FR 2024-29517

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a final rule concerning carbon tetrachloride (CTC), a chemical substance facing regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This rule is designed to mitigate the health risks associated with the use of CTC by implementing workplace safety requirements and prohibiting certain manufacturing and commercial uses of CTC, especially where these have already been discontinued. The move aligns with broader environmental initiatives like the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act and the Kigali Amendment, which aim to curb substances that harm the ozone layer.

General Summary

The document outlines how the EPA plans to address the health risks presented by carbon tetrachloride. This includes setting workplace safety standards, prohibiting certain uses of CTC, and imposing recordkeeping and notification requirements on industries. Through these measures, the EPA intends to eliminate the unreasonable risks posed by CTC to workers and the public.

Significant Issues or Concerns

There are several notable issues that arise from this extensive rule:

• Complexity and Accessibility: The document is lengthy and filled with technical jargon. For those without expertise in regulatory matters, particularly smaller businesses or members of the public, understanding the document may require professional guidance.

• Administrative and Financial Burdens: The compliance requirements could impose significant administrative and financial burdens, especially on small businesses. The costs associated with meeting these new standards might be higher than initially projected, impacting small entities disproportionately.

• Ambiguities in Compliance: The rule excludes CTC present in trace quantities with other substances but does not set a clear numerical threshold, leading to potential ambiguity in compliance assessments.

• Federal Agency Compliance: Federal agencies have been granted additional time to comply, which may be seen as preferential treatment compared to private sector companies.

• Environmental and Health Impact: The potential increase in CTC use for manufacturing hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs) is acknowledged. However, the long-term environmental and health impacts, particularly in terms of global warming potential, are not fully evaluated.

Public Impact

Broadly, this rule is likely to enhance public health by minimizing exposure to a hazardous chemical and supporting environmental objectives aimed at protecting the ozone layer. However, its implementation might lead to increased costs for goods and services as industries pass on the costs of compliance.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

• Small Businesses: These entities could face disproportionately higher costs to comply with regulatory requirements. The lack of specific thresholds for trace quantities of CTC adds to the uncertainty, potentially making it difficult for small operations to ensure compliance.

• Workers: The enforcement of workplace safety measures should lead to a safer work environment for those directly handling CTC.

• Federal Agencies vs. Private Sector: The longer compliance period granted to federal agencies compared to private businesses could trigger perceptions of inequality.

The regulation reflects the EPA’s commitment to safeguarding public health and aligns with international environmental accords. Yet, it emphasizes the necessity for clear guidelines and support, particularly for smaller entities, to navigate and comply with the intricate requirements effectively.

The document titled "Carbon Tetrachloride (CTC); Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)" contains a significant amount of financial data and references, highlighting the economic implications of the new rule established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address the health risks associated with the use of carbon tetrachloride.

Financial Overview

The EPA estimates the incremental cost of this final rule to be $19.7 million per year when annualized over 20 years with a 3% discount rate. This figure is slightly lower, at $19 million per year, when calculated using a 7% discount rate. These costs arise from compliance with various workplace and environmental standards, such as monitoring CTC levels and implementing protective measures. To provide further context, the updated cost, considering a 2% discount rate, is $19.9 million annually over the same period.

Monetized Benefits and Net Impact

The benefits of the rule, specifically in terms of health improvements, are estimated to be approximately $0.13 to $0.14 million per year at a 3% discount rate and $0.06 to $0.07 million per year at a 7% discount rate. The document highlights that the monetized net benefits are negative, with losses calculated at −$19.6 million per year (3% rate) and −$18.9 million per year (7% rate). This suggests that the financial costs outweigh the directly monetizable benefits, although the EPA argues that additional non-monetized health benefits justify the regulation.

Impact on Small Entities

The rule is expected to financially impact small businesses. The EPA estimates that the rule would affect at least seven small entities, with costs exceeding 1% of annual revenues for two of these businesses. The highest per-facility cost is noted as $615,457. Despite this, the rule is not anticipated to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses.

Federal and Small Business Considerations

The burden on small businesses is significant due to the administrative and operational demands of compliance, including efforts for monitoring and documentation. While larger companies might absorb these costs more easily, smaller entities could face substantial financial challenges, potentially impacting their viability. Moreover, the final rule excludes federal agencies from some immediate compliance requirements, allowing them extended deadlines, which could be perceived as preferential treatment compared to private entities.

Cost-Effectiveness and Regulatory Alternatives

The cost-effectiveness analysis shows that the cost ranges from $681 to $1,000 per microrisk reduction at a 3% discount rate and from $656 to $963 at a 7% discount rate for the final rule. These estimates underscore the financial commitment required for achieving risk reductions under the rule, suggesting that while significant spending is required, the EPA believes it is justified by the health improvements achieved, even if they cannot be fully monetized.

In summary, the financial references within the document paint a comprehensive picture of the economic landscape shaped by the EPA's new rule on carbon tetrachloride. Such information highlights the tension between regulatory costs and public health benefits, particularly for small businesses who may bear a disproportionate financial burden relative to larger entities and federal agencies.