U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. Instructions f or Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs). Washington, DC, June 1, 1992. EPA, 1994. U. S. EPA, Office of Toxic Substances, Regulatory Impacts Branch. Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications. Washington, DC, September 9, 1994. (OTS/RIB later became OPPT/EPAB.) EPA, 2000. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, ICR No. 1139.06. OMB Control No.: 2070
- 0033 [Information Collection Request for] TSCA Existing Chemical Test Rules, Consent**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 7**  **- 2**  Orders, Test Rule Exemptions, and Voluntary Test Data Submissions: Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act . Attachment 5, Wage Rates Estimation, August 29, 2000. EPA, 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. Washington, 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 Toxic s, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 65 Chemical Substances. Washington, DC, 2003. Available from the Federal Docket Management System as EPA
- HQ
OPPTS
-2002
- 0078 at http://www.regulations.gov
. EPA, 2005a. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Change to TSCA Section 12(b) Export Notification Requirements, November 2005, available f rom the Federal Docket Management System as EPA
HQ
- OPPT
-2005
- 005 8
- 0017 at http://www.regulations.gov
. EPA, 2005b. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ICR No. 118.08. OMB Control No.: 2070
- 0038 [Info rmation Collection Request for] TSCA Section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rules for Existing Chemicals (Renewal). Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act, October 11, 2005. EPA, 2005c. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Significant New Use Rule for 183 Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonates. November 3, 2005. EPA, 2007a. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, EPA ICR No. 0574.14. OMB Control No.: 2070

- 0014 [Information Collection Request for] Pre
- Manufacture Review Reporting and Exemption Requirements for New Chemical Substances and Significant New Use Reporting Requirements for Chemical Substances: Supporting Statement for a Requestfor OMB Review under th e Paperwork Reduction Act, December 6, 2007. EPA, 2007b. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 65 Chemical Substances (EPA Docket OPPT

-2003
- 0063), December 4, 2006 (Revised March 12, 2007). EPA, 2007c. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 38 Chemical Substances (EPA Docket OPPT

- 2006
- 0 898

), August 17, 2007 EPA, 2007d. ``Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonates; Proposed Significant New Use Rule, Final Rule.'' 72 FR 57222
. October 9, 2007. EPA, 2009a. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Ana lysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule
. (EPA
-HQ
- OPPT
- 2008
- 0296) . July 13, 2009 EPA, 2009b. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. EPA ICR No.: 0795.13 OMB Control Number 2070

- 0030 [Information Collection Request for] Notification of Chemical Exports
- TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act . March 6, 2009 at http://www.regulations.gov
.**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. 7**  **- 3**  EPA, 2009c. U.S. EPA , Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division, ICR Handbook EPA’s Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 199. Revised 10/2009. EPA, 2011 a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. PMN Gold Database (Confidential Business Information) accessed September 1, 2011. EPA, 201 1b . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 25 Chemical Substances , (EPA Docket OPPT
-2009
- 0922) August 2011. EPA, 2012. Count of SNUN Submissions as tracked in EPA’s Confidential Business Information Tracking System (CBITS). February, 2012. 

### Kissa, David. Fluorinated Surfactants and Repellents. Surfactant Science Series. Marcel Dekker, Inc.: New York. 2001. Knox, S. S., T. Jackson, B. Javins, Stephanie J. Frisbee, A. Shankar and A. M. Ducatman. 2011. Implications of Early Menopause in Women Exposed to Perfluorocarbons. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 96(6): 1
- 7. Melzer, D. , N. Rice, M. H. Depledge, W. E. Henley and T. S. Galloway. 2010. Association between Serum Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Thyroid Disease in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Environmental Health Perspectives . 118(5): 686
- 692. OPM, 2011. Office of Personnel Management, Salary Table 2011
-DCB, Washington
-Baltimore
Northern
-Virginia, DC
-MD
-VA
-WV
-PA. Accessed from http://www.opm.gov/oca/11tables/pdf/DCB.pdf. OSPAR. 2006. Hazardous Substance Series: Perfluorooctane Sulphonate (PFOS). OSPAR Commission 2005 (2006 Update). Sleemi, 2006. Fehimida Sleemi. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employment Cost Index Publication Plans”. Monthly Labor Review. Vol. 129, No. 4, April 2006. available at www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2006/04/art2full.pdf Sleemi, 2006. Fehimida Sleemi. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employment Cost Index Publication Plans”. Monthly Labor Review. Vol. 129, No. 4, April 2006. available at www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2006/04/art2full.pdf U.S. Postal Service (U.S. PS). 201 2 . “Prices” <http://www.usps.com/prices/

### >. Accessed January 2012 Weinstein, 2004. Harriet G. Weinstein and Mark A. Loewenstein, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. C omparing Current and Former Industry and Occupation ECEC Series. Originally posted August 25, 2004 at http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20040823ar01p1.htm**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Appendix A ▌**  **pg. A**  **- 1**  

### Ap **pendix A**  **– Inflators and**  **Wage Rates** This appendix describes the derivation of the fully loaded labor rates and inflation factors used in calculating costs of labor, materials, and other inputs. Costs presented in this report are in 201 1 dollars
. 

### 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, 2002b). The resulting l oaded labor rates are given in Exhibit 7
- 1 . Costs are calculated for several labor categories: Managerial, Professional/Technical, Clerical, and EPA s taff. In March 2004, BLS began using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes instead of the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) System, and the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system instead of the Occupational Clas sification System (OCS). The following table shows the crosswalk between old and new occupational titles. **EPAB Reports Labor Category**  **BLS Old Title (OCS) BLS New Title (SOC)**  Managerial Executive, administrative, and managerial Management, business, and financial Professional/Technical Professional specialty and technical Professional and related Clerical Administrative support, including clerical Office and administrative support **Source:** Employer Costs for Employee Compensation: Changes to NAICS and SOC, Table 2 . ECEC Occupational Comparability between SOC and OCS (BLS, 2006a and Weinstein, 2004). **A. 1.1**  **Derivation of Labor Rates for Managerial, Professional/Technical, and Clerical**  **Labor** Wages and fringe benefits for managerial, professional/technical, and clerical labor were taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) data, 16 for December 2011 , for manufacturing industries. 17 The cost of f

ringe benefits such as paid leave and insurance, specific to each labor category, are taken from the same ECEC series. Fringe benefits as a percent of wages are calculated separately for each

16 This follows the approach introduced in Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 65 Chemical Substances: EPA Docket OPPT

-2003
- 0063 (EPA

B, 2007b )
. 17 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables December 2011
. (BLS, 2012 a)
. This follows the approach introduced in EPAB, 2007a. Earlier PMN SNUR economic analyses, such as EP A, 2003 , used ECEC data for “All Goods Producing” sectors (manufacturing, mining, and construction)
. However, the manufacturing sector data seem more relevant since the SNURs mainly affect the chemicals industry.**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Appendix A ▌**  **pg. A**  **- 2**  labor category. For example, for December 2011 , the average wage rate for professional/technical 18 labor was $ 38.48 ; the average fringe benefit was $ 19.64 . Fringe benefits as a percent of wages were $ 19.64/$ 38.48 , or approximately 51.0 percent. An additional loading factor of 17 percent is applied to wages to account for overhead. This approach is used for consistency with Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics economic analyses for two maj or rulemakings: Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (EPA, 2002b), and the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report (EPA, 2002a). This overhead loading factor is added to the benefits loading factor, and the total is then applied to the base wage to derive the fully loaded wage. For exampl e, the December 2011 fully loaded wage for professional/technical labor is $ 38.48 × (1+0. 5104 + 0.17) = $ 64.66
. Fully loaded costs for managerial and clerical labor are calculated in a similar manner, as shown in Exhibit 7
- 1
. **A. 1.2**  **Derivation of Labor Rates for EPA Staff**  Agency labor costs are calculated based on annual Federal salaries for the Washington
-Baltimore area published by the Office of Personnel Management e ffective January 201 1 (OPM, 201 1 ). The average salary for one FTE staff member is estimated as the salary for a GS
- 13 Step 5 employee. 19 Multiplying the annual pay by an assumed loading factor of 1.6 to reflect Federal fringe benefits and overhead, the loaded annual salary of EPA staff was calculated to be $161,446. The Agency loading factor is from an EPA guide, Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (EPA, 1992, page 30, footnote 9). The 60 percent assumption was labeled “the benefits multiplication factor” in the EPA Guide, but has been used in many EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ICRs to reflect both fringe benefits and overhead for Federal staff. For example, it was used in an August 2000 document supporting ICR No. 1139.06 (EPA, 2000), with the following explanation: The annual costs per FTE are derived by multiplying the annual pay rate by 1.6 (the benefits multiplication factor). The multiplication factor used is recommended in EPA’s Office of Policy, P lanning, and Evaluation’s Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (June 1, 1992). An EPA internal phone call between Carol Rawie (OPPT/EETD/RIB) and Carl Koch (OPPE/RMD/IMB) on May 3, 1994, indicated that the 1.6 factor included not o nly benefits but also overhead. (ICR No.1139.06)

18 This follows terminology introduced in EPAB, 2007 b . Earlier SNUR economic analyses used the term “technical” labor. Here the category is called “professional/technical” labor, to make clear how it relates to BLS categories
. In 2004, BLS changed from the Occupational Classification System, OCS, to the Standard Occupational Classification system, SOC
. In the process, the “Professional specialty and technical” category became the “Professional and related” category
. However, the coverage of the old and new occupational groups is approximately the same
. See the BLS article, C omparing Current and Fo rmer Industry and Occupation ECEC Series (Weinstein, 2004). 19 The GS
- 13 Step 5 is consistent with ICR No. 0574.14 (12/18/2007), which covers PMN SNURs. Use of this grade level follows the approach introduced in EPAB, 2007a. That report represented a chang e from the earlier PMN SNUR economic analysis (EPA, 2003), which used an average of GS
- 12 Step 1 and GS
- 12 Step 10 salaries.**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. A**  **- 3**  **Exhibit 7**  **- 1**  **: Derivation of Loaded Wage Rates**  **EPAB Labor Category**  **Data Source Date**  **Wage Fringe**  **Benefit Fringes as %** 

**Wage Overhead** 

**% Wage 2**  **Fringe +**

**Overhead Factor**  **Loaded**

**Wages 1**  **(a) (b)**  **(c) =(b)/(a) (d)**  **(e)=(c)+(d)+1 (f)=(a) x (e)**  **Managerial** BLS ECEC , Private Manufacturing

industries , “Mgt, Business, and Financial” 3 Dec - 1 1 $43.01 $20.40 47.43% 17% 1.64 $70.72 **Professional/ Technical**  BLS ECEC , Private Manufacturing

industries, “Professional and related“ 3 Dec - 1 1 $38.48 $19.64 51.04% 17% 1.68 $64.66
**Clerical** BLS ECEC , Private Manufacturing

industries, “Office and Administrative Support” 3 Dec - 1 1 $17.69 $8.93 50.48% 17% 1.67 $29.63

**EPA staff FTE**  Annual Federal staff cost: OPM

Wa shington - Baltimore - Northern Virginia, DC - MD - PA-VA-WV , area, GS 13 Step 5 pay rates, with 60% overhead 4 Jan - 1 1 $48.51
-- [Included in 60% overhead] 60% 1.6 $77.62
**Notes:** 1 Wa ge data are rounded to the closest penny; however, unrounded values were used in calculations
. 2An overhead rate of 17 percent was used based on assumptions in Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (EPA, 2002b), and the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report (EPA, 2002a). 3 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables Decemb er 201 1 , U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 14, 2012 (BLS, 201 2a ). 4 The Federal salary is the unloaded Federal GS - 13 Step 5 salary ($100,904 divided by 2080 hours to get the hourly wage rate in the table ) for 201 1 , from the Office of Personnel Management salary table for Washington - Baltimore - Northern Virginia (OPM, 201 1 ). The 60% fringes - and - overhead rate is from an EPA guide, Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (EPA, 1992, page 30, fo otnote 9).**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. A**  **- 4**  

### A. **2 Derivation of Inflation Factors**  Detailed information on the derivation of the inflation factors used is presented in Exhibit 7
-2 . In 2006, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) made several changes to the Employment Cost Index. The changes are described on a BLS web page, “Change has come to the ECI,” (BLS, 2006c ) and in several April 2006 Monthly Labor Review articles posted on the BLS web site: “Changes affecting the Employment Cost Index: a n overview” (Caroll , 2006 ); “Employment Cost Index Publication Plans” ( Sleemi, 2006 ); and “Seasonal adjustment in the ECI and the conversion to NAICS and SOC” (Branch, 2006 ). Under a mandate from OMB, BLS changed its classification of industries and occupations from the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and Occupational Classification System (OCS) to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system. In 2006, BLS adjusted all ECI series to reflect this change. In addition to changing the industry and occupational classification systems, in 2006, BLS rebased the ECI from June 1989 = 100 to December 2005 = 100 for all current and historical non
- seasonally adjusted series, including the NAICS and SIC based series. (Seasonally adjusted indices, including those in Exhibit 7
-2 of this report, may not exactly equal 100 for December 2005 as a result of the seasonal adjustment. Seasonal adjustments are explained in Branch, 2006.) According to BLS, the official ECI for the years 1975
- 2005 is the SIC
- OCS based series, and for subsequent years, the official ECI is the NAICS
- SOC based series (Sleemi, 2006, p.8). 20 “Starting year” indices in Exhibit 7
- 2 continue to be SIC
- OCS based. Current year indices are NAICS
- SOC based. We use indices from both the NAICS
- SOC and the SIC
- OCS based ECI series because neither series spans the entire period over which testing and other c osts need to be inflated.

20 BLS has been publishing the NIACS
- SOC based ECI series since March 2001 and it became official in March 2006. The SIC
- OCS based series and NAICS
- SOC series have different series ID numbers, even when they describe essentially the same population. For example the series ID for seasonally adjusted total compensation for all private industry workers is ECS10002I for the SIC
- OCS series and CIS2010000000000I for the NAICS
- SOC series .**SNUR EA for PFAS**  **and Long Chain**  **PFAC in Carpets**  **Contract # EP**  **- W**  **- 08**  **- 010** 

**Agenc y**  **Costs ▌**  **pg. A**  **- 5**  **Exhibit 7**  **- 2**  **: D**  **erivation of Inflation Factors**

**Item Inflation Index Source**  **1 Starting**  **Year Index for** 

**Starting Year (a)**  **Index for**

**20 11**  **(b) Inflation** 

**Factor (b)/(a)**  **2** Agency Extramural costs Professional and Related Private Industry BLS ECI, Total comp, Private industry, **Professional and related**  , 4 th Q [BLS, 2012b ] 3 1993 67 115.7 1.727
Labels, placards etc. BLS CPI, All urban consumers, not SA. CUUR0000SA0, Annual [BLS, 2012c] 1997 160.5 224.939 1.401 File cabinet Photocopies BLS CPI, All urban consumers, not SA. CUUR0000SA0, Annual [BLS, 2012c] 1988 118.3 224.939 1.901 Record keeping materials **Key :**  BLS = Bureau of Labor Statistics. CPI = Consumer Price Index. ECI = Employment Cost Index. SA = Seasonally Adjusted. Total Comp = Total Compensation (wages/salaries and benefits). 4 th Q = Fourth Quarter. **Notes:** 1 In 2006, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employment Cost Index (ECI) series “were rebased to December 2005 = 100 from June 1 989 = 100.” The change is reflected in the indices in this table and explained on the BLS website, Employment Cost Index News Relea se Text: Employment Cost Index, March 2006 (BLS, 2006b ). The Consumer Price Index (CPI) was not rebased. “Starting year” ECI indices are SIC - OCS based: Seasonally Adjusted (SA) ECS10002I for private industry All Workers, and not SA ECU11122I for private i ndustry Professional and Related Workers. After 2006, ECI indices are NAICS - SOC based: Seasonally Adjusted (SA) CIS2010000000000I for private industry All Workers, an d not SA CIU2010000120000I (B) for private industry Professional, and Related workers. 2 Inflation factors are rounded ; however , unrounded values were used in calculations
. 3 B eginning with the report Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 25 Chemical Substances: EPA Docket OPPT2009 - 0922 (EPA, 2011b) we began to use the not -seasonally adjusted CIU2010000120000I for private industry Professional, and Related workers, instead of SA CIS2010000W00000I for private industry white collar workers because BLS retired the “whit e - collar” series.