`[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 18, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 103512-103558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29517]



[[Page 103511]]

Vol. 89

Wednesday,

No. 243

December 18, 2024

Part VIII





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





40 CFR Part 751





Carbon Tetrachloride (CTC); Regulation Under the Toxic Substances 
Control Act (TSCA); Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 103512]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 751

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592; FRL-8206-02-OCSPP]
RIN 2070-AK82


Carbon Tetrachloride (CTC); Regulation Under the Toxic Substances 
Control Act (TSCA)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or ``Agency'') is 
finalizing a rule to address the unreasonable risk of injury to health 
presented by carbon tetrachloride (CTC) under its conditions of use. 
TSCA requires that EPA address by rule any unreasonable risk of injury 
to health or the environment identified in a TSCA risk evaluation and 
apply requirements to the extent necessary so that the chemical no 
longer presents unreasonable risk. EPA's final rule will establish 
workplace safety requirements for most conditions of use, including the 
condition of use related to the making of low Global Warming Potential 
(GWP) hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs); prohibit the manufacture (including 
import), processing, distribution in commerce, and industrial/
commercial use of CTC for conditions of use where information indicates 
use of CTC has ceased; and establish recordkeeping and downstream 
notification requirements. The use of CTC in low GWP HFOs is 
particularly important in the Agency's efforts to support the American 
Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020 (AIM Act) and the Kigali 
Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone 
Layer, which was ratified on October 26, 2022.

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 17, 2025.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket 
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592, is available online 
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additional information about dockets 
generally, along with instructions for visiting the docket in-person, 
is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    For technical information: Emilia Echeveste Brise[ntilde]o, 
Existing Chemicals Risk Management Division (7404M), Office of 
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number (202) 
566-0543; email address: [email protected].
    For general information: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South 
Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; 
email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary

A. Does this action apply to me?

1. General Applicability
    This action applies to you if you manufacture (defined under TSCA 
to include import), process, distribute in commerce, use, or dispose of 
CTC (CASRN 56-23-5). TSCA section 3(9) defines the term ``manufacture'' 
to mean ``to import into customs territory of the United States (as 
defined in general note 2 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States), produce, or manufacture''. Therefore, unless expressly 
stated otherwise, importers of CTC are subject to any provisions 
regulating manufacture of CTC. The following list of North American 
Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be 
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine 
whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities 
include:
     Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS code 325);
     Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing (NAICS code 
327);
     Primary Metal Manufacturing (NAICS code 331);
     Waste Management and Remediation Services (NAICS code 
562);
     Petrochemical Manufacturing (NAICS code 325110);
     Industrial Gas Manufacturing (NAICS code 325120);
     Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS code 
325180);
     Cyclic Crude, Intermediate, and Gum and Wood Chemical 
Manufacturing (NAICS code 325194);
     All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS code 
325199);
     Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing (NAICS code 
325211);
     Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing 
(NAICS code 325320);
     All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation 
Manufacturing (NAICS code 325998);
     Cement Manufacturing (NAICS code 327310);
     Ground or Treated Mineral and Earth Manufacturing (NAICS 
code 327992);
     Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Smelting and Refining 
(NAICS code 331410);
     NAICS code 562211--Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal 
NAICS code 562211); and
     Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators (NAICS code 
562213).
2. Applicability to Importers and Exporters
    This action may also affect certain entities subject to import 
certification, and export notification rules under TSCA (https://www.epa.gov/tsca-import-export-requirements). Persons who import any 
chemical substance in bulk form, as part of a mixture, or as part of an 
article (if required by rule) are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 
U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements and the corresponding 
regulations at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127; see also 19 CFR 127.28. 
Those persons must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance 
complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA. The EPA 
policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, 
subpart B.
    In addition, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical 
substance that is the subject of this final rule are subject to the 
export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 
2611(b)), and must comply with the export notification requirements in 
40 CFR part 707, subpart D.

B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Under TSCA section 6(a) (15 U.S.C. 2605(a)), if the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, hereinafter referred to as EPA or 
``the Agency'', determines through a TSCA section 6(b) risk evaluation 
that a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to 
health or the environment, EPA must by rule apply one or more 
requirements listed in TSCA section 6(a) to the extent necessary so 
that the chemical substance or mixture no longer presents such risk.

C. What action is the Agency taking?

    Pursuant to TSCA section 6(b), EPA determined that CTC presents an 
unreasonable risk of injury to health, without consideration of costs 
or other nonrisk factors, including an unreasonable risk to potentially 
exposed or susceptible subpopulations (PESS) identified as relevant to 
the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride by EPA, under the 
conditions of use (Refs. 1, 2, 3). A description of the conditions of 
use that contribute to EPA's determination that CTC presents an 
unreasonable risk is in the proposed rule (88 FR 49190) (FRL-8206-01-
OCSPP) and Unit IV. Accordingly, to

[[Page 103513]]

address the unreasonable risk, EPA is issuing this final rule under 
TSCA section 6(a) to:
    (1) Require a Workplace Chemical Protection Program (WCPP), 
including an inhalation exposure concentration limit, direct dermal 
contact controls, and related workplace exposure controls, for the 
following occupational conditions of use of CTC not prohibited, 
outlined in Unit IV.B.:
     Domestic manufacture;
     Import;
     Processing as a reactant in the production of 
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), HFOs, and 
perchloroethylene (PCE);
     Incorporation into formulation, mixture or reaction 
products in agricultural products manufacturing, vinyl chloride 
manufacturing, and other basic organic and inorganic chemical 
manufacturing;
     Repackaging for use as a laboratory chemical;
     Recycling;
     Industrial and commercial use as an industrial processing 
aid in the manufacture of agricultural products and vinyl chloride;
     Industrial and commercial use in the elimination of 
nitrogen trichloride in the production of chlorine and caustic soda and 
the recovery of chlorine in tail gas from the production of chlorine; 
and
     Disposal.
    (2) Require use of laboratory ventilation devices, such as fume 
hoods or glove boxes, and dermal personal protective equipment (PPE) 
for the industrial and commercial use as a laboratory chemical, as 
outlined in Unit IV.C.;
    (3) Prohibit these additional conditions of use, for which the 
Agency understands use of CTC has already ceased, as outlined in Unit 
IV.D.:
     Incorporation into formulation, mixture or reaction 
products in petrochemical-derived manufacturing except in the 
manufacture of vinyl chloride (for which EPA is requiring a WCPP);
     Industrial and commercial use as an industrial processing 
aid in the manufacture of petrochemicals-derived products except in the 
manufacture of vinyl chloride (for which EPA is requiring a WCPP);
     Industrial and commercial use in the manufacture of other 
basic chemicals (including manufacturing of chlorinated compounds used 
in solvents, adhesives, asphalt, and paints and coatings), except for 
use in the elimination of nitrogen trichloride in the production of 
chlorine and caustic soda and the recovery of chlorine in tail gas from 
the production of chlorine (for which EPA is requiring a WCPP);
     Industrial and commercial use in metal recovery;
     Industrial and commercial use as an additive; and
     Industrial and commercial use in specialty uses by the 
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).
    (4) Require recordkeeping, as outlined in Unit IV.E.1.
    (5) Require manufacturers (including importers), processors, and 
distributors to provide downstream notification of the requirements, as 
outlined in Unit IV.E.2.
    EPA notes that not all TSCA conditions of use of CTC are subject to 
this final rule. ``Conditions of use'' is defined in TSCA section 3(4) 
to mean the circumstances, as determined by EPA, under which a chemical 
substance is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be 
manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of. 
As described in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride (Ref. 
1) and the 2022 Revised Unreasonable Risk Determination for Carbon 
Tetrachloride (Ref. 3), two conditions of use of CTC do not drive the 
unreasonable risk: distribution in commerce and processing as a 
reactant/intermediate in reactive ion etching. EPA is not finalizing 
any restrictions for the processing of CTC as a reactant/intermediate 
in reactive ion etching. However, under TSCA section 6(a), EPA may 
select from among a suite of risk management requirements in TSCA 
section 6(a), including requirements related to distribution in 
commerce, as part of its regulatory options to address the unreasonable 
risk; EPA's final regulatory action includes prohibitions on the 
distribution in commerce of CTC for certain downstream conditions of 
use to address unreasonable risk from those downstream conditions of 
use. Additionally, as explained in Section 1.4.2.3 of the 2020 Risk 
Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride and Section 2.2.2.1 of the 2018 
Problem Formulation of the Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride, 
EPA concluded that the industrial/commercial/consumer uses of CTC in 
adhesives/sealants, paints/coatings, and cleaning/degreasing solvent 
products contain only trace amounts of CTC, present only de minimis 
exposures or otherwise insignificant risks under TSCA, and did not 
warrant inclusion in the risk evaluation. Therefore, EPA has excluded 
from the rule's requirements CTC that is solely present unintentionally 
in trace quantities with another chemical substance or mixture, whether 
as a manufacturing residue, unreacted feedstock, byproduct, or other 
contaminant. However, EPA notes that the Agency has discretion to 
further assess trace quantities of CTC under other regulatory 
authorities, such as the Clean Air Act. Finally, manufacture of CTC as 
a byproduct was not evaluated in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon 
Tetrachloride (Ref. 1); therefore, in this final rule, WCPP 
requirements applicable to the domestic manufacture of CTC do not apply 
where CTC is manufactured solely as a byproduct. EPA anticipates that 
any risks presented by the presence of CTC as a byproduct formed during 
the manufacturing, processing or use of a parent compound will be 
considered in the scope of the risk evaluation of such parent compound. 
For example, EPA will assess the risks of CTC manufactured as a 
byproduct during the manufacture of 1,2-dichloroethane in the TSCA risk 
evaluation for 1,2-dichloroethane (Ref. 1).

D. Why is the Agency taking this action?

    Under TSCA section 6(a), ``[i]f the Administrator determines in 
accordance with subsection (b)(4)(A) that the manufacture, processing, 
distribution in commerce, use or disposal of a chemical substance or 
mixture, or that any combination of such activities, presents an 
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, the 
Administrator shall by rule . . . apply one or more of the [section 
6(a)] requirements to such substance or mixture to the extent necessary 
so that the chemical substance or mixture no longer presents such 
risk.'' CTC was the subject of a risk evaluation under TSCA section 
6(b)(4)(A) that was issued in November 2020 (Ref. 1). In addition, EPA 
issued a revised unreasonable risk determination in December 2022 (Ref. 
3), determining that CTC, as a whole chemical substance, presents an 
unreasonable risk of injury to health under the conditions of use. On 
July 28, 2023, EPA issued a proposed rulemaking (88 FR 49180) (FRL-
8206-01-OCSPP) under TSCA section 6(a) to take action to the extent 
necessary so that CTC no longer presents such risk. The Agency received 
public comment on the proposal. With this action, EPA is finalizing 
with modifications the July 2023 proposed rule so that CTC no longer 
presents an such risk. The conditions of use that contribute to the 
unreasonable risk from CTC are described in the proposed rule (88 FR 
49190) (FRL-8206-01-OCSPP) and Unit IV.
    CTC's hazards are well established. EPA's 2020 Risk Evaluation for 
Carbon Tetrachloride considered the hazards

[[Page 103514]]

associated with exposure to CTC and determined that CTC presents an 
unreasonable risk of injury to health due to the significant adverse 
health effects associated with the exposure of CTC. While some risks of 
adverse effects from CTC exposure are associated with acute single 
exposures, other risks are associated with long-term repeated 
exposures. EPA identified cancer and liver toxicity adverse effects 
from chronic inhalation and dermal exposures as well as liver toxicity 
from acute dermal exposures to CTC (Refs. 1, 2, 3). Cancer adverse 
effects (e.g., liver, pheochromocytoma, neuroblastoma) were identified 
for chronic inhalation and dermal exposures. Cancer was selected based 
on the best available science and weight of scientific evidence, and in 
consideration of the severity of hazards, magnitude of exposure, 
population exposed, and uncertainties in the November 2020 Risk 
Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride and the December 2022 Revised Risk 
Determination for Carbon Tetrachloride. EPA identified in the 2020 Risk 
Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride a threshold cancer point of 
departure (POD) for liver tumors (assuming a margin of exposure of 
300), and an inhalation unit risk (IUR) for adrenal tumors, based on 
effects observed in mice following inhalation exposure. The chronic 
non-cancer PODs for inhalation exposures are based on a study observing 
increased fatty changes in rodent livers (fatty changes in the liver 
are a precursor for liver fibrosis). EPA also identified additional 
risks associated with other adverse effects (e.g., immediate and 
temporary depression of the central nervous system, kidney toxicity, 
reproductive and developmental toxicity, irritation and sensitization, 
and genetic toxicity) resulting from acute and chronic exposures. For 
this action, EPA has determined that protecting against liver and 
adrenal cancer would also address the risk for acute non-cancer, 
chronic non-cancer, and additional cancer risks from CTC, as identified 
in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride and the Revised 
Unreasonable Risk Determination for CTC in December 2022 (Ref. 1, 2 and 
3).
    CTC is primarily used as a feedstock to make products such as 
refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and foam-blowing agents. 
Requirements under the Montreal Protocol and Title VI of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA), which were included in the CAA Amendments of 1990 and are 
codified at 42 U.S.C. Chapter 85, Subchapter VI, led to a phaseout of 
CTC production in the United States for most non-feedstock domestic 
uses, such as degreasers and fire suppressants. In addition, the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) banned the use of CTC in 
household (i.e., consumer) products (excluding unavoidable residues not 
exceeding 10 ppm atmospheric concentration) in 1970 (see 16 CFR 
1500.17(a)(2)). The Agency has considered the benefits of CTC for 
various uses as required under TSCA section 6(c)(2)(A) and (B) and 
recognizes that continued use of CTC for some TSCA conditions of use 
should be maintained for several reasons. The use of CTC may provide 
benefits that complement the Agency's efforts to address climate-
damaging HFCs under the AIM Act and the Kigali Amendment to the 
Montreal Protocol, supporting human health and environmental protection 
under these programs. In addition, the use of CTC may provide other 
benefits due to certain unique properties of CTC (e.g., it does not 
react with the process gasses when used as a process agent in the 
manufacture of agricultural products (Ref. 4)). Finally, strict 
workplace controls can be implemented to address unreasonable risk 
across many conditions of use. For some workplaces, EPA understands 
that existing controls may already reduce exposures enough to meet the 
inhalation exposure concentration limit proposed in this rulemaking or 
to prevent direct dermal contact with CTC. For many of the conditions 
of use for which EPA is finalizing workplace controls under a WCPP, 
data indicating that certain uses could meet the exposure limit and 
ancillary requirements of an effective WCPP in addressing unreasonable 
risk were submitted during the risk evaluation, the comment period 
following publication of the proposed rule, or during stakeholder 
outreach engagements, and are available in the corresponding public 
dockets (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0733; EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0499; EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2020-0592).
    Accordingly, EPA is finalizing workplace controls to address the 
unreasonable risk while allowing continued use for 100% of the 
production volume of CTC manufactured annually, including the 
processing of CTC as a reactant in the production of HFOs. The 
rationale for the final regulatory action, including the TSCA section 6 
requirements considered in developing the regulatory action, is 
described in Units II.D. and III.

E. What are the estimated incremental impacts of this action?

    EPA has prepared an Economic Analysis for the potential incremental 
impacts associated with this rulemaking that can be found in the 
rulemaking docket (Ref. 5). As described in more detail in the Economic 
Analysis and in Unit V.D., EPA's estimate of the incremental costs of 
this final rule is $19.7 million per year annualized over 20 years at a 
3% discount rate and $19 million per year at a 7% discount rate (Ref. 
5). In response to the updated Circular A-4 published in November 2023, 
the incremental costs of this rule at a 2% discount rate ($19.9 million 
annualized over 20 years) are provided in Appendix C of the Economic 
Analysis (Ref. 5).
    These costs include compliance with a WCPP for certain conditions 
of use, applicable PPE requirements, and notification and recordkeeping 
costs. EPA was not able to quantify the costs associated with 
administrative and engineering controls because they are site-specific 
and depend on the extent to which controls are already in place, which 
is likely to vary across individual facilities. Thus, for the purpose 
of estimating costs and benefits, this analysis assumes that PPE is 
used. Under the WCPP, regulated entities would be required to consider 
respirators and dermal PPE only after consideration of other more 
effective strategies in the hierarchy of controls adopted by the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National 
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to reduce 
exposures (Ref. 6). Regulated entities are required first to consider 
other measures in the hierarchy of controls and then to select PPE 
based on monitoring results because the Agency recognizes that 
workplaces have unique processes and equipment in place, and that 
varying levels of respiratory Assigned Protection Factor (APFs) may be 
needed for different workplaces.
    Industry is expected to incur costs associated with performing 
inspections, documenting efforts to meet the regulatory requirements 
associated with the WCPP, including reducing exposure and occurrences 
of exposure, monitoring, respirators and dermal PPE, training on the 
use of respirators and dermal PPE, and notification and recordkeeping 
burdens and costs associated with the WCPP. Industry is also expected 
to incur equipment costs associated with dermal PPE for laboratory use. 
EPA assumes that industry would not incur equipment costs associated 
with the ventilated

[[Page 103515]]

laboratory safety requirement for laboratory settings because these 
requirements are part of baseline industry practices. All manufacturers 
(including importers), processors, and distributors will bear 
downstream notification and recordkeeping costs.
    The costs are estimated as incremental to baseline conditions, 
including current use of PPE. The costs represent a high-end estimate 
of the number of entities and workers affected by the regulation 
because the high estimates of workers and entities from the 2020 Risk 
Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride were used. To the extent that EPA's 
approach overestimates the number of entities subject to the 
regulation, actual realized costs of this action will be lower. More 
details regarding the provisions of the final rule are in Unit IV.
    In addition to the quantified costs, there is an unquantified cost 
to workers and firms associated with prolonged use of respirators, 
which could interfere with work tasks. The potential for respirator use 
to cause discomfort and productivity losses could lead companies to 
offer higher wages as compensation, but the extent of this effect is 
unknown and thus unquantified. The Economic Analysis contains 
additional information about the unquantified costs in Chapter 3 and in 
the Estimated Incremental Costs section of the Executive Summary (Ref. 
5).
    Unit IV. details which actions apply to specific conditions of use. 
EPA estimates that 30 firms associated with 72 sites may be 
manufacturing (including importing), processing, or releasing CTC.
    EPA estimates that the final rule would affect at least seven small 
entities. EPA compared the highest annualized per-facility cost of the 
final regulatory action with ultimate parent company annual revenues of 
the affected small businesses. EPA found impacts under 1% of annual 
revenues for five of the seven small entities. Two small entities were 
estimated to have a cost-to-revenue impact ratio of between one and 
three percent.
    In alignment with the goals of President Biden's Cancer Moonshot, 
the rule will protect people from cancer and other adverse health 
effects of CTC (Ref. 7). The actions in this final rule are expected to 
achieve health benefits for the American public. The Economic Analysis 
monetizes benefits to occupational users and non-users of avoiding 
cases of adrenal and liver cancer due to reduced inhalation exposures 
that result from implementation of the WCPP. The magnitude of the 
cancer benefits from reduced inhalation exposure is estimated assuming 
companies provide respirators to comply. It is also possible that 
employees will receive respiratory benefits from other actions on 
OSHA's hierarchy of controls, such as engineering controls, since 
regulated entities are required first to consider other measures in the 
hierarchy of controls and then to select PPE based on monitoring 
results. However, the Economic Analysis does not estimate the costs of 
such controls because feasible controls and their costs are site-
specific and the amount of additional exposure reduction that could be 
achieved through any given type of control would depend on the extent 
to which such controls are already in place, which is likely to vary 
across individual facilities. This assumption is made for the purpose 
of estimating costs only and is not an assumption about how facilities 
would necessarily comply with WCPP requirements. Other human health 
benefits, including noncancer and additional cancer benefits, while 
tangible and significant, cannot be monetized due to data and 
methodology limitations. These include additional cancer benefits from 
avoided brain tumors, noncancer health benefits, health benefits from 
avoided dermal exposure, and benefits to the environment. The 
incremental improvements in health outcomes achieved by given 
reductions in exposure cannot currently be quantified for non-cancer 
health effects associated with CTC exposure, and therefore cannot be 
converted into monetized benefits. Although some benefits cannot be 
quantified, they are not necessarily less important than the quantified 
benefits. The primary reason these benefits were not quantified is the 
difficulty in estimating the relationship between an incremental change 
in CTC use and the corresponding change to a specific health or 
environmental outcome.
    Adrenal and liver cancer avoidance benefits are calculated based on 
reductions in inhalation exposure using the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 
Carbon Tetrachloride (Ref. 1) for those uses which are continuing but 
with a WCPP in place. Therefore, benefits are only calculated for the 
WCPP in the final rule, which could include respiratory protection. The 
estimated monetized benefit of the final rule ranges from approximately 
$0.13 to $0.14 million per year annualized over 20 years at a 3% 
discount rate and from $0.06 to $0.07 million per year at a 7% discount 
rate. In response to the updated Circular A-4 published in November 
2023, the incremental benefits at a 2% discount rate ($0.16 to $0.17 
million annualized over 20 years) are provided in Appendix C of the 
Economic Analysis (Ref. 5). To estimate the costs and benefits of the 
WCPP, the Economic Analysis generated a likely distribution of air 
monitoring outcomes at CTC facilities. This distribution was used to 
project the number of facilities that would require each respirator 
APF. These estimates are subject to uncertainties, and there could be 
facilities with higher or lower air exposures than estimated in the 
Economic Analysis.
    Using the high-end estimates for the number of entities and workers 
affected by the final rule, the monetized net benefit of the final 
rule, which is negative, is -$19.6 million per year annualized over 20 
years at a 3% discount rate and is -$18.9 million per year at a 7% 
discount rate. In response to the updated Circular A-4 published in 
November 2023, the incremental net benefits at a 2% discount rate (-
$19.7 million annualized over 20 years) are provided in Appendix C of 
the Economic Analysis (Ref. 5). The range in the monetized net benefits 
estimate at each discount rate presented in the Economic Analysis 
reflects uncertainty in cancer risk reductions given the shorter 
exposure durations being considered and the life stage at which the 
changes in exposure occur. Although the estimated monetized net 
benefits are negative, there are also non-monetized benefits due to 
other avoided adverse health effects associated with CTC exposure, 
including liver, reproductive, renal, developmental, and central 
nervous system (CNS) toxicity endpoints. These are serious health 
endpoints, even though the change in risk due to CTC exposure was not 
quantified in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride.
    Section 6.6 of the Economic Analysis, addressing environmental 
justice impacts, provides sociodemographic data on communities and 
workers in industries affected by the rule and people who live in 
proximity to potentially affected facilities. EPA analyzed the baseline 
conditions facing communities near CTC and HFO manufacturing facilities 
as well as those of workers in the same industry and county as CTC 
facilities and HFO manufacturing facilities. The environmental justice 
analysis found that, across the entire population within 1- and 3-miles 
of CTC facilities, there are higher percentages of people who identify 
as Black and living below the poverty line and a similar percentage of 
people who identify as Hispanic

[[Page 103516]]

compared to the national averages. CTC facilities are concentrated in 
Texas and Louisiana, especially near Houston and Baton Rouge.

II. Background

A. Overview of Carbon Tetrachloride

    As described in more detail in the proposed rule, EPA identified 
liver and adrenal toxicity cancer adverse effects from chronic 
inhalation and dermal exposures, as well as liver toxicity from acute 
dermal exposures in the workplace as the basis for the unreasonable 
risk determination for CTC (Ref. 1, 2, and 3). This final rule is 
specifically intended to address the unreasonable risk of injury to 
health EPA identified in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon 
Tetrachloride (Ref. 1) and the 2022 Revised Unreasonable Risk 
Determination for Carbon Tetrachloride (Ref. 3), as described in Unit 
II.C. CTC is a volatile organic compound that is primarily used as a 
feedstock in the production of HCFCs, HFCs, and HFOs.
    According to data submitted for EPA's 2016 and 2020 Chemical Data 
Reporting (CDR) Rule, in Reporting Years (RY) 2015 and 2019, between 
100 and 250 million pounds of CTC were manufactured or imported in the 
United States (Refs. 5, 8, 9). CTC's use as a feedstock in the 
production of HCFCs, HFCs, and HFOs and the description of finalized 
requirements to address the unreasonable risk are described in Unit 
IV.B.

B. Regulatory Actions Pertaining to Carbon Tetrachloride

    Because of its adverse health effects, CTC is subject to numerous 
Federal laws and regulations in the United States and is also subject 
to regulation by some states and other countries. A summary of EPA 
regulations pertaining to CTC, as well as other Federal, State, and 
international regulations, is provided in the docket (Refs. 1, 10).
    As described in more detail in Unit II.C. of EPA's proposed rule 
(88 FR 49184, July 28, 2023) (FRL-8206-01-OCSPP) and the Response to 
Public Comments document (Ref. 11), EPA considered the adequacy of the 
current occupational safety and health standards from the OSHA (29 CFR 
part 1910) for protection of workers. EPA notes that the standards for 
chemical hazards that OSHA promulgates under the Occupational Safety 
and Health (OSH Act) share a broadly similar purpose with the worker 
protection-related regulations that EPA promulgates under TSCA section 
6(a). The control measures OSHA and EPA require to satisfy the 
objectives of their respective statutes may also, in many 
circumstances, overlap or coincide. However, there are important 
differences between EPA's and OSHA's regulatory approaches and 
jurisdiction, and EPA considers these differences when deciding whether 
and how to account for OSHA requirements when evaluating and addressing 
potential unreasonable risk to workers so that compliance requirements 
are clearly explained to the regulated community. TSCA risk evaluations 
are subject to statutory science standards, an explicit requirement to 
consider risks to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations, 
and a prohibition on considering costs and other non-risk factors when 
determining whether a chemical presents an unreasonable risk that 
warrants regulatory actions--all requirements that do not apply to 
development of OSHA regulations. As such, EPA may find unreasonable 
risk for purposes of TSCA notwithstanding OSHA requirements. In 
addition, health standards issued under section 6(b)(5) of the OSH Act 
must reduce significant risk only to the extent that it is 
technologically and economically feasible. OSHA's legal requirement to 
demonstrate that its section 6(b)(5) standards are technologically and 
economically feasible at the time they are promulgated often precludes 
OSHA from imposing exposure control requirements sufficient to ensure 
that the chemical substance no longer presents a significant risk to 
workers. While it is possible in some cases that the OSHA standards for 
some chemicals reviewed under TSCA will eliminate unreasonable risk, 
based on EPA's experience thus far in conducting occupational risk 
assessments under TSCA, EPA believes that OSHA chemical standards would 
in general be unlikely to address unreasonable risk to workers within 
the meaning of TSCA, since TSCA section 6(b) unreasonable risk 
determinations may account for unreasonable risk to more sensitive 
endpoints and working populations than OSHA's risk evaluations 
typically contemplate and EPA is obligated to apply TSCA section 6(a) 
risk management requirements to the extent necessary so that the 
unreasonable risk is no longer presented. Because the requirements and 
application of TSCA and OSHA regulatory analyses differ, it is 
necessary for EPA to conduct risk evaluations and, where it finds 
unreasonable risk to workers, develop risk management requirements for 
chemical substances that OSHA also regulates, and it is expected that 
EPA's findings and requirements may sometimes diverge from OSHA's. 
Additional considerations of OSHA standards in the 2022 Revised 
Unreasonable Risk Determination for Carbon Tetrachloride are discussed 
further in the Federal Register of December 27, 2022 (87 FR 79303).
    EPA intends for this regulation to be as consistent as possible 
with OSHA regulations for toxic and hazardous substances, with 
additional requirements as necessary to address the unreasonable risk. 
Consistent with TSCA section 9(d), EPA consults and coordinates TSCA 
activities with OSHA and other relevant Federal agencies for the 
purpose of achieving the maximum enforcement of TSCA while imposing the 
least burdens of duplicative requirements.

C. Summary of EPA's Risk Evaluation Activities on Carbon Tetrachloride

    EPA published the scope of the CTC risk evaluation in July 2017 (82 
FR 31592) (FRL-9963-57), and, after receiving public comments, 
published the problem formulation on June 11, 2018 (83 FR 26998) (FRL-
9978-40). In January 2020, EPA published a draft risk evaluation (85 FR 
4658, January 27, 2020) (FRL-10003-92), and, after public comment and 
peer review by the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC), EPA 
issued the Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride in November 2020 in 
accordance with TSCA section 6(b) (Ref. 1) (85 FR 70147, November 4, 
2020) (FRL-10015-51). EPA subsequently issued a draft revised TSCA 
unreasonable risk determination for CTC (87 FR 52766, August 29, 2022) 
(FRL-9948-01-OCSPP), and, after public notice and receipt of comments, 
published a Revised Unreasonable Risk Determination for Carbon 
Tetrachloride in December 2022 (Ref. 3) (87 FR 79303, December 27, 
2022) (FRL-9948-02-OCSPP). The 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon 
Tetrachloride and supplemental materials are in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2019-0499, and the December 2022 revised unreasonable risk 
determination and additional materials supporting the risk evaluation 
process in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0733 available at https://www.regulations.gov.
1. 2020 Risk Evaluation
    In the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride, EPA evaluated 
risks associated with 15 conditions of use within the following 
categories: manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in 
commerce, industrial and commercial use, and disposal (Ref. 1). The 
conditions of use are described in Unit III.B.1. of the

[[Page 103517]]

proposed rule (88 FR 49190) (FRL-8206-01-OCSPP) and in Unit IV. of this 
final rule. The 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride 
identified significant adverse health effects associated with short-
term and long-term exposure to CTC. A further discussion of the hazards 
of CTC is presented in Unit III.B.3 of the proposed rule (88 FR 49192) 
(FRL-8206-01-OCSPP) and in Unit V. of this final rule.
2. 2022 Revised Unreasonable Risk Determination
    As described in more detail in the proposed rule, EPA revised the 
original unreasonable risk determination based on the 2020 Risk 
Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride and issued a final revised 
unreasonable risk determination in December 2022 (Ref. 3). EPA revised 
the risk determination for the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon 
Tetrachloride pursuant to TSCA section 6(b) and consistent with 
Executive Order 13990 (titled ``Protecting Public Health and the 
Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis'') and 
other Administration priorities (Refs. 12, 13, 14). The revisions 
consisted of making a single risk determination for the whole-chemical 
substance instead of making the risk determination for each individual 
condition of use, which resulted in the revised risk determination 
superseding the prior ``no unreasonable risk'' determinations for 
specific conditions of use (Ref. 3), the withdrawal of the associated 
TSCA section 6(i)(1) ``no unreasonable risk'' order, and clarification 
that the risk determination does not reflect an assumption that all 
workers are always provided and appropriately wear personal protective 
equipment (PPE) (Ref. 3).
    EPA determined that CTC presents an unreasonable risk of injury to 
health, and EPA did not identify risks of injury to the environment 
that contribute to the unreasonable risk determination for CTC. The CTC 
conditions of use that contribute to EPA's determination that the 
chemical substance poses unreasonable risk to health are listed in the 
unreasonable risk determination (Ref. 3) and also in Unit III.B.1. of 
the proposed rule, with descriptions to aid chemical manufacturers, 
processors, and users in determining how their particular use or 
activity would be addressed under the final regulatory action. The 
descriptions of the conditions of use subject to this final rule are in 
Unit IV.
    The conditions of use that do not drive the unreasonable risk for 
CTC (distribution in commerce and processing as a reactant/intermediate 
in reactive ion etching) are also listed in the unreasonable risk 
determination (Ref. 3) and in Unit III.B.2. of the proposed rule. EPA's 
final rule includes prohibitions on the distribution in commerce of CTC 
for certain downstream uses, but does not include any restrictions for 
the processing as a reactant/intermediate in reactive ion etching.
3. Description of Unreasonable Risk
    EPA has determined that CTC presents an unreasonable risk of injury 
to health under the conditions of use, based on cancer and acute and 
chronic toxicity for non-cancer effects. As described in more detail in 
the proposed rule, the TSCA section 6(b) 2020 Risk Evaluation for 
Carbon Tetrachloride, and the July 2022 errata memorandum correcting 
risk estimates for acute dermal exposures, EPA identified cancer and 
liver toxicity adverse effects from chronic inhalation and dermal 
exposures as well as liver toxicity from acute dermal exposures to CTC 
(Refs. 1, 2, 3). Cancer adverse effects (e.g., liver, pheochromocytoma, 
neuroblastoma) were identified for chronic inhalation and dermal 
exposures. For chronic and acute non-cancer inhalation exposure to CTC, 
liver toxicity due to fatty change in the liver was indicative of 
cellular damage and selected as the most sensitive non-cancer endpoint. 
EPA identified additional risks associated with other adverse effects 
(e.g., immediate and temporary depression of the central nervous 
system, kidney toxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, 
irritation and sensitization, and genetic toxicity) resulting from 
acute and chronic exposures (Ref. 1). By establishing protections from 
liver and adrenal cancer, EPA's final rule will also prevent the 
unreasonable risk from other less sensitive endpoints, including acute, 
chronic non-cancer, and additional cancer risks from CTC (Ref. 15).
    EPA considered potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations 
identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by the Agency, which are 
included in the quantitative and qualitative analyses described in the 
2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride (Ref. 1) and were 
considered in the determination of unreasonable risk for CTC.
4. Conditions of Use Subject to This Regulatory Action
    As noted in Unit I.C., ``Conditions of use'' is defined in TSCA 
section 3(4). To assist with the implementation and compliance with the 
final rule, in Unit IV., EPA has provided a description of the 
conditions of use subject to the WCPP and to prescriptive controls, as 
well as those conditions of use prohibited by this final rule. The 
descriptions provided were obtained from EPA sources such as CDR codes, 
the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride and related 
documents, as well as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 
Development (OECD) harmonized use codes, and stakeholder engagements. 
EPA received public comments requesting minor clarifications of the 
descriptions for some industrial and commercial uses, and EPA has 
clarified those descriptions in Unit IV. A description of the minor 
changes can be found in the response to comments document (Ref. 11) and 
in Unit III.E.
    For the purposes of this final rule, ``occupational conditions of 
use'' refers to the TSCA conditions of use described in Units IV.B.1., 
IV.C.1., and IV.D.1. of the final rule. Although EPA identified both 
industrial and commercial uses in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon 
Tetrachloride (Ref. 1) for purposes of distinguishing exposure 
scenarios, the Agency clarified then and clarifies now that EPA 
interprets the authority Congress gave to the Agency to ``regulat[e] 
any manner or method of commercial use'' under TSCA section 6(a)(5) to 
reach both industrial and commercial uses.
    EPA further notes that this rule does not apply to any substance 
excluded from the definition of ``chemical substance'' under TSCA 
section 3(2)(B)(ii) through (vi). Those exclusions include, but are not 
limited to, any pesticide (as defined by the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) when manufactured, processed, or 
distributed in commerce for use as a pesticide; and any food, food 
additive, drug, cosmetic, or device, as defined in section 201 of the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, when manufactured, processed, or 
distributed in commerce for use as a food, food additive, drug, 
cosmetic or device.

D. EPA's Proposed Rule Under TSCA Section 6(a) for Carbon Tetrachloride

1. Description of TSCA Section 6(a) Requirements
    Under TSCA section 6(a), if the Administrator determines through a 
TSCA section 6(b) risk evaluation that a chemical substance presents an 
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without 
consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors, including an 
unreasonable risk to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation 
identified as relevant to

[[Page 103518]]

the Agency's risk evaluation, under the conditions of use, EPA must by 
rule apply one or more of the TSCA section 6(a) requirements to the 
extent necessary so that the chemical substance or mixture no longer 
presents such risk.
    The TSCA section 6(a) requirements can include one or more of the 
following actions alone or in combination:
     Prohibit or otherwise restrict the manufacturing 
(including import), processing, or distribution in commerce of the 
substance or mixture, or limit the amount of such substance or mixture 
which may be manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce (TSCA 
section 6(a)(1)).
     Prohibit or otherwise restrict the manufacturing, 
processing, or distribution in commerce of the substance or mixture for 
a particular use or above a specific concentration for a particular use 
(TSCA section 6(a)(2)).
     Limit the amount of the substance or mixture which may be 
manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce for a particular 
use or above a specific concentration for a particular use specified 
(TSCA section 6(a)(2)).
     Require clear and adequate minimum warnings and 
instructions with respect to the substance or mixture's use, 
distribution in commerce, or disposal, or any combination of those 
activities, to be marked on or accompanying the substance or mixture 
(TSCA section 6(a)(3)).
     Require manufacturers and processors of the substance or 
mixture to make and retain certain records, or conduct certain 
monitoring or testing (TSCA section 6(a)(4)).
     Prohibit or otherwise regulate any manner or method of 
commercial use of the substance or mixture (TSCA section 6(a)(5)).
     Prohibit or otherwise regulate any manner or method of 
disposal of the substance or mixture, or any article containing such 
substance or mixture, by its manufacturer or processor or by any person 
who uses or disposes of it for commercial purposes (TSCA section 
6(a)(6)).
     Direct manufacturers or processors of the substance or 
mixture to give notice of the unreasonable risk determination to 
distributors, certain other persons, and the public, and to replace or 
repurchase the substance or mixture (TSCA section 6(a)(7)).
    This unit summarizes the TSCA section 6 considerations for issuing 
regulations under TSCA section 6(a), and it is consistent with the 
considerations and analyses presented in the proposed rule to manage 
the unreasonable risk from CTC (88 FR 49180, July 28, 2023 (FRL-8206-
01-OCSPP)).
    As required, EPA developed a proposed regulatory action and an 
alternative regulatory action, which are described in Units IV.A. and 
IV.B., respectively, of the proposed rule (88 FR 49193 through 491205 
(FRL-8206-01-OCSPP)). To identify and select a regulatory action, EPA 
considered the two routes of exposure driving the unreasonable risk, 
inhalation and dermal, and the exposed populations. For occupational 
conditions of use, EPA considered how it could directly regulate 
manufacturing (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, 
industrial and commercial use, or disposal to address the unreasonable 
risk.
    As required by TSCA section 6(c)(2), EPA considered several 
factors, in addition to the identified unreasonable risk, when 
selecting among possible TSCA section 6(a) regulatory requirements for 
the proposed rule. EPA's considerations regarding TSCA section 6(c)(2) 
and section 6(c)(2)(A) for CTC are discussed in full in Unit VI. of the 
proposed rule (88 FR 49209) (FRL-8206-01-OCSPP), including the 
statement of effects with respect to these considerations. After review 
of the public comments received, EPA has revised its statement of 
effects considerations in Unit V. of this final rule.
    Additionally, as described in more detail in EPA's proposed rule in 
Unit V.B. (88 FR 49209) (FRL-8206-01-OCSPP), EPA considered the 
availability of alternatives when finalizing a prohibition or a 
substantial restriction (TSCA section 6(c)(2)(C)), and in setting final 
compliance dates in accordance with the requirements in TSCA section 
6(d)(1)(B)).
    To the extent information was reasonably available, EPA considered 
pollution prevention strategies and the hierarchy of controls adopted 
by OSHA and the NIOSH when developing its proposed rule, with the goal 
of identifying risk management control methods that would be permanent, 
feasible, and effective. EPA also considered how to address the 
unreasonable risk while providing flexibility to the regulated 
community where appropriate, and EPA took into account the information 
presented in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride (Ref. 
1), input from stakeholders, insight received during consultations, and 
anticipated compliance strategies from regulated entities.
    Taken together, these considerations led EPA to the proposed 
regulatory action and alternative action described in Unit II.D.3. The 
proposed rule presents additional details related to how the 
requirements described in Unit II.D.1. of this document were 
incorporated into development of the proposed rule and primary 
alternative action.
2. Consultations and Other Engagement
a. Consultations
    EPA conducted consultations and outreach as part of development of 
the July 28, 2023 proposed rule (88 FR 49180) (FRL-8206-01-OCSPP). The 
Agency held a federalism consultation from December 17, 2020, until 
February 17, 2021, as part of the rulemaking process and pursuant to 
Executive Order 13132 (Ref. 16).
    EPA also consulted with Tribal officials (Ref. 17). The Agency held 
a Tribal consultation from December 7, 2020, through March 12, 2021, 
with meetings held on January 6 and 12, 2021 (Ref. 17). EPA received no 
written comments as part of this consultation.
    EPA's Environmental Justice (EJ) consultation occurred from 
February 2, 2021, through April 2, 2021 (Ref. 18). On February 2 and 
18, 2021, EPA held public meetings as part of this consultation. These 
meetings were held pursuant to Executive Orders 12898 and 14008. EPA 
received one written comment following the EJ meeting, in addition to 
oral comments provided during the consultation (Ref. 18).
    More information regarding the consultations is presented in Units 
VIII.E., VIII.F. and VIII.J.
b. Other Stakeholder Consultations
    In addition to the formal consultations described in Unit 
II.D.2.a., EPA held a webinar on December 10, 2020, providing an 
overview of the TSCA risk management processes and the risk evaluation 
findings for CTC (Ref. 19). EPA also presented on the TSCA risk 
management process and the findings in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 
Carbon Tetrachloride at a Small Business Administration (SBA) 
Roundtable on December 4, 2020 (Ref. 20). Attendees of these meetings 
were given an opportunity to voice their concerns on both the risk 
evaluation and risk management.
    Furthermore, during development of the proposed and final rule, EPA 
engaged in discussions with representatives from different industries, 
non-governmental organizations, organized labor, technical experts, and 
users of CTC, including a

[[Page 103519]]

webinar providing an overview of the proposed rule. A list of external 
meetings held during the development of the 2023 proposed and final 
rule is available in the docket (Ref. 21); meeting materials and 
summaries are also in the docket.
c. Children's Environmental Health
    The Agency's 2021 Policy on Children's Health (Ref. 22) requires 
EPA to protect children from environmental exposures by consistently 
and explicitly considering early life exposures (from conception, 
infancy, early childhood and through adolescence until 21 years of age) 
and lifelong health in all human health decisions through identifying 
and integrating children's health data and information when conducting 
risk assessments. TSCA section 6(b)(4)(A) also requires EPA to conduct 
risk evaluations ``to determine whether a chemical substance presents 
an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment . . . 
including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible 
subpopulation identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by the 
Administrator, under the conditions of use.'' In addition, TSCA section 
6(a) requires EPA to apply one or more risk management requirements 
under TSCA section 6(a) so that CTC no longer presents an unreasonable 
risk (which includes unreasonable risk to any relevant potentially 
exposed or susceptible subpopulation). Information on how the Policy 
was applied and on the health and risk assessments supporting this 
action is available under Units II.C. II.D. and V.A., as well as in 
Unit III.A.3. of the July 2023 proposed rule (88 FR 49184 through 
49188, 49205 through 49208 and 49190) (FRL-8206-01-OCSPP), the 2020 
Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride, and the Economic Analysis for 
this rule (Refs. 1, 5).
3. Proposed Regulatory Action
    EPA's proposed rule under TSCA section 6(a) to address the 
unreasonable risk presented by CTC under its conditions of use included 
the following:
     Requirements for strict workplace controls, including a 
CTC WCPP, which would include requirements to meet an inhalation 
exposure concentration limit and prevent direct dermal contact with 
CTC, for 9 occupational conditions of use;
     Requirements for prescriptive workplace controls for 
laboratory use; and
     Prohibition of certain processing, industrial, and 
commercial conditions of use and the manufacture, processing, and 
distribution for those uses.
    The proposed rule included timeframes for implementation. The 
prohibitions EPA proposed would take effect six months after the date 
of publication of the final rule, except for the prohibition of the 
industrial and commercial use of CTC in specialty uses by the 
Department of Defense, which would take effect one year after the date 
of publication of the final rule. Likewise, for the WCPP, EPA proposed 
timeframes for phases of compliance, beginning with monitoring at six 
months and full implementation after 12 months, as described in Unit 
IV.A.1. of the proposed rule. EPA also proposed a compliance timeframe 
of six months for prescriptive controls for laboratory use.
    Under TSCA section 6(c)(2)(A)(iv)(II) through (III), EPA is 
mandated to consider one or more alternative regulatory actions. The 
primary alternative regulatory action was included in the proposed rule 
in Unit IV.B. (88 FR 49204) (FRL-8206-01-OCSPP). Similar to the 
proposed regulatory action, the primary alternative regulatory action 
combined requirements for a WCPP and prescriptive controls to address 
the unreasonable risk from CTC under its conditions of use.
    The primary alternative regulatory action included prescriptive 
workplace controls, specifically respirators and dermal PPE, for the 
conditions of use for which EPA had proposed a WCPP. The primary 
alternative action also included a WCPP for processing, industrial, and 
commercial uses of CTC that EPA had proposed to prohibit. At the time 
of proposal, EPA did not have reasonably available information 
indicating that any of the uses proposed for prohibition were ongoing. 
EPA requested comment on whether any of the uses the Agency proposed to 
prohibit are ongoing and if EPA should consider a WCPP for those 
conditions of use of CTC. For the industrial and commercial use of CTC 
as a laboratory chemical, the primary alternative regulatory action 
considered by EPA included the implementation of only the requirements 
of Direct Dermal Contact Controls (DDCC) of the WCPP in combination 
with the use of fume hoods in workplace laboratory settings and 
advanced engineering controls specifically for DoD's use of CTC as a 
laboratory chemical in chemical weapons destruction. The compliance 
timeframes for the controls as part of the primary alternative 
regulatory action were the same as the timeframes proposed.
    For a comprehensive overview of the primary alternative regulatory 
action refer to Unit IV.B. of the proposed rule, with the rationale for 
the primary alternative regulatory action provided in Unit V.A.4. of 
the proposed rule (88 FR 49205 through 49208) (FRL-8206-01-OCSPP).
4. Public Comments Received
    EPA requested comment on all aspects of the proposed rule. During 
the public comment period, EPA held a webinar on August 15, 2023, 
providing an overview of the proposed rule and TSCA section 6; during 
the webinar, members of the public had the opportunity to share their 
perspectives (Ref. 23). The comment period closed on September 11, 
2023. EPA received 23 public comments, with a majority received from 
industry trade organizations. The public comments also include comments 
from chemical manufacturers, advocacy organizations, laboratory users, 
a union, an academic institution, members of the regulated community, 
and individual residents. A summary of the comments as well as EPA's 
responses is in the docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 11). Additionally, 
Unit III. contains summaries of public comments that informed EPA's 
regulatory approach in this final rule.
    After the close of the public comment period for the proposed rule, 
stakeholders, including affected industry and interested groups, 
requested meetings with EPA. Topics of these meetings included exposure 
controls, process descriptions, monitoring data, and specific 
conditions of use. EPA received data as part of and following these 
stakeholder meetings and has made the information available to the 
public in the rulemaking docket (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592) (Ref. 21).
    After review of the public comments received from the proposed 
rule, EPA revised certain preliminary considerations that impacted 
which conditions of use were proposed by EPA to be prohibited or that 
could continue under the WCPP or prescriptive controls (Ref. 11). 
Similarly, based on public comments received, EPA modified for this 
final rule several proposed compliance timeframes, with details in Unit 
III.

III. Changes From the Proposed Rule

    Unit III. summarizes the main changes from the proposed rule to the 
final rule, based on the consideration of the public comments.

A. Changes to Requirements for Certain Conditions of Use

    As described in Unit III.A.1., when compared to the proposed rule, 
EPA's final rule no longer prohibits two sub-

[[Page 103520]]

uses, under two separate conditions of use that were proposed for 
prohibition, and now allows them to continue under the WCPP. In 
addition, this final rule broadens the type of prescriptive controls 
required for one condition of use (Unit III.A.2.), as compared to the 
proposed rule. The rationale for these changes is described in this 
unit. EPA emphasizes that implementation of the WCPP or prescriptive 
controls can fully address the unreasonable risk from CTC for these 
conditions of use, and that these changes do not significantly impact 
the production volume of CTC expected to remain in commerce when 
compared to the proposed regulatory action. Taken together, EPA 
estimates that there are 10 facilities involved in the changes of the 
requirements to the conditions of use described in Units III.A.1. and 
2., nine of which use CTC for the industrial and commercial use as a 
laboratory chemical. In addition, EPA understands that small quantities 
of CTC are used for the sub-uses that will continue under the WCPP 
instead of the proposed prohibition (Ref. 24). The two sub-uses which 
will continue under the WCPP account for approximately 0.4% to 1% of 
total production volume, based on a comparison of 2019 CDR data on CTC 
production volume (between 100 million and 250 million lbs.) and 
information reported to EPA regarding the two sub-uses (Ref. 5, Ref. 
24).
1. Changes to the Prohibition of Certain Conditions of Use
    EPA's primary alternative regulatory action described in the 
proposed rule considered regulating several conditions of use under the 
WCPP as an alternative to the proposed prohibition, including 
incorporation into formulation, mixtures, or reaction products in 
petrochemicals-derived manufacturing, and industrial and commercial use 
as an industrial processing aid in the manufacture of petrochemicals-
derived products. In addition, EPA requested comment on whether the 
Agency should require a WCPP or prescriptive controls, including 
respirators and dermal PPE, for any of the conditions of use EPA 
proposed to prohibit.
    EPA is finalizing a WCPP for incorporation into formulation, 
mixtures, or reaction products in vinyl chloride manufacturing and the 
industrial and commercial use as an industrial processing aid in the 
manufacture of vinyl chloride, as included in the primary alternative 
regulatory action of EPA's proposal under the broader categories of 
processing: incorporation into formulation, mixtures, or reaction 
products in petrochemical-derived manufacturing and industrial and 
commercial use as an industrial processing aid in the manufacture of 
petrochemical-derived products. EPA proposed to prohibit these sub-uses 
of CTC due to the lack of information indicating that these uses are 
ongoing, but requested comment on whether CTC is still used in these 
and other conditions of use EPA proposed to prohibit, and stated that 
if EPA received information indicating the continued use of CTC for 
these conditions of use, the Agency would consider regulating these 
uses rather than prohibiting them (88 FR at 49202 through 49203, 49205, 
and 49218). EPA received comments from one entity indicating that the 
incorporation of CTC into formulation, mixtures, or reaction products 
in vinyl chloride manufacturing and the industrial and commercial use 
of CTC as an industrial processing aid in the manufacture of vinyl 
chloride are ongoing (Ref. 24). The entity indicated that switching to 
an alternative chemical or process would require replacement of 
existing infrastructure and result in the temporary loss of revenue. 
The entity using CTC for these uses provided manufacturing data used in 
the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride, indicating that CTC 
is used by this entity in industrialized and standardized settings that 
can meet the requirements of the WCPP. Therefore, EPA understands that 
the entity is able to meet the WCPP requirements for processing: 
incorporation into formulation, mixtures, or reaction products in vinyl 
chloride manufacturing and the industrial and commercial use as an 
industrial processing aid in the manufacture of vinyl chloride as well. 
Furthermore, EPA understands as a general matter that these uses would 
occur in highly industrialized settings and controlled and closed 
processes, suggesting a WCPP could be successfully implemented such 
that risk of injury to health presented by CTC is no longer 
unreasonable. CTC was used in other petrochemical-derived manufacturing 
(other than vinyl chloride manufacturing); however, based on the 
reasonably available information, such uses of CTC do not appear to be 
ongoing. Therefore, EPA has concluded that industry has already found 
feasible alternatives to CTC for these uses, EPA is prohibiting 
processing: incorporation into formulation, mixtures, or reaction 
products in the remainder of petrochemical-derived manufacturing and 
the industrial and commercial use of CTC as a processing aid in the 
manufacture of remaining petrochemical-derived products, as proposed, 
to address the unreasonable risk contributed by these conditions of 
use.
2. Changes to Restrictions: Prescriptive Controls for Industrial and 
Commercial Use as a Laboratory Chemical
    In general, EPA is finalizing the prescriptive control requirements 
for the industrial and commercial use of CTC as a laboratory chemical 
as proposed, with some modifications based on consideration of public 
comments. As described in the proposed rule, to address the 
unreasonable risk of injury to health resulting from dermal exposures 
to CTC for the industrial and commercial use as a laboratory chemical, 
EPA proposed to require dermal PPE in combination with comprehensive 
training for tasks related to the use of CTC in a laboratory setting 
for each potentially exposed person in direct dermal contact with CTC. 
EPA also proposed to require the use of fume hoods to codify the 
assumption of existing good laboratory practices that EPA relied upon 
as a key basis for its evaluation of risk from this condition of use 
(Ref. 1). EPA requested comment relative to the ability of owners and 
operators to implement laboratory chemical fume hood and dermal PPE 
related requirements within six months of publication of the final 
rule. Under the primary alternative regulatory action, EPA included 
DDCC for laboratory use and solicited comment on non-prescriptive 
requirements of DDCC as compared to the prescriptive workplace controls 
of dermal PPE.
    EPA received several comments regarding the industrial and 
commercial use as a laboratory chemical. One commenter stated that the 
proposed regulation would result in confusion and duplication with the 
OSHA standard for occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals in 
laboratories under 29 CFR 1910.1450 that is already in effect (Ref. 
25). A couple of commenters urged EPA to align its requirements for 
laboratory use of CTC more closely with the OSHA's laboratory standard 
to reduce compliance burden (Refs. 25, 26). Commenters also requested 
that EPA include flexibility for engineering controls beyond a fume 
hood for consistency with the OSHA lab standard, stating that, while 
fume hoods are considered best practice and commonly used to reduce 
exposure in laboratories, experiment designs utilizing CTC may not be 
able to be accommodated within a fume hood (Refs. 25, 27). Commenters 
described other alternative controls that can be

[[Page 103521]]

designed and implemented to reduce exposure, such as glove boxes, 
exhausted enclosures, ducted biosafety cabinets, and filtration 
devices.
    Based on information provided by commenters related to exposure 
mitigation controls to comply with the OSHA laboratory standard and 
best management practices available to laboratories, EPA has determined 
that requiring laboratory ventilation devices such as fume hoods or 
glove boxes, would better align with the OSHA laboratory standard and 
existing good laboratory practices. As described in Unit V.A.2. the 
proposed rule (88 FR 49201, July 28, 2023) (FRL-8206-01-OCSPP), EPA 
proposed to require fume hoods in laboratory settings to codify 
assumptions made in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for CTC, where EPA's risk 
estimates and determination that inhalation exposures from the 
industrial and commercial use of CTC as a laboratory chemical did not 
contribute to the unreasonable risk were predicated on its findings 
that expected safety practices of using CTC in small amounts under a 
fume hood reduce the potential for inhalation exposures (Ref. 1). In 
addition to fume hoods, EPA has determined that other types of 
ventilation systems or containment devices, when used in compliance 
with the OSHA laboratory standard at 29 CFR 1910.1450(e)(3), may 
minimize inhalation exposures in a laboratory setting consistent with 
the qualitative assumption in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for CTC that the 
potential for inhalation exposure is low due to expected use of a fume 
hood. For the industrial and commercial use as a laboratory chemical, 
EPA concurs with the commenters that indicated EPA's requirements 
should align more closely with the OSHA laboratory standard wherever 
possible to prevent confusion. The requirement in this final rule that 
laboratory ventilation safety devices, such as fume hoods or glove 
boxes, are in use and functioning properly and that specific measures 
are taken to ensure proper and adequate performance of such equipment 
to minimize exposures to persons in the area when CTC is used in a 
laboratory setting aligns with existing requirements from the OSHA 
laboratory standard at 29 CFR 1910.1450(e)(3)(iii) while remaining 
consistent with the assumptions made in the 2020 Risk Evaluation.
    As detailed in Unit IV.C. of this final rule, EPA is finalizing the 
requirements for dermal PPE in combination with comprehensive training 
for tasks related to the use of CTC in a laboratory setting as 
proposed. EPA believes these requirements align with OSHA's laboratory 
standard and OSHA's General Requirements for Personal Protective 
Equipment at 29 CFR 1910.132 to the extent possible while still 
addressing the unreasonable risk of injury to health resulting from 
dermal exposures to CTC identified for the industrial and commercial 
use as a laboratory chemical.

B. Changes to WCPP Timeframes

    For the conditions of use for which EPA proposed the WCPP, EPA 
proposed several compliance timeframes, including the following 
requirements: that initial exposure monitoring be conducted within six 
months of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register (or 
within 30 days of introduction of CTC into the workplace if CTC use 
commences at least six months after the date of publication); that each 
owner or operator ensure that the exposure to CTC does not exceed the 
ECEL as an 8-hour TWA for all potentially exposed persons within nine 
months of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register; and 
that owners and operators implement an exposure control plan within 12 
months of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. EPA 
requested comment regarding the ability of owners or operators to 
comply with the various provisions of the WCPP, including initial 
exposure monitoring, within the compliance timelines included in the 
proposal, and anticipated timelines necessary for any procedural 
adjustments needed to comply with the establishment of a respiratory 
protection program and development of an exposure control plan. EPA 
also requested comment regarding the amount of time, if any, it would 
take the regulated community to develop a method to measure at or below 
the ECEL over an entire work shift and information on what levels of 
detection are possible over an entire work shift based on existing 
monitoring methods, justification for the timeframe of the specific 
steps needed to develop a more sensitive monitoring method, cost 
associated with a more sensitive monitoring method, and any additional 
detailed information related to establishing a monitoring program to 
reliably measure CTC at or below the ECEL.
    Public comments highlighted challenges with the proposed timeframes 
and suggested longer timeframes for initial exposure monitoring. For 
example, one commenter stated that the proposed 6-month timeframe to 
conduct initial exposure monitoring may not be possible because CTC use 
may be infrequent and only occur annually or even less frequently, such 
as maintenance exercises (Ref. 28). Other commenters expressed concern 
that requirements to comply with a new exposure limit will stress 
industrial hygiene consultants and laboratories that analyze the 
samples, and urged EPA to ensure that there is adequate time for 
consultant firms and laboratories to establish sufficient capacity 
(Refs. 29, 30, 31). Several commenters stated that the proposed 6-month 
timeframe for initial monitoring would be untenable and suggested that 
the deadline be extended to 18 months (Refs. 29, 30, 32). One commenter 
stated that owners or operators should be given sufficient time to 
implement any new requirements which could involve substantial 
investments (Ref. 27). Two of the commenters reasoned that, 
particularly for CTC, at least 18 months is necessary to revalidate 
methods and determine whether revision to corporate exposure assessment 
strategy is necessary to address the new ECEL, including to address the 
specific implementation and technical feasibility challenges of 
measuring the CTC ECEL for both full shift and task measurements (Refs. 
29, 30). One commenter indicated that they need to develop methods to 
achieve the detection limit for the proposed ECEL and ECEL action 
level, to procure professional services to implement the requirements, 
and most likely require laboratory analytical support (Ref. 33). 
Additionally, one commenter expressed concern that corporate and 
facility industrial hygiene resources as well as third party 
laboratories may also be conducting a reassessment and analysis for the 
methylene chloride and PCE rules recently promulgated under TSCA 
section 6(a), thereby requiring additional time for CTC (Ref. 29).
    In consideration of public comments and the challenges of 
initiating the WCPP, even for facilities with industrial hygiene 
programs in place, and the difference in the occupational exposure 
limits between the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) and the EPA 
ECEL and the challenges associated with monitoring to new, lower EPA 
exposure thresholds that may spur an increase in the need for 
monitoring or other exposure control assessment infrastructure, EPA has 
determined that a longer compliance deadline of 540 days is as soon as 
practicable to conduct initial monitoring for CTC, which likely would 
require regulated entities to contract new services or realign current 
industrial hygiene professionals towards WCPP compliance. Providing 540 
days

[[Page 103522]]

for initial monitoring is intended to (1) prevent professional safety 
service sectors from being overwhelmed by new EPA requirements; (2) 
provide time to procure the necessary services while ensuring the 
preservation of safety quality, standards, and practices; and (3) 
provide sufficient time for a comprehensive exposure evaluation, 
increasing the likelihood of successful implementation of the WCPP. 
Following initial monitoring, EPA is finalizing the requirement that 
each owner or operator supply a respirator to each person who enters a 
regulated area within three months after the receipt of any exposure 
monitoring that indicates exposures exceeding the ECEL. Therefore, each 
owner or operator must ensure that the exposures to CTC do not exceed 
the ECEL as an 8-hour TWA for all potentially exposed persons, 
including by providing respiratory protection, no later than 630 days 
after December 18, 2024. Given the full WCPP requirements (including 
the exposure control plan) are required after owners or operators are 
required to ensure that no person is exposed to an airborne 
concentration that exceeds the TWA ECEL, EPA acknowledges that 
compliance with the ECEL may include temporary PPE use (e.g., 
respiratory protection) until comprehensive engineering and 
administrative controls are fully implemented. As described in the 
proposed rule, EPA believes that three months after receipt of exposure 
monitoring results is as soon as practicable, while also providing a 
reasonable transition period for entities to evaluate exposure 
monitoring results, acquire the correct respiratory protection, and 
establish the PPE program, including training, fit-testing, and medical 
evaluation.
    EPA also received public comment regarding the compliance timeframe 
for full implementation of the WCPP, including detailing the evaluation 
steps that would be required to assess a facility and develop, 
document, and implement an exposure control plan. To allow time for 
orderly transitions and training to comply with an ECEL (0.03 ppm (8-hr 
TWA)) that is significantly lower than the OSHA PEL of 10 ppm (8-hr 
TWA) and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists 
(ACGIH) threshold limit value (TLV) of 5 ppm (8-hr TWA) for CTC, two 
commenters suggested that EPA adopt a graduated implementation approach 
for ECEL implementation by first requiring entities that already meet 
the OSHA PEL to comply with the ACGIH TLV within two years from the 
effective date of the final rule and then permitting those facilities 
meeting the ACGIH standard three years to transition to the ECEL (Refs. 
34, 35). Two commenters expressed concern that the proposed timeframes 
would be insufficient for owners or operators to document their efforts 
to implement the hierarchy of controls as required under the WCPP, and 
recommended that the time required to develop the exposure control plan 
be extended to two years from completion of initial monitoring, for a 
total of 24 to 36 months from the effective date of the final rule, to 
provide adequate time for entities to evaluate and implement 
appropriate compliance approaches that provide flexibility and are the 
most effective for protecting workers (Refs. 29, 30).
    Based on comments, outreach, reasonably available information, and 
existing OSHA standards, EPA maintains that the majority of the 
exposure reduction and worker safety infrastructure needed for 
compliance is currently in place, but recognizes the fundamental 
challenge of building a new exposure control strategy around the new, 
lower EPA exposure limit. Additionally, based on consideration of 
public comment and given that OSHA has not promulgated a detailed 
standard specific to CTC, EPA has determined that a longer compliance 
timeframe of 1080 days for development and implementation of an 
exposure control plan is as soon as practicable to ensure that the 
regulated community has adequate time to evaluate monitoring data, 
assess and develop an exposure strategy, procure appropriate control 
technology and PPE, and implement the required chemical safety program 
for CTC.
    Therefore, EPA is finalizing the compliance timeframes for the WCPP 
provisions as follows: (1) The requirements for each owner or operator 
to conduct initial baseline monitoring must be met within 540 days 
after December 18, 2024, or within 30 days of introduction of CTC into 
the workplace, whichever is later; (2) the requirements for each owner 
or operator to ensure that exposure to CTC does not exceed the ECEL as 
an 8-hour TWA for all potentially exposed persons, including by 
providing respiratory protection to all potentially exposed persons in 
the regulated area must be met within 630 days after December 18, 2024, 
or within three months after receipt of the results of any exposure 
monitoring that indicates exposures exceeding the ECEL; and (3) the 
requirements for development and implementation of an exposure control 
plan must be met within 1,080 days after December 18, 2024. For greater 
clarity in this final rule, EPA is also finalizing with slight 
modification the requirement that owners and operators institute a 
training and information program for potentially exposed persons and 
assure their participation in the training and information program, and 
that this requirement be met within 630 days after December 18, 2024 
(see Unit IV.B.7.a.).
    EPA understands that certain departments and agencies of the 
Federal government, as well as Federal contractors acting for or on 
behalf of the Federal government, need additional time to comply with 
these timeframes. For example, complying with these timeframes could 
impact the ability of the Department of Energy (DOE) to perform 
sampling and groundwater treatment at contaminated plumes and 
wastewater treatment facilities. While, for example, 29 CFR part 1960 
sets forth procedures and guidelines for ensuring that Federal workers 
are protected in comparable ways to their non-Federal counterparts, EPA 
believes that compliance with this final rule will require increased 
and different preparations on the part of Federal agencies. For 
example, Federal agencies must follow procurement requirements, which 
will likely result in increased compliance timelines. In addition, 
these requirements will require support in the Federal budget, which, 
for some agencies, is a multi-year process. Therefore, EPA is providing 
additional time for agencies of the Federal government and their 
contractors, when acting for or on behalf of the Federal government, to 
comply with the WCPP provisions as follows: (1) The requirements for 
each owner or operator to conduct initial baseline monitoring must be 
met within 915 days after December 18, 2024, or within 30 days of 
introduction of CTC into the workplace, whichever is later; (2) the 
requirements for each owner or operator to ensure that exposure to CTC 
does not exceed the ECEL as an 8-hour TWA for all potentially exposed 
persons, including by providing respiratory protection to all 
potentially exposed persons in the regulated area, must be met within 
1,005 days after December 18, 2024, or within three months after 
receipt of the results of any exposure monitoring that indicates 
exposures exceeding the ECEL; (3) the requirements for each owner or 
operator to ensure all persons are separated, distanced, physically 
removed, or isolated from direct dermal contact with CTC, including by 
providing dermal PPE, must be met within 1,005 days after December 18, 
2024; (4) the requirements for

[[Page 103523]]

development and implementation of an exposure control plan must be met 
within 1,080 days after December 18, 2024; and (5) the requirement that 
owners or operators of workplaces subject to the WCPP institute a 
training and information program for potentially exposed persons and 
assure their participation in the training and information program 
within 1,005 days after the date of publication of the final rule in 
the Federal Register (i.e., no later than September 20, 2027).

C. Changes to WCPP Requirements

1. Exposure Monitoring Requirements
    As part of the WCPP, EPA proposed to require owners or operators 
meet certain documentation requirements for each monitoring event of 
CTC, including compliance with the Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) 
Standards in accordance with 40 CFR part 792.
    Numerous commenters expressed concern regarding the requirement 
that the WCPP include compliance with the GLP Standards (Refs. 28, 29, 
30, 31, 35, 36). Commenters stated that it is atypical, for industrial 
hygiene purposes, to use this standard for air sampling of CTC (Refs. 
29, 30, 31). According to the commenters, it is common practice within 
the industrial hygiene community to have analyses performed by American 
Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) accredited labs (Ref. 29). One 
commenter added that collection of occupational monitoring samples need 
not be conducted under the GLP Standards where planning and collection 
is overseen by a Certified Industrial Hygienist or Environmental 
Professional as defined at 40 CFR 312.10 (Refs. 30, 31). Commenters 
also suggested applying the policy described in typical TSCA section 
5(e) orders that establish a New Chemical Exposure Limit (NCEL) under 
the TSCA New Chemicals Program, which states that compliance with GLP 
Standards is not required where exposure monitoring samples are 
analyzed by a laboratory accredited by either: (A) the AIHA Industrial 
Hygiene Laboratory Accreditation Program; or (B) another comparable 
program approved in advance in writing by EPA (Refs. 29, 30, 31). 
Another commenter reasoned that GLP Standards were not intended for air 
monitoring in a workplace when compliance with such standards would 
mean that real-time assessments could not be made, as air samples would 
need to be processed and analyzed in a laboratory (Ref. 28).
    EPA agrees with the commenter that the WCPP is incompletely served 
by solely relying on the GLP Standards initially put forth in the July 
29, 2023 proposed rule (88 FR 49180) (FRL-8206-01-OCSPP). Given the 
concern from commenters regarding potential increases in demand for 
professional safety services and sampling laboratories having a 
negative impact due to anticipated industry strain and sampling 
limitations (Refs. 29, 30, 31), EPA has broadened the scope of 
laboratory accreditation accordingly. EPA has considered this 
laboratory capacity issue, in addition to other revisions for 
finalization in this rule, so that the additional infrastructure is in 
place for the regulated community to successfully implement the WCPP. 
For the final rule, EPA is requiring that exposure samples be analyzed 
using an appropriate analytical method, and related records retained, 
by a laboratory that complies with the GLP Standards in 40 CFR part 792 
or that otherwise maintains a relevant third-party laboratory 
accreditation (e.g., under the AIHA Laboratory Accreditation Programs, 
LLC Policy Module 2A/B/E of Revision 17.3), or other analogous 
industry-recognized programs.
    Another commenter stated that EPA's proposal did not make clear 
that ``personal breathing zone'' air samples to monitor exposures are 
to be taken without regard to respirator use. The commenter noted that 
OSHA requires exposure monitoring to be conducted without regard to 
respirator use (citing as an example OSHA's definition of ``employee 
exposure'' at 29 CFR 1910.1052(b)) and asserted that this important 
element of OSHA's monitoring program was omitted from EPA's proposal 
(Ref. 37). EPA agrees with the commenter that exposure monitoring 
should be conducted without regard to respiratory protection to inform 
engineering control options and respiratory protection considerations. 
Therefore, EPA is finalizing this rule to explicitly state that air 
sampling is required to measure ambient concentrations for CTC without 
taking respiratory protections into account when being performed. This 
will ensure the appropriate degree of protection to potentially exposed 
persons by logging accurate ambient air concentrations of CTC, thus 
empowering owners or operators to appropriately consider the hierarchy 
of controls.
    Additionally, as part of the WCPP, EPA proposed to require owners 
and operators to re-monitor within 15 working days after receipt of any 
exposure monitoring when results indicated non-detect, unless an 
Environmental Professional as defined at 40 CFR 312.10 or a Certified 
Industrial Hygienist reviews the monitoring results and determines re-
monitoring is not necessary. EPA received several comments disagreeing 
with the proposed requirement to review non-detect air monitoring 
samples. The commenters stated that facilities use accredited labs to 
perform industrial hygiene sampling analysis, the results are reviewed 
by industrial hygiene professionals, and it is an unnecessary step that 
adds no value to reduce risk to workers (Refs. 29, 30, 31).
    EPA disagrees with commenters that expressed the opinion that re-
evaluating a non-detect result adds no value and is inappropriate. 
While in some cases a non-detect result may accurately indicate that 
the chemical is not present and that air concentrations are below the 
ECEL action level, in other cases it may not necessarily imply 
negligible occupational exposure to the chemical. For example, 
interference from another chemical during sampling may result in an 
incorrect result of non-detect. This interference may not be recognized 
at the time of sampling or analysis. Owners and/or operators also may 
not be using sampling techniques or analytical procedures that are 
effective or appropriate for the particular chemical of interest. In 
each of these cases, non-detect results, along with supporting 
documentation about the sampling and analytical methods used to get 
those results, is a meaningful part of the potentially exposed person's 
exposure record required under the WCPP. The WCPP in the proposed rule 
and in this final rule does not require re-monitoring in all cases. Re-
monitoring may be necessary based on a professional evaluation by an 
Environmental Professional as defined at 40 CFR 312.10 or a Certified 
Industrial Hygienist. This flexibility allows owners or operators 
options in terms of revisiting occupational sampling in the event of a 
non-detect result, or evaluation by a qualified professional.
    EPA determined that a non-detect sampling result when effective 
sampling and analysis procedures are used is valuable to an owner/
operator in that it suggests effective implementation of exposure 
controls. Potentially exposed persons may also use these records in 
discussions with owner/operators, in collective bargaining situations, 
or in compliance assistance inquiries to EPA or other federal agencies. 
Exposure monitoring results may also improve overall workplace health 
and reducing owner/operator liability in the effective detection, 
treatment, and prevention of occupational disease or illness. All of 
the above scenarios are valuable for

[[Page 103524]]

owner/operators, potentially exposed persons, and for effective 
mitigation of occupational exposures. In consideration of these 
factors, EPA has removed the air monitoring equipment malfunction from 
the monitoring activities that do not require resampling based on 
professional evaluation by an Environmental Professional or Certified 
Industrial Hygienist. While professional discretion may be warranted in 
determining whether re-monitoring is needed following results that 
indicate non-detect, EPA has determined this is not appropriate in the 
event of air monitoring equipment malfunction. This is due to the 
importance of air monitoring in ensuring that the requirements of the 
WCPP are met, and the importance of the WCPP in reducing risks from 
exposures to CTC in the workplace. Monitoring results from 
malfunctioning air monitoring equipment are not valid monitoring and 
therefore not sufficient to meet the monitoring requirements under the 
WCPP.
    EPA may consider developing additional guidance regarding 
occupational monitoring in the future. Therefore, EPA is finalizing the 
requirement to re-monitor within 15 working days after receipt of any 
exposure monitoring if results indicated non-detect unless an 
Environmental Professional as defined at 40 CFR 312.10 or a Certified 
Industrial Hygienist reviews the monitoring results and determines re-
monitoring is not necessary. EPA has updated the recordkeeping 
requirements associated with the WCPP exposures records required under 
40 CFR 751.713(b)(1) to require documentation of the determination by 
the Environmental Professional as defined at 40 CFR 312.10 or a 
Certified Industrial Hygienist to be maintained as a record. 
Occupational monitoring (and associated recordkeeping) is an area that 
EPA may develop guidance as part of final rule implementation efforts.
2. Designated Representative
    EPA proposed to require owners and operators to provide potentially 
exposed persons regular access to the exposure control plan, exposure 
monitoring records, and PPE program implementation plan (documenting 
proper application, wear, and removal of PPE). EPA requested comment on 
how owners and operators could engage with potentially exposed persons 
on the development and implementation of an exposure control plan and 
PPE program. One commenter stated that employees should be engaged in 
the development and implementation of the exposure control plan and 
that the engagement is best performed during the PPE and respirator 
training (Ref. 27). Another commenter urged EPA to require that owners 
and operators consult with workers and their designated representatives 
in developing and implementing their plans (Ref. 37).
    EPA received public comment on the role of designated 
representatives in the WCPP. One commenter, a group of labor unions, 
urged EPA to incorporate requirements similar to OSHA's access standard 
at 29 CFR 1910.1020 (entitled, ``Access to employee exposure and 
medical records'') in EPA's proposed recordkeeping requirements for the 
WCPP to ensure that exposure information is promptly and fully shared 
with both potentially exposed persons and their designated 
representatives (Ref. 37). The commenter also suggested that EPA 
include a requirement that employers provide employees or their 
designated representatives an opportunity to observe monitoring events. 
The commenter observed that workers and their designated 
representatives have a critical role to play in ensuring effective 
control of toxic substances and further noted that, often, unions are 
the organizations with expertise in understanding occupational exposure 
information.
    Following review of the comments received, EPA recognizes the 
importance of having the ability for potentially exposed persons and 
their designated representative(s), such as labor union 
representatives, to observe exposure monitoring and have prompt access 
to exposure records. EPA additionally recognizes that, in some 
instances, individual workers may be hesitant to ask owners or 
operators for information relating to their chemical exposure or may be 
less familiar with discipline-specific industrial hygiene practices. 
EPA determined that it is appropriate in this final rule to establish 
requirements regarding designated representatives, consistent with 
existing OSHA precedent in certain 29 CFR part 1910, subpart Z 
regulations, to allow designated representatives the ability to observe 
occupational exposure monitoring and have access to exposure monitoring 
records. In EPA's final rule, the WCPP includes a requirement that 
owners and operators provide potentially exposed persons or their 
designated representatives an opportunity to observe any exposure 
monitoring that is designed to characterize their exposures and is 
conducted under the WCPP. EPA is also finalizing a requirement that 
designated representatives have access to relevant exposure records, 
similar to provisions in certain OSHA regulations under 29 CFR part 
1910, subpart Z, such as 29 CFR 1910.1200 and 29 CFR 1910.1020. EPA is 
requiring owners and operators to notify potentially exposed persons 
and their designated representatives of the availability of the 
exposure control plan and associated records of exposure monitoring and 
PPE program implementation within 30 days of the date that the exposure 
control plan is completed and at least annually thereafter. EPA is also 
requiring, consistent with the proposed requirement for notification of 
exposure monitoring results, that the notice of the availability of the 
exposure control plan and associated records be provided in plain 
language writing to each potentially exposed person in a language that 
the person understands or posted in an appropriate and accessible 
location outside the regulated area with an English-language version 
and a non-English language version representing the language of the 
largest group of workers who do not read English. While EPA encourages 
owners or operators to consult with persons that have potential for 
exposure and their designated representatives on the development and 
implementation of the exposure control plan, EPA has determined that it 
is not necessary to include this as a requirement in the final rule, 
consistent with OSHA, because the involvement of designated 
representatives in the observation of occupational monitoring and the 
potential to access exposure records being finalized in this rule 
provide a productive forum for communicating with owner/operators about 
the exposure control plan. EPA believes that the notification of the 
exposure control plan and associated records may help facilitate 
participation from potentially exposed persons and their designated 
representatives in the implementation and further development of that 
plan.
    EPA's final rule to address the unreasonable risk of PCE under TSCA 
section 6(a) (RIN 2070-AK84) established the definition of ``designated 
representative'' intended to apply to all TSCA section 6(a) 
requirements under 40 CFR part 751 at Sec.  751.5. A recognized or 
certified collective bargaining agent must be treated automatically as 
a designated representative without regard to written authorization. 
Additionally, with respect to Federal Government employees, EPA, like 
OSHA at 29 CFR 1960.2(e), will interpret these designated 
representative requirements consistent with the Federal Service Labor 
Management

[[Page 103525]]

Relations Statute (5 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), or collective bargaining or 
other labor-management arrangements that cover the affected employees.
    Should a request be initiated for such records by the potentially 
exposed person or their designated representative(s), the owner or 
operator will be required to provide the specified records at a 
reasonable time, place, and manner, analogous to provisions outlined in 
OSHA's 29 CFR 1910.1020(e)(1)(i). If the owner or operator is unable to 
provide the requested records within 15 working days, the owner or 
operator must, within those 15 days, inform the potentially exposed 
person or designated representative(s) requesting the record of the 
reason for the delay and the earliest date when the record will be made 
available. Additionally, in the event that a designated representative 
is observing exposure monitoring, the owner or operator must ensure 
that designated representatives are provided with PPE appropriate for 
the observation of monitoring. Finally, this rule requires owners or 
operators to provide notice to potentially exposed persons and their 
designated representatives of exposure monitoring results and of the 
availability of the exposure control plan and associated records. For 
purposes of this requirement, the owner or operator is only required to 
provide notice to those designated representatives that the owner or 
operator is aware of, such as representatives designated in writing or 
a recognized collective bargaining agent for the owner or operator's 
own employees.
3. Other Changes to the WCPP
    EPA proposed various requirements under the WCPP for owners or 
operators to provide PPE, including respiratory protection and dermal 
protection, to potentially exposed persons and to establish a PPE 
program. For greater clarity in this final rule, EPA has revised the 
PPE requirements with respect to the cross-references to the relevant 
OSHA regulations. While the language appears different than the 
requirements included in the proposed rule, it remains EPA's intention 
that owners and operators implement PPE programs that are consistent 
with OSHA requirements. The PPE requirements as part of the WCPP in 
this final rule are described in Unit IV.B.6.

D. CTC Unintentionally Present in Trace Quantities in Other Chemical 
Substances

    Several public comments on the proposed rule urged EPA to establish 
an explicit ``de minimis'' weight fraction threshold or add an 
exemption for impurities or other contaminants from the rule's 
requirements for small levels of CTC present in other chemical 
substances or mixtures (Refs. 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 38, 39). Two 
commenters raised concerns that absent such exemption, the proposed 
prohibition on industrial and commercial use of CTC as an industrial 
processing aid in the manufacture of petrochemicals-derived products 
would inadvertently prohibit the industrial and commercial use of PCE 
as a processing aid in catalyst regeneration in petrochemical 
manufacturing, which EPA is regulating under a WCPP in a separate TSCA 
section 6(a) rulemaking for PCE, because PCE contains trace amounts of 
CTC as an impurity or other contaminant (Refs. 26, 38). Two other 
commenters who supported a de minimis exclusion for impurities noted 
that prohibiting impurities in downstream products or CTC impurities in 
feedstocks could severely hamper numerous value chains and stated that 
establishing a de minimis weight fraction threshold of 0.1% by weight 
for the CTC restrictions would align with existing requirements under 
OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard (Refs. 30, 31). One of these 
commenters stated that a member company imports a product containing a 
very small amount of CTC as an impurity, then sells the sealed 
container for rubber processing; this commenter urged EPA to expressly 
exempt from the WCPP requirement these zero exposure and de minimis 
scenarios (Ref. 31). Another commenter stated that a member uses some 
raw materials that contain CTC, primarily chlorinated rubbers and 
methylene chloride, in the manufacturing of adhesives and coatings, and 
was concerned that this use would fall under the proposed prohibitions 
(Ref. 39). Another commenter asserted that any formulated products that 
contain de minimis concentrations of CTC (i.e., concentrations less 
than 0.1% by weight) would not pose a risk and should not be covered by 
the rule (Ref. 29). Two other commenters recommended that EPA include 
both a de minimis exemption for materials in which CTC may appear at de 
minimis levels of less than 0.1% by weight, and an exemption for CTC 
present in a formulation, in an intermediate, or in an end product as 
an impurity or byproduct, including when present as an unintentional 
byproduct or impurity in an imported product (Refs. 26, 35). One 
commenter suggested that EPA implement a de minimis weight fraction 
threshold of 0.5% (Ref. 39).
    In the final rule, EPA has excluded from the rule's requirements 
CTC that is solely present unintentionally in trace quantities with 
another chemical substance or mixture. This exclusion is intended to 
cover circumstances in which another chemical substance or mixture 
unintentionally contains trace quantities of CTC that may be present as 
a manufacturing residue, unreacted feedstock, byproduct, or other 
contaminant. The Agency determined that this exclusion was appropriate 
because the conditions of use of CTC that were evaluated in the 2020 
Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride and determined to contribute 
to the unreasonable risk presented by CTC did not include scenarios in 
which trace amounts of CTC is unintentionally present in other chemical 
substances or mixtures. To the contrary, Section 1.4.2.3 of the Risk 
Evaluation stated that there were conditions of use that EPA concluded 
in the 2018 Problem Formulation of the Risk Evaluation for Carbon 
Tetrachloride would present only de minimis exposures or otherwise 
insignificant risks from trace amounts of CTC and did not warrant 
inclusion in the risk evaluation. This conclusion was related 
specifically to industrial/commercial/consumer uses of CTC in 
adhesives/sealants, paints/coatings, and cleaning/degreasing solvent 
products. EPA reserves the right to assess and address potential 
environmental and health risks of trace quantities of CTC under 
different authorities such as CAA Title I and VI. The 2020 Risk 
Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride explained that while CTC's use as a 
process agent in the manufacturing of other chlorinated compounds may 
result in trace levels of CTC as a manufacturing residue in the 
chlorinated substances used to manufacture downstream products, those 
trace amounts are expected to volatilize during the product 
manufacturing process, such that EPA expected insignificant or 
unmeasurable concentrations of CTC in the chlorinated substances in 
commercially available adhesive/sealant, paint/coating, and cleaning/
degreasing products. The final rule's exclusion for CTC unintentionally 
present in trace quantities with another chemical substance or mixture 
is consistent with this earlier exclusion from the scope of the Risk 
Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride. Any product with CTC 
concentrations above trace quantities that falls within a condition of 
use regulated under this rule will be subject to the relevant rule 
provisions (e.g.,

[[Page 103526]]

WCPP, prescriptive controls, or prohibition), as appropriate based on 
the condition of use of CTC.
    In addition, any potential occupational risk from the presence of 
trace quantities of CTC in PCE is expected to be eliminated by the 
recently promulgated final risk management rule for PCE under TSCA 
section 6(a) (to be codified at 40 CFR part 751, subpart G). The 
occupational and consumer protections from exposures to PCE under that 
final rule, which address the unreasonable risk of injury to health 
presented by PCE under its conditions of use, would also have the 
effect of reducing the risk from exposures to trace amounts of CTC that 
may be present in PCE. For example, the final rule requires a workplace 
chemical protection program with both an Existing Chemical Exposure 
Limit of 0.14 ppm of PCE as an 8-hr TWA and direct dermal contact 
control requirements for the industrial/commercial use of PCE as a 
processing aid in catalyst regeneration in petrochemical manufacturing. 
Any engineering controls or PPE used to reduce occupational exposures 
to PCE for the use as a processing aid in catalyst regeneration in 
petrochemical manufacturing are expected to reduce workplace exposures 
to CTC. The limitations on inhalation and dermal exposures to PCE to 
prevent unreasonable risk of injury to health from that chemical 
substance are also expected to limit any potential exposure to trace 
quantities of CTC that may be unintentionally present in the PCE, 
reducing the risk of injury to health from the CTC, so that that 
condition of use does not contribute to the unreasonable risk of CTC.
    At this time, EPA is not establishing a specific weight fraction or 
other numerical threshold value for the trace quantities exclusion in 
the CTC final rule, consistent with existing exclusions of trace 
quantities of remaining substances from the definitions of ``controlled 
substance'' and ``transform'' under 40 CFR 82.3. Instead, the exclusion 
is based on the plain meaning of the term, ``trace quantities.'' If the 
CTC is intentionally retained in the chemical substance or mixture of 
which it is a part and provides a desired purpose, then it is not 
``present unintentionally in trace quantities'' and would not be 
excluded from the rule's requirements.

E. Other Changes

    EPA has revised its proposed description of industrial and 
commercial use of CTC as a laboratory chemical to provide additional 
clarity as suggested by a commenter (Ref. 33). The revised description 
for industrial and commercial use as a laboratory chemical appears in 
Unit IV.C.1. In addition, EPA has slightly modified the industrial and 
commercial use descriptions in 40 CFR 751.705(b)(1)(ii)(B), 
751.707(a)(8), and 751.711(c) to clarify that the industrial and 
commercial use of CTC in the recovery of chlorine in tail gas from the 
production of chlorine falls under the WCPP rather than the prohibition 
on industrial and commercial use in the manufacture of other basic 
chemicals (including manufacturing of chlorinated compounds used in 
solvents, adhesives, asphalt, and paints and coatings). In the proposed 
rule, EPA had intended this use of CTC to be captured with the 
description of ``industrial and commercial use in the elimination of 
nitrogen trichloride in the production of chlorine and caustic soda,'' 
but EPA agrees with two public commenters that it would be clearer to 
specifically list use of CTC in the recovery of chlorine in tail gas 
from the production of chlorine in the regulatory text (Refs. 29, 30).
    EPA has revised its proposed description of disposal. Based on 
coordination across Federal programs, for the disposal COU, EPA has 
determined it is appropriate that owners and operators of cleanup sites 
where potentially exposed persons are involved in the disposal of CTC-
containing wastewater for the purposes of cleanup projects of CTC-
contaminated water and groundwater, including industrial pre-treatment 
and industrial treatment activities, must ensure that potentially 
exposed persons involved with the activity of removing the groundwater 
from the location where it was found and treating the removed 
groundwater on site comply with the WCPP. At cleanup sites, the WCPP, 
including the ECEL, would apply to any potentially exposed person 
involved in the disposal of CTC-containing groundwater, which most 
likely includes a worker who is involved with the activity of removing 
CTC- containing groundwater from the location where it was found and 
the on-site treatment of the groundwater, typically referred to as ex 
situ remediation, which is most consistent with the scope of the 2020 
CTC Risk Evaluation. Ex situ remediation includes both active and 
passive remediation methods that span traditional (e.g., pump and 
treat) and less traditional (e.g., phytoremediation) approaches, but 
only if the remediation method would be considered industrial 
wastewater pretreatment, industrial wastewater treatment or discharge 
to a publicly owned treatment work (POTW). EPA generally considers 
workers in and around those locations to be potentially exposed persons 
as that term is defined in 40 CFR 751.5. For example, EPA's 
requirements would apply to protect workers conducting remediation 
through pump and treat systems or workers sampling groundwater in 
conjunction with groundwater extraction or treatment (e.g., remediation 
or cleanup) activities. EPA considers only those treatment activities 
that are performed at the cleanup site on CTC-contaminated wastewater 
that has been removed from the subsurface, surface water impoundments, 
or aquifers and that are recognized as industrial treatment, industrial 
pretreatment, or discharge to a POTW to be covered under the provisions 
described in Unit IV.B. The provisions of the WCPP for the disposal 
COU, including the ECEL, are not intended to cover potentially exposed 
persons who are sampling groundwater to monitor the presence of a 
plume, but specifically only those sampling at the site of extraction 
and treatment activities. EPA emphasizes that this standard is only for 
cleanup sites involved in the active or passive ex situ treatment (or 
disposal) of CTC contaminated groundwater and wastewater from cleanup 
sites and that no other remedial actions at cleanup sites will be 
covered or affected. Additionally, while EPA considers solid wastes as 
part of the waste streams included in the disposal COU, at groundwater 
remediation sites managed by the Federal government and under existing 
waste disposal requirements, the WCPP requirements under this 
rulemaking only apply to water contaminated with CTC, and any other 
type of CTC-impacted waste will be managed according to relevant 
existing requirements under RCRA, other statutes, and regulatory 
agreements.
    Additionally, it is not necessary to establish previously proposed 
Subpart A definitions for ``authorized person,'' ``owner or operator,'' 
``potentially exposed person,'' and ``regulated area'' in this final 
rule because EPA already established definitions for these terms at 40 
CFR 751.5 in the TSCA section 6 final rule for methylene chloride (RIN 
2070-AK70) (89 FR 39254, May 8, 2024 (FRL-8155-01-OCSPP)) so that these 
definitions may be commonly applied to this and other rules under TSCA 
section 6 that would be codified under 40 CFR part 751. Similarly, it 
is not necessary to establish previously proposed Subpart A definitions 
for ``direct dermal

[[Page 103527]]

contact,'' ``exposure group,'' and ``ECEL'' in this final rule because 
EPA already established definitions for these terms at 40 CFR 751.5 in 
the TSCA section 6 final rule for PCE (RIN 2070-AK84).
    EPA proposed to require that the notification to companies to whom 
CTC is shipped under 40 CFR 751.111(c) identify the uses for which CTC 
is allowed to be distributed in commerce. To provide greater clarity to 
downstream users of CTC regarding the provisions of this rule, EPA is 
modifying the notification to identify the uses prohibited under this 
regulation.
    EPA also made other minor edits to the preamble and regulatory text 
to provide more clarity to the requirements of the final rule.

IV. Provisions of the Final Rule

    EPA intends that each provision of this rulemaking be severable. In 
the event of litigation staying, remanding, or invalidating EPA's risk 
management approach for one or more conditions of use in this rule, EPA 
intends to preserve the risk management approaches in the rule for all 
other conditions of use to the fullest extent possible. The Agency 
evaluated the risk management options in TSCA section 6(a)(1) through 
(7) for each condition of use and generally EPA's regulation of one 
condition of use to address its contribution to the unreasonable risk 
from CTC functions independently from EPA's regulation of other 
conditions of use, which may have different characteristics leading to 
EPA's risk management decisions. Further, the Agency crafted this rule 
so that different risk management approaches are reflected in different 
provisions or elements of the rule that are capable of operating 
independently. Accordingly, the Agency has organized the rule so that 
if any provision or element of this rule is determined by judicial 
review or operation of law to be invalid, that partial invalidation 
will not render the remainder of this rule invalid.
    There are many permutations of the above. For example, as discussed 
in Unit IV.D., this final rule prohibits both the industrial and 
commercial use of CTC in metal recovery, and the industrial and 
commercial use of CTC as a processing aid in the manufacture of 
petrochemical-derived products except in the manufacture of vinyl 
chloride (for which EPA is requiring a WCPP as described in Unit 
III.A.). To the extent that a court were to find that EPA lacked 
substantial evidence to support the prohibition of CTC as a processing 
aid in the manufacture of petrochemical-derived products or otherwise 
found legal issues with EPA's approach to that condition of use, it 
would have no bearing on other similarly situated conditions of use, 
such as the industrial and commercial use in metal recovery, unless the 
specific issue also applies to the particular facts associated with 
metal recovery. This is reflected in the structure of the rule, which 
describes the prohibited conditions of use separately under 40 CFR 
751.705.
    As another example, for the processing of CTC as a reactant in the 
production of HCFCs, HFCs, HFOs, and PCE and the industrial and 
commercial use of CTC as a laboratory chemical, EPA took different risk 
management approaches--application of the WCPP for the processing of 
CTC as a reactant in the production of HCFCs, HFCs, HFOs, and PCE and 
specific prescriptive controls for use as a laboratory chemical. To the 
extent that a court were to find a legal issue with EPA's approach to 
the WCPP, impacting the processing of CTC as a reactant in the 
production of HCFCs, HFCs, HFOs, and PCE, it would have no bearing on 
EPA's decision to require specific prescriptive controls for industrial 
and commercial use as a laboratory chemical, and vice versa. This is 
reflected in the structure of the rule, which organizes the WCPP and 
prescriptive controls into different sections of the regulation.
    EPA also intends all TSCA section 6(a) risk management requirements 
in this rule to be severable from each regulatory exclusion from those 
requirements. For example, to the extent a court were to find a legal 
issue with excluding trace quantities of CTC from the rule's 
requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 751.701(b), or with excluding 
manufacture of CTC as a byproduct from WCPP requirements pursuant to 40 
CFR 751.707(a)(1), the underlying risk management requirements would 
not be impacted. Rather, the excluded activities would become subject 
to the underlying TSCA section 6(a) risk management requirements 
applicable to the condition of use. EPA further notes that the specific 
examples of severability described in this unit are not intended to be 
exhaustive, but rather illustrative of a wide variety of scenarios that 
reflect EPA's overarching intent that each provision of this rulemaking 
be severable.
    EPA acknowledges that after the issuance of this rule, a person or 
entity may become aware of important information which indicates a 
particular use, that would otherwise be prohibited, is ongoing, and 
could meet the criteria of a WCPP. EPA also notes that there are 
multiple avenues to ask EPA to revisit issues in this TSCA section 6(a) 
rulemaking, both before and after the mandatory compliance dates are 
set consistent with TSCA section 6(d). EPA has the authority under TSCA 
section 6(g) to consider whether an exemption is appropriate and, 
consistent with TSCA section 6(g)(1), may propose such exemptions 
independently from this rulemaking. Additionally, any person could 
petition EPA to request that EPA issue or amend a rule under TSCA 
section 6.

A. Applicability

    This final rule sets prohibitions and restrictions on the 
manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, 
commercial use, and disposal of CTC to prevent unreasonable risk of 
injury to health in accordance with TSCA section 6(a), 15 U.S.C. 
2605(a).
    Additionally, pursuant to TSCA section 12(a)(2), this rule applies 
to CTC even if being manufactured, processed, or distributed in 
commerce solely for export from the United States because EPA has 
determined that CTC presents an unreasonable risk to health within the 
United States. Several commenters expressed concern that an unclear 
statement in the proposed rule preamble appeared to indicate that all 
manufacture, processing, and distribution for export would be 
prohibited under the proposed rule (Refs. 29, 30, 32). This was not 
EPA's intent. Rather, EPA intended to indicate that because EPA 
determined that CTC presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health 
within the United States, manufacturing and processing of CTC for 
export would not be exempt from any otherwise-applicable TSCA section 
6(a) regulatory requirements. Because distribution in commerce did not 
contribute to EPA's unreasonable risk determination for CTC, and 
because this final rule permits manufacturing and processing, including 
recycling, for various uses to continue under the WCPP, EPA intends 
this final rule to permit manufacturing and processing in compliance 
with the WCPP for export, as well as distribution in commerce for 
export, without regard for the intended use in the destination country. 
In other words, manufacturing, processing, and distribution for the 
conditions of use listed in 40 CFR 751.705(a)(1)(i) and (ii) are 
prohibited where such conditions of use would occur inside the United 
States, but in instances where such conditions of use would occur 
solely outside of the United States after export, the upstream 
manufacturing, processing, and distribution for export would not be 
prohibited. EPA has clarified the regulatory text at 40 CFR

[[Page 103528]]

751.707(a) to make clear that any manufacture and processing for export 
must be in accordance with the WCPP. In addition, any persons who 
export or intend to export a chemical substance that is the subject of 
this final rule are subject to the export notification provisions of 
TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)), and must comply with the export 
notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.
    EPA is revising the description of the Disposal COU to clarify the 
requirements of the WCPP at cleanup sites which would apply to any 
potentially exposed person involved in the disposal of CTC-containing 
groundwater to industrial treatment, industrial pre-treatment, or 
POTWs. A potentially exposed person most likely includes a worker who 
is involved with the activity of removing CTC-containing groundwater 
from the location where it was found and the on-site treatment of the 
groundwater, typically referred to as ex situ remediation, which is 
most consistent with the scope of the 2020 CTC Risk Evaluation. Ex situ 
remediation includes both active and passive remediation methods that 
span traditional (e.g., pump and treat) and less traditional (e.g., 
phytoremediation) approaches, but only if the remediation method would 
be considered industrial wastewater pretreatment, industrial wastewater 
treatment or discharge to a publicly owned treatment work (POTW).
    As discussed in Unit III.D, the prohibitions and restrictions 
described in this unit do not apply to CTC that is solely present 
unintentionally in trace quantities with another chemical substance or 
mixture, whether as a manufacturing residue, unreacted feedstock, 
byproduct, or other contaminant. Additionally, the provisions of this 
final rule only apply to chemical substances as defined under TSCA 
section 3. Notably, TSCA section 3(2) excludes from the definition of 
chemical substance ``any food, food additive, drug, cosmetic, or device 
(as such terms are defined in Section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, 
and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 321]) when manufactured, processed, or 
distributed in commerce for use as a food, food additive, drug, 
cosmetic, or device'' and ``any pesticide (as defined in the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act [7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.]) 
when manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce for use as a 
pesticide.'' Additional details regarding TSCA statutory authorities 
can be found in section 2 of the response to comments document (Ref. 
11).
    EPA uses the term ``potentially exposed person'' in Unit IV. And in 
the regulatory text to include workers, occupational non-users, 
employees, independent contractors, employers, and all other persons in 
the work area where CTC is present and who may be exposed to CTC under 
the conditions of use for which a WCPP or specific prescriptive 
controls would apply. (EPA notes that this definition is intended to 
apply to occupational workspaces as part of implementation of the WCPP 
and other restrictions, and recognizes that other individuals or 
communities may be exposed to CTC as members of fenceline communities 
or members of the general population.) For certain conditions of use, 
EPA requires a comprehensive WCPP or specific prescriptive controls to 
address the unreasonable risk from CTC to workers directly handling the 
chemical or in the area where the chemical is being used. Similarly, 
the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride (Ref. 1) did not 
distinguish between employers, contractors, or other legal entities or 
businesses that manufacture, process, distribute in commerce, use, or 
dispose of CTC. For this reason, EPA uses the term ``owner or 
operator'' to describe the entity responsible for implementing the WCPP 
or specified prescriptive controls in any workplace where an applicable 
condition of use is identified in Unit IV. And subject to the WCPP or 
prescriptive controls is occurring. The term includes any person who 
owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises such a workplace. While 
owners or operators remain responsible for ensuring compliance with the 
WCPP or prescriptive controls requirements in the workplace, they may 
contract with others to provide training or implement a respiratory 
protection program, for example. EPA is also clarifying its intent that 
for the provisions in this rule, any requirement for an owner or 
operator, or an owner and operator, is a requirement for any individual 
that is either an owner or an operator.
    EPA emphasizes that this approach is essential for addressing the 
unreasonable risk presented by CTC, including to individuals who may 
not be covered by OSHA requirements, such as, volunteers, self-employed 
persons, and State, and local government workers who are not covered by 
a state plan. EPA uses the term ``owner or operator'' in TSCA programs 
because the term is used in other EPA programs to describe persons with 
responsibilities for implementing statutory and regulatory requirements 
at particular locations. See, for example, CAA section 113, 42 U.S.C. 
7412, which defines ``owner or operator'' as a person who owns, leases, 
operates, controls, or supervises a stationary source. There is a 
similar definition in section 306 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 
U.S.C. 1316. EPA understands that the use of this term may result in 
multiple persons' bearing responsibility for complying with provisions 
of this final rule, including the WCPP. However, this is also the case 
for workplaces regulated by OSHA, including those regulated under 
OSHA's general industry standards at 29 CFR part 1910. OSHA's 1999 
Multi-Employer Citation Policy explains which employers should be cited 
for a hazard that violates an OSHA standard (Ref. 40). The Policy 
describes four different roles that employers may fill at a workplace 
and describes who should be cited for a violation based on factors such 
as whether the employer created the hazard, had the ability to prevent 
or correct the hazard, and knew or should have known about the hazard. 
More than one employer may be cited for the same hazard. This final 
rule will have similar results, in that more than one owner or operator 
may be responsible for compliance.
    The OSHA multi-employer citation policy is an example of a guidance 
governing situations where more than one regulated entity is present. 
EPA has received several requests for clarification of the 
applicability of the term ``owner or operator'' to sites where more 
than one entity owns, leases, or controls a workplace where a CTC 
condition of use is ongoing and where implementation of the WCPP or 
prescriptive controls is required. EPA understands that there are a 
wide variety of situations where these questions could arise, and plans 
to issue guidance consistent with TSCA authorities that explains how 
EPA will approach the issue of responsibility for implementation of, 
and compliance with, the WCPP requirements in practice.

B. Workplace Chemical Protection Program (WCPP)

1. Applicability
    EPA is finalizing the WCPP for all of the conditions of use for 
which it was proposed, as well as for two additional uses related to 
vinyl chloride manufacturing within two conditions of use for which 
prohibition was proposed. EPA is also revising the description of 
industrial and commercial use of CTC related to chlorine production to 
clarify that both elimination of nitrogen trichloride in the production 
of chlorine and caustic soda and recovery of

[[Page 103529]]

chlorine in tail gas from the production of chlorine are subject to the 
WCPP. Additionally, EPA is revising the description of the Disposal COU 
to clarify the requirements of the WCPP at cleanup sites. Specifically, 
EPA has determined that at groundwater cleanup sites, the WCPP would 
apply to any potentially exposed person involved in the disposal of 
CTC-containing groundwater to industrial treatment, industrial pre-
treatment, or POTWs. A potentially exposed person most likely includes 
a worker who is involved with the activity of removing CTC-containing 
groundwater from the location where it was found and the on-site 
treatment of the groundwater, typically referred to as ex situ 
remediation, which is most consistent with the scope of the 2020 CTC 
Risk Evaluation. Ex situ remediation includes both active and passive 
remediation methods that span traditional (e.g., pump and treat) and 
less traditional (e.g., phytoremediation) approaches, but only if the 
remediation method would be considered industrial wastewater 
pretreatment, industrial wastewater treatment or discharge to a 
publicly owned treatment work (POTW). EPA's descriptions of changes 
from the proposed rule in Unit III. The Agency explained why the WCPP 
addresses the unreasonable risk for certain conditions of use in Unit 
V. of the proposed rule (88 FR 49180, July 28, 2023) (FRL 8206-01-
OCSPP).
    EPA is finalizing the WCPP for the following conditions of use 
where manufacture and processing are not otherwise prohibited: domestic 
manufacturing (except where CTC is manufactured solely as a byproduct); 
import; processing as a reactant in the production of HCFCs, HFCs, 
HFOs, and PCE; processing: incorporation into formulation, mixture or 
reaction product in agricultural products manufacturing, vinyl chloride 
manufacturing, and other basic organic and inorganic chemical 
manufacturing; processing by repackaging for use as a laboratory 
chemical; recycling; industrial and commercial use as a processing aid 
in the manufacture of agricultural products and vinyl chloride; 
industrial and commercial use in the elimination of nitrogen 
trichloride in the production of chlorine and caustic soda and the 
recovery of chlorine in tail gas from the production of chlorine; and 
disposal. This unit provides a description of the conditions of use 
subject to the WCPP to assist with compliance.
a. Manufacturing
i. Domestic Manufacture
    This condition of use refers to making or producing a chemical 
substance within the United States (including manufacturing for 
export), including the extraction of a component chemical substance 
from a previously existing chemical substance or a complex combination 
of substances. For purposes of this rule, WCPP requirements applicable 
to the manufacture of CTC do not apply where CTC is manufactured solely 
as a byproduct, because manufacture of CTC as a byproduct was not 
evaluated in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride (Ref. 
1). Under TSCA, EPA uses the term ``byproduct'' to refer to a chemical 
substance produced without a separate commercial intent during the 
manufacture, processing, use, or disposal of another chemical 
substance(s) or mixture(s) (see, e.g., 40 CFR 710.3(d), 720.3). A 
byproduct is distinguishable from a coproduct, which is a chemical 
substance produced for a commercial purpose during the manufacture, 
processing, use, or disposal of another chemical substance or mixture. 
CTC could be manufactured as a byproduct during the manufacturing of 
other chlorinated compounds. EPA anticipates that any risk presented by 
the presence of CTC as a byproduct will be considered in the scope of 
the risk evaluation of the parent chemical in future risk evaluations, 
such as the consideration of CTC as a byproduct in the 1,2-
dichloroethane risk evaluation, as explained in Section 1.4.2.3 of the 
2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride (Refs. 1, 41).
ii. Import
    This condition of use refers to the act of causing a chemical 
substance or mixture to arrive within the customs territory of the 
United States. This condition of use includes loading/unloading and 
repackaging associated with import.
b. Processing
i. Processing as a Reactant in the Production of 
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons, Hydrofluorocarbons, Hydrofluoroolefins, and 
Perchloroethylene
    This condition of use refers to processing CTC in chemical 
reactions for the manufacturing of another chemical substance or 
product. Through processing as a reactant or intermediate, CTC serves 
as a feedstock in the production of another chemical product via a 
chemical reaction in which CTC is consumed. Currently, CTC is used as a 
reactant to manufacture HCFCs, HFCs, HFOs, and PCE, which are used in 
the making of a variety of products including refrigerants, aerosol 
propellants, and foam-blowing agents. The specifics of the reaction 
process (e.g., use and types of catalysts, reaction temperature) vary 
depending on the product being produced; however, a typical reaction 
process involves unloading CTC from containers and feeding into the 
reaction vessel(s), where CTC either completely or partially reacts 
with other raw materials to form the final product. Following the 
reaction, the product may be purified to remove unreacted CTC or other 
materials if needed. This condition of use includes reuse of CTC, 
including CTC that is not transformed as feedstock in other 
manufacturing processes, as a reactant.
ii. Processing: Incorporation Into Formulation, Mixtures, or Reaction 
Products for Agricultural Products Manufacturing; Vinyl Chloride 
Manufacturing; Other Basic Organic and Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
    This condition of use refers to the process of mixing or blending 
several raw materials to obtain a single product or preparation or 
formulation. CTC has historically been incorporated into formulation or 
mixtures to manufacture hydrochloric acid (HCl), vinyl chloride, 
ethylene dichloride (EDC), chloroform, hafnium tetrachloride, 
thiophosgene, and methylene chloride. CTC may be incorporated into 
various products and formulations at varying concentrations for further 
distribution. For example, CTC may be unloaded from transport 
containers either directly into mixing equipment or into an 
intermediate storage vessel either manually or through automation via a 
pumping system. Mixing of components can occur in either a batch or 
continuous system. The mixture that contains CTC may be used as a 
reactant to manufacture a chlorinated compound that is subsequently 
formulated into a product or a processing aid used to aid in the 
manufacture of formulated products. For the purposes of this 
rulemaking, EPA is allowing under the WCPP the continued incorporation 
of CTC into formulation, mixtures, or reaction products for 
agricultural products manufacturing, vinyl chloride manufacturing, the 
elimination of nitrogen trichloride in the production of chlorine and 
caustic soda, and the recovery of chlorine in tail gas from the 
production of chlorine.

[[Page 103530]]

iii. Processing: Repackaging for Use as a Laboratory Chemical
    This condition of use refers to the physical transfer of a chemical 
substance or mixture, as is, from one container to another container or 
containers in preparation for distribution of the chemical substance or 
mixture in commerce. Depending on the product, formulation products may 
be filtered prior to packaging. Final packaging occurs either through 
manual dispensing from transfer lines or through utilization of an 
automatic system. Typically, repackaging sites receive the chemical in 
bulk containers and transfer the chemical from the bulk container into 
another smaller container in preparation for distribution in commerce.
iv. Processing: Recycling
    This condition of use refers to the process of treating generated 
spent chemical (which would otherwise be disposed of as waste) that is 
collected on-site or transported to third-party sites for reclamation/
recycling. Spent chemicals can be restored to a condition that permits 
reuse via reclamation/recycling. The recovery process may involve an 
initial vapor recovery or mechanical separation step followed by 
distillation, purification, and final packaging.
c. Industrial and Commercial Use
i. Industrial and Commercial Use as an Industrial Processing Aid in the 
Manufacture of Agricultural Products and Vinyl Chloride
    A processing aid is a ``chemical that is added to a reaction 
mixture to aid in the manufacture or synthesis of another chemical 
substance but is not intended to remain in or become part of the 
product or product mixture.'' Additionally, processing agents are 
intended to improve the processing characteristics or the operation of 
process equipment, but not intended to affect the function of a 
substance or article created. CTC is used as a processing aid/agent to 
aid in the manufacture of formulated products, including agricultural 
chemicals and vinyl chloride. CTC has historically been used as a 
processing agent in the manufacture of chlorosulphonated polyolefin; 
stryene butadiene rubber; endosulfan (insecticide); 1-1 Bis (4-
chlorophenyl) 2,2,2-trichloroethanol (dicofol insecticide); and 
tralomethrin (insecticide) (Ref. 1). For the purposes of this 
rulemaking, EPA is allowing under the WCPP the continued use of CTC as 
an industrial processing aid in the manufacturing of agricultural 
products and vinyl chloride.
ii. Industrial and Commercial Use in the Elimination of Nitrogen 
Trichloride in the Production of Chlorine and Caustic Soda and the 
Recovery of Chlorine in Tail Gas From the Production of Chlorine
    This condition of use refers to a specific use of CTC as a 
processing aid/agent in basic inorganic chemical manufacturing. For 
purposes of this rulemaking, EPA is allowing under the WCPP the 
continued use of CTC in the elimination of nitrogen trichloride in the 
production of chlorine and caustic soda and the recovery of chlorine in 
tail gas from the production of chlorine.
d. Disposal
    This condition of use refers to the process of disposing waste 
streams of CTC that are collected either onsite (e.g. pumped out of the 
ground for treatment), or transported to a third-party site for 
treatment or their final disposition, such as waste incineration or 
landfilling. For this rule, the WCPP for the disposal of CTC-containing 
water and groundwater for purposes of cleanup projects of CTC-
contaminated water and groundwater, including industrial pre-treatment 
and industrial treatment activities, applies to removing the 
groundwater from the location where it was located and treating the 
removed groundwater on site. The requirements of the WCPP apply to any 
potentially exposed person involved in the disposal of CTC-containing 
groundwater to industrial treatment, industrial pre-treatment, or 
POTWs. A potentially exposed person most likely includes a worker who 
is involved with the activity of removing CTC-containing groundwater 
from the location where it was found and the on-site treatment of the 
groundwater, typically referred to as ex situ remediation, which is 
most consistent with the scope of the 2020 CTC Risk Evaluation. Ex situ 
remediation includes both active and passive remediation methods that 
span traditional (e.g., pump and treat) and less traditional (e.g., 
phytoremediation) approaches, but only if the remediation method would 
be considered industrial wastewater pretreatment, industrial wastewater 
treatment or discharge to a publicly owned treatment work (POTW). A 
remediation method would need to be considered one of these three types 
of disposal to fall within the condition of use under TSCA for 
remediation sites managed by the Federal government and if not, would 
not be subject to the requirements of the rule. Further, while EPA 
considers solid wastes as part of the waste streams included in the 
disposal COU, at groundwater remediation sites managed by the Federal 
government and under existing waste disposal requirements, the WCPP 
requirements under this rulemaking only apply to water contaminated 
with CTC, and any other type of CTC-impacted waste will be handled 
according to relevant existing requirements under RCRA and other 
statutes. The provisions of the WCPP for the disposal COU, including 
the ECEL, are not intended to cover potentially exposed persons who are 
sampling groundwater to monitor the presence of a plume, but 
specifically only those sampling at the site of extraction and 
treatment activities.
2. Overview
    The WCPP for CTC encompasses an inhalation exposure limit and 
action level, DDCC, and the associated implementation requirements 
described in this unit, to ensure that the chemical substance no longer 
presents unreasonable risk. Under a WCPP, owners or operators have the 
ability to select controls, within the parameters outlined in this 
unit, regarding how they prevent exceedances of the identified EPA 
exposure limit thresholds or prevent direct dermal contact. In the case 
of CTC, meeting the EPA exposure limit threshold and implementing the 
DDCC requirements for certain occupational conditions of use would 
address the unreasonable risk to potentially exposed persons from 
inhalation and dermal exposure.
    EPA is finalizing these requirements to apply beginning on June 11, 
2026 for non-Federal owners or operators, or by June 21, 2027 for 
Federal agencies and Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of the 
Federal government, or within 30 days of introduction of CTC into the 
workplace, whichever is later, at which point entities would be 
required to complete initial monitoring (as described in Unit 
IV.B.3.b.). Additionally, EPA requires that each owner or operator 
ensure that no person is exposed to an airborne concentration of CTC 
that exceeds the ECEL as an 8-hour TWA, including by providing 
respirators to potentially exposed persons in the regulated area, no 
later than September 9, 2026 for non-Federal owners or operators, or no 
later than September 20, 2027 for Federal agencies and Federal 
contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal government, or 
beginning four months after introduction of CTC into the workplace, 
whichever is later. EPA also requires each owner or operator to ensure 
all persons are separated, distanced,

[[Page 103531]]

physically removed, or isolated from direct dermal contact with CTC, 
including by providing dermal PPE, by June 16, 2025 for non-Federal 
owners or operators, or no later than September 20, 2027 for Federal 
agencies and Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal 
government. EPA also requires implementation of any needed exposure 
controls based on initial monitoring and development of an exposure 
control plan, which requires consideration and documented application 
of the hierarchy of controls, no later than December 3, 2027 (as 
described in Unit IV.B.5.).
    EPA's implementation of the requirement to meet an ECEL as part of 
a WCPP aligns with, to the extent possible, certain elements of the 
existing OSHA standards for regulating toxic and hazardous substances 
under 29 CFR part 1910, subpart Z. However, EPA is finalizing as 
proposed a new, lower occupational exposure limit, derived from the 
TSCA 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride (Refs. 1, 15). For 
CTC, this final rule will eliminate the unreasonable risk from CTC 
contributed to by the conditions of use subject to the WCPP, enable 
continued industry use where appropriate, and provide the familiarity 
of a pre-existing framework for the regulated community.
    EPA's requirements include specific exposure limits and ancillary 
requirements necessary for successful implementation of an ECEL as part 
of a WCPP. Taken together, these WCPP requirements apply to the extent 
necessary so that the unreasonable risk from CTC under the conditions 
of use listed earlier in this unit would no longer be presented.
    Unit IV. includes a summary of the WCPP, including a description of 
the finalized exposure limits including an ECEL and ECEL action level; 
implementation requirements including monitoring requirements; a 
description of potential exposure controls in accordance with the 
hierarchy of controls, including engineering controls, administrative 
controls, and PPE as it relates to respirator selection; and additional 
finalized requirements for recordkeeping and workplace participation. 
Additionally, Unit IV.B.4. describes DDCC requirements for CTC, 
including potential exposure controls, which consider the hierarchy of 
controls; PPE as it relates to dermal protection; and additional 
requirements finalized for recordkeeping. Unit IV. also describes 
changes to the proposed compliance timeframes, changes by EPA to 
certain provisions of the WCPP based on public comments, and addition 
of new provisions in the WCPP based on public comments used to inform 
this final rule.
3. Existing Chemical Exposure Limit (ECEL)
    To reduce exposures in the workplace and address the unreasonable 
risk of injury to health resulting from inhalation exposures to CTC 
identified under the occupational conditions of use in the TSCA 2020 
Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride, EPA is requiring an ECEL and 
ancillary requirements for all of the conditions of use identified in 
Unit IV.B.1.
a. ECEL and ECEL Action Level (AL)
    EPA is finalizing as proposed an ECEL under TSCA section 6(a) of 
0.03 ppm (0.2 mg/m\3\) for inhalation exposures to CTC as an 8-hour TWA 
based on the threshold POD for liver cancer (assuming a margin of 
exposure of 300) and the IUR for adrenal cancer. The ECEL memo includes 
linear risk calculations for adrenal gland tumors in the equation for 
``Cancer risk for other tumor types (e.g., adrenal glands) at the 
ECEL,'' showing that the ECEL is protective of all tumor types, 
including adrenal gland and brain tumors (Ref. 15). EPA has determined 
that ensuring exposures remain at or below the 8-hour TWA ECEL of 0.03 
ppm will eliminate the unreasonable risk of injury to health for CTC 
resulting from acute and chronic inhalation exposures in an 
occupational setting (Ref. 15). If ambient exposures are kept at or 
below the 8-hour TWA ECEL of 0.03 ppm, a potentially exposed person 
will be protected against the effects described in this unit, including 
cancer, chronic non-cancer effects, and effects resulting from acute 
inhalation exposures (Ref. 15). In addition to the ECEL memo, to 
respond to public comments, EPA also explained that the ECEL is 
protective of short-term acute inhalation exposures (Refs. 11 and 15). 
EPA is finalizing requirements that each owner or operator ensure that 
the airborne concentration of CTC does not exceed the ECEL for all 
potentially exposed persons within 1,005 days after the date of 
publication of the final rule (i.e., no later than September 20, 2027) 
for Federal agencies and Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of 
the Federal government, 630 days after the date of publication of the 
final rule in the Federal Register (i.e., no later than September 9, 
2026) for non-Federal owners and operators, or beginning four months 
after introduction of CTC into the workplace if CTC use commences at 
least 540 days after the date of publication (i.e., the use commences 
on or after June 11, 2026).
    EPA is finalizing an ECEL action level at 0.02 ppm as an 8-hour TWA 
for CTC. Below the ECEL action level, certain compliance activities, 
such as periodic monitoring, would be required less frequently, as 
described further in this unit. In this way, EPA's WCPP for CTC is 
consistent with the familiar framework that is in place in OSHA 
standards for regulating toxic and hazardous substances under 29 CFR 
1910 Subpart Z that establish an action level, although the values 
differ due to differing statutory authority. As explained by OSHA, the 
action level provides employers and employees with greater assurance 
that their employees will not be exposed to concentrations above the 
PELs (Ref. 42).
    In summary, EPA is finalizing as proposed with slight modification 
that owners or operators must ensure the airborne concentration of CTC 
within the personal breathing zone of potentially exposed persons 
remains at or below 0.03 ppm as an 8-hour TWA ECEL, with an action 
level finalized as 0.02 ppm as an 8-hour TWA. For purposes of this 
rulemaking, the personal breathing zone is consistent with how OSHA 
defines it as a hemispheric area forward of the shoulders within a six-
to-nine-inch radius of a worker's nose and mouth and requires that 
exposure monitoring air samples be collected from within this space 
(Ref. 43). EPA is finalizing the ECEL for most occupational conditions 
of use to ensure that no person is exposed to inhalation of CTC in 
excess of these concentrations resulting from those conditions of use. 
EPA recognizes that the regulated community has the ability to detect 
the values for the ECEL because of viable detection limits and 
analytical methods of CTC for monitoring devices that are available in 
commerce, currently in use, which are as low as 4 micrograms per sample 
(Refs. 15, 44). For the purposes of this TSCA section 6(a) rulemaking, 
EPA will consider the use of methods for exposure monitoring (i.e., 
NIOSH Method 1003) that produce results that are accurate, to a 
confidence level of 95 percent and within 25 percent (plus or minus) of 
airborne concentrations of CTC above 0.03 ppm ECEL, to be in compliance 
with this rule. EPA recognizes that current analytical methods may not 
measure CTC to below the action level of 0.02 ppm, particularly for 
short-term tasks; therefore, owners and operators will be required to 
monitor more frequently, as described further in this unit, until 
monitoring methods that measure to or below the action level become 
available.

[[Page 103532]]

b. Monitoring Requirements
i. Exposure Sampling
    Initial monitoring for CTC is critical for establishing a baseline 
of exposure for potentially exposed persons; similarly, periodic 
exposure monitoring assures continued compliance over time so that 
potentially exposed persons are not exposed to levels that would result 
in an unreasonable risk of injury to health. Exposure monitoring could 
be suspended if certain conditions described in Unit IV. are met. Also, 
in some cases, a change in workplace conditions with the potential to 
impact exposure levels would warrant additional monitoring, which is 
also described.
    EPA is finalizing with modifications from proposal its requirement 
that owners or operators determine each potentially exposed person's 
exposure by taking a personal breathing zone air sample of each 
potentially exposed person's exposure or by taking personal breathing 
zone air samples that are representative of each potentially exposed 
person with a similar exposure profile to chemical substance or mixture 
based on substantial similarity of tasks performed, the manner in which 
the tasks are performed, and the materials and processes with which 
they work (hereinafter identified as an ``exposure group''). Personal 
breathing zone air samples are representative of the 8-hour TWA of all 
potentially exposed persons in an exposure group if the samples are of 
the full shift-exposure of at least one person who represents the 
highest potential CTC exposures in that exposure group. In addition, 
the initial monitoring will be required when and where the operating 
conditions are best representative of each potentially exposed person's 
full-shift exposures. Personal breathing zone air samples taken during 
one work shift may be used to represent potentially exposed person 
exposures on other work shifts where the owner or operator can document 
that the tasks performed and conditions in the workplace are similar 
across shifts. Additionally, air sampling is required to measure 
ambient concentrations for CTC without taking respiratory protections 
into account as sampling is being performed. For purposes of exposure 
monitoring requirements, owners and operators are only required to 
monitor potentially exposed persons that are expected to be present in 
the workplace.
    EPA is also finalizing requirements that the owner or operator 
ensure that their exposure monitoring methods are accurate to a 
confidence level of 95% and are within (plus or minus) 25% of airborne 
concentrations of CTC above the 8-hour TWA ECEL. To ensure compliance 
for monitoring activities, EPA is finalizing recordkeeping requirements 
and will require that owners or operators document their choice of 
monitoring method outlined in this unit. As described in Unit III.C.1., 
EPA is finalizing the requirement that owners or operators meet certain 
documentation requirements for each monitoring event of CTC, including 
compliance with GLP Standards in accordance with 40 CFR part 792 or use 
of a laboratory accredited by the AIHA (e.g., AIHA LAP, LLC Policy 
Module 2A/B/E of Revision 17.3), or other analogous industry-recognized 
program. Additionally, as described in Unit III.C.1., EPA is finalizing 
the requirement that owners or operators must re-monitor within 15 
working days after receipt of any exposure monitoring when results 
indicate non-detect, unless an Environmental Professional as defined at 
40 CFR 312.10 or a Certified Industrial Hygienist reviews the 
monitoring results and determines re-monitoring is not necessary.
    EPA is also finalizing the requirement that each owner or operator 
maintain exposure monitoring records that include the following 
information for each monitoring event:
     Dates, duration, and results of each sample taken.
     The quantity, location(s) and manner of use of CTC at the 
time of each monitoring event.
     All measurements that may be necessary to determine the 
conditions (e.g., work site temperatures, humidity, ventilation rates, 
monitoring equipment type and calibration dates) that may affect the 
monitoring results.
     Name, workplace address, work shift, job classification, 
work area, and type of respiratory protection (if any) of each 
monitored person.
     Identification of all potentially exposed persons that a 
monitored person is intended to represent if using a representative 
sample.
     Use of appropriate sampling and analytical methods.
     Compliance with GLP Standards in accordance with 40 CFR 
part 792 or use of a laboratory accredited by AIHA (e.g., AIHA LAP, LLC 
Policy Module 2A/B/E of Revision 17.3), or another analogous industry-
recognized program.
     Information regarding air monitoring equipment, including: 
type, maintenance, calibrations, performance tests, limits of 
detection, and any malfunctions.
     Notification of exposure monitoring results to each person 
whose exposures are monitored or who is part of a monitored exposure 
group.
ii. Initial Exposure Monitoring
    Under the final regulation, each non-Federal owner or operator of a 
facility that is engaged in one or more of the conditions of use listed 
in Unit IV.B.1. will be required to perform initial exposure monitoring 
within 540 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register (i.e., no later than June 11, 2026) or within 30 days of 
introduction of CTC into the workplace, whichever is later, to 
determine the extent of exposure of potentially exposed persons to CTC. 
As discussed in Unit III.B., EPA is providing additional time for 
Federal agencies and Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of the 
Federal government to comply with the provisions of the WCPP, so they 
will be required to conduct initial monitoring within 915 days after 
publication (i.e., no later than June 21, 2027). Initial monitoring 
will notify owners and operators of the magnitude of possible exposures 
to potentially exposed persons with respect to their work conditions 
and environments. Based on the magnitude of possible exposures in the 
initial exposure monitoring, the owner or operator may need to increase 
or decrease the frequency of future periodic monitoring or adopt new 
exposure controls (such as engineering controls, administrative 
controls, and/or a respiratory protection program), as indicated in 
table 1. In addition, the initial monitoring will be required when and 
where the operating conditions are best representative of each 
potentially exposed person's work-shift exposures. If the owner or 
operator chooses to use a sample that is representative of potentially 
exposed persons' full shift exposures (rather than monitor every 
individual), such sampling should be representative (i.e., taken from 
the breathing zone of potentially exposed persons and reflect duration-
appropriate exposure) of the most highly exposed persons in the 
workplace. Additionally, EPA expects that owners and operators will 
conduct initial exposure monitoring representative of all tasks that a 
potentially exposed person will be expected to do. EPA understands that 
certain tasks may occur less frequently or may reflect accidental 
exposure (for example, due to malfunction).
    EPA also recognizes that some entities may already have objective 
exposure monitoring data. If the owner or operator has monitoring data 
conducted within five years prior to 60 days following publication of 
the final rule in the Federal Register and the monitoring

[[Page 103533]]

satisfies all other requirements in Unit IV., including the requirement 
that the data represents the highest CTC exposures likely to occur 
under reasonably foreseeable conditions of use, the owner or operator 
may rely on such earlier monitoring results for the initial baseline 
monitoring sample. Prior monitoring data cannot be used where there has 
been a change in work conditions or practices that is expected to 
result in new or additional exposures.
    As described in more detail later in Unit IV., the owner or 
operator must conduct periodic monitoring at least once every five 
years since its last monitoring. This periodic monitoring must be 
representative of all the potentially exposed persons in the workplace 
and the tasks that they are expected to do.
iii. Periodic Exposure Monitoring
    EPA is finalizing the following periodic monitoring for owners or 
operators. These finalized requirements are also outlined in Table 1.
     If samples taken during the initial exposure monitoring 
reveal a concentration below the ECEL action level (<0.02 ppm 8-hour 
TWA), the owner or operator must repeat the periodic exposure 
monitoring at least once every five years.
     If the most recent exposure monitoring indicates that 
airborne exposure is above the ECEL (>0.03 ppm 8-hour TWA), the owner 
or operator must repeat the periodic exposure monitoring within three 
months of the most recent exposure monitoring.
     If the most recent exposure monitoring indicates that 
airborne exposure is at or above the ECEL action level (>=0.02 ppm 8-
hour TWA) but at or below the ECEL (<=0.03 ppm 8-hour TWA), the owner 
or operator must repeat the periodic exposure monitoring within six 
months of the most recent exposure monitoring.
     If the most recent (non-initial) exposure monitoring 
indicates that airborne exposure is below the ECEL action level, the 
owners or operators must repeat such monitoring within six months of 
the most recent monitoring until two consecutive monitoring 
measurements, taken at least seven days apart, are below the ECEL 
action level (<0.02 ppm 8-hour TWA), at which time the owner or 
operator must repeat the periodic exposure monitoring at least once 
every five years.
     In instances where an owner or operator does not 
manufacture, process, use, or dispose of CTC for a condition of use for 
which the WCPP is required over the entirety of time since the last 
required periodic monitoring event, EPA is requiring that the owner or 
operator would be permitted to forgo the next periodic monitoring 
event. However, documentation of cessation of use of CTC would be 
required and periodic monitoring would be required to resume when the 
owner or operator restart any of the conditions of use listed in Unit 
IV.B.1.


                Table 1--Periodic Monitoring Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Air concentration condition        Periodic monitoring requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If initial exposure monitoring is below  Periodic exposure monitoring is
 the ECEL action level (<0.02 ppm 8-      required at least once every
 hour TWA).                               five years.
If the most recent exposure monitoring   Periodic exposure monitoring is
 indicates that airborne exposure is      required within three months
 above the ECEL (>0.03 ppm 8-hour TWA).   of the most recent exposure
                                          monitoring.
If the most recent exposure monitoring   Periodic exposure monitoring is
 indicates that airborne exposure is at   required within six months of
 or above the ECEL action level but at    the most recent exposure
 or below the ECEL (>=0.02 ppm 8-hour     monitoring.
 TWA, <=0.03 ppm 8-hour TWA).
If the two most recent (non-initial)     Periodic exposure monitoring is
 exposure monitoring measurements,        required within five years of
 taken at least seven days apart within   the most recent exposure
 a 6-month period, indicate exposure is   monitoring.
 below the ECEL action level (<0.02 ppm
 8-hour TWA).
If the owner or operator engages in a    The owner or operator may forgo
 condition of use for which WCPP ECEL     the next periodic monitoring
 would be required but does not           event. However, documentation
 manufacture, process, use, or dispose    of cessation of use of CTC is
 of CTC in that condition of use over     required and periodic
 the entirety of time since the last      monitoring would be required
 required monitoring event.               when the owner or operator
                                          resumes the condition of use.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Additional scenarios in which monitoring may be required are
  discussed in Unit IV.B.3.b.iv.

iv. Additional Exposure Monitoring
    EPA is finalizing that each owner or operator conduct additional 
exposure monitoring within a reasonable timeframe after there has been 
a change in the production, process, control equipment, personnel or 
work practices may reasonably be expected to result in new or 
additional exposures at or above the ECEL, or when the owner or 
operator has any reason to believe that new or additional exposures at 
or above the ECEL action level have occurred, for example if an owner 
or operator receives information from potentially exposed person(s) 
suggesting that such new or additional exposures may have occurred. In 
the event of start-up or shutdown, or ruptures, malfunctions or other 
breakdowns or unexpected releases that may lead to exposure to 
potentially exposed persons, EPA is finalizing that each owner or 
operator must conduct exposure monitoring of potentially exposed 
persons (using personal breathing zone sampling) within a reasonable 
timeframe after the conclusion of the start-up or shutdown and/or the 
cleanup, repair or remedial action of the malfunction or other 
breakdown or unexpected release. EPA is also requiring that the owner 
or operator document that additional monitoring was completed within a 
reasonable timeframe. At this time, EPA is not finalizing a specific 
compliance timeframe for completion of additional monitoring when there 
has been a change in the production, process, control equipment, 
personnel or work practices, or in the event of start-up or shutdown, 
or ruptures, malfunctions or other breakdowns or unexpected releases 
that may lead to exposure to potentially exposed persons; however, 
other TSCA section 6(a) rules are finalizing a compliance timeframe of 
30 days for additional monitoring in these cases, and such timeframe 
would be an indication of what EPA considers likely to be reasonable in 
most cases when these changes are made at facilities that use CTC or in 
the event of these potential releases of CTC. An additional exposure 
monitoring event may result in an increased frequency of periodic 
monitoring. For example, if the initial monitoring results from a 
workplace are above the ECEL action level, but below the ECEL, periodic 
monitoring is required every six months. If additional monitoring is 
performed because increased exposures are suspected, and

[[Page 103534]]

the results are above the ECEL, subsequent periodic monitoring would 
have to be performed every three months. The required additional 
exposure monitoring should not delay implementation of any necessary 
cleanup or other remedial action to reduce the exposures to persons in 
the workplace.
c. Regulated Area
    EPA is finalizing its requirement that the owner or operator 
demarcate any area where airborne concentrations of CTC exceed, or are 
reasonably expected to exceed the ECEL. To provide more clarity 
regarding how regulated areas must be demarcated, EPA has incorporated 
the language analogous to OSHA's regulated area requirements under the 
standards for toxic and hazardous substances (29 CFR part 1910, subpart 
Z) into this final rule. Owners and operators must demarcate regulated 
areas from the rest of the workplace in any manner that adequately 
establishes and alerts potentially exposed persons to the boundaries of 
the area and minimizes the number of authorized persons exposed to CTC 
within the regulated area. This can be accomplished using 
administrative controls (e.g., highly visible signifiers) in multiple 
languages as appropriate (e.g., when potentially exposed persons who 
primarily speak a language other than English are present, owners and 
operators should post additional highly visible signifiers in the 
language of the largest group of workers who cannot readily comprehend 
or read English), placed in conspicuous areas. The owner or operator is 
required to restrict access to the regulated area from any potentially 
exposed person that lacks proper training or is otherwise unauthorized 
to enter.
d. Notification of Monitoring Results
    EPA is finalizing the requirement that the owner or operator must, 
within 15 working days after the receipt of the results of any exposure 
monitoring, notify each potentially exposed person whose exposure is 
represented by that monitoring and their designated representatives in 
writing, either individually to each potentially exposed person or by 
posting the information in an appropriate and accessible location, such 
as public spaces or common areas, for potentially exposed persons 
outside of the regulated area. The notice would be required to identify 
the exposure monitoring results, the ECEL and ECEL action level and 
what they mean in plain language, statement of whether the monitored 
airborne concentration of CTC exceeds the ECEL and ECEL action level, 
and any corresponding respiratory protection required. If the ECEL is 
exceeded, the notice must also include a description of the actions 
taken by the owner or operator to reduce inhalation exposures to or 
below the ECEL. The notice must also include the quantity, location, 
manner of CTC use, and identified releases of CTC that could result in 
exposure to CTC at the time of monitoring. The notice must be posted in 
multiple languages if necessary (e.g., notice must be in a language 
that the potentially exposed person understands, including a non-
English language version representing the language of the largest group 
of workers who cannot readily comprehend or read English).
4. Direct Dermal Contact Control (DDCC) Requirements
    To reduce exposures in the workplace and address the unreasonable 
risk of injury to health resulting from dermal exposures to CTC 
identified under the occupational conditions of use in the TSCA 2020 
Risk Evaluation for CTC, EPA is finalizing DDCC requirements for all of 
the conditions of use identified in Unit IV.B.1. EPA is finalizing its 
requirements that owners or operators must separate, distance, 
physically remove, or isolate all person(s) from direct handling of CTC 
or from skin contact with surfaces that may be contaminated with CTC 
(i.e., equipment or materials on which CTC may be present) under 
routine conditions in the workplace (hereafter referred to as direct 
dermal contact) within 180 days after the date of publication of the 
final rule in the Federal Register (i.e., June 16, 2025) for non-
Federal owners or operators, or within 1,005 days after the date of 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register (i.e., September 
20, 2027) for Federal agencies and Federal contractors acting for or on 
behalf of the Federal government. The 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon 
Tetrachloride identified that unreasonable risk to workers is also 
driven by the dermal exposure, specifically from direct skin contact 
with CTC; risk exceeding the benchmark was identified even when 
considering use of chemically resistant gloves in most commercial and 
industrial conditions of use. EPA has determined that preventing direct 
dermal contact will eliminate the unreasonable risk of injury to health 
resulting from dermal exposures for certain occupational conditions of 
use of CTC. See the proposed rule for EPA's description of how the 
requirements related to DDCC would address the unreasonable risk 
resulting from dermal exposures and the rationale for this regulatory 
approach in Units III.B.4. and V.A. of the proposed rule. and V.A. of 
the proposed rule.
5. Exposure Control Plan
    EPA is finalizing its requirement that entities implementing the 
WCPP adopt feasible exposure controls, including one or a combination 
of elimination, substitution, engineering controls, and administrative 
controls, prior to requiring the use of PPE (i.e., respirators or 
gloves) as a means of controlling exposures below EPA's ECEL and/or 
prevent directing dermal contact with CTC for all potentially exposed 
persons, in accordance with the hierarchy of controls (Ref. 6). If an 
owner or operator chooses to replace CTC with a substitute, EPA 
recommends careful review of the available hazard and exposure 
information on the potential substitutes to avoid a substitute chemical 
that might later be found to present an unreasonable risk of injury to 
health or the environment under its conditions of use or be subject to 
regulation (sometimes referred to as a ``regrettable substitution''). 
EPA expects that, for conditions of use for which EPA is finalizing a 
WCPP, compliance at most workplaces would be part of an established 
industrial hygiene program that aligns with the hierarchy of controls.
    Examples of engineering controls that may prevent or reduce the 
potential for direct dermal contact include automation, physical 
barriers between contaminated and clean work areas, enclosed transfer 
liquid lines (with purging mechanisms in place (e.g., nitrogen, 
aqueous) for operations such as product changes or cleaning), and 
design of tools (e.g., a closed-loop container system providing 
contact-free connection for unloading fresh and collecting spent 
solvents, pneumatic tools, tongs, funnels, glove bags, etc.). Examples 
of administrative controls that may prevent or reduce the potential for 
direct dermal contact include adjusting work practices (i.e., 
implementing policies and procedures) such as providing safe working 
distances from areas where direct handling of CTC may occur.
    EPA is finalizing the requirement that regulated entities use the 
hierarchy of controls, instituting one or a combination of controls to 
the extent feasible, and supplement such protections using PPE, where 
necessary, including respirators for potentially exposed persons at 
risk of inhalation exposure above the ECEL and dermal PPE for persons 
potentially exposed through direct dermal contact to CTC. If efforts of 
elimination, substitution,

[[Page 103535]]

engineering controls, and administrative controls are not sufficient to 
reduce exposures to or below the ECEL or prevent direct dermal contact 
for all potentially exposed persons in the workplace, EPA requires that 
the owner or operator use feasible controls to reduce CTC 
concentrations in the workplace to the lowest levels achievable and 
supplement these controls with respiratory protection and dermal PPE as 
needed to achieve the ECEL or prevent direct dermal contact. In such 
cases, EPA requires that the owner or operator provide potentially 
exposed persons reasonably likely to be exposed to CTC by inhalation to 
concentrations above the ECEL with respirators affording sufficient 
protection against inhalation risk and appropriate training on the 
proper use of such respirators, to ensure that their exposures do not 
exceed the ECEL as described in Unit IV. EPA also requires that the 
owner or operator provides potentially exposed persons reasonably 
likely to be exposed to CTC by direct dermal contact with dermal 
protection affording sufficient protection against dermal risk and 
appropriate training on the proper use of dermal protection, as 
described in this unit. As part of the training requirement, the owner 
or operator is required to provide information and comprehensive 
training in an understandable manner (i.e., plain language), 
considering factors such as the skills required to perform the work 
activity and the existing skill level of the staff performing the work, 
and in multiple languages as appropriate (e.g., based on languages 
spoken by potentially exposed persons) to potentially exposed persons. 
This training must be provided prior to or at the time of initial 
assignment to a job involving potential exposure to CTC. Furthermore, 
EPA also requires that the owner or operator document their efforts in 
using elimination, substitution, engineering controls, and 
administrative controls to reduce exposure to or below the ECEL in an 
exposure control plan.
    The Agency understands that certain engineering controls can reduce 
exposures to people inside the workplace but may lead to increased 
ventilation of CTC outside of the workplace. Increasing CTC releases to 
the ambient air could lead to increasing risks to people in fenceline 
communities of adverse health effects from exposures to CTC in ambient 
air. Therefore, as proposed, and considering the effects of CTC on 
health and the magnitude of the exposure of human beings, as required 
by TSCA section 6(c)(2)(A)(i), EPA is prohibiting increased releases of 
CTC to outdoor air associated with the implementation of the WCPP/ECEL. 
This requirement is intended to avoid unintended increases in exposures 
to people from CTC emissions to ambient air. Owners and operators are 
required to attest in their WCPP/ECEL exposure control plan that 
engineering controls selected do not increase emissions of CTC to 
ambient air outside of the workplace and document in their exposure 
control plan whether additional equipment was installed to capture 
emissions of CTC to ambient air. Owners and operators may institute air 
emissions monitoring or modeling to assist with meeting this 
requirement.
    EPA is finalizing its requirement that the owner or operator 
include and document in the exposure control plan or through any 
existing documentation of the facility's safety and health program 
developed as part of meeting OSHA requirements or other safety and 
health standards, the following:
     Identification in the exposure control plan of available 
exposure controls that were considered and rationale for using or not 
using available exposure controls in the following sequence (i.e., 
elimination and substitution, then engineering controls and 
administrative controls) to reduce exposures in the workplace to either 
at or below the ECEL or to the lowest level achievable and to prevent 
or reduce direct dermal contact with CTC in the workplace;
     For each exposure control considered, exposure controls 
selected based on feasibility, effectiveness, and other relevant 
considerations;
     A description of actions the owner or operator must take 
to implement exposure controls selected, including proper installation, 
regular inspections, maintenance, training, or other steps taken;
     A description of regulated areas, how they are demarcated, 
and persons authorized to enter the regulated areas;
     Attestation that exposure controls selected do not 
increase emissions of CTC to ambient air outside of the workplace and 
whether additional equipment was installed to capture or otherwise 
prevent increased emissions of CTC to ambient air;
     A description of activities conducted by the owner or 
operator to review and update the exposure control plan to ensure 
effectiveness of the exposure controls, identify any necessary updates 
to the exposure controls, and confirm that all persons are properly 
implementing the exposure controls; and
     An explanation of the procedures for responding to any 
change that may reasonably be expected to introduce additional sources 
of exposure to CTC, or otherwise result in increased exposure to CTC, 
including procedures for implementing corrective actions to mitigate 
exposure to CTC.
    Under this final rule, owners or operators are prohibited from 
using rotating work schedules to comply with the ECEL 8-hour TWA, in 
alignment with certain elements of existing OSHA's standards for toxic 
substances under 29 CFR part 1910, subpart Z. Owners or operators must 
maintain the effectiveness of any engineering and administrative 
controls instituted as part of the exposure control plan. They must 
also review and update the exposure control plan as necessary, but at 
least every five years, to reflect any significant changes in the 
status of the owner or operator's approach to compliance with the 
exposure control requirements. EPA intends that the exposure control 
plan identify the available exposure controls and, for the exposure 
controls not selected, document the efforts identifying why these are 
not feasible, not effective, or otherwise not implemented. For entities 
for which significant amounts of time are needed to verify suitability 
of alternatives or procure funds or authorization for additional 
engineering controls, for example, EPA expects that as those controls 
become available the exposure control plan would be updated 
accordingly. EPA requires that the exposure control plan be revisited 
under certain conditions (and at least every five years) and encourages 
updates as more sophisticated controls are available.
    This final rule requires owners or operators to make the exposure 
control plan and associated records, including ECEL exposure monitoring 
records, ECEL compliance records, DDCC compliance records, and 
workplace participation records, available to potentially exposed 
persons and their designated representatives. Owners or operators must 
notify potentially exposed persons and their designated representatives 
of the availability of the exposure control plan and associated records 
within 30 days of the date that the exposure control plan is completed 
and at least annually thereafter. The notice of the availability of the 
plan and associated records must be provided in plain language writing 
to each potentially exposed person in a language that the person 
understands or posted in an appropriate and accessible location outside 
the regulated area with an English-language version and a non-

[[Page 103536]]

English version representing the language of the largest group of 
workers who do not read English. This final rule also requires the 
owner or operator to provide the exposure control plan and associated 
records at a reasonable time, place, and manner to a potentially 
exposed person or their designated representative upon request. As 
explained in Unit III.C.2., if the owner or operator is unable to 
provide the specified records within 15 days, the owner or operator 
must inform the potentially exposed person or designated representative 
requesting the record within 15 days that reason for the delay and the 
earliest date when the record will be made available.
6. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
    Where elimination, substitution, engineering controls, and 
administrative controls are not feasible to reduce the air 
concentration to or below the ECEL and/or prevent direct dermal contact 
with CTC for all potentially exposed persons, EPA is finalizing as 
proposed with slight modifications to improve clarity or for greater 
consistency with OSHA's regulations to require owners and operators to 
provide PPE, including respiratory protection and dermal protection 
selected in accordance with the guidelines described in this unit, and 
to implement a PPE program. This unit includes a description of the PPE 
program, including required PPE as it relates to respiratory 
protection, required PPE as it relates to dermal protection, and other 
requirements such as additional training for respirators and 
recordkeeping to support implementation of a PPE program.
a. Respiratory Protection
    Where elimination, substitution, engineering, and administrative 
controls are not feasible or sufficiently protective to reduce the air 
concentration to or below the ECEL, or if inhalation exposure above the 
ECEL is still reasonably likely, EPA is finalizing, with slight 
modification from the proposal, minimum respiratory PPE requirements 
based on an owner or operator's most recent measured air concentration 
for one or more potentially exposed persons and the level of PPE needed 
to reduce exposure to or below the ECEL. In those circumstances, EPA is 
finalizing the requirements for a respiratory protection PPE program 
with worksite-specific procedures and elements for required respirator 
use. Owners or operators must develop and administer a written 
respiratory protection program in accordance with OSHA's respiratory 
protection standard under 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1), (c)(3), and (c)(4). 
EPA is finalizing requirements that owners and operators provide 
training to all persons required to use respiratory protection 
consistent with 29 CFR 1910.134(k) prior to or at the time of initial 
assignment to a job involving potential exposure to CTC. Owners and 
operators must retrain all persons required to use PPE at least 
annually, or whenever the owner or operator has reason to believe that 
a previously trained person does not have the required understanding 
and skill to properly use PPE, or when changes in the workplace or in 
PPE to be used render the previous training obsolete.
    EPA is finalizing requirements that each owner or operator supply a 
respirator, selected in accordance with requirements described in this 
unit, to each person who enters a regulated area within 1,005 days 
after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register 
(i.e., no later than September 20, 2027) for Federal agencies and 
Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal government, 
630 days after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register (i.e., no later than September 9, 2026) for non-Federal owners 
and operators, or within three months after the receipt of any exposure 
monitoring that indicates exposures exceeding the ECEL, and thereafter 
must ensure that all persons within the regulated area are using the 
provided respirators whenever CTC exposures exceed or can reasonably be 
expected to exceed the ECEL.
    EPA is also finalizing requirements that owners or operators who 
are required to administer a respiratory protection PPE program must 
supply a respirator based on a medical evaluation consistent with the 
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.134(e). If a potentially exposed person 
cannot use a negative-pressure respirator, then the owner or operator 
must provide that person with an alternative respirator. The 
alternative respirator must have less breathing resistance than the 
negative-pressure respirator and provide equivalent or greater 
protection. If the person is unable to use an alternative respirator, 
then the person must not be permitted to enter the regulated area. 
Additionally, EPA is requiring owners and operators to select 
respiratory protection that properly fits each affected person and 
communicate respirator selections to each affected person in accordance 
with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.134(f). Consistent with 
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.134(g) through (j), EPA is requiring owners 
and operators to provide, ensure use of, and maintain (in a sanitary, 
reliable, and undamaged condition) respiratory protection that is of 
safe design and construction. EPA is also requiring owners and 
operators to provide training to all persons required to use 
respiratory protection consistent with the requirements of 29 CFR 
1910.134(k).
    EPA is finalizing the requirements to establish minimum respiratory 
protection requirements, such that any respirator affording a higher 
degree of protection than the following requirements may be used. In 
instances where respiratory protection is appropriate, NIOSH 
Approved[supreg] equipment must be used. NIOSH Approved is a 
certification mark of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 
(HHS) registered in the United States and several international 
jurisdictions. EPA is finalizing the following requirements for 
respiratory protection, based on the most recent exposure monitoring 
concentration results measured as an 8-hour TWA that exceed the ECEL 
(0.03 ppm):
     If the measured exposure concentration is at or below 0.03 
ppm: no respiratory protection is required.
     If the measured exposure concentration is above 0.03 ppm 
and less than or equal to 0.3 ppm (10 times ECEL): Any NIOSH Approved 
air-purifying half mask respirator equipped with organic vapor 
cartridges or canisters; or any NIOSH Approved Supplied-Air Respirator 
(SAR) or Airline Respirator operated in demand mode equipped with a 
half mask; or any NIOSH Approved Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus 
(SCBA) in a demand mode equipped with a half mask [APF 10].
     If the measured exposure concentration is above 0.3 ppm 
and less than or equal to 0.75 ppm (25 times ECEL): Any NIOSH Approved 
Powered Air-Purifying Respirator (PAPR) equipped with a loose-fitting 
facepiece or hood/helmet equipped with organic vapor cartridges or 
canisters; or any NIOSH Approved SAR or Airline Respirator in a 
continuous-flow mode equipped with a loose-fitting facepiece or helmet/
hood [APF 25].
     If the measured exposure concentration is above 0.75 ppm 
and less than or equal to 1.5 ppm (50 times ECEL): Any NIOSH Approved 
air-purifying full facepiece respirator equipped with organic vapor 
cartridges or canisters; any NIOSH Approved PAPR with a half mask 
equipped with organic vapor cartridges or canisters; any NIOSH Approved 
SAR or Airline Respirator in a continuous flow mode equipped with a 
half mask; any NIOSH Approved SAR or Airline Respirator

[[Page 103537]]

operated in a pressure-demand or other positive-pressure mode with a 
half mask; or any NIOSH Approved SCBA in demand-mode equipped with a 
full facepiece or helmet/hood [APF 50].
     If the measured exposure concentration is above 1.5 ppm 
and less than or equal to 30 ppm (1,000 times ECEL): Any NIOSH Approved 
PAPR equipped with a full facepiece equipped with organic vapor 
cartridges or canisters; any NIOSH Approved SAR or Airline Respirator 
in a continuous-flow mode equipped with full facepiece; any NIOSH 
Approved SAR or Airline Respirator in pressure-demand or other 
positive-pressure mode equipped with a full facepiece and an auxiliary 
self-contained air supply; or any NIOSH Approved SAR or Airline 
Respirator in a continuous-flow mode equipped with a helmet or hood and 
has been tested to demonstrate performance at a level of a protection 
of APF 1,000 or greater. [APF 1,000].
     If the measured exposure concentration is greater than 30 
ppm (1,000+ times ECEL): Any NIOSH Approved SCBA equipped with a full 
facepiece, hood, or helmet and operated in a pressure demand or other 
positive pressure mode [APF 10,000].
     If the exposure concentration is unknown: Any NIOSH 
Approved combination supplied air respirator equipped with a full 
facepiece and operated in pressure demand or other positive pressure 
mode with an auxiliary self-contained air supply; or any NIOSH Approved 
SCBA operated in pressure demand or other positive pressure mode and 
equipped with a full facepiece or hood/helmet [APF 1000+].
    Additionally, EPA is finalizing requirements that owners or 
operators select and provide respirators in accordance with the 
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iv) and with consideration of 
workplace and user factors that affect respirator performance and 
reliability.
    EPA is requiring that the owner or operator must ensure that all 
filters, cartridges, and canisters used in the workplace are labeled 
and color coded per NIOSH requirements and that the label is not 
removed and remains legible. Consistent with 29 CFR 
1910.134(d)(3)(iii), EPA is requiring either the use of NIOSH Approved 
respirators with an end-of-life service indicator for the contaminant, 
in this case CTC, or implementation of a change schedule for canisters 
and cartridges that ensures that they are changed before the end of 
their service life. EPA is also requiring owners and operators to 
ensure that respirators are used in compliance with the terms of the 
respirator's NIOSH approval.
    EPA is finalizing requirements that owners and operators must 
conduct regular evaluations of the workplace, including consultations 
with potentially exposed persons using respiratory protection, 
consistent with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.134(l), to ensure that 
the provisions of the written respiratory protection program described 
in this unit are being effectively implemented.
    EPA is finalizing the requirement that owners and operators 
document respiratory protection used and PPE program implementation. 
EPA is finalizing requirements that owners and operators document in 
the exposure control plan or other documentation of the facility's 
safety and health program information relevant to the respiratory 
program, including records on the name, workplace address, work shift, 
job classification, work area, and type of respirator worn (if any) by 
each potentially exposed person, maintenance, fit-testing, and training 
as described in this unit.
b. Dermal Protection
    As described in this unit EPA is finalizing requirements that each 
owner or operator supply dermal PPE that separates and provides a 
barrier to prevent direct dermal contact with CTC, selected in 
accordance with requirements described in this unit, to each person who 
is reasonably likely to be dermally exposed in the work area through 
direct dermal contact within 1,005 days after the date of publication 
of the final rule in the Federal Register (i.e., no later than 
September 20, 2027) for Federal agencies and Federal contractors acting 
for or on behalf of the Federal government, or 180 days after the date 
of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register (i.e., no 
later than June 16, 2025) for non-Federal owners and operators. Where 
elimination, substitution, engineering controls, and administrative 
controls are not feasible or sufficient to fully prevent direct dermal 
contact with CTC, EPA is finalizing requirements that appropriate 
dermal PPE be provided by owners and operators to, and be worn by, 
persons potentially exposed to direct dermal contact with CTC. EPA is 
requiring owners and operators to provide dermal PPE that is of safe 
design and construction for the work to be performed. EPA is also 
requiring owners and operators ensure each potentially exposed person 
who is required to wear PPE to use and maintain PPE in a sanitary, 
reliable, and undamaged condition. Additionally, EPA is requiring 
owners and operators to select and provide PPE that properly fits each 
potentially exposed person who is required to use PPE and communicate 
PPE selections to each affected person.
    In choosing appropriate dermal PPE, EPA is requiring owners and 
operators to select gloves, clothing, and protective gear (which covers 
any exposed dermal area of arms, legs, torso, and face) based on 
specifications from the manufacturer or supplier or individually 
prepared third party testing that demonstrate an impervious barrier to 
CTC during expected durations of use and normal conditions of exposure 
within the workplace, accounting for potential chemical permeation or 
breakthrough times. EPA is also requiring that owners and operators 
demonstrate that the selected PPE will be impervious for the expected 
duration and conditions of exposure, such as using the format specified 
in ASTM F1194-99(2010) ``Standard Guide for Documenting the Results of 
Chemical Permeation Testing of Materials Used in Protective Clothing 
Materials,'' reporting cumulative permeation rate as a function of 
time, or equivalent manufacturer- or supplier-provided testing. In 
alignment with the OSHA Hand Protection PPE Standard (29 CFR 1910.138), 
EPA is requiring owners and operators to select dermal PPE based on an 
evaluation of the performance characteristics of the PPE relative to 
the task(s) to be performed, conditions present, and the duration of 
use. EPA is also requiring owners and operators to consider likely 
combinations of chemical substances to which the clothing may be 
exposed in the work area when selecting the appropriate PPE such that 
the PPE will prevent direct dermal contact to CTC.
    For example, owners and operators can select gloves that have been 
tested in accordance with the American Society for Testing and 
Materials (ASTM) F739 ``Standard Test Method for Permeation of Liquids 
and Gases through Protective Clothing Materials under Conditions of 
Continuous Contact.'' EPA is finalizing that PPE be provided for use 
for a time period only to the extent and no longer than the time period 
for which testing has demonstrated that the PPE will be impervious 
during expected durations of use and conditions of exposure. EPA is 
finalizing requirements that owners and operators also consider other 
factors when selecting appropriate PPE, including effectiveness of 
glove type when preventing exposures from CTC alone and in likely 
combination with other chemical substances used in the work area or 
when used with glove liners, permeation, degree of dexterity

[[Page 103538]]

required to perform task, and temperature, as identified in the Hand 
Protection section of OSHA's Personal Protective Equipment Guidance 
(Ref. 45).
    EPA is finalizing that owners and operators establish, either 
through manufacturer or supplier-provided documentation or individually 
prepared third party testing that the selected PPE will be impervious 
for the expected duration and conditions of exposure, such as using the 
format specified in ASTM F1194-99(2010) ``Standard Guide for 
Documenting the Results of Chemical Permeation Testing of Materials 
Used in Protective Clothing Materials,'' reporting cumulative 
permeation rate as a function of time, or equivalent manufacturer- or 
supplier- provided testing. EPA is also requiring owners and operators 
to consider likely combinations of chemical substances to which the 
clothing may be exposed in the work area when selecting the appropriate 
PPE such that the PPE will prevent direct dermal contact to CTC. 
Degradation may also be appropriate to consider in the context of 
combination chemical exposures, as some glove types and materials may 
demonstrate efficient permeation barrier results but may not be fully 
resistant to degradation from the chemical exposure. Degradation can be 
evaluated using standard test methods such as select test methods 
within ASTM Method D 471 Standard Test Method for Rubber Property--
Effect of Liquids (e.g., ASTM D412 Standard Test Methods for Vulcanized 
Rubber and Thermoplastic Elastomers-Tension). EPA is finalizing 
requirements that PPE must be immediately provided and replaced if any 
person is dermally exposed to CTC longer than the breakthrough time 
period for which testing has demonstrated that the PPE will be 
impermeable or if there is a chemical permeation or breakage of the 
PPE.
    Additionally, EPA is finalizing requirements that owners and 
operators subject to this rule comply with provisions of 29 CFR 
1910.133(b) for requirements on selection and use of eye and face 
protection.
    Additionally, as part of the PPE program, EPA is also finalizing 
that owners and operators must comply with OSHA's general PPE training 
requirements at 29 CFR 1910.132(f) for application of a PPE training 
program, including providing training on proper use of dermal PPE 
(e.g., when and where PPE is necessary, proper application, wear, and 
removal of PPE, maintenance, useful life and disposal of PPE). EPA is 
finalizing that owners and operators provide PPE training to all 
persons required to use dermal PPE prior to or at the time of initial 
assignment to a job involving potential exposure to CTC. Owners and 
operators have to re-train each affected person at least once annually 
or whenever the owner or operator has reason to believe that a 
previously trained person does not have the required understanding and 
skill to properly use PPE, or when changes in the workplace or in the 
PPE to be used render the previous training obsolete.
    EPA is also finalizing requirements that owners and operators 
retain records of dermal PPE used and program implementation. EPA is 
requiring that owners and operators document in the exposure control 
plan or other documentation of the facility's safety and health 
program, information relevant to any dermal PPE program, as applicable, 
including:
     The name, workplace address, work shift, job 
classification, and work area of each person reasonably likely to 
directly handle CTC or handle equipment or materials on which CTC may 
present and the type of PPE selected to be worn by each of these 
persons;
     The basis for specific PPE selection (e.g., demonstration 
based on permeation testing or manufacturer specifications that each 
item of PPE selected provides an impervious barrier to prevent exposure 
during expected duration and conditions of exposure, including the 
likely combinations of chemical substances to which the PPE may be 
exposed in the work area);
     Appropriately sized PPE and training on proper 
application, wear, and removal of PPE, and proper care/disposal of PPE;
     Occurrence and duration of any direct dermal contact with 
CTC that occurs during any activity or malfunction at the workplace 
that causes direct dermal exposures to occur and/or glove breakthrough, 
and corrective actions to be taken during and immediately following 
that activity or malfunction to prevent direct dermal contact to CTC; 
and
     Training described in this unit.
7. Additional Finalized Requirements
a. Workplace Information and Training
    EPA is also finalizing its requirements to implement a training 
program in alignment with the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (29 
CFR 1910.1200) and the OSHA General Industry Standard for Methylene 
Chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052). To ensure that potentially exposed persons 
in the workplace are informed of the hazards associated with CTC 
exposure, EPA is finalizing as proposed with slight modification to 
require that owners or operators of workplaces subject to the WCPP 
institute a training and information program for potentially exposed 
persons and assure their participation in the training and information 
program within 1,005 days after the date of publication of the final 
rule in the Federal Register (i.e., no later than September 20, 2027) 
for Federal agencies and Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of 
the Federal government, or 630 days after the date of publication of 
the final rule in the Federal Register (i.e., no later than September 
9, 2026) for non-Federal owners and operators. For purposes of 
workplace information and training, owners and operators are only 
required to train potentially exposed persons that are expected to be 
present in the workplace or to directly handle CTC or handle equipment 
or materials on which CTC may present.
    As part of the training and information program, the owner or 
operator is required to provide information and comprehensive training 
in an understandable manner (i.e., plain language) and in multiple 
languages as appropriate (e.g., based on languages spoken by 
potentially exposed persons) to potentially exposed persons prior to or 
at the time of initial assignment to a job involving potential exposure 
to CTC. Owners and operators are required to provide information and 
training, as referenced in the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard, to 
all potentially exposed persons that includes:
     The requirements of the CTC WCPP and how to access or 
obtain a copy of the requirements of the WCPP, including but not 
limited to the exposure control plan, monitoring requirements, and PPE 
program;
     The quantity, location, manner of use, release, and 
storage of CTC and the specific operations in the workplace that could 
result in CTC exposure, particularly noting where each regulated area 
is located;
     Principles of safe use and handling of CTC in the 
workplace, including specific measures the owner or operator has 
implemented to reduce inhalation exposure at or below the ECEL or 
prevent dermal contact with CTC, such as work practices and PPE used;
     The methods and observations that may be used to detect 
the presence or release of CTC in the workplace (such as monitoring 
conducted by the owner or operator, continuous monitoring devices, 
visual appearance or odor of CTC when being released, etc.); and

[[Page 103539]]

     The acute and chronic health hazards of CTC as detailed on 
relevant Safety Data Sheets (SDSs).
    In addition to providing training at the time of initial assignment 
to a job involving potential exposure to CTC, owners and operators 
subject to the CTC WCPP are required to re-train each potentially 
exposed person as necessary, but at a minimum annually, to ensure they 
understand the principles of safe use and handling of CTC in the 
workplace. The owner or operator would consider factors such as the 
skills required to perform the work activity and the existing skill 
level of the staff performing the work. EPA is finalizing its 
requirements that owners and update the training as necessary whenever 
there are changes in the workplace, such as new tasks or modifications 
of tasks, in particular, whenever there are changes in the workplace 
that increase exposure to CTC or where potentially exposed persons' 
exposure to CTC can reasonably be expected to exceed the action level 
or increase the potential for direct dermal contact with CTC. To 
support compliance, EPA is finalizing that each owner or operator of a 
workplace subject to the WCPP would be required to provide to the EPA, 
upon request, all available materials related to workplace information 
and training.
b. Workplace Participation
    EPA encourages owners and operators to consult with potentially 
exposed persons and their designated representative on the development 
and implementation of exposure control plans and PPE/respirator 
programs. EPA is finalizing a requirement that owners and operators 
provide potentially exposed persons and their designated 
representatives regular access to the exposure control plans, exposure 
monitoring records, and PPE program implementation records. To ensure 
compliance with workplace participation, EPA is finalizing a 
requirement that the owner or operator document the notice to and 
ability of any potentially exposed person that may reasonably be 
affected by CTC exposure to readily access the exposure control plans, 
facility exposure monitoring records, PPE program implementation 
records, or any other information relevant to CTC exposure in the 
workplace.
c. Recordkeeping
    For owners and operators to demonstrate compliance with the WCPP 
provisions, EPA is requiring that owners and operators retain 
compliance records for five years (although this requirement does not 
supplant any longer recordkeeping retention time periods such as those 
required under 29 CFR 1910.1020, or other applicable regulations). EPA 
is requiring the owner or operator to retain records of:
     Exposure control plan;
     PPE program implementation and documentation, including as 
necessary, respiratory protection and dermal protection used and 
related PPE training; and
     Information and training provided to each person prior to 
or at the time of initial assignment and any retraining.
    In addition, EPA is finalizing requirements that owners and 
operators subject to the WCPP ECEL requirements maintain records to 
include:
     Regulated areas and authorized personnel;
     The exposure monitoring records;
     Notification of exposure monitoring results; and
     To the extent that the owner or operator relies on prior 
exposure monitoring data, records that demonstrates that it meets all 
of the requirements of this section.
    The owners and operators, upon request by EPA, are required to make 
all records that are maintained as described in Unit IV. available to 
EPA for examination and copying in accordance with EPA requirements. 
EPA emphasizes that all records required to be maintained can be kept 
in the most administratively convenient form; electronic record form or 
paper form.
8. Compliance Timeframes
    EPA is finalizing the requirement that owners or operators of 
workplaces subject to the WCPP implement the DDCC requirements as 
outlined in this unit within 1,005 days after December 18, 2024 for 
Federal agencies or Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of the 
Federal government, 180 days after December 18, 2024 for non-Federal 
owners and operators, or within 30 days of introduction of CTC into the 
workplace, whichever is later. With regard to the compliance timeframe 
for the WCPP provisions related to the ECEL, EPA is not finalizing the 
timeframes proposed. Rather, as discussed in Unit III.B., based on 
consideration of public comments and reasonably available information, 
EPA is finalizing longer timeframes for compliance with provisions 
related to the ECEL for non-Federal owners or operators, and is 
providing Federal agencies and Federal contractors acting for or on 
behalf of the Federal government additional time to comply with each of 
the provisions of the WCPP. Specifically, EPA is finalizing its 
requirement that non-Federal owners and operators perform initial 
exposure monitoring according to the process outlined in this unit 
within 540 days after date of publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register (i.e., no later than June 11, 2026) or within 30 days 
of introduction of CTC into the workplace, whichever is later. Federal 
agencies and Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal 
government must conduct initial exposure monitoring within 915 days 
after the date of publication (i.e., no later than June 21, 2027), or 
within 30 days of introduction of CTC into the workplace, whichever is 
later. EPA is also finalizing its requirement that each non-Federal 
owner or operator ensure that exposure to CTC does not exceed the ECEL 
as an 8-hour TWA for all potentially exposed persons within 630 days 
after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register 
(i.e., no later than September 9, 2026), while Federal agencies and 
Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal government 
must comply with the ECEL within 1,005 days after the date of 
publication (i.e., no later than September 20, 2027). If applicable, 
each owner or operator must provide respiratory protection sufficient 
to reduce inhalation exposures to below the ECEL to all potentially 
exposed persons in the regulated area within three months after receipt 
of the results of any exposure monitoring that indicates an exceedance 
of the ECEL. For non-Federal owners or operators, this will be within 
630 days after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register (i.e., no later than September 9, 2026). For Federal agencies 
and Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal 
government, this will be within 1,005 after the date of publication of 
the final rule in the Federal Register (i.e., no later than September 
20, 2027). EPA is also finalizing the requirement that owners and 
operators demarcate a regulated area within three months after receipt 
of any exposure monitoring that indicates exposures exceeding the ECEL. 
Owners and operators shall proceed accordingly to implement an exposure 
control plan, including institution of feasible exposure controls other 
than PPE, within 1,080 days after date of publication of the final rule 
in the Federal Register (i.e., no later than December 3, 2027).

C. Prescriptive Controls Required for Laboratory Use

    In contrast to the non-prescriptive requirements of the WCPP, 
including the DDCC, where regulated entities would have the ability to 
select controls

[[Page 103540]]

in accordance with the hierarchy of controls to comply with the 
parameters outlined in Unit IV.B., EPA has found it appropriate in 
certain circumstances to require specific prescriptive controls for 
certain occupational conditions of use. In general, EPA is finalizing 
prescriptive controls, for the industrial and commercial use of CTC as 
a laboratory chemical, as described in Unit III.A.2. This unit provides 
a description of the industrial and commercial use of CTC as a 
laboratory chemical subject to specific prescriptive controls, the 
specific prescriptive control requirements, and the compliance 
timeframe for the requirements.
1. Applicability
    The industrial and commercial use of CTC as a laboratory chemical 
refers to the industrial or commercial use of CTC, often in small 
quantities, in a laboratory process or in specialized laboratory 
equipment for instrument calibration/maintenance, chemical analysis, 
chemical synthesis, extracting and purifying other chemicals, 
dissolving other substances, executing research, development, test and 
evaluation methods, and similar activities, such as use as a solvent, 
reagent, analytical standard, or other experimental use.
    After the risk evaluation was published, DoD did further analysis 
and provided additional information clarifying their current use of CTC 
as a laboratory chemical and risk management measures implemented. DoD 
provided information on their use of CTC as a laboratory chemical in 
chemical weapons destruction, indicating that CTC is used in small 
amounts in a confined, laboratory-like setting with advanced 
engineering controls. There is no waste CTC generated during this 
process.
    EPA recognizes that potentially exposed persons in a laboratory 
setting may include students, researchers, visiting scholars, or others 
whose job classifications may vary, such as depending on the academic 
period in university laboratories. The requirements described in this 
unit apply to all potentially exposed persons in all laboratory 
settings, including academic and research laboratories, regardless of 
job classification.
2. Workplace Requirements
    To address the unreasonable risk of injury to health resulting from 
dermal exposures to CTC identified for the industrial and commercial 
use as a laboratory chemical, including DoD's use of CTC as a 
laboratory chemical in chemical weapons destruction, EPA is requiring 
dermal PPE, including impermeable gloves and protective clothing, in 
combination with comprehensive training for tasks particularly related 
to the use of CTC in a laboratory setting as specified in this unit for 
each potentially exposed person with direct dermal contact to CTC in 
the work area through direct handling of the substance or from contact 
with surfaces that may be contaminated with CTC. For dermal PPE, EPA is 
requiring that each owner or operator comply with the requirements 
outlined in Units IV.B.6.b. for selection of dermal PPE and training 
for all potentially exposed persons. EPA's description for how the 
requirements for the industrial and commercial use as a laboratory 
chemical address the unreasonable risk resulting from dermal exposures 
under the conditions of use and the rationale for this regulatory 
approach is outlined in Unit V. of the proposed rule (88 FR 49205, July 
28, 2023) (FRL-8206-01-OCSPP).
    In addition, EPA is requiring the use of laboratory ventilation 
devices, such as fume hoods, glove boxes, air handling units, exhaust 
fans, biological safety devices, airflow controls, and other local 
exhaust devices, in workplace laboratory settings for the industrial 
and commercial use of CTC as a laboratory chemical, except for DoD's 
use of CTC as a laboratory chemical in chemical weapons destruction, to 
codify existing good laboratory practices. EPA is requiring each owner 
or operator of a workplace laboratory setting, except for DoD's use of 
CTC as a laboratory chemical in chemical weapons destruction, to ensure 
laboratory ventilation devices are in use and functioning properly to 
minimize exposures to persons in the area where CTC is used as a 
laboratory chemical. EPA suggests owners or operators refer to OSHA's 
29 CFR 1910.1450, Appendix A, for National Research Council 
recommendations concerning laboratory chemical hood ventilation system 
characteristics and practices and to ANSI's and ASSP's Z9.5-2022 for 
recommendations on additional laboratory ventilation controls to 
minimize exposures to potentially exposed persons in the work area.
    EPA understands that DoD uses CTC in small amounts in a confined, 
laboratory-like setting with advanced engineering controls (Ref. 46). 
Therefore, for DoD's industrial and commercial use of CTC as a 
laboratory chemical in chemical weapons destruction, EPA is requiring 
advanced engineering controls that essentially codify existing 
practices at DoD facilities. EPA is not requiring a WCPP, specifically 
with monitoring requirements, for DoD's industrial and commercial use 
of CTC as a laboratory chemical in chemical weapons destruction.
3. Recordkeeping
    To support and demonstrate compliance, EPA is requiring that each 
owner or operator of a laboratory workplace subject to the requirements 
of this unit retain compliance records for five years. In alignment 
with 29 CFR 1910.1450(e)(3)(ii) and (iii) and 29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2), 
EPA is requiring that owners and operators must retain records of:
     Dermal protection used by each potentially exposed person 
and PPE program implementation as outlined in this unit;
     Criteria that the owner or operator will use to determine 
and implement control measures to reduce potentially exposed persons' 
exposure to CTC including laboratory ventilation devices as outlined in 
this unit;
     Implementation of properly functioning laboratory 
ventilation devices using manufacturer's instructions for installation, 
use, and maintenance of the systems, including inspections, tests, 
development of maintenance procedures, the establishment of criteria 
for acceptable test results, and documentation of test and inspection 
results, except for DoD's use of CTC as a laboratory chemical in 
chemical weapons destruction; and
     For DoD's industrial and commercial use of CTC as a 
laboratory chemical in chemical weapons destruction, implementation of 
advanced engineering controls that are in use and functioning properly 
and specific measures taken to ensure proper and adequate performance. 
Owners or operators must maintain records for five years. EPA expects 
owners or operators ensure that records reflect actions taken within 
the last five years to comply with the requirements of this unit.
4. Compliance Timeframes
    With regards to the compliance timeframe, EPA is requiring that 
each owner or operator of a workplace engaged in the industrial and 
commercial of CTC as a laboratory chemical ensure laboratory 
ventilation devices are in use and functioning properly and that dermal 
PPE is provided to all potentially exposed persons with direct dermal 
contact with CTC within 180 days after publication of the final rule.
    Similarly, EPA is requiring that DoD facilities engaged in the 
industrial and

[[Page 103541]]

commercial use of CTC as a laboratory chemical in chemical weapons 
destruction ensure that advanced engineering controls are in use and 
functioning properly and dermal PPE is provided to all potentially 
exposed persons with direct dermal contact with CTC within 365 days 
after publication of the final rule.
    EPA understands that certain departments and agencies of the 
Federal government, as well as Federal contractors acting for or on 
behalf of the Federal government, need additional time to comply with 
these timeframes. For example, ensuring compliance with the 
prescriptive controls could be challenging due to changing contracting, 
procurement decisions and other processes in Federal facilities. 
Similarly, EPA is requiring for that agencies of the Federal government 
and their contractors, when acting for or on behalf of the Federal 
government, that are engaged in the industrial and commercial use of 
CTC as a laboratory chemical ensure laboratory ventilation devices are 
in use and functioning properly, and that dermal PPE and training on 
proper use of PPE is provided to all potentially exposed persons with 
direct dermal contact with CTC within 365 days after publication of the 
final rule.

D. Prohibition of Manufacture, Processing, Distribution, and Use of CTC

1. Applicability
    EPA is finalizing the prohibitions for most of the conditions of 
use for which prohibition was proposed. Prohibitions will address the 
contribution to the unreasonable risk determined to be presented by CTC 
in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride and 2022 Revised 
Unreasonable Risk Determination for Carbon Tetrachloride from 
industrial and commercial uses of CTC, and reasonably available 
information indicates that industry has already transitioned away from 
CTC and found technically and economically feasible alternatives to CTC 
for these uses. Unit V. of the proposed rule and the Response to 
Comments document present further discussion of EPA's rationale for why 
these conditions of use are being prohibited (88 FR 49205) (FRL-8206-
01-OCSPP). EPA's description of the uses proposed to be prohibited for 
which the Agency is finalizing a WCPP (processing: incorporation into 
formulation, mixtures, or reaction products in vinyl chloride 
manufacturing and the industrial and commercial use as an industrial 
processing aid in the manufacture of vinyl chloride) are in Units 
III.A.1. and IV.B.1. The rule prohibits manufacture, processing, 
distribution in commerce, and use of CTC for the following industrial 
and commercial uses of CTC: industrial and commercial use as a 
processing aid in the manufacture of petrochemical-derived products 
except in the manufacture of vinyl chloride (for which EPA is 
finalizing a WCPP); industrial and commercial use in the manufacture of 
other basic chemicals (including chlorinated compounds used in 
solvents, adhesives, asphalt, and paints and coatings), except for use 
in the elimination of nitrogen trichloride in the production of 
chlorine and caustic soda and the recovery of chlorine in tail gas from 
the production of chlorine (for which EPA is finalizing a WCPP); 
industrial and commercial use in metal recovery; industrial and 
commercial use as an additive; and industrial and commercial use in 
specialty uses by the U.S. Department of Defense. EPA is also 
finalizing the explicit prohibition for processing: incorporation into 
formulation, mixture or reaction products in petrochemical-derived 
manufacturing except in the manufacture of vinyl chloride (the upstream 
processing condition of use for the industrial and commercial use of 
CTC as a processing aid in the manufacture of petrochemicals-derived 
products except in the manufacture of vinyl chloride). This unit 
provides a description of the uses subject to the prohibitions to 
assist with compliance.
a. Processing: Incorporation Into Formulation, Mixture or Reaction 
Products in Petrochemical-Derived Manufacturing Except in the 
Manufacture of Vinyl Chloride
    Incorporation into formulation, mixture, or reaction products 
refers to the process of mixing or blending several raw materials to 
obtain a single product or preparation or formulation. CTC has 
historically been incorporated into formulation or mixtures to 
manufacture hydrochloric acid (HCl), vinyl chloride, ethylene 
dichloride (EDC), chloroform, hafnium tetrachloride, thiophosgene, and 
methylene chloride. CTC may be incorporated into various products and 
formulations at varying concentrations for further distribution. For 
example, CTC may be unloaded from transport containers either directly 
into mixing equipment or into an intermediate storage vessel either 
manually or through automation via a pumping system. Mixing of 
components can occur in either a batch or continuous system. The 
mixture that contains CTC may be used as a reactant to manufacture a 
chlorinated compound that is subsequently formulated into a product or 
a processing aid used to aid in the manufacture of petrochemicals-
derived products. For the purposes of this rulemaking, EPA is 
specifically prohibiting the incorporation into formulation, mixture or 
reaction products in petrochemical-derived manufacturing except in the 
manufacture of vinyl chloride. Incorporation into formulation, mixture 
or reaction products in agricultural products manufacturing, vinyl 
chloride manufacturing, the elimination of nitrogen trichloride in the 
production of chlorine and caustic soda, and the recovery of chlorine 
in tail gas from the production of chlorine is being regulated under 
the WCPP, as described in Unit IV.B.
b. Industrial and Commercial Use
i. Industrial and Commercial Use as an Industrial Processing aid in the 
Manufacture of Petrochemicals-Derived Products Except in the 
Manufacture of Vinyl Chloride.
    A processing aid is a ``chemical that is added to a reaction 
mixture to aid in the manufacture or synthesis of another chemical 
substance but is not intended to remain in or become part of the 
product or product mixture.'' Additionally, processing agents are 
intended to improve the processing characteristics or the operation of 
process equipment, but not intended to affect the function of a 
substance or article created. CTC has traditionally been used as a 
processing aid/agent to aid in the manufacture of petrochemical-derived 
products (Ref. 1). The condition of use includes the use of CTC that 
has historically been used as a processing agent in the manufacture of 
chlorosulphonated polyolefin; stryene butadiene rubber; endosulfan 
(insecticide); 1-1 Bis (4-chlorophenyl) 2,2,2-trichloroethanol (dicofol 
insecticide); and tralomethrin (insecticide). For the purposes of this 
rulemaking, EPA is specifically prohibiting the industrial and 
commercial use of CTC as an industrial processing aid in the 
manufacture of petrochemicals-derived products, except in the 
manufacture of vinyl chloride. The industrial and commercial use as an 
industrial processing aid in the manufacture of agricultural products 
and vinyl chloride is being regulated under the WCPP, as described in 
Unit IV.B.

[[Page 103542]]

ii. Industrial and Commercial Use in the Manufacture of Other Basic 
Chemicals (Including Manufacturing of Chlorinated Compounds Used in 
Solvents, Adhesives, Asphalt, and Paints and Coatings), Except for Use 
in the Elimination of Nitrogen Trichloride in the Production of 
Chlorine and Caustic Soda and the Recovery of Chlorine in Tail Gas From 
the Production of Chlorine
    CTC has historically been used as a processing aid/agent in basic 
organic and inorganic chemical manufacturing. CTC could be used as a 
processing agent in the manufacturing of chlorinated compounds that are 
subsequently used in the formulation of solvents, adhesives, asphalt, 
and paints and coatings; in the manufacturing of chlorinated paraffins 
(e.g., plasticizer in rubber, paints, adhesives, sealants, plastics), 
and chlorinated rubber (e.g., additive in paints, adhesives); and in 
the manufacturing of inorganic chlorinated compounds, such as in the 
production of chlorine and caustic soda and the recovery of chlorine in 
tail gas from the production of chlorine. For the purposes of this 
rulemaking, EPA is specifically prohibiting the industrial and 
commercial use in the manufacture of other basic chemicals (including 
manufacturing of chlorinated compounds used in solvents, adhesives, 
asphalt, and paints and coatings), except for use in the elimination of 
nitrogen trichloride in the production of chlorine and caustic soda and 
the recovery of chlorine in tail gas from the production of chlorine. 
The industrial and commercial use in the elimination of nitrogen 
trichloride in the production of chlorine and caustic soda and the 
recovery of chlorine in tail gas from the production of chlorine is 
being regulated under the WCPP, as described in Unit IV.B.
iii. Industrial and Commercial Use in Metal Recovery
    CTC has historically been used as a processing aid or agent to aid 
in metal recovery.
iv. Industrial and Commercial Use as an Additive
    Additives are chemicals combined with a chemical product to enhance 
the properties of the product. Additives typically stay mixed within 
the finished product and remain unreacted. The risk evaluation examined 
the use of CTC as an additive for the manufacture of petrochemical-
derived products and agricultural products. CTC has historically been 
used as an additive in fuel and in plastic components used in the 
automotive industry.
v. Industrial and Commercial Use in Specialty Uses by the U.S. 
Department of Defense (DoD)
    During the risk evaluation, DoD provided monitoring data for CTC 
uses in various processes that include worker activities such as 
cleaning and sampling residual metal and ash; destruction of munitions 
and storage of resulting liquid waste; and sampling of energetics with 
solvent. The unreasonable risk determination for CTC further determined 
that this condition of use contributed to the unreasonable risk. The 
Agency understands that DoD has successfully phased out the use of CTC 
for this condition of use.
    As discussed in Unit II.C.4., the prohibitions do not apply to any 
substance that is excluded from the definition of ``chemical 
substance'' under TSCA section 3(2)(B)(ii) through (vi).
2. Compliance Timeframes
    EPA is finalizing that the prohibitions apply as of 180 days after 
the date of publication of the final rule for the manufacturing, 
processing, distribution in commerce, and use of CTC for the following: 
incorporation of CTC into formulation, mixture or reaction products in 
petrochemical-derived manufacturing except in the manufacture of vinyl 
chloride; the industrial and commercial use of CTC as a processing aid 
in the manufacture of petrochemical-derived products except in the 
manufacture of vinyl chloride; the industrial and commercial use of CTC 
in the manufacture of other basic chemicals (including chlorinated 
compounds used in solvents, adhesives, asphalt, and paints and 
coatings), except for use in the elimination of nitrogen trichloride in 
the production of chlorine and caustic soda and the recovery of 
chlorine in tail gas from the production of chlorine; the industrial 
and commercial use of CTC in metal recovery; and the industrial and 
commercial use of CTC as an additive.
    EPA is also finalizing the prohibitions for the manufacturing, 
processing, distribution in commerce, and use of CTC for the industrial 
and commercial use in specialty uses by the DoD to apply as of 365 days 
after the date of publication of the final rule.

E. Other Requirements

1. Recordkeeping
    For conditions of use that are not otherwise prohibited under this 
final rule, EPA is finalizing the requirement that manufacturers, 
processors, distributors, and commercial users maintain ordinary 
business records, such as invoices and bills-of-lading, that 
demonstrate compliance with the prohibitions, restrictions, and other 
provisions of this final regulation; and to maintain such records for a 
period of 5 years from the date the record is generated. This 
requirement begins on February 18, 2025. For enforcement purposes, EPA 
will have access to such businesses records plus additional records 
required under 40 CFR 751.713. Recordkeeping requirements would ensure 
that owners or operators can demonstrate compliance with the 
regulations if necessary.
2. Downstream Notification
    For conditions of use that are not otherwise prohibited under this 
final regulation, EPA is finalizing requirements that manufacturers 
(including importers), processors, and distributors of CTC provide 
downstream notification of the prohibitions through the SDSs by adding 
to sections 1(c) and 15 of the SDS the following language:

    After June 16, 2025, this chemical substance (as defined in TSCA 
section 3(2)) may not be distributed in commerce or processed in 
greater than trace quantities for the following purposes: 
Incorporation into formulation, mixture or reaction products in 
petrochemical-derived manufacturing except in the manufacture of 
vinyl chloride; Industrial and commercial use as an industrial 
processing aid in the manufacture of petrochemicals-derived products 
except in the manufacture of vinyl chloride; Industrial and 
commercial use in the manufacture of other basic chemicals 
(including manufacturing of chlorinated compounds used in solvents, 
adhesives, asphalt, and paints and coatings), except for use in the 
elimination of nitrogen trichloride in the production of chlorine 
and caustic soda and the recovery of chlorine in tail gas from the 
production of chlorine; Industrial and commercial use in metal 
recovery; Industrial and commercial use as an additive; and 
beginning December 18, 2025, industrial and commercial specialty 
uses by the U.S. Department of Defense.

    To provide adequate time to update the SDS and ensure that all 
products in the supply chain include the revised SDS, EPA's final rule 
requires manufacturers to revise their SDS within two months of rule 
publication and processors and distributors to revise their SDS within 
six months of rule publication. EPA did not receive public comments 
asserting that these compliance dates for updating the SDS were 
impracticable, and is therefore finalizing the compliance dates as 
proposed. The intention of downstream notification is to spread 
awareness throughout the supply chain of the

[[Page 103543]]

restrictions on CTC under TSCA and to provide information to commercial 
end-users about prohibited uses of CTC.

V. TSCA Section 6(c)(2) Considerations

A. Health Effects of Carbon Tetrachloride and the Magnitude of Human 
Exposure to Carbon Tetrachloride

    EPA's analysis of the health effects of CTC and the magnitude of 
human exposure to CTC are in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for CTC and the 
2022 Revised Unreasonable Risk Determination for CTC (Refs. 1, 3). A 
summary is presented here.
    The 2020 Risk Evaluation for CTC identified potential health 
effects of CTC including carcinogenicity, liver toxicity, 
neurotoxicity, kidney toxicity, reproductive and developmental 
toxicity, irritation and sensitization, and genetic toxicity. Acute 
inhalation exposures to CTC at relatively high concentrations induce 
immediate and temporary depression of the central nervous-system, with 
effects consisting of escape-impairing symptoms such as dizziness. For 
chronic non-cancer inhalation exposure scenarios to CTC, liver toxicity 
is identified as the most sensitive adverse effect contributing to the 
unreasonable risk of CTC exposure due to fatty changes to the liver 
indicative of cellular damage. Under EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen 
Risk Assessment (Ref. 47), CTC is classified as ``Likely to be 
Carcinogenic in Humans.'' CTC has been shown to cause pheochromocytomas 
(tumors of the adrenal glands) in male and female mice by oral and 
inhalation exposures, and a strong association between neuroblastoma 
and CTC in a single well-conducted epidemiological study in the same 
organ raises concern for potential carcinogenic effects in human. In 
addition, a general correlation has been observed in animal studies 
with CTC between hepatocellular cytotocity and regenerative hyperplasia 
and the induction of liver tumors (Ref. 1).
    Populations exposed to CTC include workers ages 17 and older of 
either gender, including pregnant women and individuals who do not use 
CTC but may be indirectly exposed due to their proximity to the user 
who is directly handling CTC (occupational non-users, or ONUs). EPA 
estimates that, annually, there are approximately between 852 and 9,554 
workers and between 500 and 4,144 ONUs at between 30 and 71 facilities 
either manufacturing, processing, or using CTC for industrial and 
commercial conditions of use (Ref. 5).
    In addition to these estimates of numbers of workers and 
occupational non-users directly exposed to CTC, EPA recognizes there is 
exposure to the general population from air and water pathways for CTC 
(fenceline communities are a subset of the general population who may 
be living in proximity to a facility where CTC is being used in an 
occupational setting). EPA separately conducted a screening approach to 
assess whether there may be potential risks to the general population 
from these exposure pathways. This analysis is summarized in the 
proposed rule, which includes information on the SACC peer review. This 
unit addresses those areas where some risk was indicated at the 
fenceline, and the conditions of use will be continuing under this 
final rule.
    EPA's methodological approach to assessing potential exposures to 
fenceline communities of chemicals undergoing risk evaluation under 
TSCA section 6 was presented to the SACC peer review panel in March 
2022, and EPA is including SACC recommendations, as appropriate, in 
assessing general population exposures in upcoming risk evaluations.
    EPA's fenceline analysis for the water pathway for CTC, based on 
methods presented to the SACC, did not find risks from drinking water, 
incidental oral ingestion of ambient water, or incidental dermal 
exposure of surface water (Ref. 48).
    Standard cancer benchmarks used by EPA and other regulatory 
agencies are an increased cancer risk above benchmarks ranging from 1 
in 1,000,000 to 1 in 10,000 (i.e., 1 x 10-6 to 1 x 
10-4). For example, when setting standards under section 
112(f)(2) of the CAA, EPA uses a two-step process, with ``an analytical 
first step to determine an `acceptable risk' that considers all health 
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a 
presumptive limit on maximum individual risk (MIR) of approximately 1-
in-10 thousand'' (Ref. 49, referencing the interpretation set forth in 
the 1989 final National Emission Standards for Benzene rule (54 FR 
38044 Sept. 14, 1989)). In the screening level fenceline analysis for 
the ambient air pathway for CTC, EPA calculated its risk estimates to 
certain populations within the general population living or working 
near particular facilities and compared those risk estimates to a 1 in 
1,000,000 (i.e., 1 x 10-6) benchmark value for cancer risk. 
There are still uncertainties where the calculated risk exceeds this 
cancer risk benchmark value. The benchmark values are not a bright 
line, and the Agency considers a number of factors when determining 
unreasonable risk, such as the endpoint under consideration, the 
reversibility of effect, and exposure-related considerations (e.g., 
duration, magnitude, aggregate or cumulative impacts, or frequency of 
exposure, or size of population exposed, including PESS).
    The screening level fenceline analysis for CTC calculated risk 
estimates to select populations within the general population living or 
working near particular facilities exceeding the 1 x 10-6 
benchmark value (Ref. 50). However, EPA has not determined based on 
this screening level analysis whether these risks to the general 
population contribute to the unreasonable risk presented by CTC. After 
considering the results, limitations, and uncertainties of the 
screening-level analysis, EPA determined as a matter of policy that 
reopening the TSCA section 6(b) risk evaluation for CTC for further 
evaluation of risk to the general population, and consequently delaying 
the promulgation of this TSCA section 6(a) rule, was not warranted. The 
Agency believes it is important to expeditiously promulgate this final 
rule to protect the public from the unreasonable risk determined in 
accordance with TSCA section 6(b)(4)(A), which was driven by 
occupational exposures.
    The ambient air analysis for the multi-year fenceline analysis 
identified 19 facilities (in addition to 6 facilities solely 
manufacturing CTC as a byproduct, which were excluded because, as 
described earlier, the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride 
did not include the manufacture of CTC as a byproduct as a condition of 
use) with risk estimates above one in a million, with one facility with 
risk estimates above one in ten thousand, at 100 meters representing 
five conditions of use. Under the final regulatory action described in 
Unit IV., all of the ongoing conditions of use with an indication of 
potential risk to fenceline communities (with the exception of 
manufacture of CTC as a byproduct) would be required to establish a 
WCPP. Furthermore, EPA is prohibiting increased emissions associated 
with WCPP requirements, and in the WCPP exposure control plan 
facilities need to evaluate controls to determine how to reduce 
releases and exposures to potentially exposed persons in the workplace 
and attest that engineering controls selected do not increase emissions 
of CTC to ambient air outside of the workplace and whether additional 
equipment was installed to capture emissions of CTC to

[[Page 103544]]

ambient air. EPA anticipates that this analysis would help facilities 
to determine the most effective ways to reduce releases, including 
possible engineering controls or elimination/substitution of CTC, and 
therefore may also reduce the overall risk to fenceline communities.
    EPA recognizes, as was described in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 
Carbon Tetrachloride, that CTC is highly persistent in the atmosphere 
with an estimated tropospheric half-life exceeding 330 years. Thus, CTC 
has notable global background concentrations due to its long half-life, 
despite having limited air releases in the US, as noted in both the 
EPA's Air Toxic Screening Assessment modeling technical support 
document and in a recent EPA publication comparing the national air 
toxics modeling to regional monitoring data (Refs. 51, 52). The risk 
estimates from the fenceline analysis do not account for the background 
concentrations from historical emissions, which are persistent in the 
atmosphere.
    In the instances where manufacturing, processing, or use of CTC may 
increase, EPA expects that potential additional exposure from emissions 
to ambient air to be limited as a result of the prohibition on the 
increased ventilation of CTC to ambient air and existing National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) that cover 
CTC for these conditions of use under the CAA. Applicable NESHAPs 
include: 40 CFR part 63, subparts F, G, H, and I, Organic HAP from the 
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Other Processes 
Subject to the Negotiated Regulation for Equipment Leaks.
    The CAA establishes a two-phase process for the EPA's development, 
review, and potential revision of NESHAP that impose emission standards 
and work practice requirements on subject categories of sources of 
hazardous air pollutants. First, the EPA sets technology-based or 
performance-based standards reflecting the maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT) for major sources (CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3)) and 
generally available control technology (GACT) for area or non-major 
sources (CAA section 112(d)(5)). In the second phase, eight years after 
adoption of the first phase standards, the EPA performs a residual risk 
review of major source MACT standards to ensure that they provide an 
ample margin of safety to protect public health (CAA section 
112(f)(2)), and a technology review of all NESHAP to account for 
developments in practices, processes and control technologies (CAA 
section 112(d)(6)). The CAA only requires the EPA to conduct the 
residual risk review one time for each MACT standard, although the EPA 
has discretion to conduct additional risk reviews where warranted. The 
technology review, instead, is a recurring duty, and the EPA must 
perform it no less often than every eight years.

B. Environmental Effects of Carbon Tetrachloride and the Magnitude of 
Environmental Exposure to Carbon Tetrachloride

    EPA's analysis of the environmental effects of CTC and the 
magnitude of exposure of the environment to CTC are in the 2020 Risk 
Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride (Ref. 1). The unreasonable risk 
determination for CTC is based solely on risks to human health; based 
on the TSCA 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride, EPA 
determined that exposures to the environment did not drive the 
unreasonable risk. A summary is presented here in Unit V.
    Exposures to terrestrial organisms from the suspended soils and 
biosolids pathway was qualitatively evaluated. Due to its physical-
chemical properties, EPA expects that CTC does not bioaccumulate in 
fish or sediments; and CTC could be mobile in soil and migrate to water 
or volatilize to air (Ref. 1).
    EPA concluded in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride 
that CTC poses a hazard to environmental aquatic receptors. Amphibians 
were the most sensitive taxa for acute and chronic exposures. Acute 
exposures of CTC to fish, freshwater aquatic invertebrates, and 
sediment invertebrates resulted in hazard values as low as 10.4 mg/L, 
11.1 mg/L, and 2 mg/L, respectively. For chronic exposures, CTC has a 
hazard value for amphibians of 0.03 mg/L based on teratogenesis and 
lethality in frog embryos and larvae. Furthermore, chronic exposures of 
CTC to fish, freshwater aquatic invertebrates, and sediment 
invertebrates resulted in hazard values as low as 1.97 mg/L, 1.1 mg/L, 
and 0.2 mg/L, respectively. In algal studies, CTC has hazard values 
ranging from 0.07 to 23.59 mg/L (Ref. 1).
    In addition to the environmental effects assessed in the 2020 Risk 
Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride, EPA recognizes that CTC is an 
ozone-depleting substance with a 100-year GWP of 1730 (energy the 
emissions of one ton of gas will absorb over 100 years, relative to the 
emissions of one ton of carbon dioxide (CO2)) (Ref. 53). As 
a result of its ozone-depleting effects, the Montreal Protocol and 
Title VI of the CAA led to a phase-out of CTC production in the United 
States for most non-feedstock domestic uses. EPA did not evaluate the 
effect of CTC or this rule on ozone depletion. In addition, while the 
Agency understands that the use of CTC is expected to increase to 
produce low GWP HFOs, replacing many of the higher GWP HFCs, there is 
uncertainty in the change in volume of CTC that will be manufactured 
and used to produce HFOs. In the final rule, EPA is requiring owners/
operators to ensure that any engineering controls instituted under the 
WCPP do not increase emissions of CTC to ambient air. EPA expects that 
potential additional exposure from emissions to ambient air would be 
limited as a result of the existing NESHAPs that cover CTC. However, 
EPA did not evaluate whether a possible increase of CTC emissions with 
a GWP of 1730 would offset emissions of the HFCs replaced by the lower 
GWP HFOs manufactured with CTC, or the overall global warming impact of 
CTC use.

C. Benefits of Carbon Tetrachloride for Various Uses

    As described in the proposed rule, CTC is primarily used as a 
feedstock in the production of HCFCs, HFCs, and HFOs. Other conditions 
of use include regulated use as a processing agent in the manufacture 
of petrochemicals-derived and agricultural products and other 
chlorinated compounds such as chlorinated paraffins, chlorinated rubber 
and others that may be used downstream in the formulation of solvents 
for adhesives, asphalt, paints and coatings. Requirements under the 
Montreal Protocol and Title VI of the CAA led to a phaseout of CTC 
production in the United States for most non-feedstock domestic uses in 
1996 and the CPSC banned the use of CTC in household products 
(excluding unavoidable residues not exceeding 10 ppm atmospheric 
concentration) in 1970.
    CTC is a major feedstock for generation of lower-GWP alternative 
fluorocarbon products in the United States (Ref. 54). EPA anticipates 
that many entities currently using HFCs with higher global warming 
potential will transition to alternatives with lower global warming 
potential as requirements under the AIM Act begin to apply. The 
manufacturing of CTC is predicted to increase as a result of the 
transition from HFCs to lower-GWP HFOs that use CTC as a feedstock, 
such as HFO-1234yf used in motor vehicle AC and HFO-1234ze used in some 
types of aerosols and foam-blowing agents.

[[Page 103545]]

D. Reasonably Ascertainable Economic Consequences of the Final Rule

1. Likely Effect of the Rule on the National Economy, Small Business, 
Technological Innovation, the Environment, and Public Health
    With respect to the anticipated effects of this rule on the 
national economy, the economic impact of a regulation on the national 
economy generally only becomes measurable if the economic impact of the 
regulation reaches 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of Gross Domestic 
Product (GDP) (Ref. 55). Given the current GDP of $23.17 trillion, this 
is equivalent to a cost of $58 billion to $116 billion which is 
considerably higher than the estimated cost of this rule. EPA 
considered the number of businesses, facilities, and workers that would 
be affected and the costs and benefits to those businesses and workers 
and society at large and did not find that there would be a measurable 
effect on the national economy. In addition, EPA considered the 
employment impacts of this final rule. For businesses subject to the 
WCPP, including the ECEL and DDCC requirements, and prescriptive 
workplace control requirements, EPA estimates the marginal cost of 
labor will increase. This may lead to small negative employment 
effects. Costs of prohibition in the final rule are not quantified, 
since EPA expects the prohibited uses are not ongoing. However, there 
may be employment effects proportionate to the extent to which CTC is 
still being used in the prohibited conditions of use.
    EPA has determined that the rule will not have a significant impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. EPA estimates that the rule 
would affect at least seven small entities, and that the cost would 
only exceed 1 percent of annual revenues for two of these small 
entities. EPA expects that the final rule will not hinder technological 
innovation. Innovative applications of CTC in recent years have 
occurred in the production of HFOs. The regulatory options with 
requirements for certain conditions of use, including processing as a 
reactant in the production of refrigerants (such as HFOs), are not 
expected to inhibit innovation since they permit the continued use of 
CTC with appropriate controls. With respect to those conditions of use 
where prohibition is the requirement in the final action, EPA did not 
find evidence of ongoing use of CTC and thus there are no expected 
effects on innovation.
    The effects of this rule on public health are estimated to be 
positive, due to the avoided incidence of adverse health effects 
attributable to CTC exposure, including adrenal and liver cancer.
2. Costs and Benefits of the Regulatory Action and of the 1 or More 
Primary Alternative Regulatory Actions Considered by the Administrator
    The costs and benefits that can be monetized for this rule are 
described at length in in the Economic Analysis (Ref. 5). The total 
cost of the final rule is $19.7 million dollars annualized over 20 
years at a 3% discount rate and $19 million dollars at a 7% discount 
rate. EPA's Economic Analysis for the rule quantified the benefits from 
avoided cases of adrenal and liver cancers. Cancer benefits are 
calculated based on inhalation exposure estimates from the Final Risk 
Evaluation. The estimated monetized benefit of the final rule ranges 
from approximately $0.13 to $0.14 million per year annualized over 20 
years at a 3% discount rate and from $0.06 to $0.07 million per year at 
a 7% discount rate.
    There are also unquantified benefits due to other avoided 
significant adverse health effects associated with CTC exposure, 
including liver, reproductive, renal, developmental, and CNS toxicity 
end points. EPA believes that the balance of costs and benefits of this 
final rule cannot be fairly described without considering the 
additional, non-monetized benefits of mitigating the non-cancer adverse 
effects. The non-cancer adverse effects from CTC exposure can 
significantly impact an individual's quality of life. The incremental 
improvements in health outcomes achieved by given reductions in 
exposure cannot currently be quantified for non-cancer health effects 
associated with CTC exposure, and therefore cannot be converted into 
monetized benefits. The qualitative discussion throughout this 
rulemaking and in the Economic Analysis highlights the importance of 
these non-cancer effects, which are not able to be monetized in the way 
that EPA is able to for cancer. These effects include not only cost of 
illness but also personal costs such as emotional and mental stress 
that are hard to measure appropriately. Considering only monetized 
benefits significantly underestimates the impacts of CTC adverse 
outcomes and underestimates the benefits of this final rule.
    Net benefits were calculated by subtracting the costs from the 
quantified benefits. The net benefit of the final rule action is -$19.6 
million dollars annualized over 20 years at a 3% discount rate and -
$18.9 million dollars at a 7% discount rate.
    Industry would bear monitoring, PPE, and notification and 
recordkeeping burdens and costs associated with the ECEL. While 
companies may comply with the rule using engineering controls, when 
estimating costs and benefits the Economic Analysis assumes firms will 
provide PPE to employees when monitoring thresholds are exceeded. EPA 
estimated monitoring results based on a log normal distribution 
estimated from the median and 95th percentile 8-hour time-weighted 
average exposure outcomes presented in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 
Carbon Tetrachloride. PPE, recordkeeping, and monitoring costs after 
initial monitoring vary by industry and by projected initial monitoring 
result. Industry is expected to incur planning, recordkeeping and PPE 
costs associated with DDCC requirements. Industry would incur costs 
associated with developing an exposure control plan, performing 
inspections, documenting efforts to reduce exposure and occurrences of 
exposure, respiratory protection and dermal PPE, and training on the 
use of respiratory protection and dermal PPE.
    EPA also considered the estimated costs of alternative regulatory 
actions to regulated entities. Estimated costs for regulatory 
alternatives can be found in the Economic Analysis for this final rule 
(Ref. 5).
    A sensitivity analysis was conducted based on the low estimates of 
the number of affected entities in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon 
Tetrachloride. Based on these estimates, the total cost of the final 
rule is $2.1 million dollars annualized over 20 years at both a 3 and 
7% discount rate. The total benefit of the final rule is estimated to 
range from $0.016 million dollars to $0.018 million dollars annualized 
over 20 years at a 3% period discount rate, and ranges from $0.008 
million dollars to $0.009 million dollars annualized over 20 years at a 
7 percent discount rate. The net benefit of the rule under this 
sensitivity analysis is -$2.1 million dollars annualized over 20 years 
at a 3% discount rate and a 7% discount rate. At a 2% discount rate, 
the cost of the rule assuming the low number of affected entities is 
$2.1 million, the benefit is $0.02 million, and the net benefit is -
$2.1 million.
3. Cost Effectiveness of the Regulatory Action and of 1 or More Primary 
Alternative Regulatory Actions Considered by the Administrator
    For the COUs that EPA determined drive the unreasonable risk of 
injury to health from CTC, both the final rule and the primary 
alternative action, which is analyzed in the Economic Analysis,

[[Page 103546]]

reduce unreasonable risk to the extent necessary such that unreasonable 
risk is no longer presented. In achieving this result, however, the 
estimated costs of the final rule and the primary alternative 
regulatory action differ as described in Units I.E. and V.D.2. The 
costs of achieving the desired outcome via the final rule or the 
primary alternative regulatory action can be compared to evaluate cost-
effectiveness. The measure of cost-effectiveness considered is the 
annualized cost of each regulatory option per microrisk reduction in 
cancer cases estimated to occur as a result of each regulatory option, 
where a microrisk refers to a one in one million reduction in the risk 
of a cancer case. The cost-effectiveness of the final rule ranges from 
$681 to $1,000 dollars per microrisk reduction at a 3% discount rate, 
and from $656 to $963 dollars per microrisk reduction at a 7% discount 
rate. The cost-effectiveness of the primary alternative regulatory 
action ranges from $611 to $897 dollars per microrisk reduction at a 3% 
discount rate, and from $778 to $1,142 dollars at a 7% discount rate.
    The primary difference between the final and primary alternative 
option is that the alternative requires prescriptive controls for 
conditions of use which fall under the WCPP in the final rule. For two 
such conditions of use (Processing by incorporation into formulation, 
mixture, or reaction products in agricultural products manufacturing, 
vinyl chloride manufacturing, and other basic organic and inorganic 
chemical manufacturing; and Industrial and commercial use as a 
processing aid in the manufacture of agricultural products and vinyl 
chloride), the Economic Analysis analyzed a primary alternative action 
of prohibition for the vinyl chloride sub-uses only. In the proposed 
rule, EPA proposed prohibition for these sub-uses of vinyl chloride 
that at the time EPA did not have reasonably available information to 
indicate the uses were ongoing but later received public comments from 
one entity indicating that the incorporation of CTC into formulation, 
mixtures, or reaction products in vinyl chloride manufacturing and the 
industrial and commercial use of CTC as an industrial processing aid in 
the manufacture of vinyl chloride were ongoing. While the final rule 
requires a WCPP for these sub-uses, the primary alternative analyzes 
the costs and benefits of prohibiting these sub-uses of vinyl chloride.
    Since the regulated universe in both the final and primary 
alternative regulatory actions is identical, the cost-effectiveness of 
the regulatory actions varies based on the differences in the 
requirements of each action. Section 3.9 of the Economic Analysis 
provides a summary of the unquantified costs and uncertainties in the 
cost estimates that may impact the respective cost-effectiveness of the 
final rule and the primary alternative regulatory action considered.

VI. TSCA Section 9 Analysis and Section 26 Considerations

A. TSCA Section 9(a) Analysis

    TSCA section 9(a) provides that, if the Administrator determines, 
in the Administrator's discretion, that an unreasonable risk may be 
prevented or reduced to a sufficient extent by an action taken under a 
Federal law not administered by EPA, the Administrator must submit a 
report to the agency administering that other law that describes the 
risk and the activities that present such risk. TSCA section 9(a) 
describes additional procedures and requirements to be followed by EPA 
and the other Federal agency following submission of any such report. 
As discussed in this unit, the Administrator does not determine that 
unreasonable risk from CTC under the conditions of use may be prevented 
or reduced to a sufficient extent by an action taken under a Federal 
law not administered by EPA. EPA's TSCA section 9(a) analysis is 
presented in Unit VII.A. of the proposed rule (88 FR 49215, July 28, 
2023) (FRL-8206-01-OCSPP), and responses to comments about that 
analysis can be found in the Response Agree. Comments, Section 10.1 
(Ref. 11).
    TSCA section 9(d) instructs the Administrator to consult and 
coordinate TSCA activities with other Federal agencies for the purpose 
of achieving the maximum enforcement of TSCA while imposing the least 
burden of duplicative requirements. For this rulemaking, EPA has 
coordinated with appropriate Federal executive departments and 
agencies, including OSHA, to, among other things, identify their 
respective authorities, jurisdictions, and existing laws with regard to 
risk evaluation and risk management of CTC.
    As discussed in more detail in the proposed rule, OSHA requires 
that employers provide safe and healthful working conditions by setting 
and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education, 
and assistance. OSHA, in 1971, established a PEL for CTC of 10 ppm of 
air as an 8-hour TWA with an acceptable ceiling concentration of 25 ppm 
and an acceptable maximum peak above the acceptable ceiling 
concentration for an eight-hour shift of 200 ppm, maximum duration of 5 
minutes in any 4 hours. However, the exposure limits established by 
OSHA are higher than the exposure limit that EPA determined would be 
sufficient to address the unreasonable risk identified under TSCA from 
occupational inhalation exposures associated with certain conditions of 
use. Gaps exist between OSHA's authority to set workplace standards 
under the OSH Act and EPA's obligations under TSCA section 6 to 
eliminate unreasonable risk presented by chemical substances under the 
conditions of use, as further discussed in Units II.C. and VII.A. of 
the proposed rule.
    EPA concludes that TSCA is the only regulatory authority able to 
prevent or reduce unreasonable risk of CTC to a sufficient extent 
across the range of conditions of use, exposures, and populations of 
concern. An action under TSCA is able to address occupational 
unreasonable risk and would reach entities that are not subject to 
OSHA. Moreover, the timeframe and any exposure reduction as a result of 
updating OSHA regulations for CTC cannot be estimated, while TSCA 
imposes a much more accelerated two-year statutory timeframe for 
proposing and finalizing requirements to address unreasonable risk. 
Finally, as discussed in greater detail in the proposed rule, the 2016 
amendments to TSCA altered both the manner of identifying unreasonable 
risk and EPA's authority to address unreasonable risk, such that risk 
management is increasingly distinct from provisions of the OSH Act (88 
FR 49180) (FRL-8206-01-OCSPP). For these reasons, in the 
Administrator's discretion, the Administrator has analyzed this issue 
and does not determine that unreasonable risk presented by CTC may be 
prevented or reduced to a sufficient extent by an action taken under a 
Federal law not administered by EPA.

B. TSCA Section 9(b) Analysis

    If EPA determines that actions under other Federal laws 
administered in whole or in part by EPA could eliminate or sufficiently 
reduce a risk to health or the environment, TSCA section 9(b) instructs 
EPA to use these other authorities to protect against that risk 
``unless the Administrator determines, in the Administrator's 
discretion, that it is in the public interest to protect against such 
risk'' under TSCA. In making such a public interest finding, TSCA 
section 9(b)(2) states: ``the Administrator shall consider, based on 
information reasonably available to the Administrator, all relevant 
aspects of

[[Page 103547]]

the risk . . . and a comparison of the estimated costs and efficiencies 
of the action to be taken under this title and an action to be taken 
under such other law to protect against such risk.''
    Although several EPA statutes have been used to limit CTC exposure 
(Ref. 10), regulations under those EPA statutes largely regulate 
releases to the environment, rather than the occupational exposures. 
While these limits on releases to the environment may be protective in 
the context of their respective statutory authorities, regulation under 
TSCA is also appropriate for occupational exposures and in some cases 
can provide upstream protections that would prevent the need for 
release restrictions required by other EPA statutes (e.g., Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), CAA, CWA). Updating regulations 
under other EPA statutes would not be sufficient to address the 
unreasonable risk of injury to the health of workers and occupational 
non-users who are exposed to CTC under its conditions of use. EPA's 
TSCA section 9(b) analysis is presented in the proposed rule (88 FR 
49216) (FRL-8206-01-OCSPP), and responses to comments on that analysis 
can be found in the Response to Comments, section 10.2 (Ref. 11).
    For these reasons, the Administrator does not determine that 
unreasonable risk from CTC under its conditions of use, as evaluated in 
the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride (Ref.1), could be 
eliminated or reduced to a sufficient extent by actions taken under 
other Federal laws administered in whole or in part by EPA.

C. TSCA Section 14 Requirements

    EPA is also providing notice to manufacturers, processors, and 
other interested parties about potential impacts to CBI. Under TSCA 
sections 14(a) and 14(b)(4), if EPA promulgates a rule pursuant to TSCA 
section 6(a) that establishes a ban or phase-out of a chemical 
substance, the protection from disclosure of any CBI regarding that 
chemical substance and submitted pursuant to TSCA will be ``presumed to 
no longer apply,'' subject to the limitations identified in TSCA 
section 14(b)(4)(B)(i) through (iii). Pursuant to TSCA section 
14(b)(4)(B)(iii), the presumption against protection from disclosure 
will apply only to information about the specific conditions of use 
that this rule prohibits. Manufacturers or processors seeking to 
protect such information may submit a request for nondisclosure as 
provided by TSCA sections 14(b)(4)(C) and 14(g)(1)(E). Any request for 
nondisclosure must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of notice 
from EPA under TSCA section 14(g)(2)(A) stating EPA will not protect 
the information from disclosure. EPA anticipates providing such notice 
via the Central Data Exchange (CDX).

D. TSCA Section 26 Considerations

    As explained in the 2023 proposed rule (88 FR 49216, July 29, 2023) 
(FRL-8206-01-OCSPP), EPA fulfilled TSCA section 26(h) by using 
scientific information, technical procedures, measures, methods, 
protocols, methodologies, and models consistent with the best available 
science. Comments received on the proposed rule about whether EPA 
adequately assessed reasonably available information under TSCA section 
26 on the risk evaluation, and responses to those comments, can be 
found in Section 10.4 of the Response to Comments document (Ref. 11).

VII. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically 
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and 
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are 
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even 
if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For 
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the 
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. EPA. Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride (Methane, 
Tetrachloro-). EPA Document #EPA-740-R1-8014. October 2020. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0499-0061.
2. EPA. Correction of Dermal Acute Hazard and Risk Values in the 
Final Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride. July 2022. (EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2019-0499). https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0499-0064.
3. EPA. Carbon Tetrachloride; Revision to Toxic Substances Control 
Act (TSCA) Risk Determination. December 2022. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0733-0120.
4. EPA. Memorandum of Communication between Syngenta and EPA 
Regarding Risk Management of Carbon Tetrachloride. October 2021. 
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0024.
5. EPA. Carbon Tetrachloride (CTC); Regulation Under the Toxic 
Substances Control Act (TSCA); Economic Analysis.
6. NIOSH. Hierarchy of Controls. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/hierarchy/default.html (accessed April 2024).
7. President Joseph R. Biden. The White House. The President and 
First Lady's Cancer Moonshot: Ending Cancer As We Know It. https://www.whitehouse.gov/cancermoonshot/ (accessed February 26, 2024).
8. EPA. Access CDR Data: 2016 CDR Data (updated May 2020). Last 
Updated on May 16, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/chemical-data-reporting/access-cdr-data#2016.
9. EPA. Access CDR Data: 2020 CDR Data. Last Updated on May 16, 
2022. https://www.epa.gov/chemical-data-reporting/access-cdr-data.
10. EPA. Regulatory Actions Pertaining to Carbon Tetrachloride 
(CTC). June 2023. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0055.
11. EPA. Carbon Tetrachloride (CTC); Regulation Under the Toxic 
Substances Control Act (TSCA); Response to Public Comments.
12. Executive Order 13985. Advancing Racial Equity and Support for 
Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government. Federal 
Register (86 FR 7009, January 25, 2021).
13. Executive Order 13990. Protecting Public Health and the 
Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis. 
Federal Register (86 FR 7037, January 25, 2021).
14. Executive Order 14008. Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and 
Abroad. Federal Register (86 FR 7619, February 1, 2021).
15. EPA. Existing Chemical Exposure Limit (ECEL) for Occupational 
Use of Carbon Tetrachloride. February 2021. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0113.
16. EPA. Federalism Consultation on Risk Management Rulemakings for 
HBCD and Carbon Tetrachloride. December 2021. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0033.
17. EPA. Tribal Consultations on Risk Management Rulemakings for 
HBCD and Carbon Tetrachloride. January 6, 2021 and January 12, 2021. 
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0041.
18. EPA. Environmental Justice Consultations Risk Management 
Rulemakings for HBCD and Carbon Tetrachloride. February 2, 2021 and 
February 18, 2021. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0034.
19. EPA. Public Webinar on Carbon Tetrachloride: Risk Evaluation and 
Risk Management under TSCA Section 6. December 2020. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0006.
20. EPA. Small Business Administration Small Business Environmental 
Roundtable Risk Evaluation and Risk Management under TSCA Section 6 
for Carbon Tetrachloride. December 4, 2020.
21. EPA. Updated Stakeholder Meeting List for Rulemaking for Carbon 
Tetrachloride under TSCA Section 6(a). 2024.
22. EPA. EPA's Policy on Children's Health. October 5, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/children/childrens-health-policy-and-plan#A1.
23. EPA. Public Webinar Carbon Tetrachloride: Risk Evaluation and 
Risk Management under TSCA Section 6. August 15, 2023.

[[Page 103548]]

24. EPA. Meeting with Olin 11.20.23. December 7, 2023. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0148.
25. Christopher M. Kolodziej. Christopher M. Kennedy Comment. EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0135. September 11, 2023. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0135.
26. Michael Kennedy. American Petroleum Institute (API) Comment. 
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0129. September 7, 2023. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0129.
27. Mark Ames. AIHA Comment. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0126. August 29, 
2023. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0126.
28. Danielle Jones. The Chemours Company Comment. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-
0592-0134. September 11, 2023. https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0134.
29. W. Caffey Norman. Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, Inc. 
(HSIA) Comment. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0133. September 11, 2023. 
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0133.
30. LeaAnne Forest. American Chemistry Council (ACC) Comment. EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0140. September 11, 2023. https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0140.
31. Paul DeLeo. American Chemistry Council (ACC) Comment. EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2020-0592-0142. September 11, 2023. https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0142.
32. Martin J. Durbin. US Chamber of Commerce Comment. EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2020-0592-0137. September 11, 2023. https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0137.
33. Melanie Barrett, Nancy Kahl. MilliporeSigma Comment. EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2020-0592-0128. September 5, 2023. https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0128.
34. Lawrence E. Culleen. Chemical Users Coalition (CUC) Comment. 
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0130. September 8, 2023. https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0130.
35. Michael Kelly. Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) Comment. 
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0144. September 11, 2023. https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0144.
36. Scott Sutton. Olin Comment. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0127. August 
31, 2023. https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0127.
37. American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial 
Organizations (AFL-CIO) and United Steelworkers (USW). AFL-CIO and 
USW Comment. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0138. September 11, 2023. https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0138.
38. James Cooper. American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) 
Comment. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0143. September 11, 2023. https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0143.
39. William E. Allmond IV. Adhesive and Sealant Council (ASC) 
Comment. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0139. September 11, 2023. https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0139.
40. OSHA. OSHA 1999 Multi-Employer Citation Policy. Accessed 10/27/
2023. https://www.osha.gov/enforcement/directives/cpl-02-00-124.
41. EPA. Final Scope of the Risk Evaluation for 1,2-Dichloroethane 
(CASRN 107-06-2). August 2020. (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0427-0048). https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0071.
42. OSHA. Final Rule. Occupational Exposure to Methylene Chloride. 
Federal Register (62 FR 1494, January 10, 1997). https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0720-0073.
43. OSHA. OSHA Technical Manual (OTM) Section II: Chapter 1. 
Personal Sampling for Air Contaminants. Last updated on September 
14, 2023. https://www.osha.gov/otm/section-2-health-hazards/chapter-1.
44. NIOSH. Letter to Claudia Menasche from J. Raymond Wells. EPA's 
Carbon Tetrachloride Risk Management Rule under TSCA Section 6. June 
28, 2024.
45. OSHA. Personal Protective Equipment. May 4, 2023. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0087.
46. The Program Executive Office, Assembled Chemical Weapons 
Alternatives (PEO ACWA). U.S. Chemical Weapons Destruction 2018. May 
2018. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0020.
47. EPA. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. March 2005. 
https://www.epa.gov/risk/guidelines-carcinogen-risk-assessment.
48. EPA. Carbon Tetrachloride: Fenceline Technical Support--Water 
Pathway. October 2022. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0047.
49. EPA. Final Rule. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Carbon Black Production and Cyanide Chemicals 
Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Reviews, and Carbon Black 
Production Area Source Technology Review. Federal Register (86 FR 
66096, November 19, 2021).
50. EPA. Carbon Tetrachloride: Fenceline Technical Support--Ambient 
Air Pathway. October 2022. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0050.
51. EPA. Technical Support Document EPA's Air Toxics Screening 
Assessment 2018 AirToxScreen TSD. Document number EPA-452/B-22-002. 
August 2022. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0042.
52. Weitekamp. C. et al. 2021. An Examination of National Cancer 
Risk Based on Monitored Hazardous Air Pollutants. Environmental 
Health Perspectives. Vol. 129., No. 3. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/EHP8044.
53. Myhre, G., D. Shindell, F.-M. Br[eacute]on, W. Collins, J. 
Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, 
T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura and H. Zhang, 2013: 
Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 
2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, 
S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley 
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and 
New York, NY, USA. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf.
54. Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, Inc. (HSIA). Comments 
submitted to EPA on the Carbon Tetrachloride Risk Evaluation and the 
Risk Management Process. April 28, 2021. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0003.
55. Office of Management and Budget. March 31, 1995. OMB M-95-09, 
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. 
Guidance for Implementing Title II of S. 1. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/memoranda/1995-1998/m95-09.pdf.
56. EPA. Supporting Statement for an Information Collection Request 
(ICR) Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA); Regulation of Carbon 
Tetrachloride under TSCA Section 6(a) (Final Rule; RIN 2070-AK82). 
2024.
57. Kevin Ashley. 2015. Harmonization of NIOSH Sampling and 
Analytical Methods with Related International Voluntary Consensus 
Standards. J Occup Environ Hyg. 12(7): D107-15. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0032.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review

    This action is a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), as amended by 
Executive Order 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023). Accordingly, EPA 
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
Executive Order 12866

[[Page 103549]]

review. Documentation of any changes made in response to the Executive 
Order 12866 review is available in the docket. EPA prepared an analysis 
of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This 
analysis, Economic Analysis of the Regulation of Carbon Tetrachloride 
Under TSCA Section 6(a) (Ref. 5), is available in the docket and 
summarized in Units I.E. and V.D.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this final rule have been 
submitted to OMB for approval under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document that EPA prepared has 
been assigned EPA ICR No. 2744.02 and OMB Control No. 2070-0228 (Ref. 
56). You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it 
is briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are 
not enforceable until OMB approves them. There are two primary 
provisions of the final rule that may increase burden under the PRA. 
The first is downstream notification, which would be carried out by 
updates to the relevant SDS and which will required for manufacturers, 
processors, and distributors in commerce of CTC, who will provide 
notice to companies downstream upon shipment of CTC about the 
prohibitions. The information submitted to downstream companies through 
the SDS will provide knowledge and awareness of the restrictions to 
these companies.
    The second primary provision of the final rule that may increase 
burden under the PRA is WCPP-related information generation, 
recordkeeping, and notification requirements (including development of 
exposure control plans; exposure level monitoring and related 
recordkeeping; development of documentation for a PPE program and 
related recordkeeping; development of documentation for a respiratory 
protection program and related recordkeeping; development and 
notification to potentially exposed persons (employees and others in 
the workplace) about how they can access the exposure control plans, 
exposure monitoring records, PPE program implementation documentation, 
and respirator program documentation; ordinary business records, such 
as invoices and bills-of-lading related to the continued distribution 
of CTC in commerce, as well as records documenting compliance with the 
proposed workplace chemical protection program requirements and 
proposed restrictions on the laboratory use of CTC.
    Respondents/affected entities: Persons that manufacture, process, 
use, distribute in commerce or dispose of carbon tetrachloride (see 
Unit I.A.).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under TSCA section 
6(a) and 40 CFR part 751.
    Estimated number of respondents: 72.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 86,186 hours per year. Burden is defined at 
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $14,800,653 per year, including $9,360,626 in 
annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB 
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the 
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to 
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection 
activities contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq. The small entities subject to the requirements of 
this action are small businesses that manufacture/import, process, or 
distribute the chemicals subject to this final rule. The Agency 
identified seven small firms in the small entity analysis that are 
potentially subject to the rule. The names and NAICS codes of these 
entities can be found in Section 6.2.2 of the Economic Analysis (Ref. 
5). It is estimated that five of the seven small companies would incur 
a rule cost-to-company revenue impact ratio of less than one percent, 
and two companies would experience an impact of between one and three 
percent. The companies estimated to experience a greater than one 
percent rule cost-to-revenue impact would potentially be subject to the 
rule under the Disposal and the Manufacturing conditions of use, both 
of which would require a WCPP under the final rule. To avoid 
understating impacts to small entities, EPA used the highest per-
facility cost presented in the EA ($615,457). Per-facility costs were 
estimated by dividing the total costs by the number of affected 
facilities for each use. Details of this analysis are in the Economic 
Analysis (Ref. 5), which is in the docket for this action. Based on the 
low number of affected small entities and the low impact, EPA does not 
expect this action to have a significant impact on a substantial number 
of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million 
(in 1995 dollars and adjusted annually for inflation) or more as 
described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments. The action will affect entities that 
use CTC. It is not expected to affect State, local or Tribal 
governments because the use of CTC by government entities is minimal. 
The costs involved in this action are estimated not to exceed $183 
million in 2023$ ($100 million in 1995$ adjusted for inflation using 
the GDP implicit price deflator) or more in any one year. The total 
quantified annualized social cost of the final rule is $19,736,400 (at 
3% discount rate) and $18,995,752 (at 7% discount rate).

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    EPA has concluded that this action has federalism implications, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 
because regulation under TSCA section 6(a) may preempt State law. EPA 
provides the following preliminary federalism summary impact statement. 
The Agency consulted with State and local officials early in the 
process of developing the proposed action to permit them to have 
meaningful and timely input into its development. This included a 
consultation meeting on December 17, 2020. EPA invited the following 
national organizations representing State and local elected officials 
to this meeting: National Governors Association; National Conference of 
State Legislatures, Council of State Governments, National League of 
Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, 
International City/County Management Association, National Association 
of Towns and Townships, County Executives of America, and Environmental 
Council of States. A summary of the meeting with these organizations, 
including the views that they expressed, is available in the docket 
(Ref. 16). EPA provided an opportunity for these organizations to 
provide follow-up comments in writing but did not receive any such 
comments.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in 
Executive

[[Page 103550]]

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) because it will not have 
substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the Federal Government and the Indian Tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian Tribes. CTC is not manufactured, processed, or 
distributed in commerce by Tribes, and therefore, this rulemaking would 
not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Tribal governments. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
    Notwithstanding the lack of Tribal implications as specified by 
Executive Order 13175, EPA consulted with Tribal officials during the 
development of this action, consistent with the EPA Policy on 
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, which EPA applies 
more broadly than Executive Order 13175.
    The Agency held a Tribal consultation from December 7, 2020, 
through March 12, 2021, with meetings held on January 6 and 12, 2021. 
Tribal officials were given the opportunity to meaningfully interact 
with EPA concerning the current status of risk management. During the 
consultation, EPA discussed risk management under TSCA section 6(a), 
findings from the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride, types 
of information to inform risk management, principles for transparency 
during risk management, and types of information EPA sought from Tribes 
(Ref. 17). EPA briefed Tribal officials on the Agency's risk management 
considerations and Tribal officials raised no related issues or 
concerns to EPA during or in follow-up to those meetings (Ref. 17). EPA 
received no written comments as part of this consultation.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) directs Federal 
agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of 
the planned regulation on children in Federal health and safety 
standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially 
effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because 
it is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of 
Executive Order 12866, and because EPA does not believe that the 
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action will have 
a disproportionate risk to children as reflected by the conclusions of 
the CTC risk evaluation. This action's health and risk assessments and 
impacts on both children and adults from occupational use from 
inhalation and dermal exposures are described in Units II.C.3, V.A., 
and the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride (Ref. 1). While 
the Agency found risks to children and adults from occupational use, 
the Agency determined that risks to children were not disproportionate. 
EPA's Policy on Children's Health applies to this action. Information 
on how the Policy was applied and on the action's health and risk 
assessments are contained in Unit II.D.2.c., and the 2020 Risk 
Evaluation for CTC and the Economic Analysis for this final rule (Refs. 
1, 5).

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution 
or use of energy and has not been designated by the Administrator of 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant 
energy action.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Pursuant to the NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272, the Agency has 
determined that this rulemaking involves environmental monitoring or 
measurement, specifically for occupational inhalation exposures to CTC. 
Consistent with the Agency's Performance Based Measurement System 
(PBMS), EPA will not require the use of specific, prescribed analytic 
methods. Rather, the Agency will allow the use of any method that meets 
the prescribed performance criteria. The PBMS approach is intended to 
be more flexible and cost-effective for the regulated community; it is 
also intended to encourage innovation in analytical technology and 
improved data quality. EPA is not precluding the use of any method, 
whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus standard or not, as long 
as it meets the performance criteria specified.
    For this rulemaking, the key consideration for the PBMS approach is 
the ability to accurately detect and measure airborne concentrations of 
CTC at the ECEL and the ECEL action level. Some examples of methods 
which meet the criteria are included in the appendix of the ECEL memo 
(Ref. 15). EPA recognizes that there may be voluntary consensus 
standards that meet the proposed criteria (Ref. 57).

J. Executive Orders 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and 14096: 
Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All

    EPA believes that the human health or environmental conditions that 
exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to result in 
disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental effects on 
communities with environmental justice concerns in accordance with 
Executive Orders 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) and 14096 (88 FR 
25251, April 26, 2023). As described more fully in the Economic 
Analysis for this rulemaking (Ref. 5), EPA analyzed the baseline 
conditions facing communities near CTC and HFO manufacturing facilities 
as well as those of workers in the same industry and county as CTC 
facilities and HFO manufacturing facilities. The analysis of local 
demographics found that, across the entire population within 1- and 3-
miles of CTC facilities, there are higher percentages of people who 
identify as Black and living below the poverty line and a similar 
percentage of people who identify as Hispanic compared to the national 
averages. CTC facilities are concentrated in Texas and Louisiana, 
especially near Houston and Baton Rouge. As summarized in Unit V.A., 
the screening level fenceline analysis for CTC calculated risk 
estimates to select populations within the general population living or 
working near particular facilities exceeding the 1 x 10-6 
benchmark value (Ref. 49). In cases where communities with 
environmental justice concerns are also fenceline communities, EPA 
expects that the finalized prohibition of increased emissions 
associated with WCPP requirements would prevent an increase in health 
and environmental impacts due to this rule.
    The worker analysis was performed at the county and industry level. 
In eight of the 12 counties with CTC facilities that reported Basic 
Chemical Manufacturing, workers who identify as Black were over-
represented compared to their percentage of the national demographics 
for that industry; at the national level, 11% of workers in the Basic 
Chemical Manufacturing industry identify as Black. In addition, there 
were eight counties with CTC facilities that reported Waste Treatment 
and Disposal; workers in that industry in those counties were more 
likely to earn less than the national average for that industry across 
several demographic

[[Page 103551]]

groups, as outlined in the Economic Analysis.
    EPA believes that it is not practicable to assess whether this 
action is likely to result in disproportionate and adverse effects on 
communities with environmental justice concerns. EPA was unable to 
quantify the distributional effects of the regulatory action under 
consideration and compare them to baseline conditions for several 
reasons. Limitations include a lack of data regarding exposure 
reductions that will occur as a result of the rule and on the 
sociodemographic characteristics of workers in CTC facilities. Another 
key limitation that prevents evaluation of the distributional effects 
of the rule is a lack of knowledge of the actions regulated entities 
will take in response to the rule.
    EPA additionally identified and addressed environmental justice 
concerns by conducting outreach to advocates of communities that might 
be subject to disproportionate exposure to CTC. On February 2 and 18, 
2021, EPA held public meetings as part of this consultation. These 
meetings were held pursuant to and in compliance with Executive Order 
12898 and Executive Order 14008, entitled ``Tackling the Climate Crisis 
at Home and Abroad'' (86 FR 7619, February 1, 2021). EPA received one 
written comment following these public meetings, in addition to oral 
comments provided during the meetings (Ref. 18). Commenters supported 
strong regulation of CTC to protect lower-income communities and 
workers. In addition, commenters recommended EPA conduct analysis of 
additional exposure pathways, including air and water.
    The information supporting this Executive Order review is contained 
in Units I.E., II.D., V.D., VI.A. and in the Economic Analysis (Ref. 
5). EPA's presentations and fact sheets for the environmental justice 
consultations related to this rulemaking, are available at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/materials-june-and-july-2021-environmental-justice. These materials and a summary of 
the consultation are also available in the public docket for this 
rulemaking.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and the 
EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the 
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major 
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 751

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Export notification, Hazardous 
substances, Import certification, Reporting and recordkeeping.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR chapter I 
is amended to read as follows:

PART 751--REGULATION OF CERTAIN CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES AND MIXTURES 
UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT

0
 1. The authority citation for part 751 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 15 U.S.C. 2625(l)(4).

0
 2. Add subpart H to read as follows:

Subpart H--Carbon Tetrachloride

Sec.
751.701 General.
751.703 Definitions.
751.705 Prohibition of Certain Industrial and Commercial Uses and 
Manufacturing, Processing, and Distribution in Commerce of Carbon 
Tetrachloride for those Uses.
751.707 Workplace Chemical Protection Program (WCPP).
751.709 Workplace Restrictions for the Industrial and Commercial Use 
as a Laboratory Chemical, Including the Use of Carbon Tetrachloride 
as a Laboratory Chemical by the U.S. Department of Defense.
751.711 Downstream Notification.
751.713 Recordkeeping Requirements.


Sec.  751.701  General.

    (a) Applicability. This subpart sets certain restrictions on the 
manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, 
use, or disposal of carbon tetrachloride (CASRN 56-23-5) to prevent 
unreasonable risk of injury to health in accordance with TSCA section 
6(a).
    (b) Trace quantities exclusion. Unless otherwise specified in this 
subpart, the prohibitions and restrictions of this subpart do not apply 
to carbon tetrachloride that is solely present unintentionally in trace 
quantities with another chemical substance or mixture.
    (c) Owner and operator requirements. Any requirement for an owner 
or operator, or an owner and operator, is a requirement for any 
individual that is either an owner or an operator.


Sec.  751.703  Definitions.

    The definitions in subpart A of this part apply to this Subpart 
unless otherwise specified in this section. In addition, the following 
definitions apply:
    ECEL has the same meaning as in Sec.  751.5 and for CTC, is an 
airborne concentration of carbon tetrachloride of 0.03 parts per 
million (ppm) calculated as an eight (8)-hour time-weighted average 
(TWA).
    ECEL action level means a concentration of airborne carbon 
tetrachloride of 0.02 parts per million (ppm) calculated as an eight 
(8)-hour time-weighted average (TWA).


Sec.  751.705  Prohibition of Certain Industrial and Commercial Uses 
and Manufacturing, Processing, and Distribution in Commerce of Carbon 
Tetrachloride for Those Uses.

    (a) Prohibitions. (1) After June 16, 2025, all persons are 
prohibited from manufacturing, processing, distributing in commerce 
(including making available) and using carbon tetrachloride for the 
following conditions of use:
    (i) Processing condition of use: Incorporation into formulation, 
mixture or reaction products in petrochemical-derived manufacturing 
except in the manufacture of vinyl chloride.
    (ii) Industrial and commercial conditions of use:
    (A) Industrial and commercial use as an industrial processing aid 
in the manufacture of petrochemicals-derived products except in the 
manufacture of vinyl chloride.
    (B) Industrial and commercial use in the manufacture of other basic 
chemicals (including manufacturing of chlorinated compounds used in 
solvents, adhesives, asphalt, and paints and coatings), except for use 
in the elimination of nitrogen trichloride in the production of 
chlorine and caustic soda and the recovery of chlorine in tail gas from 
the production of chlorine.
    (C) Industrial and commercial use in metal recovery.
    (D) Industrial and commercial use as an additive.
    (2) After December 18, 2025, all persons are prohibited from 
manufacturing, processing, distributing in commerce (including making 
available) and using carbon tetrachloride for industrial and commercial 
specialty uses by the U.S. Department of Defense except as provided in 
Sec.  751.709.
    (b) [Reserved].


Sec.  751.707  Workplace Chemical Protection Program (WCPP).

    (a) Applicability. The provisions of this section apply to the 
following conditions of use of carbon tetrachloride, including 
manufacturing and processing for export, except to the

[[Page 103552]]

extent the conditions of use are prohibited by Sec.  751.705:
    (1) Domestic manufacture, except where carbon tetrachloride is 
manufactured solely as a byproduct.
    (2) Import.
    (3) Processing as a reactant in the production of 
hydrochlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, hydrofluoroolefins and 
perchloroethylene.
    (4) Processing: Incorporation into formulation, mixture, or 
reaction products for agricultural products manufacturing, vinyl 
chloride manufacturing, and other basic organic and inorganic chemical 
manufacturing.
    (5) Processing: Repackaging for use as a laboratory chemical.
    (6) Processing: Recycling.
    (7) Industrial and commercial use as an industrial processing aid 
in the manufacture of agricultural products and vinyl chloride.
    (8) Industrial and commercial use in the elimination of nitrogen 
trichloride in the production of chlorine and caustic soda and the 
recovery of chlorine in tail gas from the production of chlorine.
    (9) Disposal.
    (b) Existing chemical exposure limit (ECEL)--(1) Eight-hour time-
weighted average (TWA) ECEL. Beginning September 20, 2027 for Federal 
agencies or Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal 
government, or by September 9, 2026 for non-Federal owners and 
operators, or beginning four months after introduction of carbon 
tetrachloride into the workplace if carbon tetrachloride commences 
after June 11, 2026, the owner or operator must ensure that no person 
is exposed to an airborne concentration of carbon tetrachloride in 
excess of the ECEL, consistent with the requirements of paragraph 
(d)(1)(i) of this section and, if necessary, paragraph (f) of this 
section.
    (2) Exposure monitoring--(i) General. (A) Owners or operators must 
determine each potentially exposed person's exposure, without regard to 
respiratory protection, by either:
    (1) Taking a personal breathing zone air sample of each potentially 
exposed person's exposure; or
    (2) Taking personal breathing zone air samples that are 
representative of the 8-hour TWA of each exposure group.
    (B) Personal breathing zone air samples are representative of the 
8-hour TWA of all potentially exposed persons in an exposure group if 
the samples are of at least one person's full-shift exposure who 
represents the highest potential carbon tetrachloride exposures in that 
exposure group. Personal breathing zone air samples taken during one 
work shift may be used to represent potentially exposed person 
exposures on other work shifts where the owner or operator can document 
that the tasks performed and conditions in the workplace are similar 
across shifts.
    (C) Exposure samples must be analyzed using an appropriate 
analytical method by a laboratory that complies with the Good 
Laboratory Practice Standards in 40 CFR part 792 or a laboratory 
accredited by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) or 
another industry-recognized program.
    (D) Owners or operators must ensure that methods used to perform 
exposure monitoring produce results that are accurate, to a confidence 
level of 95 percent, to within plus or minus 25 percent for airborne 
concentrations of carbon tetrachloride.
    (E) Owners and operators must re-monitor within 15 working days 
after receipt of any exposure monitoring when results indicate non-
detect, unless an Environmental Professional as defined at 40 CFR 
312.10 or a Certified Industrial Hygienist reviews the exposure 
monitoring results and determines re-monitoring is not necessary.
    (ii) Initial monitoring. By June 21, 2027 for Federal agencies and 
Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal government, 
or by June 11, 2026 for non-Federal owners and operators, or within 30 
days of introduction of carbon tetrachloride into the workplace, 
whichever is later, each owner or operator covered by this section must 
perform initial monitoring of potentially exposed persons. Where the 
owner or operator has monitoring results from monitoring conducted 
within five years prior to February 18, 2025 and the monitoring 
satisfies all other requirements of this section, the owner or operator 
may rely on such earlier monitoring results to satisfy the requirements 
of this paragraph (b)(2)(ii).
    (iii) Periodic monitoring. The owner or operator must establish an 
exposure monitoring program for periodic monitoring of exposure to 
carbon tetrachloride in accordance with Table 1.

 Table 1 to Sec.   751.707(b)(3)(iii)--Periodic Monitoring Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Periodic exposure monitoring
      Air concentration condition                  requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If all initial exposure monitoring is    Periodic exposure monitoring is
 below the ECEL action level (<0.02 ppm   required at least once every
 8-hour TWA).                             five years.
If the most recent exposure monitoring   Periodic exposure monitoring is
 indicates that airborne exposure is      required within three months
 above the ECEL (> 0.03 ppm 8-hour TWA).  of the most recent exposure
                                          monitoring.
If the most recent exposure monitoring   Periodic exposure monitoring is
 indicates that airborne exposure is at   required within six months of
 or above the ECEL action level but at    the most recent exposure
 or below the ECEL (>=0.02 ppm 8-hour     monitoring.
 TWA, <=0.03 ppm 8-hour TWA).
If the two most recent (non-initial)     Periodic exposure monitoring is
 exposure monitoring measurements,        required within five years of
 taken at least seven days apart within   the most recent exposure
 a 6-month period, indicate exposure is   monitoring.
 below the ECEL action level (<0.02 ppm
 8-hour TWA).
If the owner or operator engages in a    The owner or operator may forgo
 condition of use for which WCPP ECEL     the next periodic exposure
 would be required but does not           monitoring event. However,
 manufacture, process, use, or dispose    documentation of cessation of
 of carbon tetrachloride in that          use of carbon tetrachloride is
 condition of use over the entirety of    required; and periodic
 time since the last required             monitoring would be required
 monitoring event.                        when the owner or operator
                                          resumes the condition of use.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iv) Additional exposure monitoring. (A) The owner or operator must 
conduct additional exposure monitoring within a reasonable timeframe 
whenever there has been a change in the production, process, control 
equipment, personnel or work practices that may reasonably be expected 
to result in new or additional exposures above the ECEL or when the 
owner or operator has any reason to believe that new or additional 
exposures above the ECEL action level have occurred.
    (B) Whenever start-ups or shutdowns, or ruptures, malfunctions or 
other breakdowns or unexpected releases occur that may lead to exposure 
to

[[Page 103553]]

potentially exposed persons, the owner or operator must conduct the 
additional exposure monitoring within a reasonable timeframe after the 
conclusion of the start-up or shutdown and/or the cleanup, repair or 
remedial action of the malfunction or other breakdown or unexpected 
release. Prior monitoring data cannot be used to meet this requirement.
    (v) Observation of monitoring. (A) Owners and operators must 
provide potentially exposed persons or their designated representatives 
an opportunity to observe any monitoring of occupational exposure to 
CTC that is conducted under this section and designed to characterize 
their exposure.
    (B) When monitoring observation requires entry into a regulated 
area, the owner or operator must provide the observers with the 
required PPE.
    (C) Only persons who are authorized to have access to facilities 
classified in the interest of national security must be permitted to 
observe exposure monitoring conducted in such facilities.
    (vi) Notification of monitoring results. (A) The owner or operator 
must inform each person whose exposures are monitored or who is part of 
a monitored exposure group and their designated representatives of any 
monitoring results within 15 working days of receipt of those 
monitoring results.
    (B) This notification must include the following:
    (1) Exposure monitoring results;
    (2) Identification and explanation of the ECEL and ECEL action 
level;
    (3) Statement of whether the monitored airborne concentration of 
carbon tetrachloride exceeds the ECEL action level or ECEL;
    (4) If the ECEL is exceeded, descriptions of any exposure controls 
implemented by the owner or operator to reduce exposures to or below 
the ECEL, as required by paragraph (d)(1) of this section;
    (5) Explanation of any required respiratory protection provided in 
accordance with paragraphs (b)(3)(iv), (d)(1)(i), and (f) of this 
section;
    (6) Quantity of carbon tetrachloride in use at the time of 
monitoring;
    (7) Location of carbon tetrachloride use at the time of monitoring;
    (8) Manner of carbon tetrachloride use at the time of monitoring; 
and
    (9) Identified releases of carbon tetrachloride;
    (C) Notice must be written in plain language and either provided to 
each potentially exposed person and their designated representatives 
individually in a language that the person understands, or posted in an 
appropriate and accessible location outside the regulated area with an 
English-language version and a non-English language version 
representing the language of the largest group of workers who do not 
read English.
    (3) Regulated areas--(i) Establishment. By September 20, 2027 for 
Federal agencies and Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of the 
Federal government, or by September 9, 2026 for non-Federal owners and 
operators, or within three months after receipt of any exposure 
monitoring that indicates exposures exceeding the ECEL, the owner or 
operator must establish and maintain a regulated area wherever airborne 
concentrations of carbon tetrachloride exceeds or can reasonably be 
expected to exceed the ECEL.
    (ii) Access. The owner or operator must limit access to regulated 
areas to authorized persons.
    (iii) Demarcation. The owner or operator must demarcate regulated 
areas from the rest of the workplace in a manner that adequately 
establishes and alerts persons to the boundaries of the area and 
minimizes the number of authorized persons exposed to carbon 
tetrachloride within the regulated area.
    (iv) Provisions of respirators. (A) The owner or operator must 
ensure that each person who enters a regulated area is supplied with a 
respirator selected in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section 
and must ensure that all persons within the regulated area are using 
the provided respirators whenever carbon tetrachloride exposures may 
exceed the ECEL.
    (B) An owner or operator who has implemented all feasible controls 
as required in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, and who has 
established a regulated area as required by paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this 
section where carbon tetrachloride exposure can be reliably predicted 
to exceed the ECEL only on certain days (for example, because of work 
or process schedule) must have persons use respirators in that 
regulated area on those days.
    (v) Prohibited activities. (A) The owner or operator must ensure 
that, within a regulated area, persons do not engage in non-work 
activities which may increase CTC exposure.
    (B) The owner or operator must ensure that while persons are 
wearing respirators in the regulated area, they do not engage in 
activities which interfere with respirator performance.
    (c) Direct dermal contact controls (DDCC). Beginning September 20, 
2027 for Federal agencies or Federal contractors acting for or on 
behalf of the Federal government, or by June 16, 2025 for non-Federal 
owners and operators, or within 30 days of introduction of carbon 
tetrachloride into the workplace, whichever is later, owners or 
operators must ensure that all persons are separated, distanced, 
physically removed, or isolated to prevent direct dermal contact with 
carbon tetrachloride or from contact with equipment or materials on 
which carbon tetrachloride may exist consistent with the requirements 
of paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section and, if necessary, paragraph 
(f) of this section.
    (d) Exposure control procedures and plan--(1) Methods of 
compliance--(i) ECEL. (A) By December 3, 2027, the owner or operator 
must institute one or a combination of elimination, substitution, 
engineering controls, or administrative controls to reduce exposure to 
or below the ECEL except to the extent that the owner or operator can 
demonstrate that such controls are not feasible, in accordance with the 
hierarchy of controls.
    (B) If the feasible controls required under paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A) 
of this section that can be instituted do not reduce exposures for 
potentially exposed persons to or below the ECEL, then the owner or 
operator must use such controls to reduce exposure to the lowest levels 
achievable by these controls and must supplement those controls with 
the use of respiratory protection that complies with the requirements 
of paragraph (f) of this section.
    (C) Where an owner or operator cannot demonstrate exposure to 
carbon tetrachloride has been reduced to or below the ECEL through the 
use of controls required under paragraphs (d)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of this 
section, and has not demonstrated that it has appropriately 
supplemented with respiratory protection that complies with the 
requirements of paragraph (f) of this section, this will constitute a 
failure to comply with the ECEL.
    (D) The owner or operator must ensure that any engineering controls 
instituted under paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A) of this section do not increase 
emissions of carbon tetrachloride to ambient air outside the workplace.
    (ii) Direct dermal contact controls (DDCC). (A) The owner or 
operator must institute one or a combination of elimination, 
substitution, engineering controls, or administrative controls to 
prevent all persons from direct dermal contact with carbon 
tetrachloride except to the extent that the owner or operator can 
demonstrate that such controls are not feasible.
    (B) If the feasible controls required under paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(A) 
of this section that can be instituted do not

[[Page 103554]]

prevent direct dermal contact with carbon tetrachloride, then the owner 
or operator must use such controls to reduce direct dermal contact to 
the extent achievable by these controls and must supplement those 
controls by the use of dermal protection that complies with the 
requirements of paragraph (f) of this section.
    (C) Where an owner or operator cannot demonstrate that direct 
dermal contact to carbon tetrachloride is prevented through the use of 
controls required under paragraphs (d)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this 
section, and has not demonstrated that it has appropriately 
supplemented with dermal protection that complies with the requirements 
of paragraph (f) of this section, this will constitute a failure to 
comply with the DDCC requirements.
    (2) Exposure control plan. By December 3, 2027, each owner and 
operator must establish and implement an exposure control plan.
    (i) Exposure control plan contents. The exposure control plan must 
include documentation of the following:
    (A) Identification of exposure controls that were considered, 
including those that were used or not used to meet the requirements of 
paragraphs (d)(1)(i)(A) and (d)(1)(ii)(A) of this section, in the 
following sequence: elimination, substitution, engineering controls and 
administrative controls;
    (B) For each exposure control considered, a rationale for why the 
exposure control was selected or not selected based on feasibility, 
effectiveness, and other relevant considerations;
    (C) A description of actions the owner or operator must take to 
implement exposure controls selected, including proper installation, 
regular inspections, maintenance, training or other actions;
    (D) A description of regulated areas, how they are demarcated, and 
persons authorized to enter the regulated areas;
    (E) Attestation that exposure controls selected do not increase 
emissions of carbon tetrachloride to ambient air outside of the 
workplace and whether additional equipment was installed to capture or 
otherwise prevent increased emissions of carbon tetrachloride to 
ambient air;
    (F) Description of activities conducted by the owner or operator to 
review and update the exposure control plan to ensure effectiveness of 
the exposure controls, identify any necessary updates to the exposure 
controls, and confirm that all persons are properly implementing the 
exposure controls;
    (G) An explanation of the procedures for responding to any change 
that may reasonably be expected to introduce additional sources of 
exposure to carbon tetrachloride, or otherwise result in increased 
exposure to carbon tetrachloride, including procedures for implementing 
corrective actions to mitigate exposure to carbon tetrachloride.
    (ii) Exposure control plan requirements. (A) The owner or operator 
must not implement a schedule of personnel rotation as a means of 
compliance with the ECEL.
    (B) The owner or operator must maintain the effectiveness of any 
controls instituted under this paragraph (d).
    (C) The exposure control plan must be reviewed and updated as 
necessary, but at least every five years, to reflect any significant 
changes in the status of the owner or operator's approach to compliance 
with paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
    (iii) Availability of exposure control plan. (A) Owners or 
operators must make the exposure control plan and associated records, 
including ECEL exposure monitoring records, ECEL compliance records, 
DDCC compliance records, and workplace participation records described 
in Sec.  751.713(b), available to potentially exposed persons and their 
designated representatives.
    (B) Owners or operators must notify potentially exposed persons and 
their designated representatives of the availability of the exposure 
control plan and associated records within 30 days of the date that the 
exposure control plan is completed and at least annually thereafter.
    (C) Notice of the availability of the exposure control plan and 
associated records must be provided in plain language writing to each 
potentially exposed person in a language that the person understands or 
posted in an appropriate and accessible location outside the regulated 
area with an English-language version and a non-English language 
version representing the language of the largest group of workers who 
do not read English.
    (D) Upon request by the potentially exposed person or their 
designated representative(s), the owner or operator must provide the 
specified records at a reasonable time, place, and manner. If the owner 
or operator is unable to provide the requested records within 15 days, 
the owner or operator must, within those 15 days, inform the 
potentially exposed person or designated representative(s) requesting 
the record(s) of the reason for the delay and the earliest date when 
the record will be made available.
    (e) Workplace information and training. (1) By September 20, 2027 
for Federal agencies and Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of 
the Federal government, or by September 9, 2026 for non-Federal owners 
and operators, the owner or operator must institute a training program 
and ensure that persons potentially exposed to carbon tetrachloride 
participate in the program according to the requirements of this 
paragraph (e).
    (2) The owner or operator must ensure that each potentially exposed 
person is trained prior to or at the time of a potential exposure to 
carbon tetrachloride.
    (3) The owner or operator must ensure that information and training 
is presented in a manner that is understandable to each person required 
to be trained and in multiple languages as appropriate, such as, based 
on languages spoken by potentially exposed persons in the workplace.
    (4) The following information and training must be provided to all 
persons potentially exposed to carbon tetrachloride:
    (i) The requirements of this section, as well as how to access or 
obtain a copy of these requirements in the workplace;
    (ii) The quantity, location, manner of use, release, and storage of 
carbon tetrachloride and the specific operations in the workplace that 
could result in exposure to carbon tetrachloride, particularly noting 
where each regulated area is located;
    (iii) Methods and observations that may be used to detect the 
presence or release of carbon tetrachloride in the workplace (such as 
monitoring conducted by the owner or operator, continuous monitoring 
devices, visual appearance or odor of carbon tetrachloride when being 
released);
    (iv) The acute and chronic health hazards of carbon tetrachloride 
as detailed on relevant Safety Data Sheets; and
    (v) The principles of safe use and handling of carbon tetrachloride 
and measures potentially exposed persons can take to protect themselves 
from carbon tetrachloride, including specific procedures the owner or 
operator has implemented to protect potentially exposed persons from 
exposure to carbon tetrachloride, such as appropriate work practices, 
emergency procedures, and personal protective equipment to be used.
    (5) The owner or operator must re-train each potentially exposed 
person as necessary, but at minimum annually, to ensure that each such 
person maintains the requisite understanding of the principles of safe 
use and handling of carbon tetrachloride in the workplace.

[[Page 103555]]

    (6) Whenever there are workplace changes, such as modifications of 
tasks or procedures or the institution of new tasks or procedures, that 
increase exposure, and where such exposure exceeds or can reasonably be 
expected to exceed the ECEL action level or increase potential for 
direct dermal contact with carbon tetrachloride, the owner or operator 
must update the training as necessary to ensure that each potentially 
exposed person is re-trained.
    (f) Personal protective equipment (PPE). (1) General. The 
provisions of this paragraph (f) apply to any owner or operator that is 
required to provide respiratory protection pursuant to paragraphs 
(b)(3)(iv) or (d)(1)(i)(B) of this section or dermal protection 
pursuant to paragraphs (c) or (d)(1)(ii)(B) of this section or Sec.  
751.709(b)(3) or (4).
    (2) Respiratory protection. (i) By September 20, 2027 for Federal 
agencies and Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal 
government, or by September 9, 2026 for non-Federal owners and 
operators, or within three months after receipt of any exposure 
monitoring that indicates exposures exceeding the ECEL, if an owner or 
operator is required to provide respiratory protection pursuant to 
paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the owner or operator must ensure 
that each potentially exposed person is provided with a respirator 
according to the requirements of this section.
    (ii) For purposes of this paragraph (f)(2), cross-referenced 
provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134 applying to an ``employee'' apply equally 
to potentially exposed persons and cross-referenced provisions applying 
to an ``employer'' also apply equally to owners or operators. Other 
terms in cross-referenced provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134 that are 
defined in 29 CFR 1910.134(b) have the meaning assigned to them in that 
paragraph.
    (iii) By September 20, 2027 for Federal agencies and Federal 
contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal government, or by 
September 9, 2026 for non-Federal owners and operators, or within three 
months after receipt of any exposure monitoring that indicates 
exposures exceeding the ECEL, if an owner or operator is required to 
provide respiratory protection pursuant to (f)(1) of this section, the 
owner or operator must develop and administer a written respiratory 
protection program consistent with the requirements of 29 CFR 
1910.134(c)(1), (c)(3) and (c)(4).
    (iv) Owners and operators must select respiratory protection 
required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section based on a medical 
evaluation consistent with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.134(e). If a 
potentially exposed person cannot use a negative-pressure respirator 
that would otherwise be required by paragraph (f)(1) of this section, 
then the owner or operator must provide that person with an alternative 
respirator. The alternative respirator must have less breathing 
resistance than the negative-pressure respirator and provide equivalent 
or greater protection. If the person is unable to use an alternative 
respirator, then the person must not be permitted to enter the 
regulated area.
    (v) Owners and operators must select respiratory protection that 
properly fits each affected person and communicate respirator 
selections to each affected person consistent with the requirements of 
29 CFR 1910.134(f).
    (vi) Owners and operators must provide, ensure use of, and maintain 
(in a sanitary, reliable, and undamaged condition) respiratory 
protection that is of safe design and construction for the applicable 
condition of use consistent with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.134(g) 
through (j).
    (vii) Prior to or at the time of initial assignment to a job 
involving potential exposure to carbon tetrachloride, owners and 
operators must provide training to all persons required to use 
respiratory protection consistent with 29 CFR 1910.134(k).
    (viii) Owners and operators must retrain all persons required to 
use PPE at least annually, or whenever the owner or operator has reason 
to believe that a previously trained person does not have the required 
understanding and skill to properly use PPE, or when changes in the 
workplace or in PPE to be used render the previous training obsolete.
    (ix) Owners or operators must select and provide to persons 
appropriate respirators as indicated by the most recent monitoring 
results as follows:
    (A) If the measured exposure concentration is at or below the 0.03 
ppm: no respiratory protection is required.
    (B) If the measured exposure concentration is above 0.03 ppm and 
less than or equal to 0.3 ppm (10 times ECEL): Any National Institute 
for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-Approved air-purifying half 
mask respirator equipped with organic vapor cartridges or canisters; or 
any NIOSH Approved Supplied-Air Respirator (SAR) or Airline Respirator 
operated in demand mode equipped with a half mask; or any NIOSH 
Approved Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) in demand mode 
equipped with a half mask [APF 10].
    (C) If the measured exposure concentration is above 0.3 ppm and 
less than or equal to 0.75 ppm (25 times ECEL): Any NIOSH Approved 
Powered Air-Purifying Respirator (PAPR) equipped with a loose-fitting 
facepiece or hood/helmet equipped with organic vapor cartridges or 
canisters; any NIOSH Approved continuous flow supplied air respirator 
equipped with a loose-fitting facepiece; or any NIOSH Approved 
Supplied-Air Respirator (SAR) or Airline Respirator in a continuous-
flow mode equipped with a loose-fitting facepiece or helmet/hood [APF 
25].
    (D) If the measured exposure concentration is above 0.75 ppm and 
less than or equal to 1.5 ppm (50 times ECEL): Any NIOSH Approved air-
purifying full facepiece respirator equipped with organic vapor 
cartridges or canisters; any NIOSH Approved PAPR with a half mask 
equipped with organic vapor cartridges or canisters; any NIOSH Approved 
SAR or Airline Respirator in a continuous flow mode equipped with a 
half mask; any NIOSH Approved SAR or Airline Respirator operated in a 
pressure-demand or other positive-pressure mode with a half mask; or 
any NIOSH Approved SCBA in demand-mode equipped with a full facepiece 
or helmet/hood [APF 50].
    (E) If the measured exposure concentration is above 1.5 ppm and 
less than or equal to 30 ppm (1,000 times ECEL): Any NIOSH Approved 
PAPR equipped with a full facepiece equipped with organic vapor 
cartridges or canisters; any NIOSH Approved SAR or Airline Respirator 
in a continuous-flow mode equipped with full facepiece; any NIOSH 
Approved SAR or Airline Respirator in pressure-demand or other 
positive-pressure mode equipped with a full facepiece and an auxiliary 
self-contained air supply; or any NIOSH Approved SAR or Airline 
Respirator in a continuous-flow mode equipped with a helmet or hood and 
that has been tested to demonstrated performance at a level of a 
protection of APF 1,000 or greater [APF 1000].
    (F) If the measured exposure concentration is greater than 30 ppm 
(1,000 times ECEL): Any NIOSH Approved SCBA in a pressure-demand or 
other positive-pressure mode equipped with a full facepiece helmet/hood 
[APF 10,000].
    (G) If the exposure concentration is unknown: Any NIOSH Approved 
combination supplied air respirator equipped with a full facepiece and 
operated in pressure demand or other positive pressure mode with an 
auxiliary self-contained air supply; or any NIOSH Approved SCBA 
operated in

[[Page 103556]]

pressure demand or other positive pressure mode and equipped with a 
full facepiece or helmet/hood [APF 1000+].
    (x) Owners and operators must select and provide respirators as 
required in paragraph (f)(2) of this section consistent with the 
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iv), and with consideration of 
workplace and user factors that affect respirator performance and 
reliability.
    (xi) Owners and operators who select air-purifying respirators must 
either:
    (A) Select respirators that have an end-of-service-life indicator 
(ESLI) that is NIOSH Approved[supreg] for carbon tetrachloride; or
    (B) Implement a change schedule for canisters and cartridges based 
on objective information or data that ensures that canisters and 
cartridges are changed before the end of their service life. The 
written respiratory protection program required by paragraph 
(f)(2)(iii) of this section must include a description of the 
information and data relied upon, the basis for reliance on the 
information and data, and the basis for the canister and cartridge 
change schedule.
    (xii) Owners and operators must ensure that respirators are used in 
compliance with the terms of the respirator's NIOSH certification.
    (xiii) Owners and operators must conduct regular evaluations of the 
workplace, including consultations with potentially exposed persons 
using respiratory protection, consistent with the requirements of 29 
CFR 1910.134(l), to ensure that the provisions of the written 
respiratory protection program required under paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of 
this section are being effectively implemented.
    (xiv) The respiratory protection requirements in this paragraph 
(f)(2) represent the minimum respiratory protection requirements, such 
that any respirator affording a higher degree of protection than the 
required respirator may be used.
    (3) Dermal protection. (i) Beginning September 20, 2027 for Federal 
agencies and Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal 
government, or by June 16, 2025 for non-Federal owners and operators, 
if an owner or operator is required to provide dermal protection 
pursuant to paragraph (f)(1), the owner or operator must ensure that 
each potentially exposed person is provided with dermal PPE according 
to the requirements of this section.
    (ii) Owners or operators must supply and require the donning of 
dermal PPE that separates and provides a barrier to prevent direct 
dermal contact with carbon tetrachloride in the specific work area 
where it is selected for use, selected in accordance with this 
paragraph and provided in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.132(h), to each 
person who is reasonably likely to be dermally exposed in the work area 
through direct dermal contact with carbon tetrachloride. For the 
purposes of this subsection, provisions in 29 CFR 1910.132(h) applying 
to an ``employee'' also apply equally to potentially exposed persons, 
and provisions applying to an ``employer'' also apply equally to owners 
or operators.
    (iii) Owners or operators must select and provide dermal PPE in 
accordance with 29 CFR 1910.133(b) and additionally as specified in 
this paragraph (f)(3) to each person who is reasonably likely to be 
dermally exposed in the work area through direct dermal contact with 
carbon tetrachloride. For the purposes of this paragraph (f)(3)(iii), 
provisions in 29 CFR 1910.133(b) applying to an ``employer'' also apply 
equally to owners or operators.
    (iv) Owners or operators must select and provide to persons 
appropriate dermal PPE based on an evaluation of the performance 
characteristics of the PPE relative to the task(s) to be performed, 
conditions present, and the duration of use. Replacement PPE must be 
provided immediately if any person is dermally exposed to CTC longer 
than the breakthrough time period for which testing has demonstrated 
that the PPE will be impermeable or if there is a chemical permeation 
or breakage of the PPE. Dermal PPE must include, but is not limited to, 
the following items:
    (A) Impervious gloves selected based on specifications from the 
manufacturer or supplier or by individually prepared third-party 
testing.
    (B) Impervious clothing covering the exposed areas of the body 
(e.g., long pants, long sleeved shirt).
    (v) Owners or operators must demonstrate that each item of gloves 
and other clothing selected provides an impervious barrier to prevent 
direct dermal contact with carbon tetrachloride during normal and 
expected duration and conditions of exposure within the work area by 
evaluating the specifications from the manufacturer or supplier or 
individually prepared third-party testing of the dermal PPE, or of the 
material used in construction of the dermal PPE, to establish that the 
dermal PPE will be impervious to carbon tetrachloride alone and in 
likely combination with other chemical substances in the work area.
    (vi) Dermal PPE that is of safe design and construction for the 
work to be performed must be provided, used, and maintained in a 
sanitary, reliable, and undamaged condition. Owners and operators must 
select PPE that properly fits each affected person and communicate PPE 
selections to each affected person.
    (vii) Owners or operators must provide training in accordance with 
29 CFR 1910.132(f) to all persons required to use dermal protection 
prior to or at the time of initial assignment to a job involving 
exposure to carbon tetrachloride. For the purposes of this paragraph 
(f)(3)(vii), provisions in 29 CFR 1910.132(f) applying to an 
``employee'' also apply equally to potentially exposed persons, and 
provisions applying to an ``employer'' also apply equally to owners or 
operators.
    (viii) Owners and operators must retrain each person required to 
use dermal protection at least annually or whenever the owner or 
operator has reason to believe that a previously trained person does 
not have the required understanding and skill to properly use dermal 
protection, or when changes in the workplace or in dermal protection to 
be used render the previous training obsolete.


Sec.  751.709  Workplace Restrictions for the Industrial and Commercial 
Use as a Laboratory Chemical, Including the Use of Carbon Tetrachloride 
as a Laboratory Chemical by the U.S. Department of Defense.

    (a) Applicability. The provisions of this section apply to the 
industrial and commercial use of carbon tetrachloride as a laboratory 
chemical, including the U.S. Department of Defense's industrial and 
commercial use of carbon tetrachloride as a laboratory chemical in 
chemical weapons destruction.
    (b) Laboratory chemical requirements. (1) After December 18, 2025 
for Federal agencies and Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of 
the Federal government, or after June 16, 2025 for non-Federal owners 
and operators, owners or operators must ensure laboratory ventilation 
devices such as fume hoods or glove boxes are in use and functioning 
properly and that specific measures are taken to ensure proper and 
adequate performance of such equipment to minimize exposures to 
potentially exposed persons in the area when carbon tetrachloride is 
used as a laboratory chemical, except for the U.S. Department of 
Defense's use of carbon tetrachloride as a laboratory chemical in 
chemical weapons destruction.
    (2) After December 18, 2025, the U.S. Department of Defense must 
ensure that

[[Page 103557]]

advanced engineering controls are in use and functioning properly and 
that specific measures are taken to ensure proper and adequate 
performance of such equipment to minimize exposures to potentially 
exposed persons in the area during the industrial/commercial use of 
carbon tetrachloride as a laboratory chemical in chemical weapons 
destruction.
    (3) After December 18, 2025 for Federal agencies and Federal 
contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal government, or after 
June 16, 2025 for non-Federal owners and operators, owners or operators 
must ensure that all persons reasonably likely to be exposed from 
direct dermal contact to carbon tetrachloride when carbon tetrachloride 
is used as a laboratory chemical, except for the U.S. Department of 
Defense's industrial and commercial use of carbon tetrachloride as a 
laboratory chemical in chemical weapons destruction, are provided with 
dermal PPE and training on proper use of PPE in a manner consistent 
with Sec.  751.707(f)(3).
    (4) After December 18, 2025, U.S. Department of Defense must ensure 
that all persons reasonably likely to be exposed from direct dermal 
contact to carbon tetrachloride through the industrial and commercial 
use of carbon tetrachloride as a laboratory chemical in chemical 
weapons destruction are provided with dermal PPE and training on proper 
use of PPE in a manner consistent with Sec.  751.707(f)(3), except that 
the date listed in paragraph (f)(3)(i) does not apply.


Sec.  751.711  Downstream Notification.

    (a) Beginning on February 18, 2025, each person who manufactures 
(including imports) carbon tetrachloride for any use must, prior to or 
concurrent with the shipment, notify companies to whom carbon 
tetrachloride is shipped, in writing, of the restrictions described in 
this Subpart in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) Beginning on June 16, 2025, each person who processes or 
distributes in commerce carbon tetrachloride for any use must, prior to 
or concurrent with the shipment, notify companies to whom carbon 
tetrachloride is shipped, in writing, of the restrictions described in 
this Subpart in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
    (c) The notification required under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 
section must occur by inserting the following text in Sections 1(c) and 
15 of the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) provided with the carbon 
tetrachloride:

    After June 16, 2025, this chemical substance (as defined in TSCA 
section 3(2)) may not be distributed in commerce or processed in 
greater than trace quantities for the following purposes: 
Incorporation into formulation, mixture or reaction products in 
petrochemical-derived manufacturing except in the manufacture of 
vinyl chloride; Industrial and commercial use as an industrial 
processing aid in the manufacture of petrochemicals-derived products 
except in the manufacture of vinyl chloride; Industrial and 
commercial use in the manufacture of other basic chemicals 
(including manufacturing of chlorinated compounds used in solvents, 
adhesives, asphalt, and paints and coatings), except for use in the 
elimination of nitrogen trichloride in the production of chlorine 
and caustic soda and the recovery of chlorine in tail gas from the 
production of chlorine; Industrial and commercial use in metal 
recovery; Industrial and commercial use as an additive; and 
beginning December 18, 2025, industrial and commercial specialty 
uses by the U.S. Department of Defense.


Sec.  751.713  Recordkeeping Requirements.

    (a) General records. After February 18, 2025, all persons who 
manufacture (including import), process, distribute in commerce, or 
engage in industrial or commercial use of carbon tetrachloride must 
maintain ordinary business records, such as downstream notifications, 
invoices and bills-of-lading related to compliance with the 
prohibitions, restrictions, and other provisions of this subpart.
    (b) Workplace Chemical Protection Program compliance--(1) ECEL 
exposure monitoring. For each monitoring event, owners or operators 
subject to the ECEL described in Sec.  751.707(b) must document and 
retain records of the following:
    (i) Dates, duration, and results of each sample taken;
    (ii) The quantity, location(s) and manner of use of carbon 
tetrachloride in use at the time of each monitoring event;
    (iii) All measurements that may be necessary to determine the 
conditions that may affect the monitoring results;
    (iv) Name, workplace address, work shift, job classification, work 
area, and type of respiratory protection (if any) by each monitored 
person;
    (v) Identification of all potentially exposed persons that a 
monitored person is intended to represent if using a representative 
sample, consistent with Sec.  751.707(b)(2)(i)(A) and (B);
    (vi) Sampling and analytical methods used as described in Sec.  
751.707(b)(2)(i)(D);
    (vii) Compliance with the Good Laboratory Practice Standards in 40 
CFR part 792, or use of laboratory accredited by the AIHA or another 
industry-recognized program, as required by Sec.  751.707(b)(2)(i)(C); 
and
    (viii) Information regarding air monitoring equipment, including: 
type, maintenance, calibrations, performance tests, limits of 
detection, and any malfunctions;
    (ix) Re-monitoring determinations conducted by an Environmental 
Professional as defined at 40 CFR 312.10 or a Certified Industrial 
Hygienist, if results indicated non-detect; and
    (x) Notification of exposure monitoring results in accordance with 
Sec.  751.707(b)(2)(v).
    (2) ECEL compliance. Owners or operators subject to the ECEL 
described in Sec.  751.707(b) must retain records of:
    (i) Exposure control plan as described in Sec.  751.707(d)(2);
    (ii) Implementation of the exposure control plan as described in 
Sec.  751.707(d)(2), including:
    (A) Any regular inspections, evaluations, and updating of the 
exposure controls to maintain effectiveness;
    (B) Confirmation that all persons are implementing the exposure 
controls; and
    (C) Each occurrence and duration of any start-up, shutdown, 
ruptures, or malfunction of the facility that causes an exceedance of 
the ECEL, any subsequent corrective actions taken by the owner or 
operator during the start-up, shutdown, ruptures, or malfunctions to 
mitigate exposures to CTC, and documentation indicating that additional 
monitoring was completed within a reasonable timeframe.
    (iii) Respiratory protection used by each potentially exposed 
person and PPE program implementation as described in Sec.  
751.707(f)(2) including:
    (A) The name, workplace address, work shift, job classification, 
work area of each potentially exposed person, and the type of 
respiratory protection provided to each potentially exposed person;
    (B) The basis for the specific respiratory protection selection in 
accordance with Sec.  751.707(f)(2); and
    (C) Fit testing and training in accordance with Sec.  
751.707(f)(2).
    (iv) Information and training as required in Sec.  751.707(e).
    (3) DDCC compliance. Owners or operators subject to DDCC 
requirements described in Sec.  751.707(c) must retain records of:
    (i) Exposure control plan as described in Sec.  751.707(d)(2);
    (ii) Dermal protection used by each potentially exposed person and 
PPE program implementation as described in Sec.  751.707(f)(3), 
including:
    (A) The name, workplace address, work shift, job classification, 
and work area of each person reasonably likely to

[[Page 103558]]

directly handle carbon tetrachloride or handle equipment or materials 
on which carbon tetrachloride may be present and the type of PPE 
selected to be worn by each of these persons;
    (B) The basis for specific PPE selection (e.g., demonstration based 
on permeation testing or manufacturer specifications that each item of 
PPE selected provides an impervious barrier to prevent exposure during 
expected duration and conditions of exposure, including the likely 
combinations of chemical substances to which the PPE may be exposed in 
the work area);
    (C) Appropriately sized PPE and training on proper application, 
wear, and removal of PPE, and proper care/disposal of PPE;
    (D) Occurrence and duration of any direct dermal contact with 
carbon tetrachloride that occurs during any activity or malfunction at 
the workplace that causes direct dermal exposures to occur and/or glove 
breakthrough, and corrective actions to be taken during and immediately 
following that activity or malfunction to prevent direct dermal contact 
to carbon tetrachloride; and
    (E) Training in accordance with Sec.  751.707(f)(3).
    (iii) Information and training provided as required in Sec.  
751.707(e).
    (4) Workplace participation. Owners or operators must document the 
notice to and ability of any potentially exposed person that may 
reasonably be affected by carbon tetrachloride inhalation exposure or 
direct dermal contact and their designated representatives to readily 
access the exposure control plans, facility exposure monitoring 
records, PPE program implementation records, or any other information 
relevant to carbon tetrachloride exposure in the workplace.
    (c) Workplace requirements for laboratory use compliance. Owners 
and operators subject to the laboratory chemical requirements described 
in Sec.  751.709 must retain records of:
    (1) Dermal protection used by each potentially exposed person and 
PPE program implementation, as described in Sec.  751.713(b)(3)(ii); 
and
    (2) Documentation identifying criteria that the owner or operator 
will use to determine and implement control measures to reduce 
potentially exposed persons' exposure to carbon tetrachloride including 
laboratory ventilation devices;
    (3) Documentation identifying: implementation of a properly 
functioning laboratory ventilation devices using manufacturer's 
instructions for installation, use, and maintenance of the devices 
including inspections, tests, development of maintenance procedures, 
the establishment of criteria for acceptable test results, and 
documentation of test and inspection results, except for the U.S. 
Department of Defense's use of carbon tetrachloride as a laboratory 
chemical in chemical weapons destruction; and
    (4) For the U.S. Department of Defense's use of carbon 
tetrachloride as a laboratory chemical in chemical weapons destruction, 
documentation identifying implementation of advanced engineering 
controls that are in use and functioning properly and specific measures 
taken to ensure proper and adequate performance.
    (d) Retention. Owners or operators must retain the records required 
under this section for a period of five years from the date that such 
records were generated.

[FR Doc. 2024-29517 Filed 12-17-24; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P`