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.

ABSTRACT 

This report estimates the costs of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)’s proposed Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) that applies
to the significant new use of elemental mercury (CAS 7439-97-6) in three
mercury-containing products 1) barometers, 2) hygrometers/psychrometers,
 and 3) manometers.  Not included in this proposed SNUR is mercury use
in portable, battery-powered, motor-aspirated psychrometers containing
less than 7 grams of elemental mercury because these type of
psychrometers are currently manufactured.   

The proposed SNUR applies to all manufacturing, import, and processing
of elemental mercury for use in these three mercury-containing products
(excluding the specified psychrometers). The three mercury-containing
products subject to the proposed SNUR are believed to no longer be
manufactured in or imported into the United States and are considered
“legacy products” by the Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction
Clearinghouse (IMERC).  Legacy products are defined by IMERC as products
that are not sold as new, but may still be in use, resold as used or
antique, or stored in homes or businesses. All three products currently
have viable and cost-effective substitutes.  Because the three
mercury-containing products subject to the proposed SNUR are not
manufactured, and feasible mercury-free alternatives are widely
available, there is expected to be no economic impact as a result of the
proposed SNUR.

The three mercury-containing products subject to the proposed SNUR are
all applications of barometers, manometers and hygrometers/psychrometers
(excluding the specified psychrometers).  All three products subject to
the proposed SNUR currently have effective and economically feasible
substitutes, and are no longer manufactured in United States. 
Manometers are used to measure air, gas, and liquid pressure, in the
automotive, dairy, and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC)
industries.  There are viable mercury-free alternatives for almost all
uses of manometers, including digital manometers, bourdon tube
manometers, aneroid manometers, and hydrostatic gauges.  Barometers are
instruments used to measure atmospheric pressure.  Current alternatives
for barometers include aneroid barometers, electronic barometers, and
other liquid-based barometers.  Hygrometers/psychrometers are used to
measure the moisture content, or humidity, of air or gas.  There are two
available and widely used alternatives to hygrometers/psychrometers:
spirit-filled products and digital products.  

The proposed SNUR would require persons to notify EPA at least 90 days
before commencing the manufacture, import, or processing of elemental
mercury for any significant new use as described in the SNUR.  A firm
intending to engage in these activities would be required to submit a
Significant New Use Notice (SNUN).  EPA is proposing the SNUR because of
health and environmental concerns about mercury use.  Because the three
specified mercury-containing products subject to the proposed SNUR are
not currently manufactured in the United States, it is important that
EPA is notified if a company chooses to produce, import, or process
elemental mercury for use in any of these products.  The SNUN provides
EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary,
to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs.

To submit this SNUN, a firm incurs a modest submission cost of $8,143,
and potentially other minor costs.  However, because no firms are
currently importing, manufacturing, or processing elemental mercury for
any significant new uses, it is highly unlikely that any firm will incur
this cost.  EPA does not require the development of test data for
submission of a SNUN, although a firm may submit test data already in
its possession or describe any other available data.  Because EPA does
not require the development of test data, EPA assumes that no firms will
incur testing costs as a result of the proposed SNUR.

In addition to the firms that make a SNUN submission, the proposed SNUR
may also impact 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.  However, this may not be a concern
given that there are no current manufacturers of these three products.

Costs are estimated at the firm level and reflect the burden of a SNUR
on the firms that would make a submission.  

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  TOC \o "1-4" \h \z \u    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114000"  CONTRIBUTORS	 
PAGEREF _Toc271114000 \h  i  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114001"  ABSTRACT	  PAGEREF _Toc271114001 \h  i  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114002"  LIST OF TABLES	  PAGEREF _Toc271114002
\h  iv  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114003"  1.	INTRODUCTION	  PAGEREF _Toc271114003
\h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114004"  1.1	Statutory Authority	  PAGEREF
_Toc271114004 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114005"  1.2	Summary of Methodology	  PAGEREF
_Toc271114005 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114006"  1.3	Organization of this Report	 
PAGEREF _Toc271114006 \h  1  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114007"  2.	POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ENTITIES	 
PAGEREF _Toc271114007 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114008"  2.1	Historic Uses of and Alternatives to
Mercury-Containing Barometers, Hygrometers/Psychrometers, and Manometers
  PAGEREF _Toc271114008 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114009"  Barometers	  PAGEREF _Toc271114009 \h  2
 

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114010"  Hygrometers/Psychrometers	  PAGEREF
_Toc271114010 \h  3  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114011"  Manometers	  PAGEREF _Toc271114011 \h  3
 

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114012"  2.2	Potentially Affected Entities	 
PAGEREF _Toc271114012 \h  3  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114013"  Barometers	  PAGEREF _Toc271114013 \h  4
 

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114014"  Hygrometers/Psychrometers	  PAGEREF
_Toc271114014 \h  4  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114015"  Manometers	  PAGEREF _Toc271114015 \h  4
 

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114016"  3.	INDUSTRY COMPLIANCE COSTS	  PAGEREF
_Toc271114016 \h  5  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114017"  3.1	Wage Rates	  PAGEREF _Toc271114017
\h  6  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114018"  3.2	Unit Industry Compliance Costs	 
PAGEREF _Toc271114018 \h  6  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114019"  3.2.1	Rule Familiarization	  PAGEREF
_Toc271114019 \h  6  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114020"  3.2.2	CDX Registration, CDX Electronic
Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup	  PAGEREF _Toc271114020 \h  7  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114021"  3.2.3	Form Completion and Submission Fee
  PAGEREF _Toc271114021 \h  8  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114022"  3.2.4	Import Certification	  PAGEREF
_Toc271114022 \h  9  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114023"  3.2.5	Export Notification	  PAGEREF
_Toc271114023 \h  9  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114024"  3.3	Industry Costs of SNUR, by Option
(per Submission)	  PAGEREF _Toc271114024 \h  12  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114025"  3.4	Likelihood of a SNUN Submission	 
PAGEREF _Toc271114025 \h  13  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114026"  3.5	Potential for Subsequent Regulatory
Action	  PAGEREF _Toc271114026 \h  13  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114027"  4.	AGENCY COSTS	  PAGEREF _Toc271114027
\h  14  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114028"  4.1	Labor Rates for EPA Staff	  PAGEREF
_Toc271114028 \h  14  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114029"  4.2	SNUN Processing Costs	  PAGEREF
_Toc271114029 \h  15  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114030"  4.3	Export Notification Cost	  PAGEREF
_Toc271114030 \h  18  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114031"  5.	ADDITIONAL ANALYSES	  PAGEREF
_Toc271114031 \h  19  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114032"  5.1	Small Entity Impacts	  PAGEREF
_Toc271114032 \h  19  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114033"  5.2	Unfunded Mandates	  PAGEREF
_Toc271114033 \h  19  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114034"  5.3	Paperwork Reduction Act	  PAGEREF
_Toc271114034 \h  19  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114035"  5.4	Technical Standards	  PAGEREF
_Toc271114035 \h  20  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114036"  5.5	Regulatory Planning and Review	 
PAGEREF _Toc271114036 \h  20  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114037"  5.6	Environmental Justice	  PAGEREF
_Toc271114037 \h  20  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114038"  5.7	Protection of Children	  PAGEREF
_Toc271114038 \h  20  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114039"  5.8	Federalism	  PAGEREF _Toc271114039
\h  20  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114040"  5.9	Tribal Governments	  PAGEREF
_Toc271114040 \h  20  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114041"  5.10	Effect on Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use	  PAGEREF _Toc271114041 \h  20  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114042"  6.	REFERENCES	  PAGEREF _Toc271114042 \h
 22  

 

LIST OF TABLES

  TOC \h \z \c "Table"    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114043"  Table 1: Loaded
Industry Wage Rates, December 2009	  PAGEREF _Toc271114043 \h  6  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114044"  Table 2: Rule Familiarization Burden and
Cost for SNUR Submitters	  PAGEREF _Toc271114044 \h  7  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114045"  Table 3: CDX Registration, CDX
Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup Burden and Cost for
First-Time Submitters	  PAGEREF _Toc271114045 \h  7  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114046"  Table 4: Industry Cost Estimate to
Complete the SNUN Form	  PAGEREF _Toc271114046 \h  8  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114047"  Table 5: Industry Cost Estimate to
Complete and Submit the SNUN Form	  PAGEREF _Toc271114047 \h  9  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114048"  Table 6: Derivation of Total Mailing
Cost for 12 Notices	  PAGEREF _Toc271114048 \h  11  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114049"  Table 7: TSCA 12(b) Export Notification
Cost per Notification	  PAGEREF _Toc271114049 \h  11  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114050"  Table 8: Compliance Options and
Associated Costs Incurred by a Firm Due to the Proposed SNUR	  PAGEREF
_Toc271114050 \h  13  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114051"  Table 9: Derivation of Loaded Agency
Wage Rates	  PAGEREF _Toc271114051 \h  15  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114052"  Table 10: Derivation of Inflation
Factors for Agency Extramural Costs	  PAGEREF _Toc271114052 \h  16  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114053"  Table 11: Agency Costs for SNUN and
Other Submission Review and Processing	  PAGEREF _Toc271114053 \h  17  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc271114054"  Table 12: TSCA 12(b) Export Notification
Cost: Agency Burden per Activity (2009$)	  PAGEREF _Toc271114054 \h  18 


 

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics’ (OPPT’s) analysis of the
potential costs incurred as a result a proposed Significant New Use Rule
(SNUR) that addresses the use of elemental mercury (CAS 7439-97-6) in
three products: 1) barometers, 2) hygrometers/psychrometers, and 3)
manometers.  Portable, battery-powered, motor-aspirated psychrometers
containing less than 7 grams of elemental mercury continue to be
manufactured in the United States, and are not subject to the proposed
SNUR.  SNURs are proposed by EPA under the authority granted by Section
5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  The proposed SNUR
would require persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing
the manufacture, import, or processing of elemental mercury for
manometers, barometers and hygrometers/psychrometers (excluding the
specified psychrometers).  EPA promulgates a SNUR for a substance when
potential uses could result in increased exposure to or releases of the
substance and in turn, could present an unreasonable risk to health or
the environment.

Statutory Authority 

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 Significant
New Use Notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before manufacturing,
importing, or processing the chemical substance for that use (15 U.S.C.
2604(a)(1)(B)).

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

Summary of Methodology

This analysis quantifies, to the extent possible, the costs to society
of the proposed rule by identifying the costs to industry associated
with performing the required reporting and recordkeeping, and the costs
to EPA of administering the 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 sources
for this analysis include burden estimates derived from previous
information collection requests and economic analyses for related rules,
compensation data acquired from government publications, and
supplementary market research.

Organization of this Report

The remainder of this report provides EPA’s economic analysis in
support of the proposed rule.  The chemical substances and industry
sectors potentially affected are characterized in Chapter   REF
_Ref266888683 \r \h  2 .  Chapter   REF _Ref261363080 \r \h  3  contains
estimates of the industry cost of complying with the proposed rule, and
Chapter   REF _Ref261363092 \r \h  4  shows estimates of the government
costs associated with the administration of the proposed rule.  Chapter 
 REF _Ref261363105 \r \h  5  presents additional impact analyses.

Note that all dollar amounts in this analysis are reported in December
2009 dollars.  

POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ENTITIES 

The proposed SNUR applies to all manufacturing, import, and processing
of elemental mercury for use in mercury-containing barometers,
manometers, and hygrometers/psychrometers (excluding portable,
battery-powered, motor-aspirated psychrometers containing less than 7
grams of elemental mercury).  None of the three mercury-containing
products subject to the proposed SNUR are believed to be manufactured,
imported, or process in the United States, and are considered “legacy
products” by the Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction
Clearinghouse (IMERC).  Legacy products are defined by IMERC as products
that are not sold as new, but may still be in use, resold as used or
antique, or stored in homes or businesses.  

The following sections describe the specific historic uses of each of
the three specified mercury-containing products, the substitutes for
each product, and the potentially affected industry sectors.  Because
the manufacture of the three mercury-containing products subject to the
proposed SNUR has ceased in the United States, we assume that there is
no import of elemental mercury for these uses.  

Historic Uses of and Alternatives to Mercury-Containing Barometers,
Hygrometers/Psychrometers, and Manometers

Barometers

Barometers are instruments used to measure atmospheric pressure, and
consist of a long cylindrical tube, typically closed at one end, with a
mercury-filled reservoir at the base.  The weight of mercury creates a
vacuum at the top of the tube, and the mercury adjusts until the
pressure inside the reservoir equals atmospheric pressure.  Rising
mercury indicates increasing air pressure while dropping mercury
indicates decreasing air pressure (IMERC, 2010b, 2009b and Maine DEP,
2003).  Historically, barometers have primarily been used in weather
forecasting applications (IMERC 2008c).  Additional uses include
scientific demonstration in schools and non-mercury device calibration
(IMERC, 2007, DEPA, 2006).  A mercury barometer contains between 400 and
620 grams of mercury (IMERC, 2010b).

Alternatives to mercury-containing barometers include aneroid
barometers, electronic barometers (which use vibrating cylinder air
pressure transducers, electronic resistance or capacitance), and other
liquid-based (water or eco-celli) barometers.  

Hygrometers/Psychrometers

Hygrometers are used to measure the moisture content, or humidity, of
air or gas.  A psychrometer, the most common type of hygrometer, uses
two mercury-added thermometers, one with a wetted base, and one with a
dry base.  Hygrometers and psychrometers function similarly but have
historically been used in different applications: hygrometers are used
for cigar and tobacco humidors, or in residential settings where
humidity is monitored to prevent the growth of mildew or dust mites;
psychrometers are used by atmospheric scientists and weather enthusiasts
(IMERC, 2010a).  Mercury-added hygrometers/psychrometers contain between
3 and 7 grams of mercury (Environment Canada, 2004).  

There are two types of alternatives to mercury-added
hygrometers/psychrometers that are readily available and widely used:
spirit-filled products, which use methyl alcohol or citrus oil
thermometers and provide results with comparable accuracy to
mercury-added thermometers; and digital products, which use electronic
sensors to measure humidity changes and, when calibrated properly,
provide as accurate results as mercury products (Maine DEP, 2003, IMERC,
2010b).

EPA found sufficient information to conclude that only one type of
mercury-containing hygrometer/psychrometer is manufactured in or
imported into the United States.  Portable, battery-powered,
motor-aspirated psychrometers containing less than 7 grams of elemental
mercury continue to be manufactured in the United States.  EPA is
considering whether risk management or other actions would be
appropriate for the one type of psychrometer that is still in use.  

Manometers

Manometers are used to measure air, gas, and liquid pressure.  While
these instruments come in a variety of shapes and sizes, the most common
mercury manometer design is a U-shaped tube.  One end is left open to
the atmosphere; the other is exposed or connected to the source being
measured.  If the pressure measured is higher than atmospheric pressure,
the liquid moves toward the open end of the tube.  If the pressure
measured is lower, it moves away from the open end.  The difference
between the levels of mercury provides a reading relative to atmospheric
pressure.  Historical manometer uses include vacuum pressure measurement
in natural gas pipelines, dairy cow milking systems (“dairy
manometers”), the automotive industry, and the heating, ventilation,
and air conditioning (HVAC) industry.  Depending on the application, the
amount of mercury in a manometer may range from 30 to 525 grams (IMERC,
2010b, VT Agricultural Agency, 2001; WI DNR, 2007). 

There are viable mercury-free alternatives for almost all uses of
manometers.  There are several mercury-free technologies in the dairy
industry (digital manometers, bourdon tube manometers, and aneroid
manometers), automobile industry (hydrostatic gauges) and the heating,
ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) industry (hydrostatic gauges and
bourdon tube manometers).

Potentially Affected Entities

Because the three mercury-containing products subject to the proposed
SNUR are believed to no longer be manufactured in or imported into the
United States, there are likely to be no entities affected by the
proposed SNUR.  The following summarizes the research undertaken as part
of this decision-making process.

Barometers

Princo Instruments, the sole barometer manufacturer reporting use of
mercury to IMERC in 2001 and 2004, phased-out manufacturing
mercury-added measuring products in January, 2007 (IMERC, 2010b). 
Internet queries did not identify any current manufacturer of
mercury-added barometers.  This research suggests that the manufacture
of mercury-containing barometers has been phased out. 

Hygrometers/Psychrometers

IMERC reports that the quantity of mercury sold in
hygrometers/psychrometers decreased from 0.0018 metric tons in 2001 to
0.0009 metric tons in 2007; however, the 2007 value actually equals zero
because IMERC categorizes “other measuring equipment” with
hygrometers/psychrometers, and both manufacturers who reported sales of
mercury-containing hygrometers/psychrometers to IMERC in either 2001 or
2004 (Princo Instruments, Inc. and Taylor Precision Products L.P.) have
reported that they have phased out the use of mercury (IMERC, 2010b).

Manometers

All manufacturers who had reported historical manufacture of
mercury-containing manometers to IMERC in either 2001 or 2004 have since
phased out use of mercury in their products (IMERC, 2010b).  Phone
conversations with five additional companies (Ashcroft Inc., Dwyer
Instruments, Dynisco Instruments, S J Electro Systems, Inc., and
McMaster-Carr) identified through 1) online queries for pressure
measurement devices, and 2) a search of Dun & Bradstreet database under
the relevant NAICS code indicated that none made or sold
mercury-containing manometers (Ashcroft Inc., 2010; Dwyer Instruments,
2010; Dynisco Instruments, 2010; S J Electro Systems, Inc.; and
McMaster-Carr, 2010).  As a result, EPA believes that manufacturing of
mercury-containing manometers have been phased-out. 

INDUSTRY COMPLIANCE COSTS

The proposed SNUR discussed in this report specifies that significant
new uses of mercury that require reporting under section 5(a)(2)(A) of
TSCA include the manufacture, import, or processing of elemental mercury
for use in: 1) barometers, 2) manometers, and 3)
hygrometers/psychrometers.  Not included in this proposed SNUR is
mercury use in portable, battery-powered, motor-aspirated psychrometers
containing less than 7 grams of elemental mercury because they are
currently manufactured.  Therefore, a firm intending to manufacture,
import, and/or process elemental mercury for the previously specified
products, must submit a SNUN.  Alternatively, a firm can decide not to
manufacture, import, and/or process the chemical for 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 any manufacture,
importing, and/or processing of this chemical or articles containing the
chemicals.  The firm must submit the SNUN to EPA at least 90 days before
it plans to commence the manufacture, import, and/or processing of the
substance; the SNUN provides EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the
intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity
before it occurs.  If EPA allows the manufacture, import, or processing
of mercury for use in the three products subject to the proposed SNUR,
then the costs associated with this option are the costs of submitting
the SNUN (including a user fee) plus, if there is any export of these
products, the export notification costs that result from TSCA Section
12(b) requirements that are automatically triggered for chemicals
regulated under TSCA Section 5 (see Section   REF _Ref261859758 \r \h 
\* MERGEFORMAT  3.2.5  for details).  Because the three products subject
to the proposed SNUR are not currently manufactured or imported into the
United States, EPA expects that no firms will choose this option. 

Option 2: Decide not to manufacture, import, and/or process the
chemical.  The firm may simply decide to not manufacture, import, or
process mercury for use in the three products subject to the proposed
SNUR.  While this option avoids the costs of submitting a SNUN, it
entails the “hidden” cost of the foregone profit as a result of not
engaging in the commercial activity originally planned.  Similarly, if
the firm would have used a given amount of mercury for use in the
production of one of the three products subject to the proposed SNUR, it
may substitute mercury with a more costly substance and will incur those
additional “hidden” costs of production.  However, these hidden
costs are expected to be minimal, if not zero, because the manufacture
of the mercury-containing products subject to the proposed SNUR has
phased out, and firms have begun to produce substitutes for the products
prior to the proposed SNUR.  If the firm elects to produce mercury for
use in the three products subject to the proposed SNUR 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 specified mercury-containing products, it will incur the export
notification costs (see Section   REF _Ref261859758 \r \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  3.2.5  for details).  

Since the products subject to the proposed SNUR are not currently
manufactured in the United States, EPA does not expect there to be
compliance cost associated for either of the options.  The remainder of
this chapter estimates the quantified portion of costs associated with
the proposed SNUR for these uses of the elemental mercury.  Section  
REF _Ref258931335 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  3.1  summarizes the wage rates
used in this chapter.  Section   REF _Ref260828774 \r \h  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   REF _Ref260828810 \r \h  3.3 . 

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
burdens by the wage rate for each labor category. This section presents
the estimated wage rate in each labor category.

Loaded wage rates for managerial, technical, and clerical personnel are
derived by combining data on wages and fringe benefits with estimates of
overhead rates, following the methodology described in “Wage Rates for
Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program” (EPA,
2002b).  Wage data for each labor category in December 2009 are provided
by the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) Supplemental
Tables available on the BLS website (BLS, 2010a).  The loaded wage rate
for managerial labor is $68.24; for technical labor, $59.49; and for
clerical labor, $28.31.    REF _Ref262041500 \h  Table 1  presents the
basic data used to calculate the loaded wage rates for all three
categories of labor.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  1 : Loaded Industry Wage Rates, December
2009

Labor Category	Data Sources	Wage

(2009$)	Fringe Benefit

(2009$)	Fringes as % wage	Over-head % wage2	Fringe + overhead factor
Loaded Wages1

(2009$)



(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	$42.36 	$18.68 	44.10%	17%	1.61	$68.24

Professional/

Technical	BLS ECEC, Private Manufacturing industries, “Professional
and related“3	$35.96 	$17.42 	48.44%	17%	1.65	$59.49

Clerical	BLS ECEC, Private Manufacturing industries, “Office and
Administrative Support” 3	$17.21 	$8.17 	47.47%	17%	1.64	$28.31

1 Wage data are rounded to the closest pennies in this table.

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

3 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables:
December 2009.  US Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 10, 201- (BLS,
2010a).



Unit Industry Compliance Costs

Rule Familiarization

The proposed rule requires submitters and their staff to become familiar
with the SNUR and its various requirements.  The per company burden
associated with rule familiarization is approximately 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, 2009b).  As shown in   REF _Ref261362730 \h 
Table 2  the total labor cost associated with rule familiarization by a
first-time reporter is $50.92.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  2 : Rule Familiarization Burden and Cost
for SNUR Submitters

Reporting Activity	Clerical Labor (at $28.31/hour)	Technical Labor (at
$59.49/hour)	Managerial Labor (at $68.24/hour)	Total Labor Cost



	Burden(hours)	Cost

(2009$)	Burden(hours)	Cost

(2009$)	Burden(hours)	Cost

(2009$)	Burden(hours)	Cost

(2009$)

Rule Familiarization	0.00	$0.00 	0.55	$32.72 	0.27	$18.20 	0.82	$50.92

Total	0.00	$0.00	0.55	$32.72	0.27	$18.20	0.82	$50.92

Source: BLS, 2010a (labor rates); EPA, 2009b (burden hours)



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

The proposed SNUR requires first-time submitters (that is, those
companies who have not submitted information to EPA through CDX before)
to register their company and key users with the CDX reporting tool,
deliver a CDX electronic signature to EPA, and establish and use a
Pay.gov E-payment account...  These activities are only required of
first-time submitters (companies already registered with CDX would not
need to re-register for the purposes of complying with the proposed
SNUR).  The burdens associated with these activities were estimated in
the Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic
Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009b) and are described in more detail
below:

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

CDX electronic signature: EPA estimates that companies will spend 0.25
hours preparing, submitting, and filing an electronic signature
agreement (Authentication of Identity) form to EPA per employee.  This
burden will apply to four technical staff members and one manager per
company, totaling to 1.25 hours of burden per company.  In addition, EPA
estimates that a manager will spend an additional 0.50 hours accessing,
preparing, and submitting verification forms (Verification of
Authorization) for all authorized submitters to EPA.  The total burden
incurred by companies submitting and then verifying electronic signature
agreements is 1.75 hours.  Note that this burden does not include any
additional time required to contact EPA’s CDX help desk to notify a
change of submitter status, should one occur. 

Filing the electronic signature agreement requires an additional mailing
cost of $2.30 per company (including five $0.44 stamps and five $0.02
business envelopes) (USPS, 2010).

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

As shown in   REF _Ref259086016 \h  Table 3 , the cost associated with
CDX registration, CDX electronic signature, and Pay.gov account setup is
$178.21, and this cost is only incurred by a first-time submitter.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  3 : CDX Registration, CDX Electronic
Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup Burden and Cost for First-Time
Submitters

Reporting Activity	Clerical Labor (at $28.31/hour)	Technical Labor (at
$59.49/hour)	Managerial Labor (at $68.24/hour)	Total Cost

	Burden(hours)	Cost

(2009$)	Burden(hours)	Cost

(2009$)	Burden(hours)	Cost

(2009$)	Burden(hours)	Cost

(2009$)

CDX Registration	0.00	$0.00 	0.73	$43.63 	0.18	$12.51 	0.92	$56.13

CDX Electronic Signature	0.00	$0.00 	1.00	$59.49 	0.75	$51.18 	1.75
$110.67

Mailing Cost

$2.30

E-Payment (Pay.gov ID)	0.00	$0.00 	0.00	$0.00 	0.13	$9.10 	0.13	$9.10

Total	0.00	$0.00	1.73	$103.12	1.07	$72.79	2.80	$178.21

Source: BLS, 2010a (labor rates); EPA, 2009b (burden hours); USPS, 2010
(mailing cost)



Form Completion and Submission Fee

Respondents are required to gather and submit information regarding the
data elements identified in the applicable SNUN reporting form.  The
methodology and calculations used in this analysis assume that the
employee responsible for collecting, filling out, and submitting the
requested information has a reasonable level of familiarity with the
company and knowledge of operations at the site.  It is assumed that for
most entities these tasks are similar to other employee duties that
require familiarity with EPA, State, and other Federal agency requests
for chemical information and do not require additional familiarization
or training beyond the basic rule familiarization described above.  In
addition, this analysis focuses on the 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 Premanufacture Notification
(PMN) submission, since the data requirements are the same and the same
form is used for both.  The PMN submission costs are based on EPA's 1994
Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section
5 Premanufacture Notifications and the updates to this estimates in 2009
(EPA, 2009b). The original 1994 estimates relied on industry estimates
of the effort needed to collect and compile all data required for a PMN
submission, prepare the form, submit the form and data to EPA, and
maintain a file of the submission (EPA, 1994, Table III-2 and pages
III-11, -12, and -13).  The 1994 estimates were based on a survey
conducted by the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA, 1991), which
became the American Chemistry Council.  These burdens “  SEQ CHAPTER
\h \r 1 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   SEQ
CHAPTER \h \r 1 business information, and maintaining a file of the
submission” (EPA, 1994. p. III 11-13).  The burden associated with
SNUN submission and preparation has been adjusted to reflect burden
reductions resulting from the 2009 final PMN Electronic Reporting (ePMN)
Rule that requires the electronic submission of all TSCA section 5
notices.  Electronic submission of SNUN forms is expected to remove all
clerical burden associated with preparing a SNUN (EPA, 2009b).

SNUN form completion and electronic submission is estimated to require
74.20 hours of technical labor and 18.00 hours of managerial labor (EPA,
2009b).    REF _Ref259093220 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 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 $5,643.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  4 : Industry Cost Estimate to Complete the
SNUN Form

Reporting Activity	Clerical Labor (at $28.31/hour)	Technical Labor (at
$59.49/hour)	Managerial Labor (at $68.24/hour)	Total Labor Cost

	Burden(hours)	Cost

(2009$)	Burden(hours)	Cost

(2009$)	Burden(hours)	Cost

(2009$)	Burden(hours)	Cost

(2009$)

Form Completion	0.00	$0.00	74.20	$4,414	18.00	$1,228	92.20	$5,643

Source: BLS, 2010a (labor rates); EPA, 2009b (burden hours)



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.    REF _Ref259093251 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table
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 $8,143 for
large business submitters and $5,743 for small business submitters.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  5 : Industry Cost Estimate to Complete and
Submit the SNUN Form

Reporting Population	Labor Cost	Submission Fee	Total Cost 

(2009$)

Large Business Submitters	$5,643	$2,500	$8,143

Small Business Submitters	$5,643	$100	$5,743

Source: EPA, 2009b.



Import Certification

In general, promulgation of a final SNUR triggers a TSCA Section 13
import certification requirement and the corresponding regulations at 19
CFR 12.118 to 12.127 and 19 CFR 127.28 for all imports of the relevant
chemical substances.  Thus, any U.S. manufacturer, importer, or
processor receiving an imported shipment of 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.
 The statement must be on or attached to a commercial invoice or entry
document belonging to the imported shipment.

In practice, import certification is fulfilled by checking a box on an
invoice or entry document and generally imposes no additional burden or
cost on the importer (EPA, 2009c).  Any potential burden associated with
a submitter’s familiarization with this requirement is assumed to be
included in the more general SNUR familiarization burden discussed
above.

Export Notification

Under Section 12(b) of TSCA, exporters must notify EPA if they export or
intend to export a chemical or an article subject to various TSCA
sections (40 CFR §707.60 through 75).  For TSCA 5(a)(2) (the section
under which EPA promulgates significant new use rules) and certain other
TSCA sections, this is a one-time notification requirement per
destination country for each exporter of a chemical substance.  After
receiving a notification from a firm, EPA notifies the importing country
and the United States State Department (40 CFR §707.70).  To calculate
the burden associated with making export notifications, EPA first
estimated the average annual number of export notifications made by an
exporter.  EPA then derived the annual and per notification burden
associated with preparing and submitting an export notification. 

EPA estimated the average burden associated with making a single
notification, but did not estimate the total number of exporters of
elemental mercury for the uses subject to the SNUR, or the number of
notifications per specified mercury-containing product.  It is also
important to note that the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 will forbid
export of elemental mercury from the United States beginning in 2013. 
Therefore, beyond 2013, there will be no export notification costs
related to export of elemental mercury for these uses; the only cost
would be if there is import of mercury-containing barometers, manometers
and/or hygrometers/psychrometers. 

Most underlying data in this section come from the 2009 TSCA Section
12(b) ICR, 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, 2009c), with updating for inflation. 

Exporter Costs

The 2009 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR (EPA, 2009c, page 11, Table 3),
estimated the annual export notification cost for an exporter under the
one-time export notification requirement.  These costs include the cost
to the exporter of compiling a list of their products that are subject
to TSCA Section 12(b) requirements, writing or revising an export
notification letter to EPA, checking the outgoing shipments, and sending
the notification letters with the associated shipping costs. 

The per-notification cost was calculated based on the assumption that
the average exporter makes 12 notifications per year.  Exporters making
more notifications per year may benefit from economies of scale and have
lower costs per notification; those making fewer notifications may have
higher costs per notification.

Estimated Submission (Mailing) Costs.  Regulated companies will incur
mailing costs for export notifications delivered to EPA.  Notifications
are assumed shipped via the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) as first-class
registered mail with a return receipt (USPS, 2010).  The estimated
per-shipment and annual mailing costs incurred by individual submitters
are detailed in   REF  _Ref259037295 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 6 .

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  6 : Derivation of Total Mailing Cost for 12
Notices

Dates that the rates were verified on United States Postal Service web
site:	April 2010 

Postal services costs	 

Registered mail, regular, with $0 declared value	$10.60

Return receipt, requested at time of mailing (receive by mail)	$2.30

Postage, regular First Class, up to 1 ounce	$0.44

Cost per export notice – Subtotal	$13.34

Source:  Mailing rates are from the US Postal Service web site as of
April 2010 (http://www.usps.com/prices/).  The mailing method comes from
the Economic Analysis of the Proposed Change to TSCA Section 12(b)
Export Notification Requirements, November 2005 (EPA, 2005), as
clarified in a later SNUR economic analysis (EPA, 2007a, Table 8). 



Compile and Maintain the List of Products.  Since TSCA §12(b)
information collection activity has been in place for twenty years, most
respondents will have already developed a list of their products subject
to TSCA §12(b) export notification.  Respondents need only check for
new 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, 2009c).  The total burden can vary from two hours per year up to
two hours per month, depending on the number of products exported by the
company and the number of their products subject to TSCA §12(b) (EPA,
2009c).

Write or Revise Export Notification.  Companies that export chemicals
subject to TSCA §12(b) reporting must prepare an export notification to
send to EPA when export shipments are made.  Time for initial
preparation of the export notice may vary depending on whether the
company has prior experience with this requirement.  This step is
estimated to take an average of one hour of technical time (which may
also include some proportion of legal time) per firm per year for 12
notifications per year, or 0.08 hours per notification (EPA, 2009c).

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

The burdens and associated costs for each notification activity are
provided in   REF _Ref260853106 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 7  below. 

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  7 : TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost per
Notification 

	Technical	Clerical	Total

 	$/Hr	Hours	2009$	$/Hr	Hours	2009$	2009$	Hours

Compile list	$59.49	0.78	$46.08	--	--	--	$46.08	0.78

Write letter	$59.49	0.08	$4.96	--	--	--	$4.96	0.08

Check order and send notice	--	--	--	$28.31	0.50	$14.17	$14.17	0.50

Mailing cost1



--	--	--	$13.34	-

Total per notification

0.86	$51.04

0.50	$14.15	$78.54	1.36

Notes: 

1 Mailing costs reflect April 2010 USPS rates and can be found in   REF
_Ref259037295 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 6 .

2Per notification costs are based on an average facility submitting
notifications, that is assumed to submit 12 export notifications per
year.

Source: ICR No.: 0795.13 [Information Collection Request for]
Notification of Chemical Exports - TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting
Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(EPA, 2009c, p.10), and are updated to 2009 dollars. 



Industry Costs of SNUR, by Option (per Submission)

The number of firms affected by not making submissions to EPA is not
known; therefore, costs are not aggregated across the affected entities.
   REF _Ref262031790 \h  Table 8  summarizes the costs to comply with
the proposed rule, as described in more detail in section   REF
_Ref260828774 \r \h  3.2  above.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  8 : Compliance Options and Associated Costs
Incurred by a Firm Due to the Proposed SNUR

Option1	Costs	Quantified Costs per Chemical (2008$)2

1.	Submit a SNUN.	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, 	$50.92 rule familiarization cost; $8,143 submission cost
(including SNUN recordkeeping and $2,500 fee).  EPA usually receives
well under ten SNUNs per year.  Based on review of recent SNUNs, it
appears that firms rarely conduct toxicity or fate testing to support a
SNUN (such testing would be voluntary).3  Export notifications costs are
estimated at $78.56 per notification; total cost per company will vary. 
First time submitters would incur $178 for CDX registration and
associated activities.

2.	Decide not to manufacture, import, or process the chemical.	Cost of
the profit foregone as a result of not engaging in the commercial
activity originally planned, and recordkeeping costs only if
manufacturing for research and development.	Costs not quantified.  Rule
familiarization and export notification costs may apply.

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 manufacturing,
importing, 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
  REF _Ref260828774 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  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 that no firms will incur
testing costs as a result of the proposed SNUR.



Likelihood of a SNUN Submission

EPA believes that the use of elemental mercury for manufacturing the
specified mercury-containing products has been phased out in the United
States (see section   REF _Ref262056816 \n \h  2.2 ). Therefore, very
few, if any, entities are expected to submit a SNUN. 

Potential for Subsequent Regulatory Action

EPA recognizes that if submission of a SNUN does result from the
proposed 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 before it occurs to prevent unreasonable risk of
injury to human health or the environment.  It is not known what
specific subsequent regulatory actions, if any, the Agency may determine
are necessary after reviewing a SNUN.  Any such actions are highly
dependent on the circumstances surrounding the individual SNUN (e.g.,
available information and scientific understanding of the chemical and
its risks at the time the SNUN is being reviewed). 

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



AGENCY COSTS 

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

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 2009 (OPM, 2009).  EPA assumes that, on
average, a federal GS-13, Step 5 full-time equivalent (FTE) will conduct
its collection and administrative activities under the proposed rule. 
The average salary for a GS-13 Step 5 employee was $98,518 in 2009
without fringe benefits and overhead costs.  In order to derive the
fully loaded salary, EPA multiplied the annual salary by an assumed
loading factor of 1.6 to reflect federal fringe benefits and overhead,
which results in a fully loaded annual salary of $157,629 (see   REF
_Ref260850701 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 9 ).  Dividing the fully loaded
annual salary by 2,080 hours (i.e., the number of hours in a work year)
yields an hourly FTE compensation wage rate of $75.78.

The Agency loading factor of 1.6 is from an EPA guide entitled
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 OPPT ICRs to reflect both fringe benefits and overhead
for federal staff.  For example, it was used in a document supporting
EPA ICR No. 1139.06 (EPA, 2000), with the following explanation:

The annual costs per FTE are derived by multiplying the annual pay rate
by 1.6 (the benefits multiplication factor).  The multiplication factor
used is recommended in EPA’s Office of Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation’s Instructions for Preparing Information Collection
Requests (ICRs) (June 1, 1992).  An EPA internal phone call between
Carol Rawie (OPPT/EETD/RIB) and Carl Koch (OPPE/RMD/IMB) on May 3, 1994,
indicated that the 1.6 factor included not only benefits but also
overhead.

Fully loaded costs for Agency labor are shown in   REF _Ref260850701 \h 
\* MERGEFORMAT  Table 9 .

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  9 : Derivation of Loaded Agency Wage Rates

Labor Category	Data Source for Wage Information	Date	Wage	Fringe Benefit
Fringes as % wage	Overhead as % wage	Fringe + overhead factor	Loaded
Wages



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

EPA staff FTE	Annual federal staff cost: OPM
Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-PA-VA-WV, area, GS-13 Step
1 pay rates a	Dec-09	$98,518 (annual)	--	[Included in 60% overhead]	60%
b	1.60	$157,629 (annual)



	$47.36 (hourly)



	$75.78 (hourly)

Notes:

a The Agency salary is the unloaded federal GS-13 Step 5 salary ($98,518
for 2009), from the OPM salary table for the
Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia Locality Pay Area (OPM, 2009). 
Hourly rates are based on annual salary divided by 2,080 hours.

b The 60% fringes-and-overhead rate is from an EPA guide, Instructions
for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (EPA, 1992, page
30, footnote 9).



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 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 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 contractor support and other
outside purchases for chemicals requiring the selected review step is
inflated from 1993 prices using the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
Employment Cost Index (ECI) data (BLS, 2010b).  The not seasonally
adjusted ECI for total compensation of private industry professional and
related workers (Series ID CIU2010000120000I) is used because it is the
only series with continuous data since 1985, and that includes
professional and technical labor, which perform the majority of Agency
extramural activities.    REF _Ref261868575 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 10
, below contains the derivation of inflation factors for Agency
extramural costs.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  10 : Derivation of Inflation Factors for
Agency Extramural Costs

Item	Inflation index source	Starting year	Index for starting year

(a)	Index for 2009

(b)	Inflation factor 

(b)/(a) 2

Agency Extramural costs White collar labor; equipment; supplies	BLS ECI,
Total comp, Private industry, Professional and related, 4th Q [BLS
2010d] 4	1993	67.0	111.4	1.663

Source: 

Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Employment Cost Index – Total
Compensation: Professional and Related Private Industry, Not Seasonally
Adjusted. (Series ID: CIU2010000120000I), extracted April 12, 2010 (BLS,
2010b).



The Percent of Cases column in   REF _Ref260850083 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT 
Table 11  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 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 is submitted with a SNUN than would be
submitted on average with a PMN.  Resources were not available to update
the review hours to reflect the current review process or to tailor the
cost estimates to SNUNs.  Therefore, for this analysis, the review steps
and weighting factors are assumed to be the same as those derived in
1994 for PMNs.

The Weighted Cost column is calculated by multiplying the un-weighted
Costs (EPA staff cost plus extramural costs) by the percentage of cases
requiring this review step.  Weighted costs are then multiplied by the
burden reduction of 16.5 percent to account for burden savings generated
electronic submission.  This calculation yields total Agency costs of
$4,934, per SNUN, for submission review and processing, as shown in  
REF _Ref260850083 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 11 .   REF _Ref201740831 \h 
\* MERGEFORMAT  Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  11 : Agency Costs for SNUN
and Other Submission Review and Processing

Review Steps	EPA staff (FTE) Cost	Extramural Cost 2	Unweighted Cost	Pct.
of Cases	Weighted Cost3	ePMN Burden Reduction4	Weighted Cost with ePMN
Burden Reduction

	FTE fraction	Cost per FTE 1	FTE Total ($2009)	1993 dollars	2009 dollars







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

Pre-notice consultation	0.0024	$157,629	$378	$4.00	$6.65	$385	41%	$158
0.165	$132

Administrative prescreen/ notice receipt/user fee	0.0024	$157,629	$378
$92.00	$152.97	$531 	100%	$531 	0.165	$444

CRSS (Chemical Review and Search Strategy)	0.0025	$157,629	$394	$268.00
$445.60	$840 	100%	$840 	0.165	$701

SAT (Structure Activity Team)	0.0006	$157,629	$95	$14.00	$23.28	$118 
100%	$118 	0.165	$98

Engineering/Exposure	0.0015	$157,629	$236	$56.00	$93.11	$330 	100%	$330 
0.165	$275

Exposure/Fate	0.0008	$157,629	$126	$0.00	$0.00	$126 	100%	$126 	0.165
$105

Focus	0.0009	$157,629	$142	$23.00	$38.24	$180 	100%	$180 	0.165	$150

Standard Review Functions	0.0219	$157,629	$3,452	$511.00	$849.63	$4,302 
29%	$1,247 	0.165	$1,042

Division Directors Meeting	0.0129	$157,629	$2,033	$113.00	$187.88	$2,221
	15%	$333 	0.165	$278

Order Development/Negotiation Review	0.0171	$157,629	$2,695	$22.00
$36.58	$2,732 	3%	$82 	0.165	$68

Post Order Data Review	0.0886	$157,629	$13,966	$0.00	$0.00	$13,966 	3%
$419 	0.165	$350

Order Modification	0.2167	$157,629	$34,158	$0.00	$0.00	$34,158 	3%
$1,025 	0.165	$856

New Chemical SNUR Development	0.0277	$157,629	$4,366	$85.00	$141.33
$4,508 	7%	$316 	0.165	$263

Notices of Commencement	0.0012	$157,629	$189	$40.00	$66.51	$256 	31%	$79
	0.165	$66

FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) Requests	0.0333	$157,629	$5,249
$287.00	$477.19	$5,726 	1%	$57 	0.165	$48

CBI (Confidential Business Information) Substantiation	0.0004	$157,629
$63	$3.00	$4.99	$68 	100%	$68 	0.165	$57

TOTAL	$5,909 	0.165 	$4,934 

Notes:

1 GS-13 Step 5 salaries loaded with benefits and overhead.  See   REF
_Ref260850701 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 9  for derivation.

2 Extramural costs consist of contracting support and other purchases
directly attributable to the PMN review process inflated from 1993
prices using {insert reference]. 

3 Weighted costs were calculated using unrounded unit cost estimates, so
results may differ from calculations using the rounded values shown in
this table. 

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

Sources: FTEs per review step, 1993 extramural costs, and percents of
cases are from EPA, 1994 Table VII-1, GS-13 salaries are from OPM, 2009.

Export Notification Cost 

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, 2009c).  In the second task, EPA staff
prepares separate notification letters that are subsequently reviewed
and delivered to importing countries, their embassies, or
representatives, and to the importing country’s US embassies (EPA,
2009c).  (See   REF _Ref259037295 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 6  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, 2009c).  Since the current
rulemaking covers only one chemical subject to TSCA 12(b) reporting for
a minimal number of uses, a very small percent of such activity will be
attributable to the current rulemaking. 

Because the manufacture of mercury-containing products subject to the
proposed SNUR is phased out, EPA does not expect to receive or send any
export notifications.  Nevertheless, should there be any notifications
as a result of the current rulemaking, the costs to the Agency are
presented per activity.  The burden for the first two Agency activities
is provided in   REF _Ref261364241 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 12  below. 
To estimate the Agency cost, hourly burdens are multiplied by the loaded
wage rate of a GS-13, Step 5, which is derived in   REF _Ref260850701 \h
 \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 9 . 

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  12 : TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost:
Agency Burden per Activity (2009$)

Agency Activity	Hours per Activity	FTE per Activity1	Loaded	Mailing Cost
Total Agency Cost per Activity



	GS-13, Step 5 FTE Wage Rate



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

Process an incoming notification from an exporting company	0.10	0.000048
$157,629	$0.00	$7.58

Prepare and mail a notification to an importing country	0.50	0.000240
$157,629	$13.34	$51.23

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:   REF _Ref260850701 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 9  of this report
derives Agency labor costs.  Mailing costs are from   REF _Ref259037295
\h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 6  of this report.  Other burdens 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 2009c), updated
for inflation.





ADDITIONAL ANALYSES

This section presents additional analysis of other potential impacts of
this rulemaking, as required under various statutes and executive
orders.

Small Entity Impacts

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
substantial number of small entities.  The rationale supporting this
conclusion is as follows.  A SNUR 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."  By definition of the word "new,"
and based on all information currently available to EPA, it appears that
no small or large entities presently engage in such activity.  Since
this proposed SNUR would require a person who intends to engage in such
activity in the future to first notify EPA by submitting a SNUN, no
economic impact will occur unless someone files a SNUN to pursue a
significant new use in the future or forgoes profits by avoiding or
delaying the significant new use.  Although some small entities may
decide to conduct such activities in the future, EPA cannot presently
determine how many, if any, there may be.  However, EPA's experience to
date is that, in response to the promulgation of over 1,000 SNURs, the
Agency receives on average only 5 notices per year.  Of those SNUNs
submitted, only one appears to be from a small entity in response to any
SNUR.  Therefore, EPA believes that the potential economic impact of
complying with a SNUR is not expected to be significant or adversely
impact a substantial number of small entities.  In a SNUR that published
as a final rule on August 8, 1997 (62 FR 42690)(FRL-5735-4), the Agency
presented its general determination that proposed and final SNURs are
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, which was provided to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Unfunded Mandates

Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State,
local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these
rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reason to believe that any State,
local, or Tribal government would be impacted by this rulemaking.  As
such, EPA has determined that this regulatory action would not impose
any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have
any effect on small governments subject to the requirements of sections
202, 203, 204, or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
(2 U.S.C. 1531-1538).

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

The information collection requirements related to this action have
already been approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control
number 2070-0038 (EPA ICR No. 1188).  This action does not impose any
burden requiring additional OMB approval.  If an entity were to submit a
SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average 97 hours
per response.  This burden estimate includes the time needed to review
instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data
needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN. 

 

Technical Standards

Because this action does not involve any technical standards; section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), does
not apply to this action.

Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
has determined that this action is a "significant regulatory action,"
because it may raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.  Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to OMB for
review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in response to
OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action
as required by section 6(a)(3)(E) of the Executive Order.    

Environmental Justice 

This action does not entail special considerations of environmental
justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitled
Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations
and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

Protection of Children

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health
or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation.  This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not
establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or
safety risks. 

Federalism 

This action will not have federalism implications because it is not
expected to have a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

Tribal Governments 

This action will not have tribal implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).  This action is not
expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes, will not
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal
governments, and does not involve or impose any requirements that affect
Indian Tribes.  Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action. 

 

Effect on Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in
Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001), because this action is not likely to have a significant
adverse affect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

REFERENCES 

15 U.S.C. 272, National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, Section 12(d).

19 CFR 12, Customs Duties: Special Classes of Merchandise, Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 12, Title 19, August 1, 1983.

40 CFR 707, Chemical Imports and Exports, Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 707, Title 40, July 1, 2003.

40 CFR 720, Premanufacture Notification, Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 720, Title 40, July 1, 2003.

40 CFR 721, Significant New Use of Chemical Substances, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 721, Title 40, July 1, 2003.

59 FR 7629, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations, Federal Register, Volume 59,
February 16, 1994.

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

62 FR 19885, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks, Federal Register, Volume 62, April 23, 1997.

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

66 FR 28355, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, Federal Register, Volume 66, May
22, 2001.

71 FR 66234, Export Notification; Change to Reporting Requirements,
Final Rule, Federal Register, Volume 71, November 14, 2006. Available in
docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0058 at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
 http://www.regulations.gov .	

Ashcroft Inc. 2010. Phone conversation between Jacob Grindal (Abt
Associates) and Customer Service Representative (Ashcroft Inc.). June
23, 2010.

Belfort, 2010. Phone conversation between Jacob Grindal (Abt Associates)
and Customer Service Representative (Belfort Instrument Company). April
27, 2010.

BLS, 2010a. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables December 2009”. (March 10,
2010) at    http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsuptc13.pdf. (Note: The BLS
report title and content is updated

periodically to include more recent data, on the same website.) 

BLS, 2010b. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Cost Index – Total
Compensation: Professional and  Related Private Industry, Not Seasonally
Adjusted. (Series ID: CIU2010000120000I), extracted April 12, 2010.

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

Columbia Encyclopedia. 2010. “Barometer.” Available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.answers.com/topic/barometer" 
http://www.answers.com/topic/barometer 

DEPA, 2006. Danish Environmental Protection Agency “Alternatives to
Mercury-Containing Measuring Devices.” 2006 Available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www2.mst.dk/common/Udgivramme/Frame.asp?http://www2.mst.dk/udgiv
/publications/2006/87-7052-133-6/html/helepubl_eng.htm" 
http://www2.mst.dk/common/Udgivramme/Frame.asp?http://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/
publications/2006/87-7052-133-6/html/helepubl_eng.htm 

Dwyer Instruments. 2010. Phone conversation between Tulika Narayan (Abt
Associates) and two Technical Representatives. May 24, 2010.

Dynisco Instruments. 2010. Phone conversation between Jacob Grindal (Abt
Associates) and Brady Davison (Regional Manager, Dynisco Instruments).
June 23, 2010.

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

EPA, 1994. US EPA, Office of Toxic Substances, Regulatory Impacts
Branch. Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA
Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications. Washington, DC: U.S.
EPA/OPPT/EETD/RIB, September 9, 1994. (OTS/RIB later became OPPTS/EPAB.)

EPA, 2000. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, ICR No.
1139.06. [Information Collection Request for] TSCA Existing Chemical
Test Rules, Consent Orders, Test Rule Exemptions, and Voluntary Test
Data Submissions: Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under
the Paperwork 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 Toxics, Economic
and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant
New Use Rules for 65 Chemical Substances. Washington, DC, 2003.
Available in docket EPA-HQ-OPPTS-2002-0078 at
http://www.regulations.gov.

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

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

EPA, 2007b. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, ICR No.
0574.14. [Information Collection Request for] Pre-Manufacture Review
Reporting and Exemption Requirements for New Chemical Substances and
Significant New Use Reporting Requirements for Chemical Substances:
Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under The Paperwork
Reduction Act, December 6, 2007.

EPA 2009a. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs) Action Plan. December 30, 2009 at
  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/pbdes_ap_2009_1230_final
.pdf" 
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/pbdes_ap_2009_1230_final.
pdf . 

EPA, 2009b. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of the
Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule.
(EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0296). July 13, 2009.

EPA, 2009c. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. ICR
No.: 0795.13 [Information Collection Request for] Notification of
Chemical Exports - TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request
for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act. March 6, 2009 at  
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  http://www.regulations.gov .

EPA, 2010 [expected].  U.S. EPA, U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch.  Economic
Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 25 Chemical
Substances. (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0922).  Not yet published.

Environment Canada, 2004. “Mercury and the Environment: Sources of
Mercury: Mercury-containing Products.” Available at:
http://www.ec.gc.ca/MERCURY/SM/EN/sm-mcp.cfm#HD.

IMERC, 2007. Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse.
“Mercury Use in School Classrooms: Summary and Assessment of
Non-Mercury Alternatives.” 2007 Available at:
http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/schools/MercuryAlternativesRepo
rt.pdf

IMERC, 2008a Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse 
“Trends in Mercury Use in Products: Summary of the Interstate Mercury
Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC) Mercury-Added Products
Database.” 2008. Available at:
http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc/pubs/reports.cfm

IMERC, 2010a Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse
(IMERC). 2010a. “Mercury Legacy Products: Commercial Products:
Measuring Devices.” Available at:
http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/projects/legacy/measdev.cfm.

IMERC, 2010b Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse
(IMERC). . “IMERC Fact Sheet: Mercury Use in Measuring Devices.”
2010. Available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc/factsheets/measuring_dev
ices.cfm" 
http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc/factsheets/measuring_devi
ces.cfm .

Maine DEP, 2003. Maine Department of Environmental Protection. “An
Investigation of Alternatives to Mercury-Containing Products.” Lowell
Center for Sustainable Production. Prepared by Galligan, Catherine;
Morose, Gregory; and Jim Giordani. 2003. Available at:
http://www.sustainableproduction.org/downloads/An%20Investigation%20Hg.p
df.

McMaster-Carr. Phone conversation between Jacob Grindal (Abt Associates)
and Customer Service Representative (S J Electro Systems, Inc.). June
23, 2010.

OPM, 2009. Office of Personnel Management, Salary Table 2009-DCB,
Washington BaltimoreNorthern Virginia, DC-MD-PA-VA-WV. Accessed from
http://www.opm.gov/oca/09tables/pdf/DCB.pdf. 

Rawie, Carol. 2009. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
Personal communication with Tulika Narayan and Kimberly Wilson of Abt
Associates via e-mail. February 5, 2009.

S J Electro Systems, Inc. Phone conversation between Jacob Grindal (Abt
Associates) and Customer Service Representative (S J Electro Systems,
Inc.). June 23, 2010.

U.S. SBA. 2010. Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North
American Industry Classification System Codes. Available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_t
ablepdf.pdf" 
http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_ta
blepdf.pdf 

USPS, 2010. U.S. Postal Service Mailing and postage rates.
<http://www.usps.com/prices>. (Accessed 23 April 2010).

Vermont Agriculture Agency.  2001. Mercury Manometer Replacement Program
Update.  Available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.vermontagriculture.com/2001report.htm" 
http://www.vermontagriculture.com/2001report.htm .

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WI DNR).  2007.  Mercury
Reduction Program: Dairy Farms.  Available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cea/mercury/program.htm" 
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cea/mercury/program.htm .

 Psychrometers are the most common type of hygrometer; while they
function similarly, they have historically been used in different
applications and so have different naming conventions. See Section   REF
_Ref266888683 \r \h  2  for more details.

 Because EPA cannot regulate articles containing a chemical under TSCA
Section 5, the SNUR applies to elemental mercury used in these products.
EPA will not be notified if there is import of mercury-containing
barometers, hygrometers, or manometers.

 These devices may still be in use, resold in the aftermarket, or stored
in homes and businesses.  

 Portable, battery-powered, motor-aspirated psychrometers containing
less than 7 grams of elemental mercury continue to be manufactured in
the United States, and are not subject to the proposed SNUR.

 However, it is possible that these three may still be in use, resold as
used or antique, or stored in homes or businesses.  

 IMERC requires that all companies planning to sell mercury-containing
products under the jurisdiction of its member states (California,
Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont,
and Washington) submit a notification to the clearinghouse every three
years.  However, because IMERC does not cover all states, its totals may
not represent the entire universe. The only exception to this finding is
mercury-containing psychrometers for which we found one manufacturer
(Belfort, 2010).

 Electronic instruments connected are now commonly used to take
barometric readings (Columbia Encyclopedia 2010).

 Since water is lighter than mercury, it moves a greater distance in
response to a given pressure change. As a result, the water barometers
are large, bulky, and thus, seldom used (Maine DEP, 2003). Eco-celli
barometers use a non-toxic silicon-based fluid in conjunction with a
gas, and leverage the compressibility of gas in relation to gravity.
Since changes in temperature can cause the liquid to expand, a
thermometer is attached so that the necessary adjustments can be made to
the scale (IMERC, 2007).

 A phone conversation with a customer service representative at the
Belfort Instrument Company on April 27, 2010 confirmed the manufacture
of at least one model of mercury-containing psychrometer (Belfort,
2010). 

 Based on information that use of mercury in natural gas manometers has
ceased, on September 11, 2009 EPA has proposed a TSCA §5(a)(2)
significant new use rule (SNUR), requiring persons to notify EPA 90 days
prior to manufacture, import, or processing of elemental mercury for
natural gas manometers, except when the articles are in service as of
the effective date of the final rule (EPA, 2009a).

 Natural gas manometers may contain several kilograms of mercury
(Schleifstein, 2007).

 Barometers may still be found in secondary markets; in fact, some state
bans provide exemptions for antique barometers.  

 A phone conversation with a customer service representative at the
Belfort Instrument Company on April 27, 2010 confirmed the manufacture
of at least one model of mercury-containing psychrometers, therefore
these were excluded from the SNUR (Belfort, 2010).  

 Scientific Glass & Instruments, which reported the sale of
mercury-containing manometers to IMERC in 2001 and 2004, reported to
IMERC that they only produce the glass component and do not fill the
manometer with mercury.

 NAICS 334512: Automatic Environmental Control Manufacturing for
Residential, Commercial, and Appliance Use.

 A phone conversation with a customer service representative at the
Belfort Instrument Company on April 27, 2010 confirmed the manufacture
of at least one model of mercury-containing psychrometer (Belfort,
2010). 

 Although the proposed rule does not specifically 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.

 The exact statements are as follows: 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)

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

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

 These products may still be in use, resold in the aftermarket, or
stored in homes and businesses, but these activities are not subject to
the SNUR.  

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

 PAGE   

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

Mercury Legacy Products			          	Page   PAGE  iv  of   NUMPAGES  32 
        		          Economic and Policy Analysis Branch

Economic Analysis of Expedited SNURs, Docket OPPT-2008-251	F-  PAGE  2 
July 2, 2008

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

Mercury Legacy Products 	  PAGE  1                  	Economic and Policy
Analysis Branch

Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three                                     
             PAGE  17 	                                 U.S. EPA Office
of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products		          Economic and Policy Analysis Branch

Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three			  PAGE  18 		   U.S. EPA Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products							         Economic and Policy Analysis
Branch

Economic Analysis of SNUR	  PAGE  D-1 	U.S. EPA Economic and Policy
Analysis Branch

For Non-Exempt Use of 14 Glymes 

Economic Analysis of the Proposed Significant New Use Rule for
Mercury-Containing Barometers, Manometers, Hygrometers, and
Psychrometers 

(EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0630)

November 8, 2010

—Does not contain TSCA CBI—

Prepared by:

Economic and Policy Analysis Branch

Economics, Exposure and Technology Division

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20460

