health-care professional, and annual fit testing is required for tight-
fitting, full-face piece respirators to provide the required
protection. Individuals with facial hair, such as beards or sideburns
that interfere with a proper face-to-respirator seal, cannot wear tight
fitting respirators. In addition, respirators may also present
communication problems, vision problems, worker fatigue, and reduced
work efficiency (63 FR 1152, January 8, 1998). According to OSHA,
``improperly selected respirators may afford no protection at all (for
example, use of a dust mask against airborne vapors), may be so
uncomfortable as to be intolerable to the wearer, or may hinder vision,
communication, hearing, or movement and thus pose a risk to the
wearer's safety or health'' (63 FR 1189 through 1190).
    In contrast to considerations that would weigh against the
likelihood of a facility within a condition of use to successfully
implement WCPP, there are certain considerations that indicate a
condition of use is a good fit for effective risk management via WCPP.
Based on reasonably available information, including monitoring data,
and information related to considerations described previously in this
Unit, EPA's confidence that requirements to meet an ECEL and EPA STEL
can be implemented is highest for highly standardized and
industrialized settings, such as where methylene chloride is used in a
closed system.

    For example, one of the conditions of use for which EPA is
proposing to require compliance with the WCPP is processing of
methylene chloride as a reactant. A large volume of methylene chloride
is processed for this condition of use, which almost entirely goes
towards the manufacture of the hydrofluorocarbon HFC-32 (Refs. 3, 44).
Monitoring data and exposure information submitted by industry,
including by small entity representatives as part of the SBAR process,
suggests that methylene chloride exposures in some facilities may
already be below levels that would be consistent with the proposed ECEL
(Refs. 6, 45, 46). Additionally, HFC-32 is one of the regulated
substances identified in the AIM Act. Among other things, the AIM Act
authorizes EPA to address listed HFCs in three main ways: phasing down
HFC production and consumption through an allowance allocation program;
facilitating sector-based transitions to next-generation technologies;
and issuing certain regulations for purposes of maximizing reclamation
and minimizing releases of HFCs and their substitutes from equipment
and ensuring the safety of technicians and consumers. 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 take effect. HFC-32, while
being one regulated substance subject to the overall phasedown in
production and consumption of regulated substances under the AIM Act,
is likely to be used to facilitate the transition from other HFCs and
HFC blends with higher global warming potential in certain
applications. By allowing for the continued, controlled use of
methylene chloride in the manufacture of HFC-32, efforts to shift to
chemicals with lower global warming potential would not be impeded by
this rulemaking. Allowing this use to continue, subject to compliance
with the WCPP, would complement industry's ongoing effort to abate the
use of hydrofluorocarbons with higher global warming potential.
    An additional strong candidate for WCPP is industrial and
commercial use of methylene chloride as a laboratory chemical.
Laboratory settings are expected to be more conducive to the
implementation of engineering controls such as fume hoods to ventilate
vapors and adequately reduce overall exposure to methylene chloride
consistent with the hierarchy of controls.
    For both these conditions of use (processing of methylene chloride
as a reactant and industrial and commercial use as a laboratory
chemical), the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride indicates
that only small reductions in exposure are needed for WCPP compliance.
Based on analysis in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride
describing expected exposures with and without use of PPE, EPA
identified an air-supplied respirator of APF 25 as the minimum
respiratory PPE that is sufficient to mitigate the unreasonable risk
driven by both of these conditions of use (note for OSHA APF 25 is the
minimum allowable respiratory PPE for methylene chloride, as filter and
cartridge respirators are not protective against methylene chloride
vapors). This suggested that, for these conditions of use, the
reductions in exposure required to achieve a level that would not
present unreasonable risk may be less than in other instances, which,
together with other considerations previously described, including
monitoring data indicating exposures near or below the ECEL, adds to
EPA's confidence that facilities engaging in these two conditions of
use could meet the WCPP requirements. Additionally, industrial and
commercial use of methylene chloride as a laboratory chemical is
necessary to provide for the analysis of monitoring samples required to
demonstrate compliance with the WCPP under this proposed regulation.
    An additional candidate for the WCPP is paint and coating removal
from safety-critical, corrosion-sensitive components on military and
Federal aviation. Regarding military aviation, as part of interagency
collaboration with the DOD on the NPRM issued in January 2017 (Ref.
47), EPA was made aware that there are specific military uses for which
methylene chloride is essential for paint and coating removal for which
there are no suitable alternatives currently available (see further
discussion in Unit V.B.). These consist of the use of methylene
chloride for the removal of coatings from corrosion-sensitive
components on military aviation, including safety-critical components
made of specialty metallic, nonmetallic, and composite materials. More
specifically, this includes components such as landing gear, gear
boxes, turbine engine parts, and other military aircraft components
composed of metallic materials (specifically high-strength steel,
aluminum, titanium, and magnesium) and composite materials that require
their coatings be removed for inspection and maintenance. Similarly, as
stated by commenters on EPA's 2017 NPRM (Ref. 38), aircraft and other
assets operated by DHS, NASA, and the FAA also contain safety-critical,
corrosion-sensitive components of the type described by DOD, and
suitable alternatives to methylene chloride are similarly not available
for all applications.
    As described further in Unit V.B., EPA concluded that under TSCA
section 6(c)(2)(C) that technologically and economically feasible
alternatives that benefit health or the environment would not be
readily available as a substitute for these specific safety-critical
uses on corrosion-sensitive components. However, under TSCA section
6(a), EPA must still address identified risks such that they are no
longer unreasonable. EPA considered the appropriateness of the WCPP for
this subset of activities under industrial or commercial use of
methylene chloride for commercial paint and coating removal, and
emphasizes that this consideration was made very narrowly for the use
of methylene chloride for paint and coating removal for safety-
critical, corrosion-sensitive components, and not for more general use
of methylene chloride in paint and coating removal by Federal agencies
or their contractors, or for aircraft or spacecraft paint and coating
removal more broadly. Rather, EPA's consideration of the
appropriateness of the WCPP takes into account the specifics of the
components from which the coatings are being removed (and thus the lack
of suitable alternatives for this particular subset of uses), and the
relevant paint and coating removal processes. EPA notes that these
activities are expected to take place in highly industrialized
facilities in which regulated areas may already be established, for
compliance with current regulations for methylene chloride or other
chemicals, and that the paint and coating removal work in these
facilities would not take place in small or enclosed spaces (rather,
parts would frequently be removed for coating removal) (Ref. 48).
Additionally, EPA considered whether exposures could feasibly be
reduced sufficiently so that the risks were no longer unreasonable. To
that end, during the risk evaluation for methylene chloride, DOD
submitted additional monitoring data for their particular activities
involving use of methylene chloride for paint and coating removal.
EPA's risk evaluation shows that, in comparison with other uses of
methylene chloride for paint and coating removal, the magnitude of
exposure, and thus the risks, are much lower for DOD's specified use.
More specifically, EPA's risk evaluation found that central tendency
risks for DOD uses of methylene chloride for commercial

paint and coating removal do not exceed the acute or chronic non-cancer
inhalation benchmarks, and high-end risks for those same endpoints
could be addressed using the minimum allowable PPE for methylene
chloride (Ref. 1). In addition to exposure reductions, EPA also
considered whether other components of the WCPP could be effectively
implemented, including development of exposure reduction plans,
exposure monitoring, administrative controls, and workplace
participation. During the development of this proposed rulemaking,
discussions with DOD confirmed what was suggested by EPA's risk
evaluation--that is, the remaining uses by DOD and other Federal
agencies (e.g., DHS, NASA, and FAA) of methylene chloride for paint and
coating removal for safety-critical, corrosion-sensitive components are
highly industrialized and take place in controlled settings with
numerous protections for workers already in place. In this way, use of
methylene chloride for the removal of coatings from corrosion-sensitive
components on military aviation, including safety-critical components
made of specialty metallic, nonmetallic, and composite materials
resembles other uses of methylene chloride for which the WCPP is being
proposed, such as laboratory use. EPA further expects that Federal and
Federal contractor facilities are subject to multiple levels of
oversight as a result of the governmental and public nature of their
activities, while civilian aviation facilities are not likely to
experience the same level of scrutiny. Federal Government procurement
is also subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulations System in Title
49 of the CFR, which prescribes, among other things, health and
environmental management and oversight requirements for Federal
contracts. For this reason, EPA is proposing a WCPP for this particular
subset of the methylene chloride commercial paint and coating remover
condition of use. EPA requests comment and further information
regarding the Agency's expectations that Federal and Federal contractor
facilities would be subject to a higher level of oversight than non-
Federal or contractor facilities, and that existing or expected
controls would be successful in achieving the requirements of the WCPP.
    Similarly, EPA has examined the use of methylene chloride as a
bonding agent for acrylic and polycarbonate in mission-critical
military and space vehicle applications by Federal agencies and their
contractors (Ref. 43) and is proposing WCPP for this subset of the
commercial use of methylene chloride in adhesives condition of use.
Mission-critical applications potentially include fabrication of
fixtures and enclosures for scientific research; production of
optically clear articles such as space vehicle windows, space suit
helmet components, or elements of extraterrestrial habitats; or sealing
the plastic cases of specialty batteries.
    A stakeholder that produces lithium and silver oxide zinc batteries
described how they are used in critical energy storage applications in
military and space exploration settings, including defense applications
such as precision guided weapons, military airframes, satellites, space
launch vehicles, and spacecraft. (The stakeholder also described use of
these batteries in medical devices; EPA notes that the TSCA definition
of ``chemical substance'' excludes, under TSCA section 3(2)(B)(vi),
``any food, food additive, drug, cosmetic, or device . . . when
manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce for use as a food,
food additive, drug, cosmetic, or device.'' 15 U.S.C. 2602(2)(B)(vi).
To the extent that bonding agents in the production of specialty
batteries for medical applications qualify as a ``device'' as defined
in section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, those
particular uses that qualify as a ``device'' would be excluded from the
``chemical substance'' definition if ``manufactured, processed, or
distributed in commerce for use as a . . . device,'' and would
therefore not be subject to the rule if finalized). This stakeholder
requested an exemption under TSCA section 6(g) for this use of
methylene chloride. According to the requester, all major military and
space applications, such as aircraft (F-35, B2), radios, and Mars
mission equipment, require these batteries to function in very harsh
conditions, including operation to -40 [deg]C and storage at -54
[deg]C.
    Methylene chloride is used as a bonding agent for assembly of the
plastic casings for these specialty batteries. The requester views the
casing as a critical component of the battery because it houses and
protects the cell anodes and cathodes. The requester explains that,
during the solvent bonding process, methylene chloride dissolves the
plastic slightly, allowing the polymers to form a physical bond
comprised of the parent material. This results in a fully bonded
battery casing which acts as a single Unit, rather than individual
pieces integrated with layers of a different material. According to the
requester, methylene chloride is a superior bonding agent for this
process because of its unique evaporative qualities. In the requester's
view, methylene chloride's low evaporation rate results in a higher
degree of polymer bonding and a stronger casing, with less residue to
inhibit the bonding process. The requester is not aware of any
substance other than methylene chloride that would enable the
production of battery casings of sufficient strength and durability for
these specialty batteries. The requester further contends that the
governmental and other entities for whom the requester produces these
batteries prevent the substitution for methylene chloride in their
contract specifications.
    EPA's consideration of the lack of availability of technologically
and economically feasible alternatives, pursuant to TSCA section
6(c)(2)(C), was one factor in the proposed determination not to
prohibit manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and use of
methylene chloride as a bonding agent for acrylic and polycarbonate in
mission critical military and space vehicle applications, such as in
the production of specialty batteries for use in such applications
(Ref. 48) (discussed further in Unit V.B.). However, under TSCA section
6(a), EPA must still address identified risks such that they are no
longer unreasonable. Based on information provided by NASA and the
vendor, EPA determined that the production of these specialty batteries
necessarily occurs in a highly industrialized and well-controlled
environment, which EPA does not expect to be replicated for most uses
of methylene chloride in general use adhesives. Such a highly
industrialized and well-controlled environment would allow for
establishment of a regulated area and effective monitoring.
Additionally, EPA expects that, for this specific use, facilities would
be able to successfully implement the WCPP, including exposure
reduction to levels below which the unreasonable risk would not be
present due primarily to the small quantities of methylene chloride
used, as well as to the engineering and other controls in place. For
example, in the vendor's process, ``methylene chloride is a component
of the bonding cement that is moved through an entirely closed tubing
system into a vented reservoir and vented enclosure for bonding and
curing'' (Ref. 48). In this way, use of methylene chloride as a bonding
agent in specialty batteries resembles other uses of methylene chloride
for which the WCPP is being proposed such as laboratory use and paint
and coating

removal by Federal agencies on safety-critical, corrosion-sensitive
aircraft components. For this reason, EPA is proposing a WCPP for this
particular subset of the methylene chloride commercial use in adhesives
condition of use. EPA requests comment and further information
regarding the Agency's expectations that the facilities in which this
use is carried out are industrialized and highly controlled, and that
existing or expected exposure reduction and workplace controls would be
successful in achieving the requirements of the WCPP. EPA also notes
that while the Agency is not aware of any similar use of methylene
chloride as a bonding element for batteries for commercial spaceflight
or other use, it requests comment and information on any such use.
    For methylene chloride to be available for processing as a reactant
and industrial and commercial use as a laboratory chemical, it must be
manufactured (including imported), processed, and distributed in
commerce. Likewise, as long as methylene chloride remains in use, it
must also be disposed of. The manufacturing, processing, and disposal
conditions of use for methylene chloride include, to some extent, the
factors described earlier in this Unit favor the successful
implementation of the WCPP (e.g., they do not take place in the field
(i.e., they do not take place outside of a highly controlled
environment) and are highly industrialized). Regulating upstream
manufacturing and processing of methylene chloride is a key component
of the supply-chain approach for risk management of commercial and
consumer use of methylene chloride. Therefore, as discussed in Unit
IV.A.1., EPA is proposing the WCPP for manufacture (including
importing) and processing for certain uses, and disposal to ensure that
workers are not subject to the unreasonable risk from methylene
chloride as it moves throughout the supply chain.
    Additionally, for methylene chloride, the strong precedent for
dermal protection set by 29 CFR 1910.1052, in combination with the risk
characterization in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride
which indicated chemically resistant gloves, together with activity
specific training are sufficient to address the unreasonable risk, led
EPA to propose a dermal PPE requirement as part of the WCPP (Ref. 1).
    As discussed in the Economic Analysis, there is some uncertainty
relative to the burden of recycling and disposal facilities that would
be required to implement a WCPP under this proposed regulation,
particularly in implementing an air monitoring program. For example,
disposal facilities may be receiving methylene chloride intermittently;
however, facilities that currently receive methylene chloride-
containing products or formulations for disposal may not receive
methylene chloride in the future, as restrictions are finalized. As
many of these facilities are small entities, EPA is requesting comment
on what regulatory flexibilities (e.g., extended compliance) may be
afforded to entities that would continue to recycle and dispose of
methylene chloride under the proposed regulation.
2. Prohibition
    Because both EPA's 8-hour ECEL and 15-minute EPA STEL are
significantly lower than the OSHA PEL and STEL, there is a high degree
of uncertainty as to whether most industrial and commercial users will
be able to comply with such a level and thus whether the unreasonable
risk would be addressed. As discussed earlier in this Unit, this
uncertainty, combined with the severity of the risks of methylene
chloride and the prevalence of cost-effective alternative processes and
products (Ref. 3), has led EPA to propose prohibitions, rather than
compliance with the WCPP, for most industrial and commercial uses of
methylene chloride, as outlined in Unit IV.A.2.
    EPA also considered the potential for methylene chloride use to
increase in particular sectors, such as vapor degreasing applications,
where it has largely been phased out because of the well-established
hazard (Refs. 3, 49). In order to prevent the potential for use of
methylene chloride to increase in a sector that has already moved away
from it, use of methylene chloride in vapor degreasing would be
prohibited under the proposed regulatory and primary alternative
regulatory action. The decline in use of methylene chloride was one of
several considerations that led EPA to propose to prohibit use of
methylene chloride in vapor degreasing.
    Regarding industrial, commercial, and consumer uses of methylene
chloride, TSCA section 6(a)(2) provides EPA with the authority to
prohibit or otherwise restrict the manufacture (including import),
processing, or distribution in commerce of a substance or mixture ``for
a particular use'' to ensure that a chemical substance no longer
presents unreasonable risk. For this rule, EPA proposes that ``for a
particular use'' includes consumer use more broadly, as well as
industrial and commercial use, which encompasses the individual
industrial, commercial, and consumer uses evaluated in the 2020 Risk
Evaluation for Methylene Chloride. Given the severity and ubiquitous
nature of the risks identified in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for
Methylene Chloride for all industrial, commercial, and consumer use,
and noting that those conditions of use encompass all known, intended,
and reasonably foreseen use of methylene chloride (other than use of
methylene chloride in consumer paint and coating removers, which was
subject to separate action under TSCA section 6 (84 FR 11420, March 27,
2019)), EPA proposes that prohibiting manufacture (including
importing), processing, and distribution in commerce of methylene
chloride for most industrial and commercial use and all consumer use is
reasonable and necessary to eliminate the unreasonable risk of
methylene chloride from industrial, commercial, and consumer use,
including by precluding retailers from selling methylene chloride and
methylene chloride-containing products to consumers for unspecified
end-uses. (The proposed prohibitions would not extend to the use of
methylene chloride in consumer paint and coating removers since
manufacturing, processing, and distribution for that use are already
prohibited.) EPA believes that any retailer selling methylene chloride-
containing products to consumers for unspecified end-uses would be
selling products for use by consumers for one of the consumer uses EPA
evaluated in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride and found
to drive the unreasonable risk for methylene chloride in the 2022
revised risk determination. EPA's proposed requirements to address
unreasonable risk to consumers and bystanders to consumer use are
described in Unit IV.A.
    A key consideration regarding consumer uses is the role of
retailers and other distributors. A retailer is defined in 40 CFR
751.103 as any entity that makes available a chemical substance or
mixture to consumer end users, including through e-commerce internet
sales or distribution, and is not specific to retailers of methylene
chloride. Previously, in the 2019 methylene chloride TSCA section 6(a)
risk management rulemaking addressing consumer use of methylene
chloride in paint and coating removal (Ref. 37), EPA prohibited (see 40
CFR 751.105(c)) retailers from distributing in commerce paint and
coating removers containing methylene chloride, as well as distribution
to retailers under 40 CFR 751.105(b) (Ref. 37). To meet the same

goal of protecting consumers from accessing methylene chloride-
containing products that could pose unreasonable risk, for a broader
range of consumer use, EPA considered using a similar provision to
ensure that retailers will not be able to purchase methylene chloride
for sale or distribution to consumers, or to make available to
consumers products containing methylene chloride. This provision aims
to help prevent the use of methylene chloride in non-industrial
settings or for off-label uses by consumers. For these reasons, as
described in Unit IV.A.3., EPA's proposal to address unreasonable risk
from methylene chloride includes prohibition on the distribution in
commerce of methylene chloride to and by retailers.
3. Primary Alternative Regulatory Option
    EPA acknowledges that for some of the occupational uses that it is
proposing to prohibit, there may be some activities or facilities that
could implement workplace protection requirements necessary to ensure
that exposure remain below the ECEL and EPA STEL. In some cases, they
may be able to undertake more extensive risk reduction measures than
EPA currently anticipates. Therefore, for EPA's primary alternative
regulatory action described in Unit IV.B., EPA is considering and
requesting comment on a WCPP, including requirements to ensure
exposures remain below an ECEL and EPA STEL, for some conditions of use
of methylene chloride in addition to those conditions of use which are
proposed to be subject to a WCPP under the proposed regulatory action
(i.e., those additional uses listed in Unit IV.B.). This includes
conditions of use that have not resulted in documented acute
fatalities, where reasonably available information suggests minimal
ongoing use, where reasonably available information suggests use of
methylene chloride may increase if other solvents are significantly
restricted for that use such as for other solvents undergoing risk
evaluation under TSCA section 6(b), and where the regulated entities
may have fewer challenges implementing requirements to meet an ECEL and
EPA STEL because work activities may occur in sophisticated facilities
or take place in a closed system. The additional conditions of use
which would be subject to WCPP under the primary alternative regulatory
action described in this notice meet all of these criteria. However,
EPA was not able to identify reasonably available information such as
monitoring data or detailed activity descriptions to indicate with
certainty that relevant regulated entities for these conditions of use
could sufficiently mitigate identified unreasonable risk through a
WCPP. Due to this uncertainty, EPA is requesting comment on the ways in
which methylene chloride may be used in the additional conditions of
use that would be subject to a WCPP under the primary alternative
regulatory action, and the degree to which users of methylene chloride
in these sectors could successfully implement the WCPP, including
requirements to meet an ECEL and EPA STEL, as described in Unit
IV.A.1., for the conditions of use listed for the primary alternative
regulatory action in Unit IV.B.
    Additionally, As discussed in Unit V.A.1. and 2., EPA acknowledges
that for the occupational uses for which it is proposing the WCPP,
there are varying degrees of uncertainty as to whether industrial and
commercial owners and operators are able implement workplace protection
requirements necessary to ensure that exposures remain below the ECEL
and EPA STEL. For this reason, EPA's alternative regulatory action
would prohibit two uses for which EPA is proposing the WCPP (industrial
or commercial use for paint and coating removal from safety-critical,
corrosion-sensitive components of aircraft and spacecraft by Federal
agencies and their contractors; and industrial or commercial use as a
bonding agent in the production of specialty batteries for military or
space applications by Federal agencies and their contractors). Because
of the importance of these uses for national security and critical
infrastructure, EPA's alternative regulatory action would include a
time-limited exemption under TSCA section 6(g) from the prohibition for
these two uses, for a period of 10 years, during which time the
regulated entity would comply with a WCPP to the extent practicable.
The analyses for these exemptions are in Unit IV.B.
4. Risk Management Requirements Considered but Not Proposed
    Since it is unlikely that all facilities with occupational
exposures to methylene chloride would be able to implement a WCPP,
including requirements to meet an ECEL and EPA STEL, EPA also examined
the extent to which a certification and limited access program
restricting methylene chloride use to trained and licensed users could
ensure that only certain workers employed by a facility would be able
to purchase and subsequently use methylene chloride. Under a limited
access program, entities would submit a self-certification to the
distributor at the point of purchasing the products. The self-
certification could consist of a statement indicating that the facility
is implementing a WCPP to control exposures to methylene chloride, as
well as a connection between the purchaser and the facility (e.g., a
current employee). As discussed earlier in this Unit, because of the
severity of acute risks from methylene chloride which could potentially
lead to fatalities, and the high potential for diversion of commercial
products of methylene chloride for non-commercial use, EPA has
significant concerns regarding the appropriateness of a certification
and limited access program for methylene chloride. These concerns are
supported by previous comments received as part of public comments on
the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Methylene Chloride
Commercial Paint and Coating Removal: Training, Certification and
Limited Access Program expressing unease in implementing a training,
certification and limited access program for methylene chloride (Ref.
50).
    Several commenters on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for
Methylene Chloride Commercial Paint and Coating Removal: Training,
Certification and Limited Access Program identified what they believe
would be insufficiencies in training, certification, and limited access
to methylene chloride (Ref. 50). Commenters expressed concerns that
this type of program would not provide enough safeguards and would not
eliminate unreasonable risk to workers. Commenters were skeptical of a
training program's efficacy noting that deaths related to methylene
chloride exposure still occurred with workers who were trained and
wearing PPE (Ref. 50).
    Several commenters believed that a training, certification, and
limited access program would not be feasible. A commenter suggested
that an effective training model to examine is the Alaska Hazardous
Paint Certification program, which includes hands-on training and
practice in local exhaust ventilation techniques and equipment and PPE
gloves, clothing, and respirators. In the Alaskan program, a minimum of
16 hours for initial training, with at least 6 hours of hands-on
training as well as 8-hour refresher class every 3 years, are necessary
requirements. Moreover, commenters expressed that a robust training,
certification, and limited access program would include multiple layers
of training and certification and supporting documentation. A commenter
also highlighted that ``small businesses do not have the same resources
for implementing safety

programs as larger ones, yet they account for a very large percentage
of [methylene chloride] users.'' In light of these comments, EPA
decided to account for uncertainty related to ECEL implementation and
compliance for certain uses by proposing prohibitions on those uses,
rather than proposing a self-certification and limited access program.
Nonetheless, EPA is requesting comment on the inclusion of a
certification, training, and limited access program for any uses that
would be subject to a WCPP, in addition to the requirements outlined in
Unit IV.A.1.
    Another option that EPA considered for occupational conditions of
use was requiring specific, prescribed engineering controls,
administrative controls, or PPE to reduce exposures to methylene
chloride in occupational settings. These prescriptive requirements
would be supported by information in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for
Methylene Chloride. As described in Units III.A.1. and 2., EPA received
input during required consultations and additional engagement that
options that align with the hierarchy of controls (i.e., elimination
and substitution of hazards in the workplace), which could be
accomplished through the implementation of a WCPP with a risk-based
exposure limit, should be preferred over prescriptive controls (Refs.
9, 51). Inadequacy of engineering, administrative, and PPE control
measures to lower exposure below the exposure limit would mean that
elimination or substitution would be the only viable methods of
addressing unreasonable risk, creating in effect a de-facto
prohibition. Additionally, prescriptive controls present significant
uncertainties related to their feasibility and consistency of proper
use.
    EPA determined that such prescriptive controls (i.e., engineering
or administrative controls, or PPE) may not be able to eliminate
unreasonable risk for some conditions of use when used in isolation. In
the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride, many conditions of use
still drive the unreasonable risk even with the application of air-
supplied APF 50 respirators (Ref. 1). Additionally, where data were
reasonably available, EPA modeled the change in air rates that would be
needed to eliminate unreasonable risk and found that in some cases it
was not possible to eliminate unreasonable risk with changes in airflow
alone, while in other cases the change in airflow needed would not be
feasible to achieve (Ref. 1). Because of the uncertainty regarding the
feasibility of exposure reductions through prescriptive controls alone,
EPA determined that a WCPP, including requirements to meet an ECEL and
EPA STEL (which would be accompanied by monitoring requirements) in
tandem with the implementation of engineering controls, administrative
controls, and/or PPE as elements of the program, as appropriate, would
more successfully reduce exposure so that the unreasonable risk is
addressed. For occupational conditions of use where compliance with the
WCPP is unlikely to eliminate the unreasonable risk driven by those
conditions of use, prohibitions (rather than prescribed controls) would
be more appropriate to ensure that methylene chloride does not present
unreasonable risk under the conditions of use.
    EPA also considered limiting the weight fraction of methylene
chloride in consumer products and conducted an analysis using the
Consumer Exposure Models for the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene
Chloride to estimate whether this would reduce risks from consumer
conditions of use that drive the unreasonable risk for methylene
chloride, such that they no longer drive the unreasonable risk (Ref.
52). For all consumer conditions of use, the weight fraction or
concentration identified through this modeling that would address the
unreasonable risk through inhalation or dermal pathways was so low that
it was highly unlikely that methylene chloride would still serve its
functional purpose in the formulation. EPA thus concluded that a weight
fraction limit would essentially function as a prohibition yet with a
greater amount of uncertainty regarding compliance and no increased
benefit to consumer users; it was therefore not a preferred option for
consumer uses. (Refs. 1, 52).
5. Additional Considerations
    After considering the different regulatory options under TSCA
section 6(a), alternatives (described in Unit III.B.4.), compliance
dates, and other requirements under TSCA section 6(c), EPA developed
the proposed regulatory action described in Unit IV.A. to address the
unreasonable risk from methylene chloride. To ensure successful
implementation of this proposed regulatory action, EPA considered other
requirements to support compliance with the proposed regulations, such
as requiring monitoring and recordkeeping to demonstrate compliance
with the WCPP, or downstream notification regarding the prohibition on
manufacturing, processing, and distribution in commerce of methylene
chloride, and products containing methylene chloride, for consumer use.
These proposed requirements are described in Unit IV.A.
    Under TSCA section 6(g)(1)(B), EPA may grant an exemption from a
requirement of a TSCA section 6(a) rule for a specific condition of use
of a chemical substance or mixture if compliance with the requirement
would significantly disrupt the national economy, national security, or
critical infrastructure. Based on reasonably available information, EPA
has found that a TSCA section 6(g) exemption is warranted for certain
uses. Therefore, EPA is proposing to grant exemptions from the rule
requirements under TSCA section 6(g), as detailed in Unit IV.A.5. Unit
IV.A.5. also provides a description of the request for exemption from
the rule requirements that EPA is not proposing to grant. TSCA section
6(g) assumes a particular use cannot continue such that the risks are
no longer unreasonable. However, EPA notes that information may be
provided during the public comment period indicating this may not be
case. For example, new information may demonstrate compliance with a
WCPP is possible.
    As required under TSCA section 6(d), any rule under TSCA section
6(a) must specify mandatory compliance dates, which shall be as soon as
practicable with a reasonable transition period, but no later than 5
years after the date of promulgation of the final rule (except in the
case of a use exempted under TSCA section 6(g)). For ban or phase-out
requirements, EPA must specify mandatory compliance dates for the start
of ban or phase-out requirements, which must be as soon as practicable
but no later than 5 years after the date of promulgation of the final
rule (except in the case of a use exempted under TSCA section 6(g)),
and for full implementation of ban or phase-out requirements, which
must be as soon as practicable. These compliance dates are detailed in
Unit IV.A. and IV.B.

B. Consideration of Alternatives in Deciding Whether To Prohibit or
Substantially Restrict Methylene Chloride

    Under TSCA section 6(c)(2)(C), in deciding whether to prohibit or
restrict in a manner that substantially prevents a specific condition
of use of a chemical substance or mixture, and in setting an
appropriate transition period for such action, EPA must consider, to
the extent practicable, whether technically and economically feasible
alternatives that benefit human health or the environment, compared to
the use so proposed to be prohibited or restricted,

will be reasonably available as a substitute when the proposed
prohibition or other restriction takes effect. To that end, in addition
to an Economic Analysis (Ref. 3), EPA conducted an Alternatives
Assessment, using reasonably available information (Ref. 40).
    For this assessment, EPA identified and analyzed alternatives to
methylene chloride in products relevant to industrial, commercial, and
consumer conditions of use proposed to be prohibited or restricted,
even if such restrictions are not anticipated to substantially prevent
the condition of use. EPA is aware of the lack of viable alternatives
to methylene chloride for several conditions of use and considered that
information to the extent practicable in the development of the
regulatory options as described in Unit III.B.3.
    As an example, EPA's consideration of the lack of viable
alternatives to processing methylene chloride in the manufacture of
HFC-32 taken in context with the risk estimates, monitoring data, and
expected work practices informed EPA's proposed approach of WCPP for
this condition of use. Similarly, when proposing WCPP for industrial or
commercial use of methylene chloride for paint and coating removal from
mission- and safety-critical, corrosion sensitive components of
aircraft and spacecraft by Federal agencies or their contractors, EPA
considered how the safety-critical, corrosion-sensitive components
would be so negatively affected by the use of technically incompatible,
substitute paint removal chemicals or methods that the safe performance
of the aircraft could be compromised. There are no known substitutes
for methylene chloride for this particular use. As discussed in the
preamble to the 2017 NPRM, DOD has actively sought to reduce its use of
methylene chloride in paint and coating removal since 1990. DOD has
replaced most of its usage of methylene chloride for paint and coating
removal with mechanical methods, benzyl alcohol products, other
solvents, and laser ablation. In an effort to reduce the use of all
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) such as methylene chloride, the Army
has conducted tests to identify and test the effectiveness of HAP-free
paint and coating removers on military high-performance coatings (Ref.
53). In another example, the Air Force in December 2015 significantly
reduced the use of methylene chloride for removing coatings on flight
control parts and is now using substitute chemical products, primarily
those with benzyl alcohol formulations (Ref. 48). Similarly, the Navy
has transitioned substitutes to paint methylene chloride use when
alternatives with equal performance are identified. For DOD, this
evaluation of and transition to safer alternatives is ongoing and
substitutions are approved where technically feasible and commensurate
with performance and mission-readiness requirements.
    DOD continues to pursue potential substitutes for methylene
chloride. However, for safety-critical, corrosion-sensitive components
on military aviation, including safety-critical components, DOD has
found that currently available substitute chemicals for paint and
coating removal have one or more technical limitations. These include
the inability to effectively remove specific military high performance
or chemical resistant coatings and incompatibility with underlying
metallic, nonmetallic, and composite materials, resulting in material
damage to critical components. In addition, substitute chemicals or
methods currently available do not support DOD's need for coating
removers that enable critical safety inspection, non-destructive
inspection, material assessment, or field repair processes. For
example, benzyl alcohol has replaced methylene chloride in many DOD
paint and coating removal applications. However, acid benzyl alcohol
formulations, which work more quickly than alkaline formulations,
cannot be used on high-strength steel or magnesium metals because there
is the potential for resulting hydrogen embrittlement (Ref. 54). In
DOD's experience, the alkaline benzyl alcohol formulations require 25
to 50% more time than methylene chloride and are more labor-intensive,
particularly on very thick coatings or polyurethane coatings with
water-based primers (Ref. 54). In addition, the reaction rate for
alkaline benzyl alcohol formulations is very slow when the temperature
is below 65 degrees, so paint and coating removal in cold locations
with this alternative must be performed in a heated area (Ref. 54). As
described earlier in Unit V.A.1., aircraft and other assets operated by
DHS, NASA, and the FAA also contain safety-critical, corrosion-
sensitive components of the type described by DOD, and suitable
alternatives to methylene chloride are similarly not available for all
applications. Substitute chemicals for paint and coating removal for
safety-critical, corrosion-sensitive components are not technically
feasible as they have one or more technical limitations; are
incompatible with underlying materials; and/or do not support the
coating removal requirements of safety inspections, non-destructive
inspection, material assessment, or field repair processes. Therefore,
EPA has evaluated the effect that a significant restriction on the use
of methylene chloride would have for industrial and commercial paint
and coating removal by DOD, DHS, NASA, and FAA and concluded that under
TSCA section 6(c)(2)(C) that technologically and economically feasible
alternatives that benefit health or the environment would not be
readily available as a substitute. Due to the essential nature of this
subset of activities under industrial or commercial use of methylene
chloride as a paint and coating remover, EPA's consideration of the
availability of technologically and economically feasible alternative
was one factor in the proposed determination not to prohibit
manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and use of methylene
chloride for paint and coating removal for safety-critical, corrosion
sensitive components.
    As an additional example, EPA considered the information provided
regarding a lack of viable alternatives for the use of methylene
chloride in chemical bonding of acrylic and polycarbonate, specifically
for specialty batteries for use in military and space applications. As
described earlier in Unit V.A., EPA received information from a
stakeholder, as part of a request for an exemption under TSCA section
6(g), describing how methylene chloride is uniquely suited as a bonding
agent for these specialty batteries. Upon receipt of the TSCA section
6(g) exemption request summarized in this unit, EPA consulted with
NASA, and NASA provided information on its effort to screen alternative
adhesives for the chemical bonding of acrylic and polycarbonate.
Specifically, NASA identified ten materials and completed screening-
level testing for six of those ten materials as of the publication of
this proposed rule. Results submitted to EPA indicate that none of the
materials tested met the technical requirements for chemical bonding
applications (Ref. 47). While vendors submitting the TSCA section 6(g)
exemption request predicted a timeline of at least one year to find a
replacement for the bonding agent for specialty batteries, NASA noted
that the projected substitution timeline applies only to the vendor's
own battery production process. The total timeline, including
qualification testing for human spaceflight, is a complex, multi-year
process that could only begin after the vendor's substitution was
completed.

    NASA additionally emphasized that losing access to qualified high-
performance substances such as specialty batteries would have immediate
effects for currently ongoing space-flight programs, including the
Artemis Program, with the potential to introduce an unacceptable level
of risk to crew, vehicle, and viability of the program. Qualification
of materials for human spaceflight can take years and significant
resources to accomplish, while potentially impacting program production
schedule and launch manifest.
    NASA has emphasized that specific Artemis components have been
designed to work with the identified specialty batteries with
polycarbonate casing bonded using methylene chloride. The safety and
reliability of these batteries has been established in uncrewed Artemis
I test missions, and the next flights will take humans back to the
Moon. A change of battery material would require recertification of
multiple hardware pieces, retesting of crew and vehicle safety, and
disrupt parts production and launch schedules that are already
underway. NASA notes that stockpiling of batteries would not be an
option, as batteries have a 2-year shelf life.
    For this use, EPA has concluded under TSCA section 6(c)(2)(C) that
technologically and economically feasible alternatives that benefit
health or the environment would not be readily available as a
substitute. Due to the essential nature of this subset of activities
under industrial or commercial use of methylene chloride as an
adhesive, a paint and coating remover, EPA's consideration of the
availability of technologically and economically feasible alternative
was one factor in the proposed determination not to prohibit
manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and use of methylene
chloride as a bonding agent in the production of specialty batteries
for use in military and space applications.
    EPA also notes that, for some conditions of use, EPA was unable to
identify products currently available for sale that contain methylene
chloride. EPA is soliciting comments on whether there are actually
products in use or available for sale relevant to these conditions of
use that contain methylene chloride at this time, so that EPA can
ascertain whether there are alternatives that benefit human health or
the environment. These conditions of use are detailed in the
Alternatives Assessment (Ref. 40).
    For conditions of use for which products currently containing
methylene chloride were identified, EPA identified several hundred
commercially available alternative products that do not contain
methylene chloride, and listed in the Alternatives Assessment, to the
extent practicable, their unique chemical components, or ingredients.
For each of these chemical components or ingredients, EPA identified
whether it functionally replaced methylene chloride for the product use
and screened product ingredients for human health and environmental
hazard, as well as identified flammability and global warming potential
where information was reasonably available (Ref. 40). EPA then assigned
a rating to the human health and environmental hazards, using a
methodology described in the Alternatives Assessment document. EPA
identified 65 total alternative products in the paint and coating
remover category, of which furniture refinishing is a subcategory (Ref.
48). As described in the Economic Analysis, while not all of these
alternative products may meet the specific use for some furniture
refinishing uses, mechanical or thermal methods may be non-chemical
alternatives to using products containing methylene chloride for paint
and coating removal. EPA did not find barriers to pricing, customer
satisfaction, coating removal performance, or content (specifically
volatile organic compounds, or VOC) that may be caused by restricting
the use of methylene chloride in this product category in general. For
fire safety, the restriction of methylene chloride in this product
category is met by products with very high flash points, or products
with evaporation barriers that restrict vapor generation (Ref. 3).
Therefore, EPA finds that there are technological and economically
feasible alternatives in the marketplace.
    In general, EPA identified products containing ingredients with a
lower hazard screening rating than methylene chloride for certain
endpoints, while some ingredients presented higher hazard screening
ratings than methylene chloride (Ref. 40). These alternative hazard
screening ratings are described in detail in the Alternatives
Assessment grouped under common product use categories (Ref. 40). EPA
has therefore, pursuant to TSCA section 6(c)(2)(C), considered, to the
extent practicable, whether technically and economically feasible
alternatives that benefit human health or the environment, compared to
the use proposed to be prohibited or restricted, will be reasonably
available as a substitute when the proposed prohibition or other
restriction becomes effective. EPA is additionally requesting comment
on the alternatives analysis as a whole.

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

A. Health Effects of Methylene Chloride and the Magnitude of Human
Exposure to Methylene Chloride

    EPA's analysis of the health effects of methylene chloride is in
the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride (Ref. 1). A summary is
presented here.
    The 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride identified six non-
cancer adverse health effects: effects from acute/short-term exposure,
liver effects, immune system effects, nervous system effects,
reproductive/developmental effects, and irritation/burns (Ref. 1). The
2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride also identified cancer
hazards from carcinogenicity as well as genotoxicity, particularly for
liver and lung tumors (Ref. 1).
    Among the non-cancer adverse health effects, the 2020 Risk
Evaluation for Methylene Chloride identified neurotoxicity indicative
of central nervous system depression as a primary effect of methylene
chloride in humans following acute inhalation exposures (Ref. 1).
Identified central nervous system depressive symptoms include
drowsiness, confusion, headache, dizziness, and neurobehavioral
deficits when performing various tasks. Central nervous system
depressant effects can result in loss of consciousness and respiratory
depression, possibly resulting in irreversible coma, hypoxia, and
eventual death (Ref. 1).
    Additionally, the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride
identified the liver as a sensitive target organ for inhalation
exposure (Ref. 1). For human health risks to workers and consumers, EPA
identified cancer and non-cancer human health risks. Risks from acute
exposures include central nervous system risks such as central nervous
system depression and a decrease in peripheral vision, each of which
can lead to workplace accidents and are precursors to more severe
central nervous system effects such as incapacitation, loss of
consciousness, coma, and death. For chronic exposures, EPA identified
risks of non-cancer liver effects as well as liver and lung tumors
(Ref. 1).
    The 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride also identified
several irritation hazards from methylene chloride exposure. Following
exposures to methylene chloride vapors, irritation has been observed in
the respiratory tract and eyes. Direct contact with liquid methylene
chloride on the

skin has caused chemical burns in workers and gastrointestinal
irritation in individuals who accidentally ingested methylene chloride
(Ref. 1).
    Regarding the magnitude of human exposure, one factor EPA considers
for the conditions of use that drive unreasonable risk is the size of
the exposed population, which, for methylene chloride, EPA estimates is
785,000 workers, 135,000 occupational non-users, and 15 million
consumers (Ref. 1).
    In addition to these estimates of numbers of workers, occupational
non-users, consumers, and bystanders to consumer use directly exposed
to methylene chloride, EPA recognizes there is exposure to the general
population from air and water pathways for methylene chloride. (While
bystanders are individuals in proximity to a consumer use of methylene
chloride, fenceline communities are a subset of the general population
who may be living in proximity to a facility where methylene chloride
is being used in an occupational setting). As mentioned in Unit II.D.,
EPA has separately conducted a screening approach to assess whether
there may be risks to the general population from these exposure
pathways. While the use of this screening approach indicates some level
of risk to fenceline communities, EPA cannot determine, without further
data and quantitative analysis, whether the risk to these communities
would be an unreasonable risk. This Unit summarizes the results of that
fenceline analysis. Although EPA is not making a determination of
unreasonable risk based on the fenceline screening analysis, the
proposed regulatory action described in Unit IV. is expected to reduce
the risks identified in the screening approach.
    As described in Unit II.D., EPA's analysis was presented to the
SACC peer review panel in March 2022, and EPA plans to consider SACC
feedback (including the SACC recommendation to EPA to consider multiple
years of release data to estimate exposures and associated risks) and
make decisions regarding how to assess general population exposures in
upcoming risk evaluations, such as for 1,4-dioxane and for the
forthcoming 20 High Priority Substances. For methylene chloride, EPA
recognizes that a key input into the fenceline assessment was data on
releases from the most recent Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting
year and that the use of more than one year of data could result in
different conclusions. Accordingly, in this Unit EPA presents the
results of its analysis of the extent to which including more than one
year of TRI data impacts EPA's conclusions regarding fenceline risks
(Ref. 55).
    EPA's fenceline analysis for the water pathway for methylene
chloride, based on methods presented to the SACC, did not find risks
from incidental oral and dermal exposure to surface water, and while
EPA found one facility which indicated acute risk from drinking water,
additional assessment of this location identified that there are no
source drinking water intakes for public drinking water systems in
proximity to the facility estimated to have risk, thereby making risks
to the general population through the drinking water pathway unlikely.
    Additionally, EPA's analysis, as presented to the SACC, identified
14 facilities, representing nine conditions of use, with some
indication of expected exposure and associated cancer risk to receptors
within select distances evaluated from 5 to 100 meters from the
inhalation pathway. Those nine conditions of use are: industrial and
commercial use in non-aerosol degreasers and cleaners; industrial and
commercial use as a solvent for in-line vapor degreasing; industrial
and commercial use as a solvent for cold cleaning; industrial and
commercial use in aerosol spray degreasers and cleaners; industrial and
commercial use in cellulose triacetate film production; industrial and
commercial use in plastic and rubber product manufacturing; processing:
incorporation into a formulation, mixture, or reaction product;
industrial and commercial use as a propellant and blowing agent; and
industrial and commercial use in paint and coating removers. Under the
proposed regulatory action described in Unit IV.A., all of the
conditions of use with an indication of risk from 5 to 100 meters would
be prohibited, with the exception of processing: incorporation into a
formulation, mixture, or reaction product.
    Of those 14 facilities with indicated risk, only three had an
indication of risk out to 100 meters from a releasing facility. Those
three facilities represent three total conditions of use: industrial
and commercial use in non-aerosol degreasers and cleaners; industrial
and commercial use for plastic product manufacturing; and industrial
and commercial use as a propellant and blowing agent. Under the
proposed regulatory action described in Unit IV.A., these three
conditions of use, as well as all of the conditions of use with an
indication of risk at 5 to 100 meters would be prohibited, with the
exception of processing: incorporation into a formulation, mixture, or
reaction product.
    Following SACC feedback, EPA applied a slightly modified pre-
screening methodology to evaluate 6 years of methylene chloride release
data (2015 through 2020 Toxic Release Inventory data as well as the 6-
year average of that data) for those 14 facilities where there was an
indication of exposure and associated risk via the ambient air pathway.
The multi-year analysis further supported EPA's findings (indications
of exposure and associated risks) from the original analysis for five
of the 14 facilities, representing four conditions of use, which
indicated exposure and associated risk at 100 meters from a releasing
facility. Those four conditions of use are: processing: incorporation
into a formulation, mixture, or reaction product; industrial and
commercial use in non-aerosol degreasers and cleaners; industrial and
commercial use for plastic product manufacturing; and industrial and
commercial use as a propellant and blowing agent. For the additional
nine facilities, the multi-year analysis did not indicate risks at 100
meters. The multi-year analysis incorporated 6 years of TRI data and
found that while the annual releases may vary by as much as a factor of
10, the overall estimated exposure concentrations and associated risk
calculations varied by no more than three times. Additionally, typical
cancer benchmarks used by EPA and other regulatory agencies are an
increased cancer risk above benchmarks ranging from 1 in 1,000,000 to 1
in 10,000 (i.e., 1 x 10-6 to 1 x 10-4), in some
cases depending on the subpopulation exposed. (see, e.g., EPA's
interpretation set forth in 54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) which
discusses the use of benchmarks for purposes of section 112 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA); see also EPA's interpretation of the upper bound
of acceptable risk and the preferred benchmark described in the Letter
of Concern regarding EPA Complaint Nos. 01R-22-R6, 02R-22-R6, and 04R-
22-R6 see page 3 footnotes 5 and 6 and page 6 (Ref. 56)). In this
fenceline analysis for the ambient air pathway for methylene chloride,
estimates of risk to fenceline communities were calculated using 1 x
10-6 as the benchmark for cancer risk in fenceline
communities. While EPA is unable to determine, based on the screening
level fenceline analysis, whether risks to the general population drive
the unreasonable risk, as a matter of risk management policy EPA
considers the range of 1 x 10-6 to 1 x 10-4 as
the appropriate benchmark

for increased cancer risk for the general population, including
fenceline communities. It is preferable to have the air concentration
of methylene chloride result in an increased cancer risk closer to the
1 x 10-6 benchmark, with the 1 x 10-4 benchmark
generally representing the upper bound of acceptability for estimated
excess cancer risk. The benchmark value is 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, exposure-related considerations (e.g., duration, magnitude, or
frequency of exposure, or population exposed). Under the proposed
regulatory action described in Unit IV.A., all of the conditions of use
with an indication of risk at 100 meters would be prohibited, with the
exception of processing: incorporation into a formulation, mixture, or
reaction product.
    Although the initial analysis presented to SACC and the multi-year
analysis conducted in response to SACC feedback for methylene chloride
indicated exposure and associated risks to select receptors within the
general population at particular facilities, EPA is unable to formally
determine with this analysis whether those risks drive the unreasonable
risk. However, EPA believes that the prohibitions being proposed for
manufacturing (including importing), processing, and distribution in
commerce for 45 of 53 uses, including all consumer use and most
commercial use, would address the majority of exposures to the general
population. Of the 14 facilities which indicated some risk for
methylene chloride, under the proposed regulatory option, only 3 could
continue to use methylene chloride (all for processing: incorporation
into formulation, mixture, or reaction product), and thus exposures to
the fenceline at the remainder of those facilities would be addressed.
    Under the proposed rule, only ten conditions of use would continue,
namely domestic manufacturing (for downstream uses that would continue
under the WCPP); import; processing as a reactant; processing:
incorporation into a formulation, mixture, or reaction product;
processing as repackaging; processing as recycling; industrial and
commercial use as a laboratory chemical; industrial or commercial use
in aerospace and military paint and coating removal from safety-
critical, corrosion-sensitive components by Federal agencies and their
contractors, industrial or commercial use as a bonding agent for
acrylic and polycarbonate in mission-critical military and space
vehicle applications, including in the production of specialty
batteries for such by Federal agencies and their contractors, and
disposal. Of those conditions of use, only processing: incorporation
into formulation, mixture, or reaction product has risk indicated at
the fenceline, and based on land use analysis, there do not appear to
be communities currently located at the fencelines (Ref. 57).
Additionally, over time this condition of use can reasonably be
expected to decline because, while processing into a formulation,
mixture, or reaction product would continue under a WCPP, all
downstream distribution and use of formulations, mixtures, or reaction
products (except for laboratory use and any time limited exemptions
that could be established under TSCA section 6(g)) would be prohibited.
    For all ten conditions of use that would remain ongoing, the
proposed rule would require exposure controls via implementation of a
WCPP as described in Unit IV.A.1. In the instances where efforts to
reduce exposures in the workplace to levels below the ECEL and EPA STEL
could lead to adoption of engineering controls that ventilate more
methylene chloride outside, EPA believes this potential exposure would
be limited as a result of the existing National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for methylene chloride for these
conditions of use under the CAA (applicable NESHAPs: 40 CFR part 63
subpart F, Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry; 40 CFR
part 63 subpart DD, Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations; 40 CFR part
63 subpart VVV, Publicly Owned Treatment Works; and 40 CFR part 63
subpart VVVVVV, the NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources) and
that any exceedances are an enforcement issue. Thus, EPA's proposal to
prohibit manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of
methylene chloride for all consumer use and most industrial and
commercial use, and to prohibit most industrial and commercial use of
methylene chloride, is expected to largely address the risks identified
in the screening analysis to any general population or fenceline
communities close to facilities engaging in methylene chloride use. EPA
therefore does not intend to revisit the air pathway for methylene
chloride as part of a supplemental risk evaluation.

B. Environmental Effects of Methylene Chloride and the Magnitude of
Environmental Exposure to Methylene Chloride

    EPA's analysis of the environmental effects of and the magnitude of
exposure of the environment to methylene chloride is in the 2020 Risk
Evaluation for Methylene Chloride (Ref. 1). The unreasonable risk
determination for methylene chloride is based solely on risks to human
health; based on the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride, EPA
determined that exposures to the environment did not drive the
unreasonable risk.
    For all conditions of use, the unreasonable risk determination is
not driven by exposures via water for acute and chronic exposures to
methylene chloride for amphibians, fish, and aquatic invertebrates. To
characterize aquatic organisms' exposure to methylene chloride, modeled
data were used to represent surface water concentrations near
facilities actively releasing methylene chloride to surface water, and
monitored concentrations were used to represent ambient water
concentrations of methylene chloride. EPA considered the biological
relevance of the species to determine the concentrations of concern for
the location of surface water concentration data to produce risk
quotients, as well as frequency and duration of the exposure. While
some site-specific risk quotients, calculated from modeled release data
from facilities conducting recycling, disposal, and wastewater
treatment plant activities, indicated risk, uncertainties in the
analysis were considered. These uncertainties include limitations in
data, since monitoring data were not available near facilities where
methylene chloride is released, and data incorporated from the Toxics
Release Inventory, which does not include release data for facilities
with fewer than ten employees. As an additional uncertainty, the model
does not consider chemical fate or hydrologic transport properties and
may not consider dilution in static water bodies. Additional analysis
indicated that model outputs, rather than monitoring estimates, may
best represent concentrations found at the point of discharge from the
facilities (Ref. 1).
    The toxicity of methylene chloride to sediment-dwelling
invertebrates is similar to its toxicity to aquatic invertebrates.
Methylene chloride is most likely present in the pore waters and not
absorbed to the sediment organic matter because methylene chloride has
low partitioning to organic matter. The concentrations in sediment

pore water are similar to or less than the concentrations in the
overlying water, and concentrations in the deeper part of sediment are
lower than the concentrations in the overlying water. Therefore, the
risk estimates, based on the highest ambient surface water
concentration, do not support an unreasonable risk determination to
sediment-dwelling organisms from acute or chronic exposures. There is
uncertainty due to the lack of ecotoxicity studies specifically for
sediment-dwelling organisms and limited sediment monitoring data (Ref.
1).
    Based on its physical-chemical properties, methylene chloride does
not partition to or accumulate in soil. Therefore, the physical
chemical properties of methylene chloride do not support an
unreasonable risk determination to terrestrial organisms.

C. Benefits of Methylene Chloride for Various Uses

    Methylene chloride is a solvent used in a variety of industrial,
commercial, and consumer use applications, including adhesives,
pharmaceuticals, metal cleaning, chemical processing, and feedstock in
the production of refrigerant hydrofluorocarbon-32 (HFC-32) (82 FR
7467). Specifically, methylene chloride use in commercial paint and
coating removal provides benefits for some users because it is readily
available and works quickly and effectively on nearly all coatings
without damaging most substrates. For a variety of additional uses
(e.g., adhesives, adhesive removers, cold pipe insulation, welding
anti-spatter spray) methylene chloride is relatively inexpensive,
highly effective, evaporates quickly, and is not flammable, making it a
popular and effective solvent for many years. As of 2016, the leading
applications for methylene chloride are as a solvent in the production
of pharmaceuticals and polymers and paint removers, although recent
regulations and voluntary industry actions are expected to decrease the
chemical's use in the paint remover sector (40 CFR part 751, subpart
B). The total aggregate production volume ranged from 100 to 500
million pounds between 2016 and 2019 according to CDR (Ref. 8).

D. Reasonably Ascertainable Economic Consequences of the Proposed Rule

1. Likely Effect of the Rule on the National Economy, Small Business,
Technological Innovation, the Environment, and Public Health.
    The reasonably ascertainable economic consequences of this proposed
rule include several components, all of which are described in the
Economic Analysis for this proposed rule (Ref. 3). With respect to the
anticipated effects of this proposed rule on the national economy, EPA
considered the number of businesses and workers that would be affected
and the costs and benefits to those businesses and workers and did not
find that there would be an impact on the national economy (Ref. 3).
The economic impact of a regulation on the national economy becomes
measurable only if the economic impact of the regulation reaches 0.25%
to 0.5% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Ref. 58). Given the current
GDP, this is equivalent to a cost of $40 billion to $80 billion.
Therefore, because EPA has estimated that the non-closure-related cost
of the proposed rule would range from $13.2 million annualized over 20
years at a 3% discount rate and $14.5 million annualized over 20 years
at a 7% discount rate, EPA has concluded that this rule is highly
unlikely to have any measurable effect on the national economy (Ref.
3). In addition, EPA considered the employment impacts of this proposed
rule, and found that the direction of change in employment is
uncertain, but EPA expects the short-term and longer-term employment
effects to be small. To that end, EPA is requesting public comment on
short term and longer-term employment effects from this proposal.
    Of the small businesses potentially impacted by this proposed rule,
98% (225,248 firms) are expected to have impacts of less than 1% to
their firm revenues (rounded metric), 0.1% (118 firms) are expected to
have impacts between 1 and 3% to their firm revenues (rounded metric),
and 0.03212.1% (4,905 firms) are expected to have impacts greater than
3% to their firm revenues (rounded metric). Excluding end-users, total
estimated impacts on small businesses are $9.3 million (annualized
using a 7 percent discount rate). End users with economic and
technologically feasible alternatives available do not have economic
impacts that are estimated beyond rule familiarization costs ($1.8
million in total costs, annualized using a 7 percent discount rate).
Thus, the estimated total impact of the rule on small businesses ranges
from $11.1 to $73.6 million (see section 7.11 of the Economic
Analysis). Commercial paint and coating removers are one product type
where for which methylene chloride is likely the most effective product
for many applications. In particular, alternatives to methylene
chloride paint and coating removers in commercial furniture refinishing
may not be as cost-effective for this use because they may take more
time to achieve the desired outcome or require alternate processes
affecting operations that present challenges for certain businesses.
The impact of a prohibition of methylene chloride for furniture
refinishing could result in the closure of an unknown number of
affected entities or business lines. As discussed in Unit I.E., closure
of affected furniture refinishing firms using methylene chloride
following this rulemaking has an upper bound for economic impacts of
$1.8 billion in total revenue, and $67 million in terms of the total
profit, under the assumption that all affected firms fully close due to
the restrictions on methylene chloride. A detailed discussion of
potential economic impacts as a result of varying percentages of
furniture refinishing firms closing is provided in the Economic
Analysis in section 7.11 (Ref. 3).
    With respect to this proposed rule's effect on technological
innovation, EPA expects this rule to spur more innovation than it will
hinder. A prohibition or significant restriction on the manufacture,
processing, and distribution in commerce of methylene chloride for uses
covered in this proposed rule may increase demand for existing, as well
as development of additional, safer chemical substitutes. This proposed
rule is not likely to have significant effects on the environment
because, as discussed in Unit VI.B., methylene chloride does not
present an unreasonable risk to the environment, though this proposed
rule does present the potential for small reductions in air emissions
and soil contamination associated with improper disposal of products
containing methylene chloride. The effects of this proposed rule on
public health are estimated to be positive, due to the potential
prevention of deaths from acute exposure and reduced risk of cancer
from chronic exposure to methylene chloride.
2. Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Regulatory Action and of the One
or More Primary Alternative Regulatory Actions Considered by the
Administrator
    The costs and benefits that can be monetized for this proposed rule
are

described at length in in the Economic Analysis (Ref. 3). The non-
closure-related costs for this proposed rule are estimated to be $13.2
million annualized over 20 years at a 3% discount rate and $14.5
million annualized over 20 years at a 7% discount rate. The monetized
benefits are estimated to be $17.7 to $18.5 million annualized over 20
years at a 3% discount rate and $13.4 to $13.9 million annualized over
20 years at a 7% discount rate.
    EPA considered the estimated costs to regulated entities as well as
the cost to administer and enforce alternative regulatory actions. The
primary alternative regulatory action is described in detail in Unit
IV.B. The estimated annualized, non-closure-related costs of the
primary alternative regulatory action are $12.4 million at a 3%
discount rate and $13.3 million at a 7% discount rate over 20 years
(Ref. 3). The estimated annualized benefits of this primary alternative
regulatory action are $17.7 to $18.5 million at a 3% discount rate and
$13.4 to $13.9 million at a 7% discount rate over 20 years (Ref. 3).
    This proposal is expected to achieve health benefits for the
American public, some of which can be monetized and others that, while
tangible and significant, cannot be monetized. EPA believes that the
balance of costs and benefits of this proposal cannot be fairly
described without considering the additional, non-monetized benefits of
mitigating the non-cancer adverse effects. The multitude of adverse
effects from methylene chloride exposure can profoundly impact an
individual's quality of life, as discussed in Units II.A. (overview),
III.B.2. (description of the unreasonable risk), V.A. (discussion of
the health effects), and the Risk Evaluation. Some of the adverse
effects can be immediately experienced and can result in sudden death;
others can have impacts that are experienced for a shorter portion of
life but are nevertheless significant in nature. The incremental
improvements in health outcomes achieved by given reductions in
exposure cannot be quantified for non-cancer health effects associated
with methylene chloride 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 and death. 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
methylene chloride adverse outcomes and underestimates the benefits of
this proposed rule. As the proposed option is more restrictive and
therefore more protective than the primary alternative option, the
value of unquantified benefits may be higher for the proposed option.
This implies that the difference between the proposed and primary
alternative options is larger than it appears, in favor of the proposed
option, based on monetized benefits alone.
    The 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride identified two non-
cancer health effects in reviewed scientific literature relevant to
children, namely reproductive and developmental hazards. The 2020 Risk
Evaluation for Methylene Chloride summarizes human health hazards
identified in the review of scientific literature, including studies
investigating methylene chloride exposure and reproductive and
developmental effects as well as developmental neurotoxicity. Some
epidemiological studies identified effects that include reduced
fertility, spontaneous abortions, oral cleft defects, heart defects,
and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). For ASD, due to methodological
reasons including confounding by other chemicals and lack of temporal
specificity, the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride did not
advance this hazard to a dose response calculation. Additionally, EPA
did not carry reproductive/developmental effects forward for dose-
response, because epidemiological studies lacked controls for co-
exposures, animal studies observed effects mostly at higher methylene
chloride concentrations, and EPA identified no relevant mechanistic
information (Ref. 1). Nonetheless, additional health benefits may be
achieved by reducing the incidence of reproductive effects for workers
in commercial facilities or companies that use methylene chloride for
the commercial uses proposed to be regulated (Ref. 3).
    EPA was unable to estimate either the precise reduction in
individual risk of these reproductive and developmental effects from
reducing exposure to methylene chloride or the total number of cases
avoided can be estimated due to a lack of necessary data. Nevertheless,
reproductive hazards such as reduced fertility are important
considerations. These health effects are serious and can have impacts
throughout a lifetime; for example, infertility and fertility treatment
can have deleterious social and psychological consequences such as
mental distress (Ref. 59).
    The potential impacts of these effects include monetary impacts
from associated healthcare costs such as fertility treatments, as well
as complications from fertility treatments (e.g., higher multiple birth
rates), mental stress and emotional suffering, which cannot be
quantified or monetized but should not be ignored.
3. Cost Effectiveness of the Proposed Regulatory Action and of One or
More Primary Alternative Regulatory Actions Considered by the
Administrator
    Cost effectiveness is a method of comparing certain actions in
terms of the expense per item of interest or goal. A goal of this
proposed regulatory action is to prevent user deaths resulting from
exposure to methylene chloride. The proposed regulatory action would
cost, excluding closure-related costs, $9.9 million per potential
prevented death while the primary alternative regulatory action would
cost, excluding closure-related costs, $9.3 million per potential
prevented death (using the 3% discount rate). While the primary
alternative regulatory action would be lower in cost compared to the
proposed action, the difference is small and both options are
considered to have similar levels of cost effectiveness in decreasing
the potential for death from exposure to methylene chloride (Ref. 3).
See Chapter 9 of the Economic Analysis for greater detail on the cost
effectiveness of the proposed and primary regulatory actions.
4. Requests for Comment on Economic Analysis
    As described in the Economic Analysis, two conditions of use,
Processing: Recycling and Disposal, are responsible for the majority
(~60%) of the estimated total $13 million non-closure-related costs of
the rule. Given the prevalence of small entities in this sector, EPA
requests comment on what regulatory flexibilities, within the scope of
TSCA and mitigating unreasonable risk, may be afforded to these
conditions of use to reduce burden of complying with the WCPP.
    As described in the Economic Analysis and the Alternatives
Assessment, alternatives for methylene chloride as a processing aid
were not identified. EPA requests information on potential alternative
processing aids to methylene chloride as it relates to the proposed
regulatory option for this COU. The Economic Analysis includes a
qualitative discussion of uncertainty in cost estimates, including
uncertainties related to the cost of reformulating products that
currently contain methylene chloride, which

could be underestimated, or overestimated. EPA requests comment on
additional aspects of reformulation, including any costs that may be
associated with mitigating countervailing risks of alternative
formulations. Additionally, EPA requests comment on the degree to which
qualities or properties of methylene chloride, beyond those discussed
in the Economic Analysis and summarized in Unit VI.C. may make
methylene chloride a preferable choice when compared to alternatives
with similar costs and effectiveness. EPA also requests comment
regarding information to estimate transition costs to suitable
alternatives, including how often these costs might be incurred or what
the specific costs would be per-user or per-firm when they are
incurred. Similarly, EPA requests comment on how costs and economic
impacts from firm closures may be reduced with longer compliance
timeframes. Finally, EPA requests comment on how better to monetize the
benefits of each alternative in the Economic Analysis and whether EPA
should consider any other categories of benefits.

VII. TSCA Section 9 Analysis and Section 14 and 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 after submission of the report. As
discussed in this Unit, for this proposed rule, the Administrator does
not determine that unreasonable risk from methylene chloride 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.
    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 proposed rule, EPA has
coordinated with appropriate Federal executive departments and agencies
including OSHA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to
identify their respective authorities, jurisdictions, and existing laws
with regard to risk evaluation and risk management of methylene
chloride, which are summarized in this Unit.
    As discussed in more detail in Unit II.C., OSHA requires that
employers provide safe and healthful working conditions by setting and
enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education, and
assistance. OSHA has established health standards for methylene
chloride covering employers in General Industry, Shipyards, and
Construction (29 CFR 1910.1052(a)). 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 noted previously,
to set PELs for chemical exposure, OSHA must first establish that the
new standards are economically and technologically feasible (79 FR
61384, 61387, Oct. 10, 2014). When setting the 8-hour TWA PEL for
methylene chloride in 1997, OSHA concluded that ``at the 25 ppm PEL the
residual risk still greatly exceeds any significant risk threshold,''
but set the PEL at that level because it was the lowest level for which
OSHA could document technological and economic feasibility across the
affected industries at that time (62 FR 1494, 1575 January 10, 1997; 63
FR 50172, 50713, September 22, 1998). Thus, if OSHA were to initiate a
new action to lower its PEL, the difference in requirements between the
OSH Act and TSCA could result in the OSHA PEL still being set at a
higher level than the risk-based exposure limit for methylene chloride
determined by EPA to be necessary to address the unreasonable risk
identified under TSCA. However, EPA believes that the feasibility of
technology has advanced over the last 25 years such that for certain
conditions of use, based on monitoring data received during the risk
evaluation and feedback during SBAR, EPA's risk-based level of 2 ppm is
achievable, and indeed, is already being achieved. For most industrial
and commercial conditions of use, EPA has determined it is not feasible
to meet the ECEL and is thus proposing to prohibit those uses. In
addition, OSHA may set exposure limits for workers, but its authority
is limited to the workplace and does not extend to consumer uses of
hazardous chemicals, and thus OSHA cannot address the unreasonable risk
from methylene chloride under all of its conditions of use, which
include consumer uses. OSHA also does not have direct authority over
State and local employees, and it has no authority over the working
conditions of State and local employees in States that have no OSHA-
approved State Plan under 29 U.S.C. 667.
    CPSC, under authority provided to it by Congress in the CPSA,
protects the public from unreasonable risk of injury or death
associated with consumer products. Under the CPSA, CPSC has the
authority to regulate methylene chloride in consumer products, but not
in other sectors such as automobiles, some industrial and commercial
products, or aircraft for example. CPSC issued its methylene chloride
guidance under the FHSA, which does not include the same jurisdictional
exceptions as the CPSA. Recently, CPSC revised its labeling guidance
for methylene chloride under the FHSA to provide more immediate
guidance and clarity to consumers and industry regarding the acute
hazards associated with using methylene chloride-based paint removers
while they remain on the market (83 FR 12254, March 21, 2018). However,
while EPA believes that the updated CPSC labeling guidance, if properly
implemented by industry, would prevent some users from using methylene
chloride paint and coating removal products in an unsafe manner, for
the reasons described in the proposal, it is unlikely to address the
unreasonable risks to consumers under a 9(a) determination by the
Administrator. Furthermore, in a letter to EPA regarding paint and
coating removers, CPSC stated ``because TSCA gives EPA the ability to
reach both occupational and consumer uses, we recognize that EPA may
address risks associated with these chemicals in a more cohesive and
coordinated manner given that CPSC lacks authority to address
occupational hazards.'' (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0231-0154).
    Therefore, EPA maintains that TSCA is the appropriate vehicle to
deliver broad protections to consumers who may use formulations that
contain methylene chloride and whose use drives the unreasonable risk
of injury to health from methylene chloride. An action under TSCA also
would be able to address occupational unreasonable risk and would reach
entities that are not subject to OSHA. The timeframe and any exposure
reduction as a result of updating OSHA or CPSC regulations for
methylene chloride cannot be estimated, while TSCA imposes a much more
accelerated 2-year statutory timeframe for proposing and finalizing
requirements to address unreasonable risk. Regulating methylene
chloride's

unreasonable risk utilizing TSCA authority will also avoid the
situation where a patchwork of regulations amongst several Agencies
using multiple laws and differing legal standards would occur and is
therefore a more efficient and effective means of addressing the
unreasonable risk of methylene chloride.
    Moreover, 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 CPSA, FHSA, or, OSH Act., In a TSCA section 6
risk management rule, following an unreasonable risk determination, EPA
must apply risk management requirements to the extent necessary so that
the chemical no longer presents unreasonable risk and only consider
costs and benefits of the regulatory action to the extent practicable,
15 U.S.C. 2605(a) and (c)(2). By contrast, a consumer product safety
rule under the CPSA must include a finding that ``the benefits expected
from the rule bear a reasonable relationship to its costs.'' 15 U.S.C.
2058(f)(3)(E). Additionally, the 2016 amendments to TSCA reflect
Congressional intent to ``delete the paralyzing `least burdensome'
requirement,'' 162 Cong. Rec. S3517 (June 7, 2016), a reference to TSCA
section 6(a) as originally enacted in 1976, which required EPA to use
``the least burdensome requirements'' that protect ``adequately''
against unreasonable risk, 15 U.S.C. 2605(a) (1976). However, a
consumer product safety rule under the CPSA must impose ``the least
burdensome requirement which prevents or adequately reduces the risk of
injury for which the rule is being promulgated.'' 15 U.S.C.
2058(f)(3)(F) Analogous requirements, also at variance with recent
revisions to TSCA, affect the availability of action CPSC may take
under the FHSA relative to action EPA may take under TSCA. 15 U.S.C.
1262. But EPA's substantive burden under TSCA section 6(a) is to apply
requirements to the extent necessary so that the chemical substance no
longer presents the unreasonable risk that was determined in accordance
with TSCA section 6(b)(4)(A) without consideration of cost or other
non-risk factors.
    EPA therefore concludes that TSCA is the most appropriate
regulatory authority able to prevent or reduce unreasonable risk of
methylene chloride to a sufficient extent across the range of
conditions of use, exposures, and populations of concern. This
unreasonable risk can be addressed in a more coordinated, efficient,
and effective manner under TSCA than under different laws implemented
by different agencies. Further, there are key differences between the
finding requirements of TSCA and those of the OSH Act, CPSA, and FHSA.
For these reasons, in the Administrator's discretion, the Administrator
has analyzed this issue and does not determine that unreasonable risk
from methylene chloride 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 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 methylene
chloride exposure (Refs. 3, 7), regulations under those EPA statutes
largely regulate releases to the environment, rather than occupational
or consumer exposures. While these limits on releases to the
environment are protective in the context of their respective statutory
authorities, regulation under TSCA is also appropriate for occupational
and consumer exposures and in some cases can provide upstream
protections that would prevent the need for release restrictions
required by other EPA statutes (e.g., RCRA, CAA, CWA).
    The primary exposures and unreasonable risk to consumers,
bystanders, workers, and occupational non-users would be addressed by
EPA's proposed prohibitions and restrictions under TSCA section 6(a).
In contrast, the timeframe and any exposure reduction as a result of
updating regulations for methylene chloride under RCRA, CAA, or CWA
cannot be estimated, nor would they address the direct human exposure
to consumers, bystanders, workers, and occupational non-users from the
conditions of use evaluated in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene
Chloride. More specifically, none of EPA's other statutes (e.g., RCRA,
CAA, and CWA) can address exposures to workers and occupational non-
users related to the specific activities that result in occupational
exposures associated with disposal activities. EPA therefore concludes
that TSCA is the most appropriate regulatory authority able to prevent
or reduce risks of methylene chloride to a sufficient extent across the
range of conditions of use, exposures, and populations of concern.
    For these reasons, the Administrator does not determine that
unreasonable risk from methylene chloride under its conditions of use,
as evaluated in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride, 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 confidential
business information that may occur if this rule is finalized as
proposed. 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
confidential business information 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). If this rule is finalized as proposed, then pursuant to
TSCA section 14(b)(4)(B)(iii), the presumption against protection from
disclosure would apply only to information about the specific
conditions of use that this rule would prohibit or phase out.
Similarly, if this rule is finalized as proposed, the presumption
against protection from disclosure would not apply to certain uses that
this rule proposes to exempt from the ban or phase-out pursuant to TSCA
section 6(g). Per TSCA section 14(b)(4)(B)(i), the presumption against
protection would not apply to information about these conditions of
use. However, the presumption against protection would apply to
information about conditions of use that are not exempt from the ban or
phase-out, pursuant to TSCA section 6(g). Manufacturers or processors
seeking to protect such information would be able to submit a request
for nondisclosure as provided by TSCA sections 14(b)(4)(C) and
14(g)(1)(E). Any request for nondisclosure would need to be

submitted within 30 days after receipt of notice from EPA under TSCA
section 14(g)(2)(A). EPA anticipates providing such notice via the
Central Data Exchange (CDX).

D. TSCA Section 26 Considerations

    In accordance with TSCA section 26(h), EPA has used scientific
information, technical procedures, measures, methods, protocols,
methodologies, and models consistent with the best available science.
As in the case of the unreasonable risk determination, risk management
decisions for this proposed rule, as discussed in Unit III.B.3. and
Unit V., were based on a risk evaluation that was subject to public
comment and independent, expert peer review, and developed in a manner
consistent with the best available science and based on the weight of
the scientific evidence as required by TSCA sections 26(h) and (i) and
40 CFR 702.43 and 702.45. In particular, the ECEL and EPA STEL values
incorporated into the WCPP are derived from the analysis in the 2020
Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride; they likewise represent
decisions based on the best available science and the weight of the
scientific evidence (Ref. 11). The ECEL value of 2 ppm as an 8-hour TWA
is based on the chronic non-cancer human equivalent concentration (HEC)
for liver toxicity identified in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene
Chloride, which is the concentration at which an adult human would be
unlikely to suffer adverse effects if exposed for a working lifetime,
including susceptible subpopulations. The EPA STEL of 16 ppm as a 15-
minute TWA is derived from the non-cancer endpoint of central nervous
system depression resulting from acute exposures that was identified in
the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride.
    The extent to which the various information, procedures, measures,
methods, protocols, methodologies, or models, as applicable, used in
EPA's decisions 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 Agency's response to public comments, can be found at EPA's
risk evaluation docket at EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465.

VIII. Requests for Comment

    EPA is requesting public comment on all aspects of this proposal,
including the proposed and primary alternative regulatory actions and
all supporting analysis. Additionally, within this proposal, the Agency
is soliciting feedback from the public on specific issues throughout
this proposed rule. For ease of review, this section summarizes those
specific requests for comment.
    1. EPA is requesting public comment on the proposed regulatory
action and primary alternative regulatory action. (Unit III.A.).
    2. EPA is requesting comment on the proposed rule's TSCA section
6(g) exemptions' provisions and rationales. (Unit III.A.).
    3. Following Panel recommendations in the Panel report (Ref. 6) and
in response to SERs recommendations, EPA is requesting comment on the
following topics as outlined in the SBAR Panel Report:
    a. EPA requests comment on the extent to which a regulation under
TSCA section 6(a) could minimize requirements, such as testing and
monitoring protocols, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, which
may exceed those already required under OSHA's regulations for
methylene chloride.
    b. EPA requests comment on the feasibility of complying with and
monitoring for an Existing Chemical Exposure Limit (ECEL) of 2 ppm. In
particular, EPA requests comment on changes that may be needed to meet
such a standard, for example changes related to elimination of
methylene chloride or substitution, engineering controls, process
changes, and monitoring frequency.
    c. EPA requests comment on workplace monitoring for implementation
of an ECEL. EPA is soliciting information related to the frequency of
monitoring, initial monitoring, and periodic monitoring for workplace
exposure levels and how a lower exposure level from the OSHA PEL may
impact the frequency of periodic monitoring. Specifically, EPA requests
comment about when this may impact the frequency of periodic monitoring
where initial monitoring shows that employee exposures are above the
level that would initiate requirements for compliance with the ECEL or
an OSHA STEL.
    d. EPA requests comment on reasonable compliance timeframes for
small businesses, including timeframes for reformulation of products or
processes containing methylene chloride; implementation of new
engineering or administrative controls; changes to labels, SDSs, and
packaging; implementation of new PPE, including training and monitoring
practices; and supply chain management challenges. EPA also requests
comment on establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements
or timetables that take into account the limited resources available to
small entities.
    e. EPA requests comment on the feasibility and availability of
various prescriptive engineering controls to reduce exposure levels,
and information on any technologies or prescriptive control options
used in combination for addressing the unreasonable risk.
    f. EPA requests comment on providing an option of either complying
with the ECEL or implementing various administrative and engineering
controls, such as those employed in a closed-loop system, including
information on how a small business can demonstrate that such controls
eliminate the unreasonable risk for that use.
    g. EPA requests comment on establishing a certification program for
the use of methylene chloride by the furniture refinishing industry as
well as measures to address the unreasonable risk for commercial use of
methylene chloride in paint and coating removal for furniture
refinishing.
    h. EPA requests comment on means by which small businesses can
maintain access to methylene chloride for industrial and commercial
uses including establishing training, certification, and limited access
programs.
    i. EPA requests comment on TSCA section 6(g)(1) exemptions for any
MIL-SPEC programs where methylene chloride is specified or required for
a specific end-use application.
    j. EPA requests comment on temporary work practices to allow for
limited circumstances, including but not limited to equipment failure
or maintenance activity, where monitoring may not be feasible to comply
with an ECEL.
    k. EPA requests comment on the extent to which methylene chloride
may be used in the same facility for TSCA and non-TSCA uses.
    4. EPA requests comment on whether a definition should be
promulgated for each condition of use of methylene chloride and, if so,
whether the descriptions in Unit III.B.1.f. are consistent with the
conditions of use evaluated in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene
Chloride and whether they provide a sufficient level of detail such
that they would improve the clarity and readability of the regulation
if promulgated. (Unit III.B.1.f.).
    5. EPA is requesting comment on the proposed implementation
timeframe for the WCPP requirements; EPA proposes that they would take
effect 180 days

after publication of the final rule, at which point entities would be
required to conduct initial monitoring (as described in Unit IV.A.1.c.)
and develop an exposure control plan within 1 year of publication of
the final rule (Unit IV.A.1.a. and d.). (Unit IV.A.1.a.).
    6. EPA acknowledges that new monitoring methods or technologies may
have been developed since 1997 that would allow for greater accuracy,
and thus a smaller range for monitoring results, and EPA requests
comment on the exposure monitoring accuracy requirements. (Unit
IV.A.1.c.i.).
    7. EPA acknowledges that the 25% buffer for the 8-hour and 15-
minute TWA potentially could allow some exposures above the exposure
limits proposed here. EPA requests comment on these buffers' effects
and any alternatives to account for measurement variance or
uncertainty. (Unit IV.A.1.c.i.).
    8. EPA is soliciting comments regarding how owners and operators
could conduct initial exposure monitoring to ensure that it is
representative of all tasks likely to be conducted by potentially
exposed persons. (Unit IV.A.1.c.ii.).
    9. EPA is soliciting comments regarding the proposed requirement
for recurring 5-year initial exposure monitoring. (Unit IV.A.1.c.ii.).
    10. EPA requests comment on the timeframes for periodic monitoring
outlined in Unit IV.A.1.c.iii, particularly whether more frequent
monitoring may be possible or recommended. (Unit IV.A.1.c.iii.).
    11. EPA is requesting public comments on the proposed conditions
for periodic monitoring for methylene chloride as part of
implementation of the WCPP that differ from OSHA's existing monitoring
requirements under 29 CFR 1910.1052. (Unit IV.A.1.c.iv.).
    12. EPA requests comment on the degree to which additional guidance
related to use of gloves might be necessary. Additionally, EPA requests
comment on whether EPA should specifically incorporate dermal
protection into the exposure control plan and require consideration of
the hierarchy of controls for dermal exposures. (Unit IV.A.1.e.i.).
    13. EPA requests comment on the 15-day timeframe for notification
of potentially exposed persons of monitoring results and the
possibility for a shorter timeframe, such as 5 days. (Unit
IV.A.1.f.ii.).
    14. EPA requests comment relative to the ability of owners or
operators to conduct initial monitoring by 180 days after publication
of the final rule, and anticipated timelines for any procedural
adjustments needed to comply with the requirements outlined in Unit
IV.A.1. (Unit IV.A.1.g.).
    15. EPA requests comment on the impacts, if any, the proposed
prohibition described in Unit IV.A.2., or other aspects of this
proposal, may have on the production and availability of any food, food
additive, drug, cosmetic, device, or other substance excluded from the
definition of ``chemical substance'' under TSCA section 3(2)(B)(ii)
through (vi). (Unit IV.A.2.).
    16. EPA requests comment regarding the number of entities that
could potentially close as well as associated costs with a prohibition
of methylene chloride for certain industrial and commercial conditions
of use identified in Unit IV.A.2. (Unit IV.A.2.).
    17. EPA would like comment on whether it should consider a de
minimis level of methylene chloride in formulations for certain
continuing industrial and commercial uses to account for impurities
(e.g., 0.1% or 0.5%) when finalizing the prohibitions described in Unit
IV.A., and, if so, what level should be considered de minimis (Units
IV.A.2., and IV.A.3.).
    18. EPA is proposing that the prohibition of certain industrial and
commercial conditions of use described in Unit IV.A.2 would occur 90
days after the publication date of the final rule for manufacturers,
180 days for processors, 270 days for distributing to retailers, 360
days for all other distributors and retailers, and 450 days for
industrial and commercial uses. EPA requests comment on whether
additional time is needed, for example, for products affected by
proposed restrictions to clear the channels of trade. (Unit IV.A.2.).
    19. EPA requests comments on an appropriate, predictable process
that could expedite reconsideration for uses that Federal agencies or
their contractors become aware of after the final rule is issued using
the tools available under TSCA, aligning with the requirements of TSCA
section 6(g). EPA requests comment on the appropriate types of
information for use in evaluating this type of category of use, and
other considerations that should apply. (Unit IV.A.2).
    20. EPA would like comment on whether distributors that are not
retailers should be required to use tax IDs or other verification
methods prior to selling methylene chloride or products containing
methylene chloride to ensure consumers are not purchasing methylene
chloride or commercial or industrial products containing methylene
chloride. (Unit IV.A.3.).
    21. During litigation (see Lab. Council for Latin Am. Advancement
v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 12 F.4th 234 (2d Cir. 2021)) on a
previous rulemaking (84 FR 11420, March 27, 2019) petitioners argued
that EPA's definition of ``retailer'' was so broad as to cover all
commercial entities, creating supply chain issues for commercial users
seeking to attain and use the chemical for commercial activities. EPA
has not found this to be the case; small businesses that are non-retail
distributors exist and even participated as small entity
representatives consulted as part of the SBAR process for this
rulemaking. Nonetheless, EPA is soliciting comment on whether similar
supply chain issues for uses that are permitted under the WCPP are
anticipated. (Unit IV.A.3.).
    22. EPA is proposing that the prohibition of manufacturing,
processing, and distribution for consumer use described in Unit IV.A.3.
would occur 90 days after the publication date of the final rule for
manufacturers, 180 days for processers, 270 days for distributing to
retailers, and 360 days for all other distributors and retailers after
the publication date of the final rule. EPA requests comment on whether
additional time is needed, for example, for products affected by
proposed restrictions to clear the channels of trade. (Unit IV.A.3.).
    23. EPA requests comments on the appropriateness of identified
compliance timeframes for recordkeeping and downstream notification
requirements described in Unit IV.A.4. (Unit IV.A.4.b.).
    24. EPA recognizes that in some situations, certain facilities may
do both Federal contractor and commercial aviation work and may use
methylene chloride for paint and coating removal from safety-critical,
corrosion-sensitive components on military, Federal, or commercial
aviation. EPA requests comment on whether such co-located activities in
a facility should be subject to the WCPP, rather than the exemption
under TSCA section 6(g). Additionally, EPA seeks additional information
and requests comment on whether it is possible to distinguish between
commercial aviation facilities that would be able to meet the WCPP and
those that would not, including what criteria should be used for such
distinctions (e.g., size of facility, volume or type of work performed,
record of exposure reduction practices). EPA also requests comment on
the extent to which specific commercial aviation and aerospace uses or
types of facilities could fully comply with the WCPP to address
identified unreasonable risk. (Unit IV.A.5.a.i.).

    25. EPA requests comments on all aspects of the proposed TSCA
section 6(g) exemption from the proposed prohibition on use of
methylene chloride in commercial paint and coating removal for paint
and coating removal essential for critical infrastructure by
certificated commercial air carriers, commercial operators, or repair
stations, or by manufacturers of aircraft or aerospace vehicles and
hardware, noting that the proposed exemptions would be limited to the
safety-critical, corrosion-sensitive components on aircraft and
aerospace vehicles, including safety-critical components. (Unit
IV.A.5.a.ii.).
    26. EPA requests comment on this TSCA section 6(g) exemption for
continued emergency use of methylene chloride in the furtherance of
NASA's mission as described in this unit, and whether any additional
conditions of use should be included, in particular for any uses
qualified for space flight for which no technically or economically
feasible safer alternative is available. Additionally, EPA requests
comment on what would constitute sufficient justification of an
emergency. (Unit IV.A.5.b.ii.).
    27. EPA requests comments on all aspects of the preliminary
determination that a TSCA section 6(g) exemption is not warranted for
the use of methylene chloride in furniture refinishing, including
information on the availability of alternatives and the time needed to
implement alternatives. EPA emphasizes that the Agency is seeking input
regarding whether an exemption is needed and welcomes information
related to this condition of use during the public comment period.
(Unit IV.A.5.c.).
    28. Primary alternative regulatory action: EPA requests comment on
the ways in which methylene chloride may be used in the additional
conditions of use that would be subject to a WCPP under the primary
alternative regulatory action, and the degree to which users of
methylene chloride in these sectors could successfully implement the
WCPP, including requirements to meet an ECEL and EPA STEL, as described
in Unit IV.A.1., for the conditions of use listed for the primary
alternative regulatory action in Unit IV.B. EPA is also requesting
comment on whether to consider a regulatory alternative that would
subject more conditions of use to a WCPP, instead of prohibition, than
those currently contemplated in the primary alternative regulatory
action. EPA also requests monitoring data and detailed descriptions of
methylene chloride involving activities for these conditions of use to
determine whether these additional conditions of use could comply with
the WCPP such that risks are no longer unreasonable. (Unit IV.B.).
    29. Primary alternative regulatory action: EPA requests comment on
the degree to which entities using methylene chloride as a processing
aid may comply with the proposed WCPP requirements for methylene
chloride. EPA requests comment on the degree to which alternatives may
or may not be available for use of methylene chloride as a heat
transfer fluid and in other processing aid applications. (Unit IV.B.).
    30. Primary alternative regulatory action: EPA requests comment on
the ability of regulated entities engaged in the additional conditions
of use that would be subject to a WCPP under the primary alternative
regulatory action to conduct initial monitoring within 12 months,
anticipated timelines for any procedural adjustments needed to comply
with the requirements, and the extent to which this option could result
in additional exposure, compared the proposed regulatory option as
described in Unit IV.A. Overall, EPA requests comment on any advantages
or drawbacks for the timelines outlined in Unit IV.B., compared to the
timelines identified for the proposed regulatory action in Unit IV.A.
(Unit IV.B.)
    31. EPA requests comment and further information regarding the
Agency's expectations that Federal and Federal contractor facilities
would be subject to a higher level of oversight than non-Federal or
contractor facilities, and that existing or expected controls would be
successful in achieving the requirements of the WCPP. (Unit V.A.1.).
    32. EPA requests comment and further information regarding the
Agency's expectations that the facilities in which use of methylene
chloride as a bonding agent in specialty batteries is carried out are
industrialized and highly controlled, and that existing or expected
exposure reduction and workplace controls would be successful in
achieving the requirements of the WCPP. EPA also notes that while the
Agency is not aware of any similar use of methylene chloride as a
bonding element for batteries for commercial spaceflight or other use,
it requests comment and information on any such use. (Unit V.A.1.).
    33. EPA is requesting comment on what regulatory flexibilities may
be afforded to entities that will continue to recycle and dispose of
methylene chloride under the proposed regulation. (Unit V.A.1.).
    34. EPA is requesting comment on the inclusion of a certification,
training, and limited access program for any uses that would be subject
to a WCPP, in addition to the requirements outlined in Unit IV.A.1.
(Unit V.A.4.).
    35. For some conditions of use, EPA was unable to identify products
currently available for sale that contain methylene chloride. EPA is
soliciting comments on whether there are actually products in use or
available for sale relevant to these conditions of use that contain
methylene chloride at this time, so that EPA can ascertain whether
there are alternatives that benefit human health or the environment.
(Unit V.B.).
    36. EPA is requesting comment on the alternatives analysis as a
whole. (Unit V.B.).
    37. EPA considered the employment impacts of this proposed rule,
and found that the direction of change in employment is uncertain, but
EPA expects the short-term and longer-term employment effects to be
small. To that end, EPA is requesting public comment on short term and
longer-term employment effects from this proposal. (Unit VI.D.1.).
    38. As described in the Economic Analysis, two conditions of use,
Processing: Recycling and Disposal, are responsible for the majority
(~60%) of the estimated total $12 million in non-closure-related costs
of the rule. Given the prevalence of small entities in this sector, EPA
requests comment on what regulatory flexibilities, within the scope of
TSCA and mitigating unreasonable risk, may be afforded to these
conditions of use to reduce burden of complying with the WCPP. (Unit
VI.D.4.).
    39. As described in the Economic Analysis and the Alternatives
Analysis, alternatives for methylene chloride as a processing aid were
not identified. EPA requests information on potential alternative
processing aids to methylene chloride as it relates to the proposed
regulatory option for this COU. (Unit VI.D.4.).
    40. The Economic Analysis includes a qualitative discussion of
uncertainty in cost estimates, including uncertainties related to the
cost of reformulating products that currently contain methylene
chloride, which could be underestimated, or overestimated. EPA requests
comment on additional aspects of reformulation, including any costs
that may be associated with mitigating countervailing risks of
alternative formulations. (Unit VI.D.4.)
    41. EPA requests comment on the degree to which qualities or
properties of methylene chloride, beyond those discussed in the
Economic Analysis and summarized in Unit VI.C., may make methylene
chloride a preferable choice when compared to alternatives with

similar costs and effectiveness. (Unit VI.D.4.)
    42. EPA requests comment regarding information to estimate
transition costs to suitable alternatives, including how often these
costs might be incurred or what the specific costs would be per-user or
per-firm when they are incurred. (Unit VI.D.4.)
    43. EPA requests comment on how costs and economic impacts from
firm closures may be reduced with longer compliance timeframe. (Unit
VI.D.4.)
    44. EPA requests comment on how better to monetize the benefits of
each alternative in the Economic Analysis and whether EPA should
consider any other categories of benefits. (Unit VI.D.4.)

IX. 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 itself physically located in the
docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please
consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. EPA. Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride (MC). EPA Document
#740-R1-8010
2. EPA. Final Revised Unreasonable Risk Determination for Methylene
Chloride. November 2022.
3. EPA. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Regulation of Methylene
Chloride. RIN 2070-AK70. August 2022.
4. Public Workshop on Use of Methylene Chloride in Furniture
Refinishing in collaboration with the Small Business Administration
Office of Advocacy. September 12, 2017.
5. EPA Workshop on Furniture Refinishing and Methylene Chloride.
September 12, 2017.
6. EPA. Final Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on
EPA's Planned Proposed Rule Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Section 6(a) Methylene Chloride. October 28, 2021.
7. EPA. Regulatory Actions Pertaining to Methylene Chloride. January
24, 2023.
8. EPA. Access CDR Data: 2020 CDR Data. Last Updated on May 16,
2022.
9. NIOSH. Hierarchy of Controls. Accessed October 6, 2022
10. EPA. Methylene Chloride; Revision to Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) Risk Determination; Notice of Availability. Federal
Register (87 FR 67901, November 10, 2022
11. EPA. Existing Chemical Exposure Limit (ECEL) for Occupational
Use of Methylene Chloride. December 10, 2020.
12. OSHA. Standard Interpretations: 8-hr total weight average (TWA)
permissible exposure limit (PEL). Accessed October 6, 2022.
13. Putz et al. A comparative study of the effects of carbon
monoxide and methylene chloride on human performance. J Environ
Pathol Toxicol 2: 97-112. 1979.
14. NTP. NTP Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of
Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride) (CAS No. 75-09-2) in F344/N
Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Inhalation Studies). National Toxicology
Program technical report series vol. 306. 1986.
15. K.D. Nitschke; et al. Methylene Chloride: A 2-Year Inhalation
Toxicity and Oncogenicity Study in Rats. Fundam Appl Toxicol 11: 48-
59. 1988.
16. K.D. Nitschke; et al. Methylene Chloride: Two-Generation
Inhalation Reproductive Study in Rats. Fundam Appl Toxicol 11: 60-
67. 1988.
17. 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).
18. Executive Order 13985. Advancing Racial Equity and Support for
Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government. Federal
Register (86 FR 7009, January 25, 2021).
19. Executive Order 14008. Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and
Abroad. Federal Register (86 FR 7619, February 1, 2021).
20. EPA Press Release. EPA Announces Path Forward for TSCA Chemical
Risk Evaluations. June 2021.
21. SACC. Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals Meeting Minutes
and Final Report No. 2022-01. March 15-17, 2022.
22. EPA. Notes from Federalism Consultation on Forthcoming Proposed
Rulemakings for Methylene Chloride and 1-Bromopropane under TSCA
Section 6(a). Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. October 22,
2023.
23. EPA. Notes from Tribal Consultations on Forthcoming Proposed
Rulemakings for Methylene Chloride and 1-Bromopropane under TSCA
Section 6(a). Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. November
12-17, 2020.
24. Liz Hitchcock; Safer Chemicals Healthy Families. 11/20
Environmental Justice Consultations for 1-Bromopropane and Methylene
Chloride. November 20, 2020.
25. California Communities Against Toxics et al. Comment letter re
TSCA environmental justice consultations. November 13, 2020.
26. Swati Rayasam; Program on Reproductive Health and the
Environment (PRHE). PRHE follow up documents from EJ consultation
meeting. November 30, 2020.
27. EPA. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Methylene
Chloride; Regulation of Methylene Chloride under TSCA Sec.  6(a)
Proposed Rule; RIN 2070-AK70. November 22, 2022.
28. EPA. Methylene Chloride: Risk Evaluation and Risk Management
under TSCA Section 6. SBA Small Business Roundtable. September 11,
2020.
29. EPA. Stakeholder Meeting List for Proposed Rulemaking for
Methylene Chloride under TSCA Section 6(a). October 27, 2022.
30. EPA. 2021 Policy on Children's Health. October 5, 2021.
31. Steve Shestag; The Boeing Company. Re: Comments Supporting
Request for Additional Information on Methylene Chloride; Rulemaking
Under TSCA Section 6(a). June 24, 2022.
32. Anh Hoang; Kathleen Fagan; Dawn L. Cannon; et al. Assessment of
Methylene Chloride-Related Fatalities in the United States, 1980-
2018. JAMA Intern Med. 2021.
33. DHHS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NIOSH Chemical
Carcinogen Policy. Publication No. 2017-100. July 2017.
34. OSHA. Final Rule. Occupational Exposure to Methylene Chloride.
Federal Register (62 FR 1494, of January 10, 1997).
35. OSHA; NIOSH. Hazard Alert: Methylene Chloride Hazards for
Bathtub Refinishers. January 2013.
36. OSHA. 1910.1052 App A--Substance Safety Data Sheet and Technical
Guidelines for Methylene Chloride. Accessed October 6, 2022.
37. EPA. Final Rule. Methylene Chloride; Regulation of Paint and