103512 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 Brisen ̃ 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: 

CarbonTetrachlorideTSCA@epa.gov. 

For general information: The TSCAHotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South 

Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; 

telephone number: (202) 554–1404; 

email address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov. 

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/tscaimport-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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
103514 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 sitespecific 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 nonmonetized 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
103516 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 protectionrelated 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 longterm 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
103518 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 subVerDate Sep<11>2014 19:26 Dec 17, 2024 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\18DER8.SGM 18DER8

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
103520 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
103522 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 remonitoring 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 remonitoring 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
103524 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nonEnglish 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 § 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103525 

Relations Statute (5 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), 

or collective bargaining or other labormanagement 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., 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
103526 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 CTCcontaining wastewater for the purposes 

of cleanup projects of CTCcontaminated 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 CTCcontaining 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 onsite 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 petrochemicalderived 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
103528 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
103530 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 thirdparty 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, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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/m3) 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. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
103532 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 remonitoring 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 nonFederal 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 the ECEL action level (<0.02 

ppm 8-hour TWA).

Periodic exposure monitoring is required 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).

Periodic exposure monitoring is required 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 but at or below the ECEL (≥0.02 

ppm 8-hour TWA, ≤0.03 ppm 8-hour TWA).

Periodic exposure monitoring is required within six months of the most 

recent exposure monitoring. 

If the two most recent (non-initial) exposure monitoring measurements, 

taken at least seven days apart within a 6-month period, indicate exposure is below the ECEL action level (<0.02 ppm 8-hour TWA).

Periodic exposure monitoring is required within five years of the most 

recent exposure monitoring. 

If the owner or operator engages in a condition of use for which WCPP 

ECEL would be required but does not manufacture, process, use, or 

dispose of CTC in that condition of use over the entirety of time 

since the last required monitoring event.

The owner or operator may forgo the next periodic monitoring event. 

However, documentation of cessation of use of CTC is required and 

periodic monitoring would be required 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
103534 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 nonVerDate Sep<11>2014 19:26 Dec 17, 2024 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\18DER8.SGM 18DER8

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
103536 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 negativepressure 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®

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 airpurifying 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 airpurifying 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 selfcontained 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 supplierprovided 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
103538 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 supplierprovided 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 ElastomersTension). 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
103540 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 petrochemicalderived 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 petrochemicalderived 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 petrochemicalsderived 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. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
103542 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103543 

restrictions on CTC under TSCA and to 

provide information to commercial endusers 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 wellconducted 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 × 10¥6 to 1 × 

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 × 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 × 

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 multiyear 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
103544 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 ozonedepleting 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 petrochemicalsderived 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. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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, nonmonetized benefits of mitigating the 

non-cancer adverse effects. The noncancer 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, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
103546 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 subuses, 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 costeffectiveness 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 costeffectiveness 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 twoyear 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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/EPAHQ-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/EPAHQ-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-cdrdata#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/EPAHQ-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/EPAHQ-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/EPAHQ-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-andplan#A1. 

23. EPA. Public Webinar Carbon 

Tetrachloride: Risk Evaluation and Risk 

Management under TSCA Section 6. 

August 15, 2023. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
103548 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

24. EPA. Meeting with Olin 11.20.23. 

December 7, 2023. https://

www.regulations.gov/document/EPAHQ-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-HQOPPT-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-HQOPPT-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-HQOPPT-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-HQOPPT-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-HQOPPT-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/EPAHQ-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-healthhazards/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/EPAHQ-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/EPAHQ-OPPT-2020-0592-0020. 

47. EPA. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk 

Assessment. March 2005. https://

www.epa.gov/risk/guidelines-carcinogenrisk-assessment. 

48. EPA. Carbon Tetrachloride: Fenceline 

Technical Support—Water Pathway. 

October 2022. https://

www.regulations.gov/document/EPAHQ-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/EPAHQ-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. Bre ́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/EPAHQ-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/EPAHQ-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/lawsregulations/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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 perfacility 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
103550 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

× 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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-andmanaging-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 

■ 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). 

■ 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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 

§ 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). 

§ 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 petrochemicalderived 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 § 751.709. 

(b) [Reserved]. 

§ 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
103552 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

extent the conditions of use are 

prohibited by § 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 remonitor 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 § 751.707(b)(3)(iii)—PERIODIC MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

Air concentration condition Periodic exposure monitoring requirement 

If all initial exposure monitoring is below the ECEL action level (<0.02 

ppm 8-hour TWA).

Periodic exposure monitoring is required 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).

Periodic exposure monitoring is required 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 but at or below the ECEL (≥0.02 

ppm 8-hour TWA, ≤0.03 ppm 8-hour TWA).

Periodic exposure monitoring is required within six months of the most 

recent exposure monitoring. 

If the two most recent (non-initial) exposure monitoring measurements, 

taken at least seven days apart within a 6-month period, indicate exposure is below the ECEL action level (<0.02 ppm 8-hour TWA).

Periodic exposure monitoring is required within five years of the most 

recent exposure monitoring. 

If the owner or operator engages in a condition of use for which WCPP 

ECEL would be required but does not manufacture, process, use, or 

dispose of carbon tetrachloride in that condition of use over the entirety of time since the last required monitoring event.

The owner or operator may forgo the next periodic exposure monitoring event. However, documentation of cessation of use of carbon 

tetrachloride is required; and periodic monitoring would be required 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 nonEnglish 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
103554 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 nonEnglish 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 retrain 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. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 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 crossreferenced 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 negativepressure 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 airpurifying 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 selfcontained 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
103556 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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® 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. 

§ 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 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 § 751.707(f)(3), except 

that the date listed in paragraph (f)(3)(i) 

does not apply. 

§ 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. 

§ 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-oflading 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 

§ 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 

§ 751.707(b)(2)(i)(A) and (B); 

(vi) Sampling and analytical methods 

used as described in 

§ 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 industryrecognized program, as required by 

§ 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 

§ 751.707(b)(2)(v). 

(2) ECEL compliance. Owners or 

operators subject to the ECEL described 

in § 751.707(b) must retain records of: 

(i) Exposure control plan as described 

in § 751.707(d)(2); 

(ii) Implementation of the exposure 

control plan as described in 

§ 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 startup, 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 § 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 § 751.707(f)(2); and 

(C) Fit testing and training in 

accordance with § 751.707(f)(2). 

(iv) Information and training as 

required in § 751.707(e). 

(3) DDCC compliance. Owners or 

operators subject to DDCC requirements 

described in § 751.707(c) must retain 

records of: 

(i) Exposure control plan as described 

in § 751.707(d)(2); 

(ii) Dermal protection used by each 

potentially exposed person and PPE 

program implementation as described in 

§ 751.707(f)(3), including: 

(A) The name, workplace address, 

work shift, job classification, and work 

area of each person reasonably likely to 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8
103558 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 751.707(f)(3). 

(iii) Information and training 

provided as required in § 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 

§ 751.709 must retain records of: 

(1) Dermal protection used by each 

potentially exposed person and PPE 

program implementation, as described 

in § 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES8