FR 2020-28690

Summary of the Document

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is implementing a new rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act targeting the chemical 2,4,6-tris(tert-butyl)phenol (2,4,6-TTBP). This chemical is identified as persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic. The rule intends to prevent substantial exposure by banning the sale and distribution of 2,4,6-TTBP, and products containing more than 0.3% of this chemical in containers smaller than 35 gallons, effective January 6, 2026. The rule targets consumer and small business usage and mandates that records of compliance be maintained for three years. This aims to mitigate health risks associated with the chemical's use in fuel and oil products.

Significant Issues and Concerns

One of the major concerns in the document is its complex legal and regulatory language, which may be challenging for the general public to understand. This complexity can create uncertainties regarding compliance. Additionally, the economic analysis provided does not quantify potential benefits, raising questions about the cost-effectiveness of the rule.

Another important issue is the 5-year delay in implementation. The justification for this period is debated within the document, and some may question whether such a lengthy delay is warranted, potentially postponing much-needed protections.

Moreover, the rule assumes compliance with OSHA standards without conducting a specific risk evaluation for 2,4,6-TTBP. This might overlook specific risks associated with the chemical, particularly in industrial settings where reliance on voluntary compliance for personal protective equipment (PPE) usage could lead to inconsistencies in worker protection.

The document also exempts certain activities, such as disposal and secondary sales, from regulation, which might result in unresolved environmental or health risks. Alternatives to 2,4,6-TTBP are briefly assessed, but the evaluation appears limited, potentially affecting stakeholder acceptance.

Impact on the Public

The rule could result in reduced exposure to a chemical considered harmful, benefiting public health. However, with the delayed implementation, the public might be without these protections for several years. The general population may not fully understand the implications given the document's technical nature, which could affect overall compliance and information dissemination.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For manufacturers and small businesses, this rule imposes new limitations on product distribution, potentially necessitating reformulation of products to comply with the rule by 2026. This could be costly and logistically challenging, especially for those like the Gold Eagle Company, which is indicated in the document as heavily reliant on 2,4,6-TTBP in its products.

There are also potential impacts on industrial workers, where varying adherence to safety standards could lead to inconsistent levels of protection, unless uniform guidelines and risk evaluations are established.

On a broader scale, industries using the chemical may face adaptation costs, though the EPA suggests there are alternatives available. The lack of extensive evaluation of these substitutes, however, could influence stakeholder acceptance negatively if alternatives are not equivalent in function or cost.

In conclusion, while the intended benefits of reducing exposure to a harmful chemical are clear, the approach towards compliance, risk evaluation, and adaptation could be subject to critique, demanding further simplification and clarity for affected stakeholders and the public.

The Federal Register document outlines the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulatory action under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) concerning 2,4,6-tris(tert-butyl)phenol (2,4,6-TTBP). The financial aspects, particularly cost estimations and their implications, present a critical component of understanding the impact and feasibility of the rule.

Estimated Costs of the Rule

The document specifies that the total quantified annualized social costs for implementing the final rule are approximately $5.6 million at a 3% discount rate and $4.9 million at a 7% discount rate over 25 years. These figures reflect the financial burden that the rule might impose on the industry, including manufacturers and processors that must switch to alternative chemicals or products due to the regulatory limitations on 2,4,6-TTBP.

The EPA also estimates that the regulatory implementation will require 0.5 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE), costing approximately $77,600 per year. This indicates the personnel resources dedicated by the EPA to enforce and manage compliance with the new rule.

Implications of Cost Analysis

The document's economic analysis does not quantify potential benefits of the rule, such as health or environmental improvements. This omission makes it challenging to assess the cost-effectiveness or broader benefits of the regulation fully. In regulatory discussions, understanding both costs and benefits is crucial for evaluating whether the financial burdens are justified by the expected improvements in health or environmental conditions.

Consideration of Small Entities and Unfunded Mandates

The rule is not expected to impose a significant economic impact on small businesses. The analysis indicates that none of the small businesses affected by the rule are projected to incur costs amounting to 1% or more of their revenue. Consequently, no significant impact on a substantial number of small entities is anticipated.

The rule also falls below the threshold for unfunded mandates, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). The total expenditures by the state, local, and tribal governments, as well as the private sector, are not expected to exceed $100 million in any given year. Thus, the rule does not impose financial requirements that surpass the inflation-adjusted unfunded mandate threshold of $160 million.

Delay in Implementation and Financial Considerations

One notable financial consideration is the five-year delay in the rule’s implementation. This delay is justified by the need to give manufacturers time to reformulate products, secure necessary requalifications, and manage existing inventories. Although this delay can mitigate immediate financial disruptions for entities required to comply, it raises concerns about delayed protections for health and the environment, encompassing potential unquantified costs that could arise from prolonged exposure risks.

In summary, the financial elements in this Federal Register document reflect the EPA's efforts to balance regulatory demands with industry realities, considering direct costs without a detailed account of potential benefits, while keeping in mind the economic impacts on smaller entities and broader market implications.