Quiero saber acerca de...

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations economical flame retardant because relatively small quantities are necessary to be effective Ref 4.
3. The reasonably ascertainable economic consequences of the rule.
i. Overview of cost methodology. EPA
has evaluated the potential costs of the final action for decaBDE. Costs of the final rule were estimated based on the assumption that under regulatory limitations on decaBDE, processors that use decaBDE in their products would switch to available alternative chemicals to manufacture the product, or to products that do not contain decaBDE.
For decaBDE, the costs were assessed based on chemical substitutes only.
Substitution costs were estimated on the industry level using the price differential between the cost of the chemical and identified substitutes.
Costs for rule familiarization and recordkeeping were estimated based on burdens estimated for other similar rulemakings. Costs were annualized over a 25-year period. Other potential costs include, but are not limited to, those associated with testing, reformulation, distribution, imported articles, and some portion of potential revenue loss. However, these costs are discussed only qualitatively, due to lack of data availability to estimate quantified costs. More details of this analysis are presented in the Economic Analysis Ref. 3.
ii. Estimated costs of this final rule.
Total quantified annualized industry costs for the final rule are $2,012 at the 3% discount rate and $2,100 at the 7%
discount rate annualized over 25 years.
Total annualized Agency costs associated with implementation of the final rule were based on EPAs best judgment and experience with other similar rules. For the final regulatory action, EPA estimated it will require 1
FTE at $155,152 per year Ref. 3.
Total quantified annualized social costs for the final rule are estimated to be $157,000 at both 3% and 7%
discount rate. As described earlier in Unit III.B.3., potential costs such as testing, reformulation, release prevention, and imported articles, could not be quantified due to lack of data availability to estimate quantified costs.
These costs are discussed qualitatively in the Economic Analysis Ref. 3.
iii. Benefits. As discussed in Unit II.A., while EPA reviewed hazard and exposure information for the PBT
chemicals, this information did not provide a basis for EPA to develop scientifically robust and representative risk estimates to evaluate whether or not any of the chemicals present a risk of injury to health or the environment.
Benefits were not quantified due to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:01 Jan 05, 2021

Jkt 253001

lack of risk estimates. A qualitative discussion of the potential benefits associated with the final action for decaBDE is provided. DecaBDE is persistent and bioaccumulative and has been associated with developmental neurological effects, developmental immunological effects, general developmental toxicity, and thyroid and liver effects in mammals, as well as with toxicity in aquatic organisms. Under this final rule, manufacturing, processing and distribution in commerce will be prohibited, except for specific exclusions and different compliance dates as detailed in Unit I.C.
With reduced manufacturing, processing and distribution of decaBDE
and decaBDE-containing products and articles, EPA anticipates that this regulation will result in a phase-out of decaBDE use overall, and therefore a reduced presence of decaBDE in products and articles. These impacts will result in the decreased potential for exposures to workers in the industrial sectors that currently use decaBDE, and the decreased potential for releases of decaBDE to the environment, including through disposal activities. With decreased potential for releases to the environment and reduced presence in products and articles, there will also be decreased potential for exposures for the general population or potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations.
Thus, the final regulatory action will have benefits for the environment, general population, and potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations, and benefits to health for workers.
Substitute chemicals should be carefully selected to realize benefits to human health and the environment because there are numerous potential substitutes for decaBDE.
iv. Cost effectiveness, and effect on national economy, small business, and technological innovation. With respect to the cost effectiveness of the final regulatory action and the primary alternative regulatory action, EPA is unable to perform a traditional costeffectiveness analysis of the actions and alternatives for the PBT chemicals. As discussed in the proposed rule, the cost effectiveness of a policy option would properly be calculated by dividing the annualized costs of the option by a final outcome, such as cancer cases avoided, or to intermediate outputs such as tons of emissions of a pollutant curtailed.
Without the supporting analyses for a risk determination, EPA is unable to calculate either a health-based or environment-based denominator. Thus, EPA is unable to perform a quantitative cost-effectiveness analysis of the final
PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

891

and alternative regulatory actions.
However, by evaluating the practicability of the final and alternative regulatory actions, EPA believes that it has considered elements related to the cost effectiveness of the actions, including the cost and the effect on exposure to the PBT chemicals of the final and alternative regulatory actions.
EPA considered the anticipated effect of this rule on the national economy and concluded that this rule is highly unlikely to have any measurable effect on the national economy Ref. 3. EPA
analyzed the expected impacts on small business and found that no small entities are expected to experience impacts of more than 1% of revenues Ref. 3. Finally, EPA has determined that this rule is unlikely to have significant impacts on technological innovation, although the rule may create some incentives for chemical manufacturers to develop new chemical alternatives to decaBDE.
4. Consideration of alternatives.
EPA believes that there are viable substitutes that may be used as an alternative to decaBDE. In January 2014, EPAs Design for the Environment DfE
published an alternatives assessment for decaBDE Ref. 15. EPA identified 29
potential functional, viable alternatives to decaBDE for use in select polyolefins, styrenics, engineering thermoplastics, thermosets, elastomers, or waterborne emulsions and coatings Ref. 15.
C. TSCA Section 26h Considerations In accordance with TSCA section 26h and taking into account the requirements of TSCA section 6h, EPA
has used scientific information, technical procedures, measures, and methodologies that are fit for purpose and consistent with the best available science. EPA based its determination that human and environmental exposures to decaBDE are likely in the Exposure and Use Assessment Ref. 4
discussed in Unit II.A.2., which underwent a peer review and public comment process, as well as using best available science and methods sufficient to make that determination. The extent to which the various information, procedures, measures, and methodologies, as applicable, used in EPAs decision making have been subject to independent verification or peer review is adequate to justify their use, collectively, in the record for this rule. Additional information on the peer review and public comment process, such as the peer review plan, the peer review report, and the Agencys Response to Comments document, are in the public docket for this action EPAHQOPPT20180314. In
E:FRFM06JAR5.SGM

06JAR5