
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
Understanding the Costs Associated with Eliminating Exemptions for Articles in SNURs
                                       
                                       
                                       
                               October 30, 2013
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
   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

                                    Notice
This document was prepared to provide economic information for the rulemaking process.  Due to the nature of the information available to EPA, the document contains various assumptions that may not reflect the regulatory determinations that an individual firm or organization would make were it to apply the rule's requirements to its specific circumstances.  This is not an official guidance document and should not be relied upon to determine applicable regulatory requirements. Mention of the names of specific companies, organizations, entities, goods, or services does not constitute an endorsement by EPA.
                               Table of Contents
1	Introduction	1
1.1	Importers	1
1.2	Processors	2
2	Regulatory Background	2
2.1	Selected Foreign Regulations	2
2.1.1	REACH - European Union	2
2.1.2	REACH-like Regulations in Other Countries	3
2.1.3	RoHS - European Union	4
2.1.4	RoHS-like Regulations in Other Countries	4
2.2	Selected Relevant U.S. Regulations (Federal and State)	5
2.2.1	CPSIA	5
2.2.2	California - Proposition 65	5
2.2.3	Washington - Children's Safe Product Act	5
2.2.4	Maine - An Act to Protect Children's Health and the Environment from Toxic Chemicals in Toys and Children's Products	6
2.2.5	Possible Future State Regulations	6
3	Regulated Entities	6
4	Identifying Substances Subject to a SNUR in Articles	7
4.1	Typical Components of Process (Importers)	8
4.2	Compliance Assurance for Article Processors	10
4.3	Example Data Collection Tools and Methods	10
4.3.1	American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) Restricted Substances List	10
4.3.2	Joint Industry Guide (JIG)	11
4.3.3	Global Data Synchronization Network (GDSN)	11
4.3.4	International Material Data System (IMDS)	12
4.3.5	BomCheck - Substances Declarations Database	12
4.3.6	Bluesign[(R)] Technologies AG	12
4.3.7	Green Seal	12
4.4	Other Resources	13
4.4.1	Trade Association Guidance: The Apparel and Footwear International RSL Management (AFIRM) Working Group Supplier RSL Toolkit	13
4.4.2	Consulting Firm: Intertek	13
4.4.3	Joint Article Management Promotion Consortium (JAMP)	14
5	Costs (Importers)	14
5.1	Characteristics of Importers Affecting Cost	15
5.1.1	Level of Baseline Compliance with Other Chemical Restriction Requirements	15
5.1.2	Supply Chain Complexity	16
5.1.3	Size of Company	16
5.2	Unit Burden and Cost	16
5.2.1	Understand applicable requirements (rule familiarization)	17
5.2.2	Identify the type of imported articles that potentially contain the chemical substances subject to a SNUR.	17
5.2.3	Identify all suppliers involved	18
5.2.4	Collect data from suppliers	19
5.2.5	Chemical testing	21
5.2.6	Recordkeeping	22
5.3	Costs for Importer Company Scenarios	22
5.4	Summary	25
6	Costs (Processors)	26
7	Limitations of Analysis	26
8	References	28

                               Table of Figures
Table 1: Factors Affecting the Ease of Obtaining Information on Substances	15
Table 2: Loaded Industry Wage Rates, December 2012	17
Table 3. Costs associated with a large, complex-supply chain importer that is subject to other chemical restriction regulations	22
Table 4. Costs associated with a large, complex-supply chain importer that is not subject to other chemical restriction regulations	23
Table 5. Costs associated with a small, simple-supply chain importer that is subject to other chemical restriction regulations	23
Table 6. Costs associated with a small, simple-supply chain importer that is not subject to other chemical restriction regulations	24
Table 7. Range of costs associated with an importer's identification of chemicals subject to SNURs in articles	26


Contributors
Analytical and draft preparation support was provided by Abt Associates Inc. under EPA Contract No. EP-W-08-010.

Introduction
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), there are a variety of methods available to the U.S. EPA to gather information and limit the use of toxic chemicals. One such method is the promulgation of Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) at 40 CFR part 721. A SNUR requires that manufacturers (including importers) and processors of the subject substances notify EPA at least 90 days before beginning any activity that EPA has designated as a "significant new use." In general, the use designations are potential new uses that could result in new or increased exposures to, or releases of, the substance. The notification required by SNURs, known as a Significant New Use Notification (SNUN), allows EPA the opportunity to review and, if necessary, prevent or limit potentially adverse exposure to, or effects from, the new use of the substance. 
In most cases, SNURs have applied to the manufacture or processing of chemical substances but have, under 40 CFR § 721.45(f), exempted importers and processors of articles containing the chemical substance. Although TSCA does not specifically define "article," the Act does refer specifically to articles in several provisions and provides EPA the authority to regulate chemical substances contained in articles. "Article" is defined in several regulations promulgated under TSCA's authority, including 40 CFR §§ 704.3, 710.3(d), and 720.3(c). Given the increasing evidence that toxic substances are released from articles during use and at the end of their useful life (Massey et al., 2008), a number of recent proposed SNURs, such as those for benzidine-based chemicals, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), and perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) and other final SNURs related to mercury and erionite fiber, have included provisions to eliminate the exemption for persons that import or process the chemical substances as part of articles.
With the exemption at 40 CFR § 721.45(f) made inapplicable, SNUN submission requirements are also triggered for persons that import or process the chemical substance as part of an article. The term "article" is defined by EPA in the context of requirements under TSCA for the reporting of new chemical substances by manufacturers at 40 CFR § 720. 3(c): "Article means a manufactured item (1) which is formed to a specific shape or design during manufacture, (2) which has end use function(s) dependent in whole or in part upon its shape or design during end use, and (3) which has either no change of chemical composition during its end use or only those changes of composition which have no commercial purpose separate from that of the article and that may occur as described in § 720.36(g)(5), except that fluids and particles are not considered articles regardless of shape or design." (SNURs are codified at 40 CFR part 721, which does not include its own specific definition for "article.") Articles can range from simple single-component products, such as fabric, to highly complex multi-component products such as an automobile. 
The costs of submitting a SNUN is addressed in the economic analyses for the individual rules, and EPA does not believe these costs will vary between manufacturers  or processors of these chemical substances, as part of articles or otherwise.  Importers of articles retain broad latitude to determine what, if any, inquiry is necessary to determine whether their future imports may contain a subject chemical substance. This paper explores some of the compliance assurance measures these entities may employ. The responsibilities of processors of articles under SNUR requirements are also discussed in this paper, along with the likely compliance assurance measures that correspond with their limited level of liability.
Importers
Under TSCA, the definition of "manufacture" means to "import..., produce or manufacture." Importers have varying levels of knowledge about the chemical content of the articles they import, yet based on this definition, they are responsible parties under the regulation. In order to understand and monitor their liability, companies might undertake a range of activities to ensure that the articles they import do not violate existing regulations. This paper identifies some of the resources and tools that are available to importers in developing and implementing their procedure to identify any chemicals subject to SNURs in their imported articles. The paper further describes the range of activities that businesses are likely to undertake based on various characteristics including their experience with similar requirements for chemicals regulated under other authorities, the complexity of their supply chain, and the size of the company. Potential cost ranges are then estimated for importing companies based on these characteristics, to the extent possible. 
Processors
The term "process" is defined by TSCA § 3(10) as, "the preparation of a chemical substance or mixture, after its manufacture, for distribution in commerce -- (A) in the same form or physical state as, or in a different form or physical state from, that in which it was received by the person so preparing such substance or mixture, or (B) as part of an article containing the chemical substance or mixture." There are a number of ways in which a company may become a processor of a chemical substance as part of an article. For example, a processor of a chemical substance in an article might be someone who receives an article and assembles it into another product for a specific use. SNUR reporting requirements for persons who intend to manufacture or process a subject chemical substance are described in § 40 CFR 721.5; however, the reporting requirements for processors do not apply in some circumstances. As described in § 40 CFR 721.5(c), a processor is not required to submit a SNUN if he can document that (1) he does not know the specific chemical identity of the chemical substance being processed; and (2) that he is processing the chemical substance without knowledge that the substance is subject to a SNUR. This paper focuses on the standard business practices that EPA believes a processor would already undertake that may document what is known about the chemicals being processed as part of articles.
Regulatory Background
Selected Foreign Regulations 
A number of nations worldwide place restrictions on the manufacture and use of hazardous chemicals. This section highlights a selection of key regulations imposed by other nations that require the identification of hazardous chemicals. To the extent that importers and processors of articles who are subject to SNURs are already subject to any of these regulations, for example because of business they conduct in other countries, they may have already instituted policies and procedures that would mitigate the cost of evaluating whether regulated chemicals are a part of articles they manage. 
REACH - European Union
The European Union's (EU) legislation addressing the safe use of chemicals, Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, known as Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), came into effect in 2007. It applies to all chemicals imported or produced in the EU. Manufacturers and importers are required to collect information on the properties of their chemicals and to submit the information to a central database administered by the European Chemical Agency (ECHA) in Helsinki, Finland (European Commission Directorate-General for the Environment (EC DG Environment), 2012a).
Under REACH, an article is "an object which during production is given a special shape, surface or design which determines its function to a greater degree than its chemical composition" (ECHA, 2011a). Article producers, importers, and suppliers are subject to various registration, notification, and communication requirements. Generally, article producers and importers must register any substances intended to be released from articles if the amount present in an article totals more than one tonne per year and the substance is not already registered for that use. Article producers and importers must also provide notification about any "substances of very high concern" in articles if the amount present in an article totals more than one tonne per year and when the concentration of the substance in the article is more than 0.1 percent. Article suppliers are subject to communication of information requirements for all articles containing substances of very high concern, if the concentration of the substance in the article is more than 0.1 percent, regardless of the total amount (ECHA, 2011b).
REACH-like Regulations in Other Countries
A number of other nations have adopted legislation similar to or based on the European Union's REACH. For example, China's regulation, Provisions on the Environmental Administration of New Chemical Substances in China came into effect in 2010 and applies mainly to chemicals and mixtures of chemicals. It places obligations on manufacturers of substances in China and importers of substances into China. It includes requirements for new chemicals that are released from articles during normal use, consistent with EU REACH's requirement that intentionally released chemicals (in quantities greater than one tonne) must be registered (Electronics Weekly Blogs, 2010). 
Additional nations continue to develop and implement regulations. For example, South Korea's proposed Act on Registration and Evaluation of Chemicals ("K-REACH") has been submitted to its National Assembly and is expected to come into force in 2015. Under the Act, the manufacturers or importers of new chemicals and priority evaluation chemicals must submit registration prior to manufacture and import (He, 2012). 
Other countries are also requiring stricter oversight of their imports. New Zealand's law associated with the management of hazardous substances is the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO Act). Under the HSNO Act, no hazardous substances can be imported or manufactured except in accordance with the Act or with an approval issued by the NZ Environmental Protection Authority (NZ EPA) under the Act. The Act applies to items falling under its definition for `substance,' and delegates the authority to NZ EPA to develop regulations under the Act to define what is considered a "hazardous substance." The initial responsibility for determining what substances are classified as hazardous substances under the HSNO Act rests with the importer or manufacturer of the substance. When a company applies to the NZ EPA to import or manufacture a hazardous substance, a classification of each hazardous property of the substance is determined. These hazard classifications trigger a set of regulatory controls developed for the level of hazard. The HSNO generally does not apply to articles, except those with explosive properties: manufactured articles with explosive properties (such as flares or detonators) are considered substances under the HSNO Act. Manufactured articles, even if they contain or incorporate hazardous substances with properties other than explosiveness, are not considered to be substances (NZ EPA, 2012). NZ EPA provides guidance to assist in determining whether an item is a manufactured article. An article must meet all of these criteria: (1) the item was deliberately formed to a specific shape or design during manufacture, (2) the item has an end use function wholly or partly dependent on its shape or design, (3) the item undergoes no change of chemical composition during end use, except as an intrinsic part of that end use, and (4) the item is not a particle or fluid (NZ EPA, 2011). Although articles (other than explosives) would not be subject to the HSNO Act's Controls for hazardous substances, articles containing a hazardous substance can be regulated under "group standards" set according to Part 6A of the HSNO Act. A group standard provides requirements for a set of hazardous substances that have a similar nature, are of a similar type, or have similar circumstances of use, so that the risks of the grouped hazardous substances can be effectively managed by one set of conditions (NZ Parliamentary Counsel Office, 2012). 
Malaysia's Environmentally Hazardous Substances Notification and Registration Scheme includes a notification requirement for hazardous substances manufactured in or imported to Malaysia (Malaysia Department of Environment, Hazardous Substances Division, 2012a). The requirements apply to manufacturers and importers of environmentally hazardous substances (EHS) and importers of chemical mixtures or finished products (e.g., articles) that contain EHS as their constituents (Malaysia Department of Environment, Hazardous Substances Division, 2012b).
Norway's proposed Prohibition on Certain Hazardous Substances in Consumer Products (PoHS) would ban four hazardous substances (lead, pentachlorophenol (PCP), perfluorooctyl acid (PFOA), and medium-chained chlorinated paraffins (MCCP)) in nearly all consumer products above certain concentration limits (Bureau Veritas Group, 2012). It applies to both imported products as well as products produced in Norway (Norwegian Pollution Control Authority, 2010). The ban was scheduled to take effect in 2012. 
RoHS - European Union
The European Union's legislation Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS) took effect in 2006 and limits the use of certain hazardous substances in specific types of articles: electrical and electronic equipment (EC DG Environment, 2012b). RoHS restricts the use of the following six substances: lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), cadmium (Cd), hexavalent chromium (Cr[6+]), polybrominated biphenyls (PBB), and polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) in several categories of electrical and electronic equipment including household appliances, information technology (IT), and consumer equipment. RoHS allows a maximum concentration of 0.1 percent by weight in homogenous materials for lead, mercury, hexavalent chromium, PBB, and PDBE and 0.01 percent by weight in homogenous materials for cadmium. "Homogeneous material" means a material that cannot be mechanically disjointed into different materials.
In 2011, a revised version of RoHS (RoHS2) took effect which provides for a gradual extension of the requirements to all electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) (European Parliament, 2011). European member countries were required to adopt RoHS2 by transposing the regulation into their national laws by January 2, 2013 (EC DG Environment, 2012c). 
RoHS places specific requirements on importers. Under RoHS2, importers may sell only compliant EEE on the European Union market. Before placing EEE on the market, an importer must ensure that the appropriate conformity assessment procedure has been carried out by the manufacturer, and ensure that the manufacturer has drawn up the technical documentation, that the EEE bears the required marking and is accompanied by the required documents (European Parliament, 2011).
RoHS-like Regulations in Other Countries
Several nations have adopted regulations similar to or based on the EU's RoHS. For example, the People's Republic of China enacted the Administrative Measure on the Control of Pollution Caused by Electronic Information Products, or "China RoHS," as it is commonly called, in 2006. China's regulation focuses on the same six substances as the EU RoHS and requirements are similar. However, China's regulation applies to all "electronic information products" which are listed on the Ministry of Information Industry of the People's Republic of China (MII) website (IPC, 2009). An unofficial English translation of this list was produced by American Electronics Association (2006). 
South Korea's Act for Recycling of Electrical and Electronic Equipment and Automobiles, known as "Korea RoHS," came into effect in 2008. Korea RoHS applies to the following EEE: televisions, refrigerators, mobile telephone terminals (including batteries and chargers), washers (limited to those for household use only), personal computers (including monitors and keyboards), audio equipment, air-conditioners, printers (including ink cartridges and toner cartridges), copiers (including ink cartridges and toner cartridges), fax machines (including ink cartridges and toner cartridges); and the following types of vehicles: passenger cars, vans, and trucks less than 3.5 tons. It applies to the same six substances as the EU RoHS, with the same concentration limits in homogeneous materials, but the PBB and PBDE restrictions do not apply to vehicles (ERA Technology Ltd., 2008). 
Japan's Law for Promotion of Effective Utilization of Resources incorporates the Japanese Industrial Standard JIS C 0950, titled The Marking for Presence of the Specific Chemical Substances for Electrical and Electronic Equipment (MOSS). The law applies to the manufacturers and importers of the following products: personal computers, unit-type air conditioners, television sets, refrigerators, washing machines, clothes dryers, microwaves. It applies to the same six substances as the EU RoHS, and requires that the products listed above be marked to indicate the presence of the substances (Japan Electronics and Information Technology Industries, 2008). 

Selected Relevant U.S. Regulations (Federal and State) 
U.S. importing and processing companies may already be familiar with the process of determining whether they are importing or processing  particular restricted chemical substances as part of articles, if they are subject to U.S. regulations such as the following. 
CPSIA
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) of 2008 authorized regulations and testing requirements for children's products and some non-children's products. The Act limits the amount of lead allowed in surface coatings or paint on any consumer product designed or intended primarily for children 12 years of age or younger to 90 ppm and reduces the amount of total lead content in children's products to 100 ppm, unless not technically feasible. The Act also makes it unlawful for any person to manufacture for sale, distribute in commerce, or import any children's toy or childcare article that contains the phthalates di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), or benzylbutylphthalate (BBP) at levels higher than 0.1 percent (U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), 2008a). An interim ban has also been placed on the phthalates diisononyl phthalate (DINP), diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP), and di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP) at levels higher than 0.1 percent in toys that can be placed in a child's mouth and in child care articles (U.S. CPSC, 2008b). More information on total lead content in children's products under CPSIA can be found on the U.S CPSC's Total Lead Content website (U.S. CPSC, 2008c). More information on phthalates regulation under CPSIA can also be found on the U.S. CPSC's Phthalates website (U.S. CPSC, 2008b).
California - Proposition 65
California's Proposition 65 (Prop 65) restricts the use of listed toxic chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm in products sold and used in California. California Prop 65, known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, was enacted in California in 1986. The Act affects all products sold or distributed in California, including textiles, hard goods, toys, juvenile products, and electrical/electronic items. Prop 65 requires businesses to provide residents with notifications of significant amounts of chemicals in their products, in their homes or workplaces, or that are released into the environment. By providing this information, Prop 65 enables residents to make informed decisions about protecting themselves from exposure to these chemicals. This Act requires that anyone in the course of doing business who exposes an individual to a chemical "known to the State" to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity must first give a "clear and reasonable" warning. Currently, over 881 chemicals are listed by the State of California as known carcinogens or reproductive toxins (California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 2010). The current Prop 65 list of chemicals is located at http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/newlist.html (California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 2013).
Washington - Children's Safe Product Act
Under the Children's Safe Product Act, the State of Washington makes manufacturers of children's products responsible for reporting the presence of chemicals of high concern to children. The first part of the Act limited the amount of lead, cadmium and phthalates allowed in children's products sold in Washington after July 1, 2009. These standards were substantially preempted when the U.S. Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) in July, 2008. The second part of the law mandates two state departments in Washington to develop a list of toxic chemicals that have either been found in children's products or have been documented to be present in human tissue (blood, breast milk, etc.). This list is known as the "Reporting List of Chemicals of High Concern to Children" and can be found on the Washington State Department of Ecology's website (n.d.-a). Manufacturers must report on the content of these listed chemicals in their children's products. The Act broadly defines "manufacturer" to include the producer, importer, and domestic distributor of the product. It establishes a hierarchy for determining which entities meet the statutory definition of "manufacturer" that the department will hold primarily responsible for ensuring that reporting requirements are satisfied with respect to any children's product (Washington State Department of Ecology, n.d.-b). 
Maine - An Act to Protect Children's Health and the Environment from Toxic Chemicals in Toys and Children's Products
Maine's Act to Protect Children's Heath and the Environment from Toxic Chemicals in Toys and Children's Products, as enacted in 2008, calls for the identification of chemicals of high concern as "priority chemicals" based on exposure of a child or fetus. Manufacturers or distributors of children's products for sale in Maine must provide notification of any product containing a priority chemical (Maine Legislature, 2008). A list of chemicals found on Maine's List of Chemicals of High Concern is available online (Maine Department of Environmental Protection, 2012). Implementation of the rule is intended to be done in collaboration with Washington State's Department of Ecology, consistent with their Children's Safe Product Act program (Maine Department of Environmental Protection, 2011).
Possible Future State Regulations
According to an analysis by Safer States (a national coalition of state-based environmental health organizations), during 2013 several states introduced bills to reduce exposure to harmful chemicals (Safer States, 2013). As of June 2013, at least 28 states are considering policies to address concerns over toxic chemicals in consumer products. The bills cover a broad range of topics, including bans in consumer products and disclosure requirements. Some categories of chemicals being considered are:
   1) Toxic Flame Retardants: At least 15 state legislatures are considering policies to phase out the use of toxic flame retardants, including Tris (1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (chlorinated Tris) in consumer products such as children's products, home furniture, and building insulation. Chlorinated Tris is found in products made of foam and is considered a carcinogen under California's Proposition 65 (California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 2013). States that are considering restrictions on flame retardants include California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, Nevada, North Carolina, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.
   2) Bisphenol A: At least 16 states are considering policy to restrict or label the use of the endocrine-disrupting chemical Bisphenol A (BPA) in items such as baby food jars, infant formula and other, food/beverage packaging, children's products, and plastic containers. States that have introduced such bills include Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia.
   3) Chemicals Harmful to Children: At least 10 states, including Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, and Vermont, will consider additional bills to identify chemicals of concern for children's health and/or require makers of consumer products to disclose their use of the chemicals. Many of these bills include provisions to encourage manufacturers to identify and use safer alternatives in their products. 
Links to the bills introduced in each state can be found on Safer States' website (Safer States, 2013).
Regulated Entities
Without the exemption at 40 CFR 721.45(f)  applicability to importers and processors of the subject chemical substances as part of articles to the SNUN provisions is expanded. Once such a SNUR becomes effective, importers and processors of articles may take steps to ensure that they do not import or process the regulated chemicals as part of an article in a manner that would constitute a new use as described by the SNUR. Given the scope of the term "article" (under 40 CFR part 720, an item formed to a specific shape or design during manufacture, which has end use function(s) dependent in whole or in part upon its shape or design during end use), the applicability of SNURs potentially increases significantly. A report prepared for the European Commission/ Directorate-General Enterprise on costs of regulating chemicals as part of articles under REACH estimates that there are between 500,000 and 5 million imported article types that are subject to REACH, falling under approximately 5,300 product categories (Risk and Policy Analysts Limited (RPA), 2003).
An estimation of the specific number of product sectors is challenging, because applicability of each SNUR to a type of industry would depend on the specific chemicals covered by the SNUR, and their known uses.
The Nordic Council of Ministers 2010 report REACH Trigger for Information on Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) provides an understanding of the types of product groups known to be of concern regarding content of toxic chemicals (which can provide some insight into product types that may be the subject of a SNUR). In order to present a broad picture of the realities in different product sectors, case studies were selected by the report authors. The selection was performed by identifying product groups containing articles meeting the following criteria: 
   * Known presence of SVHC in the article 
   * Variety and complexity of the articles 
   * Relevant share of production within EU and of import into the EU-market 
   * Different possible exposure pathways from the SVHC contained (human health, environment) 
The initial case study pre-selection led to the following product groups: 
    Cars and parts of cars, e.g. seats, tires
    Electronics 
    Computers 
    White goods 
    Furniture 
    Home trainer [home exercise equipment]  
    Roofing felt 
    Shoes 
    Textiles 
    Tools 
    Toys 
    Windows 
Additionally, the United Nations Environment Programme's (UNEP's) A Synthesis of Findings Under the UNEP/IOMC Project on Information on Chemicals in Products identified product sectors of "highest priority" for focus related to stakeholder information needs on chemicals in products (UNEP/DTIE Chemicals Branch, 2011). Product sectors of highest priority were: 1) children's products/toys, 2) electronics, 3) clothing, and 4) construction materials.
The applicability of a SNUR to importers or processors within a particular industry is dependent on the specific chemical substance(s) covered by the SNUR, and can include a wide variety of sectors with a large number of entities. For any SNUR without the article exemption, the subject article importers or processors of chemicals in articles could fall into one or many industry sectors; a number of diverse article importers or processors could potentially be affected. To develop a robust estimate of the number of entities given readily available information would not likely be possible given the uncertainties involved. 
Identifying Substances Subject to a SNUR in Articles 
Under a SNUR with no exemption for persons that import or process the chemical substance(s) as part of articles, importers may determine whether the articles they import are likely to contain the regulated chemical substance, and if so, comply with the notification requirements of the SNUR (notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the import of any articles containing chemicals subject to the rule). Processors may be unlikely to undertake additional activities specifically to identify subject chemical substances in the articles they process given the standard applied to processors in §721.5(c), described in Section 1.2. Rather, processors would demonstrate compliance through their existing documentation, as described in Section 4.2. To the extent that processors desire extra certainty that the articles they process are not subject to a SNUR, they may undertake the steps in the process outlined below for importers.  
RPA (2003) identified general methods for obtaining information on substances in articles: literature review; written questionnaires/telephone contact; and chemical analysis. Thus, making the determination of whether an article contains a substance subject to a SNUR may involve using existing information about the product and/or chemicals; gathering information from suppliers; and/or testing samples of the article itself. The industry consensus standard ASTM F2577 Standard Guide for Assessment of Materials and Products for Declarable Substances provides some guidance in developing a process for the determination.
Given the existing regulatory limitations on certain chemicals both internationally and within the United States (as described in Section 2), regulated industries have begun to develop industry-wide processes and other resources to support such a determination. Massey et al. (2008) describe information systems that have been developed on a voluntary basis. These systems for managing the chemicals in their supply chain fall into four categories: 
   1) Restricted and preferred substance lists: Suppliers sign agreements certifying that specified products do not contain restricted substances. (e.g., American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) Restricted Substances List)
   2) Surveys/questionnaires: Importers require suppliers to complete forms providing information on chemicals contained in components (e.g., Joint Industry Guide for Material Composition Declaration for Electronics Products (JIG)); 
   3) Databases: Importers direct suppliers to report the use of specific (or all) chemicals used in their products to a database (e.g., Global Data Synchronization Network (GDSN), International Material Data System (IMDS), BOMcheck); 
   4) Third-party certifications/labeling (e.g, Bluesign[(R)] standard, Green Seal).
Based on the ASTM industry standard, and the strategies listed above, Section 4.1 provides a generalized list of the activities that a company may take to identify a substance subject to a SNUR in articles. Section 4.3 describes in more detail some of the available tools and methods for companies to collect data from their suppliers. Section 4.4 provides examples of organizations that are further providing services or guidance to assist importers in managing the chemicals in their supply chain.
Typical Components of Process (Importers)
The elimination of the exemption at 40 CFR 721.45(f) for importers and processors of chemicals as part of articles would require notification to EPA before the importation of articles containing the regulated chemical substance(s) for a significant new use. Because the rule would not prescribe the steps that an importer must take to identify a chemical subject to a SNUR in articles, there are a variety of specific actions that a company could take to identify specific substances in its articles. EPA expects that in all likelihood, importers would take actions that are commensurate with the level of risk each company perceives, and the resources it has available.
ASTM's Standard Guide for Assessment of Materials and Products for Declarable Substances ("ASTM F2577") provides guidance for the decision process to assess materials and products for declarable substances. ASTM International, formerly known as the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), is recognized worldwide for the development of international voluntary consensus standards. Developed in response to regulations restricting materials used in finished goods, such as REACH and RoHS, ASTM F2577 seeks to provide a consistent method to comply with these and other similar regulations (ASTM International, 2012). 
ASTM F2577 provides a general description of the process of assessing materials and/or products for the content of declarable (or restricted) substances. It relies on two means for this assessment: both a priori and a posteriori knowledge. Therefore, determinations can be made based on information gleaned through logical deduction and scientific principles (a priori knowledge), as well as on observation, experience and known facts (a posteriori knowledge) including laboratory tests to verify or generate information on the concentration of a chemical substance.
The following list of activities that an importer might perform to identify specific chemicals in imported articles was developed based in part on ASTM F2577 and on example processes described in industry guidance, such as AFIRM (2011). This list is intended to capture the general types of activities performed. Whether or not an individual importing company undertakes each specific listed activity, and the extent to which each is performed, likely depends on a number of factors that are outlined in Section 5.
   1) Understand applicable requirements. The importer would read and understand the SNUR, within the context of the company's products. As noted in ASTM F2577-06, "The first step in any assessment is to determine what is covered by requirements, or the scope of the requirements." Frequency: this would be a one-time activity for the importing company.
   2) Identify the types of imported articles that potentially contain the chemical(s) subject to a SNUR. A list of the kinds of articles that the company imports that have the potential to contain the chemical(s) subject to a SNUR can be developed based on an understanding of the uses of the subject substance; broad use categories for SNUR-regulated chemicals are often known, e.g., used in textile dyes, laundry detergents, consumer electronics, etc. Imported articles that fall into highly regulated categories, such as building products, furniture glues, textiles, etc., are candidates for particular scrutiny. ASTM F2577-06 says to "apply a priori knowledge [based upon scientific principles and logical deduction] of the material and its manufacture to assess the probability whether each [regulated] substance may be present." The level of effort called for here may depend on the complexity of the imported article itself; an airplane, for example, has many components to consider.
      Frequency: an initial review of the company's imports would be a one-time activity; however, a company may do a similar review on each potential new product imported to determine whether it likely contains restricted chemical substances. 
   3) Identify all suppliers involved. Importers may identify the suppliers from whom the articles identified in the previous step are imported, and as necessary, make them aware of the SNUR on the regulated chemical.
Frequency: an initial identification of suppliers would be a one-time activity; however, an importer may assess each new supplier. 
   4) Collect data from suppliers. Importers may obtain verification from suppliers that the regulated chemical substance is or is not found in the article. This may be accomplished through any of the strategies described in the introduction to Section 4 above  -  for example, agreements with suppliers, declarations through databases or surveys, or by using a third-party certification system. 
Frequency: initial data collection from suppliers would be a one-time activity, and any additional data collection a company undertakes as new products are considered for import and suppliers change would add to the cost. A company may also make periodic confirmations with suppliers reporting any changes in the article's content or manufacturing process. 
   5) Chemical testing. Importers may assess imported articles for chemical content. This could involve requiring suppliers to provide certificates of analysis/laboratory reports for a lot or batch of the material produced. Importers could perform their own laboratory testing of articles (or components of articles) to determine if they contain a substance subject to a SNUR. This could be done, as suggested in ASTM F2577-06, as "good practice to periodically confirm material data." Testing may also be done where there is no other information available.
Frequency: as needed. The amount of testing performed would depend on the number of articles and suppliers, and would vary as new products are considered for import and suppliers change.
   6) Recordkeeping. It is expected that the importer may keep records confirming the activities completed. This activity is recommended by ASTM F2577-06, in the following statement, "Document the assessment process for each material or product. Documentation in the form of data and illustration of the assessment process is necessary to back up statements of compliance for materials and products." Frequency: as necessary.
Compliance Assurance for Article Processors
There are a number of ways in which a company can be a processor of chemical substances in an article. A company that assembles a product out of various supplied parts (articles) could be a processor of the chemical components of those parts. For example, a processor could be a company making blankets out of fabric, or a company manufacturing furniture out of treated wood. Under § 40 CFR 721.5(a)(2), manufacturers or processors of subject chemical substances who distribute the substance in commerce must notify the recipient, in writing, of the applicability of SNUR requirements, or document that the recipient has such knowledge or will not undertake any significant new use described in the rule. Therefore, as the recipient of any subject chemical substance, the processor of a subject chemical as part of an article should receive written notification from the supplier, and would presumably keep this documentation as part of their standard business practice along with other documentation such as Material Safety Data Sheets, shipping or labeling documents, etc. that may provide information on the chemicals in the articles they process. Review of this documentation and flagging any chemicals subject to a SNUR or any other requirement are believed to be standard business practice. If a processor desires still greater certainty that it is in compliance with a SNUR (above and beyond being able to document, after-the-fact, that any processing of the subject substance was without knowledge), it may undertake further steps similar to those outlined in Section 4.1 (i.e., screen the articles it processes as an importer would screen the articles it imports). EPA expects that in all likelihood, the extent that any of these activities would be performed would be commensurate with the level of risk the processor perceives, and the resources it has available.
Example Data Collection Tools and Methods 
There is currently no single, widely accepted standard procedure to identify regulated chemicals in supply chains (Swedish Monitoring Board, 2002; RPA, 2003; Massey et al., 2008). However, there are a number of organizations that help provide information on the content of articles, organize declarations from suppliers, or certify suppliers based on materials or processes used. Furthermore, there are continued efforts by organizations, such as the Internation Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) (through its Global Product Strategy), to encourage improved product stewardship with downstream customers in the chemical industry (Internation Council of Chemical Associations, 2013). Importers (or processors) subject to SNURs may refer to these sources for assistance in their own strategy to identify a chemical subject to a SNUR in articles. Some examples are described below. The list is not all inclusive and resources are continually being developed.
American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) Restricted Substances List
The American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) Restricted Substances List (RSL) "is intended to provide apparel and footwear companies with information related to regulations and laws that restrict or ban certain chemicals and substances in finished home textile, apparel, and footwear products around the world." (AAFA, 2013). The RSL is a tool for the apparel and footwear industry that lists materials, chemicals, and substances that are restricted or banned in finished home textile, apparel, and footwear products because of a regulation or law; that is, it is specific to requirements for finished products, not substances used during the manufacturing process. It does not include California Proposition 65 requirements for labeling. The list is reviewed and updated every six months (AAFA, 2012a). The most recent version was published in March, 2013 (AAFA, 2013). According to Massey et al. (2008), firms are using this list to develop internal materials tracking programs to ensure that specific substances (e.g., those that are regulated, restricted, or of interest due to corporate policies) are accounted for. These companies require that suppliers sign agreements certifying that specified products do not contain substances that are of interest to the company. In addition, some agreements specify that if testing identifies a restricted material, the supplier must cover all associated costs.
The AAFA RSL is intended to be used by industry in conjunction with the Apparel and Footwear International RSL Management (AFIRM) Group's Supplier RSL Toolkit industry guidance that is focused on the elimination of restricted substances from finished products. (See section 4.4.1 of this report for more information on the AFIRM toolkit.) Additionally, AAFA has developed a List of Non-Regulated Substances Contained in AFIRM RSL Guidance (AAFA, 2012b). This list was based on the work done by the AFIRM group and includes chemicals that are neither regulated nor proven to be dangerous, but may be of note to the industry.
Joint Industry Guide (JIG)
The Japan Green Procurement Survey Standardization Initiative (JGPSSI) has been working on standardizing survey instruments for the electric and electronics sector in Japan. Such standardized survey instruments are used by companies in collecting information about the composition of chemical substances in their products. In conjunction with the Electronics Industry Alliance (EIA) and the European Information and Communication Technology Industry Association (EICTA), JGPSSI has developed the Joint Industry Guide (JIG) for Material Composition Declaration for Electronic Products. The JIG is a standardized survey used to communicate the composition of chemicals in electronic products between suppliers and customers. The survey is initiated by the customer ("requester") with the supplier ("respondent") asked to indicate where specific chemicals have been used in the components they supply. Since the survey form is standardized, the process of filling out the requisite information is simplified as suppliers and customers are not surprised by the request. The survey is a one to two page instrument and the chemical management system includes about 340 specific chemicals arranged into 24 groups (Japan Green Procurement Survey Standardization Initiative, 2006).
Global Data Synchronization Network (GDSN)
The Global Data Synchronization Network (GDSN) is a customizable data management platform that enables companies to share information about their products with their trading partners. For example, Wal-Mart has created a new data management system contained within the GDSN that tracks materials present in chemical-intensive products (such as cleaning and personal care products). Wal-Mart's system allows suppliers to submit detailed information about chemical ingredients to a third party, which in turn keeps this information confidential. Suppliers may direct the third party to grant Wal-Mart access to selected information stored in the system. 
While this system was initially designed to document the ingredients of chemical-intensive products, it may be adapted to manage information on the contents of any article. The system can also store information that may be relevant for future regulations, sustainability, or purchasing initiatives. Other potential advantages of the GDSN include safer shipping, handling, storage, and disposal; increased consistency and accuracy of data; improved regulatory compliance; and cost reductions and efficiency improvements (Massey et al., 2008). Many retailers and grocery chains currently use GDSN; services do not seem limited to particular industry sectors. Membership fees are based on a company's revenue, and are detailed in Section 5.2.4. 
International Material Data System (IMDS)
The European Union's End-of-Life Vehicle (ELV) Directive is intended to increase recycling of materials used in vehicles and to reduce pollution associated with vehicle dismantling. This directive, as well as other factors, has made it important for auto manufacturers to track the chemicals present in the products they receive from their suppliers. To this end, they have built an online system to facilitate information exchange with suppliers. The International Material Data System (IMDS) is an online database that suppliers use to provide information on substances in the parts they sell to auto manufacturers. Suppliers register for this database and enter information on substances present in their products. In 2006, the IMDS listed more than 8,000 substances. The IMDS also contains a default list of 111 substances that are likely to be present in a vehicle at the point of sale and must be declared (Massey et al., 2008). 
This system could serve as a useful model for data management in other industries. However, an auto industry representative noted that data management technology has improved since the IMDS was designed, and a newer tool could offer enhanced efficiency and functionality (Massey et al., 2008).
BomCheck - Substances Declarations Database 
BOMcheck provides a resource for importers and product manufacturers to gather substance declarations from their suppliers. The process is initiated by a product manufacturer or importer directing their suppliers to register the use of either specific chemicals or all chemicals in the production of hardware articles and electrical and electronic equipment. If the supplier also uses other ("secondary") suppliers for providing components for the manufacture of components needed for the original manufacturer, they may direct these secondary suppliers to also register the use of these chemicals. In order to register chemicals used in the supply chain, suppliers need to be registered with BOMcheck. A Regulatory Compliance Declaration (RCD) is provided by BOMcheck after a supplier has registered their use of chemicals. The tool for the RCD includes expert regulatory guidance on all substances which are restricted or declarable for hardware products by regulations in North America, Europe and Asia Pacific (ENVIRON, 2013a). 
Bluesign[(R)] Technologies AG 
Bluesign Technologies AG is a private firm that works with suppliers within the fabrics supply chain to assure manufacturers and retailers that fabrics have been produced taking environmental protection and health and safety of workers and customers into account. Bluesign Technologies AG achieves this by providing tools to assist suppliers to exclude substances which are potentially hazardous to human health or the environment from processes at the outset through an intelligent Input Stream Management system. It is an independent standard that can be applied to the entire production chain and that delivers certainty at all levels, from raw material to final product, from chemical supplier to consumer (Bluesign Technologies AG, 2011). 
Based on assessments by Bluesign Technologies AG, components, production processes and technology used in the fabrics supply chain may fall in 3 color-coded rankings: Blue for those that have been checked according to five Bluesign Technologies AG standard principles  -  these may be used for all applications under the Bluesign standard; gray for those that may be used under one or more pre-conditions following the principles of the best available technology; and black for those not to be used in fabrics. The textile product is certified only if the raw materials and technologies used meet the criteria of the Bluesign standard in a concluding assessment at the respective production plant (Bluesign Technologies AG, 2011).
Green Seal
Green Seal is a non-profit organization that develops "life cycle-based sustainability standards for products, services and companies and offer third-party certification for those that meet the criteria in the standard" (Green Seal, 2012a). A product that has achieved Green Seal(TM) Certification has met rigorous, science-based leadership standards. For example, the Green Seal Certification Checklist for soaps, cleansers, and shower products lists prohibited components including the following: 2-butoxyethanol; alkylphenol ethoxylates; butylated hydroxytoluene; ethoxylated chemicals; ethylene diaminetetra-acetic acid or any of its salts; formaldehyde donors; heavy metals including lead, hexavalent chromium, or selenium both in the elemental form or compounds; halogenated organic solvents; methyldibromo glutaronitrile; monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, and triethanolamine alone or in compounds; nitro-musks; parabens; phthalates; and polycyclic musks (Green Seal, 2012b).
If a SNUR-regulated chemical substance is prohibited in Green Seal's certification process, then an importing company may use a Green Seal(TM) Certification to help determine that an article does not contain the chemical. 
Other Resources
There are a number of organizations, worldwide, that work to provide their stakeholders with guidelines and procedures to assist in identifying restricted chemicals. This section provides a brief description of examples of these types of organizations. Mention of resources is solely for illustrative purposes; it does not represent a recommendation or endorsement of the particular organization. 
Trade Association Guidance: The Apparel and Footwear International RSL Management (AFIRM) Working Group Supplier RSL Toolkit
The Apparel and Footwear International RSL Management (AFIRM) Working Group has developed a toolkit (AFIRM, 2011) for suppliers that is meant to help reduce the use of harmful substances in the apparel and footwear supply chain. The toolkit provides information and guidelines that enable AFIRM companies to create a Restricted Substances List (RSL). An RSL is a list of chemicals and other materials that suppliers and other members of their supply chains ban from use during the manufacturing product or from finished products entirely. AFIRM suppliers are responsible for educating their vendors on their RSL requirements.
The AFIRM Supplier Toolkit (2011) sets forth guidelines, information, and suggestions for suppliers to implement their own RSL programs. These implementation steps, as outlined in the toolkit, include:
   1) Internal Communication: Develop and publish a company policy and design an implementation plan.
   2) Communicate to Facilities/Suppliers: Inform members of the company's supply chain of RSL requirements and provide them with basic chemical and legislation information.
   3) Testing and Reporting Results: Identify and communicate the company's needs to the testing laboratories that ensure that verify RSL compliance.
   4) Continuous Improvement Best Practices: Track changes in legislation relevant to restricted substances in apparel manufacturing and adopt new, more stringent requirements.
Consulting Firm: Intertek
Given the rise of regulations restricting the use and distribution of harmful chemical substances both internationally and within the U.S., various consulting firms now specialize in providing services to support companies in greening their supply chains. One such firm, Intertek, helps to ensure that their clients' products maintain compliance throughout the entire supply chain by providing "comprehensive assessment, product testing, validation, product certification, and consulting services to assist companies [in] successfully achiev[ing] green supply chain management" (Intertek, n.d.). Specifically targeting compliance with EU RoHS, China RoHS, REACH, and California Proposition 65, the basic steps that they take, as outlined on their website, include:
   1) Identification of applicable requirements
   2) Compliance Assurance Process implementation and certification 
   3) Employee and vendor communication and training 
   4) Supplier data collection 
   5) Gap Analysis and Risk Assessment
   6) Product re-engineering (if required)
   7) Product screening and testing based upon GAP/Risk Assessment
   8) Green claims verification/certification, product labeling, and marketing launch
Their Compliance Assurance System specifically involves an assessment of risk in the supply chain, training to perform risk-based product assessments, definition of high risk materials and/or components, a test plan for products, and how to take samples from actual products for testing. 
Joint Article Management Promotion Consortium (JAMP) 
JAMP is a cross-industry consortium that seeks to promote the "establishment and dissemination of effective and workable mechanisms to facilitate disclosure/transfer of information on chemicals contained in products across the supply chain." The consortium was initially developed for companies in Japan, and over time they have extended their reach to other countries in eastern Asia. In response to REACH and similar regulations, JAMP recognizes that there is a need for information sharing between the upstream and downstream companies throughout a supply chain, and that an individual company or a single industry association may not be able to efficiently handle this issue on its own.  JAMP is working on the following activities:
   * Creation, verification, and dissemination of management guidelines for information on chemicals contained in preparations and articles
   * Providing tools and operating rules to disclose the information on chemical substances. This includes the creation of the Article Information Sheet (AIS) and "AIS Creation Guidelines"  -  a standard document that contains characteristics of articles, similar to an MSDS
   * Developing the information infrastructure to share and convey article information, based on self-declaration, and disseminating this system domestically and overseas (see: Joint Article Management Promotion-consortium, 2011).
JAMP membership is open to companies or groups who have interest in chemicals contained in products.  Members are able to participate in and provide feedback on the activities described above. Annual membership fees range from about $215 to $2,000.
Costs (Importers)
Obtaining an accurate estimate of the cost of the elimination of the exemption in SNURs for imported articles is complicated by the range of activities a company may employ to determine whether their imported articles contain chemical substances subject to a SNUR. As noted above, there are a number of methods by which a company may collect data from suppliers. RPA (2003) described factors that made obtaining data on substances in articles from suppliers easier or more difficult:
Table 1: Factors Affecting the Ease of Obtaining Information on Substances
Factors Making Data-Gathering Easier
Factors Making Data-Gathering Harder
The organization requesting information is a major/ important customer of the supplier
The requesting organization is not a key customer

The requesting organization has close or longstanding links with the supplier
The requesting organization switches suppliers frequently (e.g. in fashion items)
The supplier is a large, multinational company
The supplier is a small company
The supply chain is short and simple
The supply chain is long and/or complex
Products and processes remain unchanged for long periods
Product and process development is rapid, with frequent changes in substances used
There is no secrecy about product composition
The substance content of products is commercially valuable information and/or secret for other reasons
Source: Swedish Monitoring Board (2002) as cited in RPA (2003).
For the purposes of this analysis, we assume that information is available once a method of collecting it has been arranged (i.e., there is no secrecy issue or unwillingness to share). It is also assumed that companies would only reach out to their immediate suppliers of articles at first; should that supplier not have information on the chemical content, a company may move higher into the supply chain to gain the information. Therefore, the complexity of the supply chain would be a relevant factor in the cost incurred. 
Variation on the method of data collection (and therefore cost) depends on a company's level of baseline activity, the complexity of the supply chains, and the size of the company. Section 5.1 describes these characteristics. Section 5.2 explains how the burden and cost is estimated, according to importer characteristics, for each of the components of the chemical identification process that was described in Section 4.1. Section 5.3 presents costs for various importer company characteristic scenarios. Last, Section 5.4 summarizes the cost findings.
This analysis acknowledges that there may be opportunity costs associated with a firm's decision to simply not import an article in order to avoid issue of determining whether the article contains the SNUR chemical. In addition, a firm may simply decide not to import a chemical known to be part of an article that is designated as a significant new use. While this decision would avoid any costs of making this determination, as discussed below, it may entail "hidden" costs of the foregone profit of not engaging in the commercial activity originally planned. These impacts are acknowledged; however, they are not quantified, since doing so requires data on firm behavior that are not available. 
Characteristics of Importers Affecting Cost
Level of Baseline Compliance with Other Chemical Restriction Requirements
Section 2 of this report described existing international and U.S. regulations that restrict the use of chemicals in articles. As a result of these regulations, we expect some article importers to already have a process in place to communicate with suppliers of products and manage the chemical content of their articles. In particular, importers in certain business sectors or geographic locations would be more likely to be affected by these existing regulations.
For the purpose of this analysis, we assume article importers fall into two main groups: 
   * Otherwise-regulated: Article importers to U.S. states that restrict the use or otherwise regulate substances in articles (e.g., California's Proposition 65), of products that are regulated at the U.S. federal level (e.g., children's toys and cribs), or that import into or deal with suppliers from countries that restrict or otherwise regulate the use of substances in articles (e.g., countries subject to REACH, RoHS, etc.) would already be in compliance with these regulations and thus, already incur the associated costs. Importers in certain sectors, like electronics, automotive, or textiles, would be expected to fall into this category because their products are highly regulated by international regulations and traded worldwide.
   * Not otherwise-regulated: Articles importers in this category do not have any experience with (or current costs associated with) regulations or restrictions on chemicals in articles or dealing with suppliers operating under article regulations. 
"Otherwise-regulated" importers are expected to have some processes in place for managing some chemicals in their supply chain. With a SNUR that eliminates the article exemption, these importers are likely to modify their processes to include managing the chemical in question. For each new SNUR promulgated, this would involve additional actions specific to each chemical and associated articles subject to the SNUR, and to the associated suppliers; marginal increases in costs are expected.
"Not otherwise-regulated" importers, on the other hand, would likely put a new process in place for managing the chemical subject to a SNUR in their supply chain. Note that once an inexperienced importer is affected by a SNUR, and puts in place a system to manage the chemicals in their supply chain, they would be considered otherwise-regulated importers under subsequent SNURs that also affect them.
Supply Chain Complexity
Costs for the elimination of the articles exemption could also vary depending on the complexity of a company's supply chains. The complexity of an importer's supply chain may depend on the nature of products they import (industry/sector).  
For the purpose of this analysis, we assume article importers fall into two main groups: 
   * Simple: An importer with a simple supply chain imports a small number of articles or product lines, each involving a small number of components (within a single article) or  products/suppliers (within a product line). 
   * Complex: An importer can be considered complex if it fits under any of these categories: imports a small number of simple articles, but each with a large number of suppliers (e.g., importers of toys or apparel); imports a large number of different articles (e.g., retailers like Wal-Mart and REI); or imports a few complex items with multiple components (e.g., importers of airplanes or automobiles). 
As a result of the smaller number of products and companies involved, it is likely easier for importers with simple supply chains to identify their suppliers and work with them to identify chemicals in the articles they import. Importers with complex supply chains may have to identify all suppliers of their product, contact all of them and work with them to identify these chemicals. It is expected that this task can take significantly more effort than for an importer with a simple supply chain.
Size of Company  
Regardless of the number of articles it imports, the method of information collection may be chosen depending on the size of the company (e.g., number of employees) or the resources at its disposal (e.g., annual revenue). Larger companies may be better equipped to set up infrastructure related to chemical data management, such as developing their own databases or questionnaire methodology.
Unit Burden and Cost
This section presents estimates of the range of unit costs for each of the components of the process outlined in Section 4.1, based on importer characteristics.
Various categories of employees of the importer company will be involved in conducting the elements of the process. Consistent with EPA SNUR economic analyses, we define three labor categories: clerical, technical, and managerial. Table 2 shows the wage rates for each of these labor categories.
Table 2: Loaded Industry Wage Rates, December 2012
                                Labor Category
                                 Data Sources
                                     Date
                                     Wage
                                    (2012$)
                                Fringe Benefit
                                    (2012$)
                               Fringes as % wage
                              Over-head % wage[2]
                           Fringe + overhead factor
                                Loaded Wages[1]
                                    (2012$)


                                       
                                      (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-12
                                    $43.95 
                                    $21.45 
                                    48.81%
                                      17%
                                     1.66
                                    $72.87
                            Professional/
Technical
BLS ECEC, Private Manufacturing industries, "Professional and related"[3]
                                    Dec-12
                                    $38.53 
                                    $19.30 
                                    50.09%
                                      17%
                                     1.67
                                    $64.38
                                   Clerical
BLS ECEC, Private Manufacturing industries, "Office and Administrative Support" 3
                                    Dec-12
                                    $17.64 
                                    $8.87 
                                    50.28%
                                      17%
                                     1.67
                                    $29.51
Notes:
1 Wage data are rounded to the closest pennies in this table; however, in calculations using these numbers for this report, unrounded values were used.
2 An overhead rate of 17% was used based on assumptions in Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (EPA, 2002).
[3] Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables December 2012, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 18, 2013 (BLS, 2013).
Understand applicable requirements (rule familiarization)
It is assumed that importer company staff will familiarize themselves with the requirements of the SNUR. This involves reading the rule, understanding the various reporting and administrative requirements, and determining the manner in which the reporting requirements will be met. Based on the most recent Information Collection Request supporting statement for SNURs, the burden for this activity is estimated to be 0.27 hours of managerial time, and 0.55 hours of technical time (U.S. EPA, 2012). This level of burden is assumed to be the same for all companies regardless of their characteristics. At the hourly wage rates listed in Table 2, the total cost of rule familiarization is approximately $55 per firm, per rule. This burden and cost is typically already included in Economic Analyses for SNURs for all firms subject to the rule.
      > Burden and Cost Associated with Activity 1: Understand Applicable Requirements (Rule Familiarization): 
      *                Approximately 0.82 hours and $55 per rule
      *                This cost is typically already accounted for in SNUR economic analyses.
Identify the type of imported articles that potentially contain the chemical substances subject to a SNUR.
This step involves reviewing the inventory of articles imported by the company and developing a list of the type of articles that are likely to be subject to the SNUR. This list also could be used to determine whether articles the importer may decide to import in the future could contain a regulated chemical. Companies would likely review whether the articles (or the articles manufacturing process) fall under any of the use categories that are known for the regulated chemicals. Information published by EPA with a SNUR may describe known uses of the chemical; more thorough research may be warranted.  
The level of effort required for this identification is assumed to depend on the number of products imported; importers that are considered to have a complex supply chain, as described in Section 5.1.2, would likely have a higher burden. 
Burden is estimated based on another activity described in SNUR Economic Analyses, under the Export Notification costs. Section 12(b) of TSCA requires exporters to notify EPA if they export or intend to export a chemical subject to various TSCA sections. As part of the calculation of this cost in the context of a SNUR, EPA estimates the cost to compile and maintain the list of affected chemicals and mixtures. For this activity, respondents need to check for new SNUR regulations promulgated and any chemicals and mixtures exported by the company. We assume that the level of effort involved in identifying chemicals that are exported and creating and maintaining lists of these chemicals and mixtures is reasonably similar to that that an article importer might expend in identifying those articles that may potentially contain regulated substances as part of the article, since importers are generally aware of the industry sectors associated with use of their products. Therefore, we assume costs for this activity will be the same as those for a similar activity estimated for Section 12(b) export notification requirements. Updating their product list is estimated to take an average of one hour of technical time, which may also include some proportion of legal time (U.S. EPA, 2009). For each SNUR rule promulgated, the total burden can vary from two hours per year up to two hours per month (24 hours per year), depending on the number of products exported [imported] by the company (U.S. EPA, 2009). At the hourly wage rate listed for technical staff in Table 2, the cost of this activity is $129 for companies with simple supply chains, and $1,545 for companies with complex supply chains.
      >          Burden and Cost Associated with Activity 2: Identify the type of imported articles that potentially contain the restricted substances: 
            * Approximately 2 hours and $129 for companies with simple supply chains
            * Approximately 24 hours and $1,545 for companies with complex supply chains
            * Estimates are per rule, and take into consideration average number of products affected. Actual costs will vary based on actual number of articles imported. 
Identify all suppliers involved
After the potentially affected articles are identified, the importer may identify suppliers of the articles identified in the previous step. This involves examining the company's existing records, and potentially contacting the suppliers to make them aware of the chemical restrictions and the importer's preferred data collection method. Burden is assumed to vary depending on the number of suppliers.
Burden is estimated based on the cost for supplier notification associated with reporting requirements for the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Under TRI reporting requirements, facilities supplying mixtures and products containing listed chemical substances must notify their customers of the contents of their products on an annual basis. This notification can be provided as a letter to the supplier that identifies the chemical and indicates its percentage by weight in the product formulation. While the TRI reporting activity is not exactly analogous to the activity performed by the SNUR-regulated importer, work would be similar in that the company's existing and available records would be examined to develop a set of entities. The U.S. EPA's Economic Analysis of the Final Rule to Modify Reporting of Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic Chemicals under EPCRA Section 313 (EPA, 1999) estimates the supplier notification burden to be 7 hours of technical staff time and 17 hours of clerical staff time per facility, regardless of facility characteristics. At the hourly wage rates listed in Table 2, the cost of this activity is approximately $952.
      >          Burden and Cost Associated with Activity 3: Identify all suppliers involved: 
            * Approximately 24 hours and $952 for each importer, per rule. 
            * Actual costs will vary depending on the number of articles imported, number of suppliers, and frequency of supplier changes.  
Collect data from suppliers
Importers may obtain verification from suppliers identified in step 3 that the regulated chemical substance is not found in the article. A range of activities may be involved. As described above, methods may range from checking third-party certifications and declarations through databases or surveys, to developing individual agreements. At the extreme, importer companies may conduct a complete analysis of their supply stream. Choices on which method to use will likely vary depending on the level of experience of the importer. This section describes example scenarios of companies with different characteristics and the activities they may engage in. All possible methods are not described here; the intent is to capture the general range of possible activities and associated costs.
Otherwise-Regulated Importers
Companies that are currently subject to regulations such as REACH and RoHS or State regulations would likely use a database system, such as those described in Section 4.3. For example, companies such as Siemens, Philips, General Electric, Toshiba, Braun, V-tech, Olympus, and many others use BOMcheck (ENVIRON, n.d.). Wal-Mart uses GDSN to track chemicals in products. All major automobile manufacturers (e.g., Ford, General Motors) use IMDS (Hewlett-Packard Development Company, 2010). Some SNUR-regulated substances may already be monitored within these existing databases, and, given demand from the SNUR-regulated community, it is assumed that databases can be modified to include additional chemicals by the service provider.
Costs associated with gaining access to these databases are described in the box below; however, it is expected that importers who are experienced in complying with chemical restriction regulations will be already using these services and thus, costs associated with registering or data management will already be incurred; therefore, these costs are considered baseline for "otherwise-regulated" importers. Costs associated with a new SNUR would be to run queries or otherwise gather data specifically related to the subject chemical.

Costs Associated with Various Database Services 
The Global Data Synchronization Network (GDSN) Data Pool provider that is preferred by Wal-Mart is 1SYNC, a subsidiary of GS1 US. Their annual membership fee schedule is indexed to a company's total annual sales and is as follows: 
   * <$1 million in annual sales, $625 annual fee; 
   * $1 to <5 million sales, $1,225 annual fee; 
   * $5 to <10 million sales, $1,750 fee; 
   * $10 to <15 million sales, $2,250 fee; 
   * $15 to <20 million sales, $2,700 fee; 
   * $20 to <25 million sales, $3,400 fee; 
   * $25 to <50 million sales, $4,600 fee; 
   * $50 to <75 million sales, $7,600 fee; 
   * $75 to <100 million sales, $10,625 fee; 
   * $100 to <500 million sales, $14,575 fee; and 
   * >$500 million in annual sales must contact 1SYNC for a price estimate (1SYNC, 2013a).
BOMcheck is a free service for manufacturers (i.e., importers), provided they agree to send a letter to their suppliers asking them to comply with regulatory requirements by joining BOMcheck (ENVIRON, 2013c). For suppliers to register and use BOMcheck, there is an annual fee of about Euro300 (approximately $405) for companies with annual sales of greater than Euro3,000,000 (~$4,012,800) and no annual fee otherwise (ENVIRON, 2013b).
Car manufacturers using IMDS must pay an initial fee of Euro100,000 ($133,760) when they join the system and an annual fee ranging between Euro100,000 and Euro500,000 ($133,760 to $668,800) to have access to the system (Kogg and Thidell, 2010).
Not Otherwise-Regulated Importers
Importers finding themselves subject to a SNUR, with no previous regulatory experience related to chemical regulations or restrictions, may reach out to a trade association for support and guidance. For example, the Apparel and Footwear International RSL Management (AFIRM) Working Group provides a number of resources, such as a toolkit and guidance (AFIRM, 2011), that companies may find useful when focusing on supply chain management. Most industry sectors have their own specialized organizations that companies may use. For this analysis, we examined other possible activities that would likely be performed by two groups of "not otherwise-regulated" importers: large, complex-supply chain companies, and small, simple-supply chain companies. 
      Large, Complex-Supply Chain Importers who are Not Otherwise Regulated
Large companies that have no experience in dealing with chemical restriction regulations (e.g., they do not operate in California or other states with restrictions on chemicals in articles, and do not import or operate in countries subject to REACH or RoHS) but that have a large number of suppliers may decide to register with one of the databases described above. Many retail chains already use GSDN for their global synchronization services with suppliers (1SYNC, 2013b). EPA believes that adapting the system similar to Wal-Mart's use of it in tracking chemicals would be feasible within the fee schedule they are already paying. Joining BOMcheck is free for the importer company. (IMDS is specific to the automobile industry; this industry would likely fall under the "otherwise-regulated" category.) Costs specifically associated with any of these database services would be initial start-up costs in training staff in using them (or adapting an existing service as necessary), and to run queries or otherwise gather data specifically related to the subject chemical.
In the extreme case, companies with complex supply chains and abundant resources who are subject to SNURs and other environmental regulations may have an outside organization come in and review their entire chemical management program for environmental compliance and to "green" their supply chain. Consulting firms can develop a comprehensive supplier data collection method tailored to the company and all its regulatory needs. Costs can be significant; Intertek charges as much as $100,000 to $200,000 for a full quality management system (Intertek Consumer Goods North America's Andrew Wendinger, personal communication, February 8, 2013). Since this type of service would cover more regulatory requirements (and other environmental standards, as desired) than those imposed by a SNUR, costs for this level of effort are not considered here.
      Small, Simple-Supply Chain Importers who are Not Otherwise Regulated
Small importer companies who are not experienced in complying with other chemical restriction regulations and who only have a few suppliers to contact may not desire to use a large database system due to their complexity and start-up costs. Simple-supply chain importers may have a closer, more trusting relationship with suppliers and may instead use individual agreements/certifications or questionnaires with them to ensure compliance with the SNUR. Formats for questionnaires or certifications may be available for free from industry associations (such as JIG for the electric and electronics sector (Consumer Electronics Association, 2012)), or they may develop their own. 
Another option for importers who only import a small number of products is to import only products that have been third-party certified, e.g., through organizations like Green Seal or Bluesign. The burden associated with this option would include researching to determine if the certification includes a declaration or prohibition of the SNUR chemical and verifying whether imported articles are certified.
Cost Estimate
According to RPA (2003) (who based their analysis on a study performed by the Swedish Monitoring Board (2002)), the key cost for importers of articles in obtaining information on substances contained within articles is the staff time in obtaining information from suppliers. According to RPA's analysis:
      some will already have systems of communication with suppliers that can be used to obtain such information. Nevertheless, it may be reasonable to assume that a time input of somewhere between five minutes per article type (where information is readily available) and eight hours per article type (where information has to be obtained from suppliers) might be required. (p. 34)
How frequently an importer may collect information from suppliers and which suppliers they would collect information from will vary depending on an importer's experience complying with other regulations, available resources, and as due to a number of supply chain factors. Supply chains can change frequently. Importers may import multiple types of articles or models within a single product line (e.g., multiple models of athletic shoes from a single supplier) that may change over time. Importers may also use single or multiple suppliers for certain types of articles. Many of these changes can occur throughout an article supply chain prior to the article reaching the importer. These factors could all be considerations for the importer when deciding which articles to review for supplier information and how frequently.
For this analysis, we assume that the estimate of five minutes per article reviewed would correspond with companies who already have a system, such as a database, in place. They would simply need to retrieve the appropriate records. Therefore, the burden for otherwise-regulated importers is five minutes (0.08 hour) of technical time per article type (about $5 at the hourly wage rate listed in Table 2Table 2). On the other hand, not otherwise-regulated, simple importers would need to spend the greatest amount of time per article reviewed, as they would likely use a method where they contact suppliers individually through questionnaires or other types of certification agreements. Therefore, we use the upper end of RPA's estimate, 8 hours, for not otherwise-regulated, simple-supply chain importers (about $515 at the hourly wage rate listed in Table 2Table 2). The not otherwise-regulated, complex supply chain companies would likely incur a mid-range burden, approximately 4 hours (about $258 at the hourly wage rate listed in Table 2Table 2), to account for the start-up costs associated with beginning to use a database or other method as recommended by a trade association. 
      >          Burden and Cost Associated with Activity 4: Collect data from Suppliers: 
            * Approximately 0.08 hours and $5 for otherwise-regulated importers
            * Approximately 4 hours and $258 for not otherwise-regulated, complex supply chain importers
            * Approximately 8 hours and $515 for not otherwise-regulated, simple supply chain importers
            * Costs are per article reviewed. Actual costs will vary depending on the specific data collection method chosen. Total costs depend on the number of articles the company may review. This number can vary based on factors such as the number of articles imported, number of suppliers, experience and familiarity with suppliers, and frequency of supplier changes or article changes (e.g., an article modification). 
Chemical testing
In some cases, importers may have laboratory testing done on articles or components of articles to determine whether they contain the regulated chemical substance. It is likely that this would be done only when there is no other information available. Importers with a complex supply chain (many products) and large companies (i.e., with the resources to do so) may test as an occasional compliance verification method in addition to other assurances from the supplier. The amount of testing performed may vary over time, and would likely depend on the number of suppliers, results of previous tests (i.e., based on the level of risk associated with a particular supplier), and changes in suppliers and articles imported.
An average test cost per article was estimated based on the pricing list for Elemental Analysis Test Information for Galbraith(R) Laboratories, Inc., a laboratory that provides testing of articles to support compliance with Federal regulations including TSCA. This list included tests to identify various chemical substances and elements. Prices ranged from $18 to $739 per sample, with an average of $128 over the 630 tests priced. Additional fees may apply for sample preparation, such as for preparing an article. 
      >          Cost Associated with Activity 5: Chemical Testing: 
            * Approximately $130 per article tested. 
            * Costs would likely only apply to large or complex supply chain importers with the resources to have testing done.
            * Actual costs will vary depending on the specific chemical being tested for, the complexity of the article and sample preparation required, and the exact fees of the laboratory chosen for the analysis. Total costs per company will depend on the number of articles tested, which may be affected by the number of suppliers and risk associated with each, and frequency of supplier changes.  
Recordkeeping
If an importer subject to a SNUR chooses not to submit a SNUN (that is, the importer determines that imported articles do not contain the regulated chemical substance), it is assumed that the importer would maintain records of efforts made to evaluate the content of imported articles. It is assumed that that recordkeeping would be similar to that required when a SNUN is submitted (40 FR 721.40). Such recordkeeping essentially involves copying and filing relevant records, including those related to category of use and the maintenance of those records for five years from the date of their creation (40 CFR 721.40). Economic Analyses for SNURs typically estimate this burden to be 0.15 hours of technical labor per rule (U.S. EPA, 2012), or $9.66 at the hourly wage rate listed in Table 2. Therefore, this paper estimates a similar burden. This cost would particularly be associated with companies that have no previous experience complying with chemical restriction rules; companies that already have methods in place to identify chemicals in articles likely already have recordkeeping systems in place.
      > Burden and Cost Associated with Activity 6: Recordkeeping: 
      *                Approximately 0.15 hours and $10 per rule
Costs for Importer Company Scenarios
This section presents likely costs for four types of importer companies, in order to show the general range of costs that might be associated with removing the articles exemption for importers in SNURs. Costs are presented for: otherwise-regulated, large, complex-supply chain importers; not otherwise-regulated, large, complex-supply chain importers; otherwise-regulated, small, simple-supply chain importers; and not otherwise-regulated, small, simple-supply chain importers, in Table 3 through Table 6. Because some costs were estimated on a per rule basis, while others were estimated per article (based on the available data), total costs were not aggregated. Furthermore, the frequency of some of these activities may also vary in relation to others. 


Table 3. Costs associated with a large, complex-supply chain importer that is subject to other chemical restriction regulations
                                   Activity
                                 Cost (2012$)
                                     Notes
Per Rule Costs
1. Rule familiarization
                                                                           $55 
Cost typically already included in SNUR EAs
2. Identify the type of imported articles that potentially contain the restricted substances
                                                                        $1,550 
Actual costs may vary based on  number of articles imported and the complexity of the article itself (number of components)
3. Identify all suppliers involved
                                                                           $950
Actual costs may vary depending on the number of articles imported, number of suppliers, and frequency of supplier changes
6. Recordkeeping
                                                                           $10 
Actual costs may vary depending on recordkeeping system already in place.
Article-Related Costs
4. Collect data from suppliers
                              $5 per article reviewed. $0 if no data collected.
Actual costs only apply when companies collect data. They will vary depending on the specific data collection method chosen. Total costs depend on considerations including the number of articles imported, number of suppliers, and frequency of supplier changes, and whether or not the company has experience other existing regulations on SNUR regulated chemicals.
5. Chemical testing
                                     $130 per article tested. $0 if no testing.
Actual costs only apply to companies that test articles. They will vary depending on the specific chemical being tested for; the complexity of the article and sample preparation required; and the exact fees of the laboratory chosen for the analysis. Total costs per company will depend on the number of articles tested, which may be affected by considerations including the number of suppliers and risk associated with each, and frequency of supplier changes.
Table 4. Costs associated with a large, complex-supply chain importer that is not subject to other chemical restriction regulations
                                   Activity
                                 Cost (2012$)
                                     Notes
Per Rule Costs
1. Rule familiarization
                                                                           $55 
Cost typically already included in SNUR EAs
2. Identify the type of imported articles that potentially contain the restricted substances
                                                                        $1,550 
Actual costs may vary based on  number of articles imported and the complexity of the article itself (number of components)
3. Identify all suppliers involved
                                                                           $950
Actual costs may vary depending on the number of articles imported, number of suppliers, and frequency of supplier changes
6. Recordkeeping
                                                                           $10 
Actual costs may vary depending on recordkeeping system already in place.
Article-Related Costs
4. Collect data from suppliers
                          $260 per article reviewed. $0 if no data collected.  
Actual costs only apply to companies that collect data. They will vary depending on the specific data collection method chosen. Total costs depend on considerations including the number of articles imported, number of suppliers, and frequency of supplier changes.
5. Chemical testing
                                     $130 per article tested. $0 if no testing.
Actual costs only apply to those companies that test articles. They will vary depending on the specific chemical being tested for; the complexity of the article and sample preparation required; and the exact fees of the laboratory chosen for the analysis. Total costs per company will depend on considerations including the number of articles tested, which may be affected by the number of suppliers and risk associated with each, and frequency of supplier changes.


Table 5. Costs associated with a small, simple-supply chain importer that is subject to other chemical restriction regulations
                                   Activity
                                 Cost (2012$)
                                     Notes
Per Rule Costs
1. Rule familiarization
                                                                           $55 
Cost typically already included in SNUR EAs
2. Identify the type of imported articles that potentially contain the restricted substances
                                                                          $130 
Actual costs may vary based on  number of articles imported and the complexity of the article itself (number of components)
3. Identify all suppliers involved
                                                                           $950
Actual costs may vary depending on the number of articles imported, number of suppliers, and frequency of supplier changes
6. Recordkeeping
                                                                           $10 
Actual costs may vary depending on recordkeeping system already in place.
Article-Related Costs
4. Collect data from suppliers
                              $5 per article reviewed. $0 if no data collected.
Actual costs only apply when companies collect data. They will vary depending on the specific data collection method chosen. Total costs depend on considerations including the number of articles imported, number of suppliers, and frequency of supplier changes, and whether or not the company has experience other existing regulations on SNUR regulated chemicals.
5. Chemical testing
                                     $130 per article tested. $0 if no testing.
Assumed that small, simple-supply chain importers would not be likely to perform testing. Actual costs may be incurred depending on the perceived level of risk associated with suppliers.
Table 6. Costs associated with a small, simple-supply chain importer that is not subject to other chemical restriction regulations
                                   Activity
                                 Cost (2012$)
                                     Notes
Per Rule Costs
1. Rule familiarization
                                                                           $55 
Cost typically already included in SNUR EAs
2. Identify the type of imported articles that potentially contain the restricted substances
                                                                          $130 
Actual costs may vary based on  number of articles imported and the complexity of the article itself (number of components)
3. Identify all suppliers involved
                                                                           $950
Actual costs may vary depending on the number of articles imported, number of suppliers, and frequency of supplier changes
6. Recordkeeping
                                                                           $10 
Actual costs may vary depending on recordkeeping system already in place.
Article-Related Costs
4. Collect data from suppliers
                          $515  per article reviewed. $0 if no data collected. 
Actual costs will only apply to those that collect information from suppliers. They will vary depending on the specific data collection method chosen. Total costs depend on considerations including the number of articles imported, number of suppliers, and frequency of supplier changes.
5. Chemical testing
                                     $130 per article tested. $0 if no testing.
Assumed that small, simple-supply chain importers would not be likely to perform testing. Actual costs may be incurred depending on the perceived level of risk associated with suppliers.
Summary
Certain SNURs may require importers or processors who import or process regulated chemical substances as part of articles to comply with notification requirements, such as notifying EPA at least 90 days before commencing the import of any articles containing chemicals subject to the rule. Additionally, if a SNUR does not contain an exemption for processors and importers of articles, those that import or process articles may undertake activities to assure themselves that they are not importing or processing regulated chemicals as part of articles even though these activities are not required by the SNUR. A number of potential activities that importers may undertake to determine whether the articles they import contain regulated chemical substances are outlined in this paper. This determination may involve gathering information from suppliers in their supply chain, and/or testing samples of the article itself. 
Given the existing regulatory limitations on certain chemicals both internationally and within the U.S., regulated industries have begun to develop industry-wide processes and other resources to support such a determination. While there is still a great deal of variation among data collection methods, the set of activities that an importer would likely perform to identify any restricted chemicals in imported articles are as follows:
   1) Understand applicable requirements. The importer would read and understand the SNUR, within the context of the company's products. This burden is already accounted for in the standard economic analysis.
   2) Identify the type of imported articles that potentially contain the restricted substances. This determination may be done based on an understanding of the uses of the restricted substance and the application of any a priori knowledge of the material and its manufacture to assess the probability whether each regulated substance may be present.
   3) Identify all suppliers involved. The importer may identify suppliers from whom the articles identified in the previous step are imported, and as appropriate, to make them aware of the importer's potential notice obligations respecting the regulated chemical substances.
   4) Collect data from suppliers. Importers may obtain verification from suppliers identified in step 3 that the regulated chemical substance is not found in the article. This may be accomplished through, for example, agreements with suppliers, declarations through databases or surveys, or by using a third-party certification system. 
   5) Chemical testing. Importers may perform their own laboratory testing of certain articles (or components of articles) to determine if they contain the restricted substance. 
   6) Recordkeeping. The importer may keep records confirming the activities completed. This burden is already accounted for in the standard economic analysis.
Variation in cost associated with these activities depends on a company's level of baseline activity, the complexity of the supply chains; and the size of the company. The estimated range of costs for each of these activities is presented in Table 7. Total costs per importer will further depend on the number of affected articles and frequency of supplier change.
Table 7. Range of costs associated with an importer's identification of chemicals subject to SNURs in articles
                                   Activity
                                 Cost (2012$)
                                     Notes
Per Rule Costs
1. Rule familiarization
                                                                           $55 
Cost typically already included in SNUR EAs
2. Identify the type of imported articles that potentially contain the restricted substances
                                                                $130 to $1,550 
Actual costs may vary based on number of articles imported and the complexity of the article itself (number of components)
3. Identify all suppliers involved
                                                                           $950
Actual costs may vary depending on the number of articles imported, number of suppliers, and frequency of supplier changes
6. Recordkeeping
                                                                           $10 
Cost typically already included in SNUR EAs
Article-Related Costs
4. Collect data from suppliers
                      $5 to $515 per article reviewed. $0 if no data collected.
Actual costs only apply to those companies that collect data from suppliers. They will vary depending on the specific data collection method chosen. Total costs depend on considerations including the number of articles imported, number of suppliers, and frequency of supplier changes.
5. Chemical testing
                                    $130 per article tested. $0 if no testing. 
Actual costs only apply to those companies that collect data from suppliers. They will vary depending on the specific chemical being tested for; the complexity of the article and sample preparation required; and the exact fees of the laboratory chosen for the analysis. Total costs per company will depend on considerations including the number of articles tested, which may be affected by the number of suppliers and risk associated with each, and frequency of supplier changes.
Costs (Processors)
To demonstrate compliance with a SNUR, it is expected that processors would most likely use the shipping or labeling documents (such as Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), etc.) received with the article in the ordinary course of business. Review of this documentation and flagging any chemicals subject to a SNUR or any other requirement are believed to be standard business practice. Additionally, since these documents would be received and stored as per standard business practices, the elimination of the exemption in SNURs for articles would likely incur no significant additional costs to an article processor. (Minor costs for retrieving and photocopying the information if requested may apply.) Should paperwork show that a regulated chemical is part of an article, there may be some additional costs to the processor to ensure that the article is not processed. Costs for submitting a SNUN would apply should the processor decide to submit one.
To the extent that processors undertake the steps to identify regulated chemicals outlined in Section 4.1 for importers, the costs of these activities would be similar to those outlined in Section 5.2 for importers of similar size, supply chain complexity, and level of compliance with other chemical regulations.
Limitations of Analysis
The values presented above provide a best estimate of the range of costs that may be incurred by importers and processors complying with SNUR requirements for imported articles, given the current lack of information and a standardized data collection system. As noted by Kogg and Thidell (2010):
   It is obvious that designing [a system to track chemicals in products (CiP)] is a challenging and complex task including considerations of disparate and sometimes conflicting interests, levels of ambitions, etc. One central challenge facing those involved in the project of developing the CiP system, is the need to balance an overwhelming complexity and heterogeneity of expressed needs for information (needs which the system should potentially satisfy), with strong preferences for harmonization.
These challenges similarly confound attempts at assessing cost. However, as the level of international regulation of chemicals does increase, industry groups and other organizations are working to develop comprehensive systems and processes. As systems standardize, at least within industry sectors, the likelihood of companies using consistent, streamlined methods of data collection increases and cost ranges will become clearer.

References
1SYNC. (2013a). "1SYNC Data Synchronization Fees." Retrieved from http://pdm.1sync.org/1sync-fees. 
1SYNC. (2013b). "Customer Initiatives." Retrieved from http://pdm.1sync.org/customers/customer-initiatives. 
American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA). (2012a). AAFA Publishes 11th Updated Restricted Substances List. November 1, 2012. Retrieved from: https://www.wewear.org/aafa-publishes-11th-updated-restricted-substances-list/ 
American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA). (2012b). List of Non-regulated Substances Contained in AFIRM RSL Guidance. October 2012. Retrieved from https://www.wewear.org/assets/1/7/103112NonRegulatedRSL.pdf 
American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA). (2013). Restricted Substances List  -  English.Release 12. March 12, 2013. Retrieved from: https://www.wewear.org/industry-resources/restricted-substances-list/english /
American Electronics Association. (2006). Electronic Information Products Classification and Explanations  -  Draft English Reference Translation. Retrieved from: http://th.element14.com/images/en_UK/rohs/pdf/ChinaRoHS_EIP_list.pdf. 
Apparel and Footwear International RSL Management (AFIRM). (2011). AFIRM Supplier Toolkit. Retrieved from: http://www.afirm-group.com/AFIRMSupplierToolkitFinalJune6.pdf. 
Apparel and Footware Association (AAFA) (2013). Retrieved from: https://www.wewear.org/. 
ASTM International. (2012). Committee F40 on Declarable Substances in Materials. Retrieved from http://www.astm.org/COMMIT/F40_brochure.pdf.  
Bluesign Technologies AG. (2011). The bluesign standard. Retrieved from http://www.bluesign.com/fileadmin/downloads/Documents/bluesign_Standard_Broschuere_EN_lores_01.pdf. 
Bureau Veritas Group. (2012). "Update on Proposed Norwegian Regulation to Ban Hazardous Substances in Consumer Products." Retrieved from http://www.bureauveritas.com/wps/wcm/connect/bv_com/group/home/about-us/our-business/our-business-consumer-products/news+and+events/regulatory+bulletins/norwegian_regulation_ban_hazardous_substances_in_consumer_products. 
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. (2010). "Proposition 65 in Plain Language." Retrieved from http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/background/p65plain.html. 
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. (2013). "Current Proposition 65 List." February 2013. Retrieved from http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/newlist.html. 
Consumer Electronics Association. (2012). "JIG 201 Ed 1.1." Retrieved from http://www.ce.org/Standards/Standard-Listings/Joint-Industry-Guide/JIG-201-Ed-1-0.aspx. 
Electronics Weekly Blogs. (2010). "China REACH." Retrieved from http://www.electronicsweekly.com/blogs/electronics-legislation/2010/02/china-reach.html. 
ENVIRON. (n.d.). "Great news for Suppliers!" Retrieved from https://www.bomcheck.net/assets/docs/OEMs%20using%20BOMcheck%20to%20reduce%20business%20costs%20for%20suppliers.pdf. 
ENVIRON. (2013a). "BOMcheck." Retrieved from https://www.bomcheck.net/. 
ENVIRON. (2013b). "Create a Supplier Account." Retrieved from https://www.bomcheck.net/account/register. 
ENVIRON. (2013c). "Request a Manufacturer's Agreement." Retrieved from https://www.bomcheck.net/manufacturers/request-agreement. 
ERA Technology Ltd. (2008). Act for Resource Recycling of Electrical and Electronic Equipment and Vehicles  -  Korea RoHS, WEEE & ELV. Retrieved from http://uk.farnell.com/images/en/ede/pdf/rohs_korea_oct08.pdf.  
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). (2011a). Requirements for substances in articles. Retrieved from http://www.echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13632/articles_fact_sheet_en.pdf. 
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). (2011b). Guidance on requirements for substances in articles. Retrieved from http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13632/articles_en.pdf. European Commission (EC). (2011). "Environment: Fewer risks from hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment." Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-912_en.htm.  
European Commission Directorate-General for the Environment (EC DG Environment). (2012a). "REACH." Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_intro.htm. 
European Commission Directorate-General for the Environment (EC DG Environment). (2012b). "Recast of RoHS Directive." Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/index_en.htm. 
European Commission Directorate-General for the Environment (EC DG Environment). (2012c). "RoHS2 FAQ." Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/pdf/faq.pdf. 
European Parliament.(2011). Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. Official Journal of the European Union. July 1, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.tracopower.com/info/rohs-directive.pdf
Green Seal. (2012a). "About Green Seal." Retrieved from http://www.greenseal.org/AboutGreenSeal.aspx. 
Green Seal. (2012b). GS-44: Green Seal Standard for Soaps, Cleansers, and Shower Products. Fourth Edition. July 12, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.greenseal.org/Portals/0/Documents/Standards/GS-44/GS-44_Soaps_Cleansers_Shower_Products_Standard_Fourth_Edition.pdf. 
He, Nadine. (2012). "Korea REACH to be Issued." Chemlinked, November 2, 2012. Retrieved from http://chemlinked.com/en/news/chemical-news/korea-reach-be-issued. 
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP. (2010). "International Material Data System." Retrieved from http://www.mdsystem.com/. 
International Council of Chemical Associations, (2013). "Global Product Strategy". Retrived from  http://www.icca-chem.org/en/Home/ICCA-initiatives/global-product-strategy/
Intertek. (n.d.). "Green Supply Chain Management Services." Retrieved from http://www.intertek.com/green/supply-chain/.  
IPC. (2009). "China  -  Regulation and Legislation." Retrieved from http://leadfree.ipc.org/RoHS_2-1-4.asp. 
Japan Electronics and Information Technology Industries. (2008). "J-Moss (Japanese RoHS)." Retrieved from http://home.jeita.or.jp/eps/jmoss_en.htm.
Japan Green Procurement Survey Standardization Initiative. (2006). Material Composition Survey and Response Manual. Retrieved from http://cdn.vicorpower.com/documents/rohs/japan_green_survey.pdf.  
Joint Article Management Promotion-consortium. (2011). "About us: JAMP." Retrieved from http://www.jamp-info.com/english/about/jamp. 
Kogg and Thidell. (2010). Chemicals in Products: An overview of systems for providing information regarding chemicals in products and of stakeholders' needs for such information. Prepared for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Chemicals Branch, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (DTIE). Retrieved from http://www.chem.unep.ch/unepsaicm/cip/Documents/Kogg_Thidell_CiP%20report_final.pdf. 
Maine Department of Environmental Protection. (2011). Priority Chemical Reporting Regulation  -  Chapter 882/883 Reporting Guidance. Retrieved from http://www.maine.gov/dep/safechem/submissionforms/Guidance_FINAL09012011.pdf. 
Maine Department of Environmental Protection. (2012). Chemicals of High Concern List. Retrieved from http://www.maine.gov/dep/safechem/highconcern/index.html. 
Maine Legislature. (2008). An Act To Protect Children's Health and the Environment from Toxic Chemicals in Toys and Children's Products. Retrieved from http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_123rd/billpdfs/HP143201.pdf. 
Malaysia Department of Environment, Hazardous Substances Division. (2012a). "About the EHS Notification and Registration Scheme (EHSNR)." Retrieved from http://www.e-ehs.doe.gov.my/app/webroot/portal/about-ehs-n-r/?doing_wp_cron=1360526353.6956479549407958984375. 
Malaysia Department of Environment, Hazardous Substances Division. (2012b). Guidance for the Industry on the Notification and Registration Scheme of Environmentally Hazardous Substances (EHS) in Malaysia. Retrieved from http://www.e-ehs.doe.gov.my/files/GUIDANCE_FOR_THE_INDUSTRY_3_final.pdf. 
Massey, R.I., Hutchins, J.G., Becker, M., Tickner, J., et al. (2008). Toxic substances in articles: the need for information. Copenhagen, Denmark: Nordic Council of Ministers Swedish Chemicals Agency. 
New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority (NZ EPA). (2011). Manufactured Articles: Information Sheet. October 2011. EPA0145.
New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority (NZ EPA). (2012). User Guide for Thresholds and Classifications Under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. January 2012 (content as originally published March 2008). EPA0109. Retrieved from http://www.epa.govt.nz/Publications/ER-UG-03-2.pdf.
New Zealand Parliamentary Counsel Office. (2012). Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. Reprint as of October 2012. Retrieved from http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1996/0030/latest/DLM384633.html.
Nordic Council of Ministers (2010). REACH Trigger for Information on Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC). Retrieved from http://www.norden.org/en/publications/publikationer/2010-514/at_download/publicationfile.  
Norwegian Pollution Control Authority. (2010). Impact assessment of regulating perfluorooctanoic acid and individual PFOA salts and esters in consumer products (PFOA) 2010.
Risk and Policy Analysts Limited (RPA). (2003). Assessment of the Business Impacts of New Regulations in the Chemicals Sector Phase 2: Substances in Articles. Prepared for European Commission  -  Directorate-General Enterprise.
Safer States (2013). 2013 Toxic Chemicals Legislation. Retrieved on June 8, 2013 from http://www.saferstates.com/states_in_the_lead/current_legislation.html.
Swedish Monitoring Board. (2002). Chemicals in Articles: Where is the Knowledge? Retrieved from http://chemicalspolicy.org/downloads/Swed%20Chem%20Article.pdf.
UNEP/DTIE Chemicals Branch. (2011). A Synthesis of Findings Under the UNEP/IOMC Project on Information on Chemicals in Products. Retrieved from http://www.health.gov.vc/images/stories/PDF/SAICM/cip_project_synthesis_report_final.pdf.
     U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (2013). Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables December 2012, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 18, 2013.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). (2008a). "The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA)." Retrieved from http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Regulations-Laws--Standards/CPSIA/The-Consumer-Product-Safety-Improvement-Act/. 
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). (2008b). "Phthalates." Retrieved from http://www.cpsc.gov/Regulations-Laws--Standards/CPSIA/Phthalates/Phthalates-Information/. 
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). (2008c). "Total Lead Content." Retrieved from http://www.cpsc.gov/Business--Manufacturing/Business-Education/Lead/Total-Lead-Content/.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1999). Economic Analysis of the Final Rule to Modify Reporting of Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic Chemicals under EPCRA Section 313. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economics, Exposure and Technology Division, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. October 1999. 
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2002). 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.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2009). Notification of Chemical Exports - TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. EPA ICR No.: 0795.13 OMB Control Number 2070-0030. March 6, 2009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2012). TSCA Section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rules for Existing Chemicals. EPA ICR No.: 1188.11. OMB Control No.: 2070 0038.
Washington State Department of Ecology. (n.d.-a). The Reporting List of Chemicals of High Concern to Children (CHCC). Retrieved from http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/cspa/chcc.html
Washington State Department of Ecology. (n.d.-b). Steps Toward Safer Chemical Policy. Retrieved from http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/cspa/.
