[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 225 (Monday, November 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72967-72968]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29798]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9939-21-Region 10]

Proposed CERCLA Administrative Settlement; Bremerton Auto
Wrecking/Gorst Creek Landfill Site, Port Orchard, Washington

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement
for payment of response costs at the Bremerton Auto Wrecking/Gorst
Creek Landfill Site in Port Orchard, Washington with the United States
Department of the Navy and the ST Trust. The payment of response costs
will fund implementation of a response action currently estimated to
cost approximately $27,605,000. The proposed settlement will provide
the settling parties with a release of liability subject to certain
rights reserved by the Agency. The proposed settlement has been
reviewed by the Department of Justice.
    For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this
notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the
settlement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may
modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received
disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any
comments received will be available for public inspection at the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 offices, located at
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection
at the U.S. EPA Region 10 offices, located at 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, Washington 98101. A copy of the proposed settlement may be
obtained from Teresa Luna, Regional Hearing Clerk, U.S. EPA Region 10,
Mail Stop ORC-113, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington
98101;<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments should reference the Bremerton Auto
Wrecking/Gorst Creek Landfill in Port Orchard, Washington, EPA Docket
No. CERCLA-10-2016-0041 and should be addressed to Alexander Fidis,
Assistant Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA Region 10, Mail Stop ORC-113, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexander Fidis, Assistant Regional
Counsel, U.S. EPA Region 10, Mail Stop ORC-113, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101;<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), EPA is providing notice of a proposed
administrative settlement for payment of response costs at the
Bremerton Auto Wrecking/Gorst Creek Landfill Site in Port Orchard,
Washington with the following settlement parties: The United States
Department of the Navy and the ST Trust. The Bremerton Auto Wrecking/
Gorst Creek Landfill Site is a triangular shaped parcel of
approximately 5.7 acres located within a ravine through which Gorst
Creek flows. To create the landfill Gorst Creek was channeled through a
24-inch steel culvert placed at the bottom of the ravine. From 1968
until 1989, waste was disposed in the creek ravine on top of the
culvert. The weight of the waste has crushed the culvert in at least
two locations and diminished flow capacity. The diminished flow
capacity causes Gorst Creek to impound upstream of the landfill,
resulting in water seeping through and flowing over the surface of the
landfill. During periods of heavy precipitation erosion of the landfill
disperses waste material and debris into the downstream reaches of
Gorst Creek. The landfill is estimated to contain approximately 150,000
cubic yards of waste.
    The Agency is proposing to enter into an administrative agreement
with the settling parties to fund a response action to remove and
properly dispose of waste disposed in the creek ravine. Following waste
removal, the creek ravine will be restored to provide proper
hydrological and ecological functions, including restoration of fish
habitat and migration. The response action is expected to take
approximately one-year and will cost an estimated $27,605,000. The
proposed settlement will provide the settling parties with a release of
liability subject to certain rights reserved by the Agency.

    Dated: November 16, 2015.
Richard Albright,
Director, Office of Environmental Cleanup.
[FR Doc. 2015-29798 Filed 11-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 46)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10455-10457]
[DOCID:fr11mr09-2]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1319; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-071-AD;
Amendment 39-15836; AD 2009-05-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Aircraft Company Models 208 and
208B Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) Models 208 and 208B airplanes. This AD
requires you to modify the aileron carry-through cable attachment to
the aileron upper quadrant with parts of improved design. This AD
results from reports of a ``catch'' in the aileron control system when
the control yoke is turned. We are issuing this AD to prevent the cable
attach fitting on the aileron upper quadrant assembly from rotating and
possibly contacting or interfering with the aileron lower quadrant
assembly, which could result in limited roll control and reduced
handling capabilities.

DATES: This AD becomes effective on April 15, 2009.
    On April 15, 2009, the Director of the Federal Register approved
the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this
AD.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Cessna Aircraft Company, P.O. Box 7704, Wichita, Kansas 67277;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://
www.cessna.com.
    To view the AD docket, go to U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,

DC 20590, or on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. The docket
number is FAA-2008-1319; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-071-AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Johnson, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100,
Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On December 12, 2008, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that
would apply to certain Cessna Models 208 and 208B airplanes.This
proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) on December 18, 2008 (73 FR 76979). The NPRM proposed
to require you to modify the aileron carry-through cable attachment to
the aileron upper quadrant with parts of improved design.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the proposal or on the
determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that
air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed
except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these
minor corrections:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 794 airplanes in the U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to do the modification:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Total cost per     Total cost on
                 Labor cost                            Parts cost                airplane        U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 work-hours x $80 per hour = $160.........  Not applicable...............              $160           $127,040
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs and
replacements that will be required based on doing the modification. We
have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need these
repairs or replacements.
    We estimate the following costs to do possible damage repair to the
aileron lower quadrant assembly, if necessary:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Total cost per
           Labor cost                  Parts cost           airplane
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.5 work-hour x $80 per hour =     Not applicable.....               $40
 $40.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do possible removal and
installation of the aileron lower quadrant assembly, if necessary:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Total cost per
           Labor cost                  Parts cost           airplane
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 work-hours x $80 per hour =     Not applicable.....              $160
 $160.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do possible removal and
installation of the headliner, if necessary:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Total cost per
           Labor cost                  Parts cost           airplane
------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 work-hours x $80 per hour =    Not applicable.....            $1,280
 $1,280.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Warranty credit will be given for parts and labor to the extent
specified in the manufacturer's service bulletin.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this AD.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD (and
other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed
it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a
request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket
No. FAA-2008-1319; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-071-AD'' in your
request.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2009-05-12 Cessna Aircraft Company: Amendment 39-15836; Docket No.
FAA-2008-1319; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-071-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective on April 15, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the following airplane models and serial
numbers that are certificated in any category:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Model                             Serial Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
208.........................  20800001 through 20800415 and 20800417
                               through 20800419.
208B........................  208B0001 through 208B1081, 208B1083
                               through 208B1215, 208B1217 through
                               208B1257, 208B1259 through 208B1305,
                               208B1307, and 208B1309 through 208B1310.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of a ``catch'' in the aileron
control system when the control yoke is turned. We are issuing this
AD to prevent the cable attach fitting on the aileron upper quadrant
assembly from rotating and possibly contacting or interfering with
the aileron lower quadrant assembly, which could result in limited
roll control and reduced handling capabilities.

Compliance

    (e) To address this problem, you must do the following, unless
already done:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Actions                  Compliance          Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modify the aileron carry-through  Within the next     Follow the
 cable attachment to the aileron   100 hours time-in-  Accomplishment
 upper quadrant with parts of      service after       Instructions in
 improved design.                  April 15, 2009      Cessna Caravan
                                   (the effective      Service Bulletin
                                   date of this AD)    CAB08-6, dated
                                   or within the       October 27, 2008.
                                   next 6 months
                                   after April 15,
                                   2009 (the
                                   effective date of
                                   this AD),
                                   whichever occurs
                                   first.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (f) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
ATTN: Ann Johnson, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Wichita Aircraft
Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas
67209; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane
to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal
inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO),
or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (g) You must use Cessna Caravan Service Bulletin CAB08-6, dated
October 27, 2008, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the
AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Cessna Aircraft Company, P.O. Box 7704, Wichita, Kansas 67277;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://
www.cessna.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD at the FAA, Central Region,
Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106. For information on the availability of this material at the
Central Region, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 27, 2009.
John Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-4828 Filed 3-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 74)]
[Notices]
[Page 20622-20624]
[DOCID:fr16ap08-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

April 10, 2008.
    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section
3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. No. 94-409), 5
U.S.C. 552b:

Agency Holding Meeting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Date and Time: April 17, 2008, 10 a.m.

Place: Room 2C, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

Status: Open.

Matters To Be Considered: Agenda.

    Note --Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further
notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Telephone
(202) 502-8400. For a recorded message listing items, struck from or
added to the meeting, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It
does

not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on the
agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link,
or may be examined in the Commission's Public Reference Room.

                                                 932th--Meeting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Item No.                     Docket No.                                    Company
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 ADMINISTRATIVE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-1.....................  AD02-1-000......................  Agency Administrative Matters.
A-2.....................  AD02-7-000......................  Customer Matters, Reliability, Security and Market
                                                             Operations.
A-3.....................  AD06-3-000......................  Energy Market Update.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    ELECTRIC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-1.....................  RM04-7-001......................  Market-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric
                                                             Energy, Capacity and Ancillary Services by Public
                                                             Utilities.
E-2.....................  RM08-7-000......................  Modification of Interchange and Transmission Loading
                                                             Relief Reliability Standards; and Electric
                                                             Reliability Organization Interpretation of Specific
                                                             Requirements of Four Reliability Standards.
E-3.....................  EL08-24-000.....................  Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
E-4.....................  EL08-23-000.....................  PPL Electric Utilities Corporation Public Service
                                                             Electric and Gas Company.
E-5.....................  OMITTED.........................
E-6.....................  ER08-404-000....................  Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
                                                             Inc.
E-7.....................  EL05-19-002.....................  Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc., Lyntegar
                                                             Electric Cooperative, Inc., Farmers' Electric
                                                             Cooperative, Inc., Lea County Electric Cooperative,
                                                             Inc., Central Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. and
                                                             Roosevelt County Electric Cooperative, Inc. v.
                                                             Southwestern Public Service Company.
                          ER05-168-001....................  Southwestern Public Service Company.
E-8.....................  EL05-19-003.....................  Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc., Lyntegar
                                                             Electric Cooperative, Inc., Farmers' Electric
                                                             Cooperative, Inc., Lea County Electric Cooperative,
                                                             Inc., Central Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. and
                                                             Roosevelt County Electric Cooperative, Inc. v.
                                                             Southwestern Public Service Company.
                          ER05-168-002, ER06-274-008......  Southwestern Public Service Company.
E-9.....................  RM05-5-005......................  Standards for Business Practices and Communication
                                                             Protocols for Public Utilities.
E-10....................  RR07-16-002.....................  North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
E-11....................  ER08-389-000, ER08-389-001......  San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
E-12....................  EC08-40-000.....................  Puget Energy, Inc., Puget Holdings LLC, Macquarie
                                                             Infrastructure Partners, Macquarie Capital Group
                                                             Limited, Canada Pension Plan Investment Board,
                                                             British Columbia Investment Management Corporation
                                                             Alberta Investment Management and Their Public
                                                             Utility Affiliates.
E-13....................  ER08-340-000....................  Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
E-14....................  ER96-1551-019...................  Public Service Company of New Mexico.
                          ER01-615-015, ER07-965-001......  EnergyCo Marketing and Trading, LLC.
E-15....................  ER06-1474-002, ER06-1474-004....  PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
E-16....................  EL08-37-000.....................  Integrys Energy Group, Inc.
E-17....................  OMITTED.........................
E-18....................  ER07-1096-002...................  Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
E-19....................  ER07-539-003, ER07-539-004, ER07- Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
                           540-003, ER07-540-004.
E-20....................  OMITTED.........................
E-21....................  OMITTED.........................
E-22....................  ER05-715-003....................  ISO New England, Inc.
E-23....................  ER05-1410-000, EL05-148-000.....  PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
E-24....................  AD08-7-000......................  Annual Charges Assessments for Public Utilities.
E-25....................  OA07-34-000.....................  Sierra Pacific Resources Operating Companies.
E-26....................  ER05-1056-002...................  Chehalis Power Generating, L.P.
E-27....................  OA07-39-000.....................  Xcel Energy Operating Companies.
E-28....................  ER07-1141-001, ER07-1144-002....  International Transmission Company, Michigan
                                                             Electric Transmission Company, LLC, American
                                                             Transmission Company, LLC Midwest Independent
                                                             Transmission System Operator, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  MISCELLANEOUS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M-1.....................  PL08-3-000......................  Enforcement of Statutes, Regulations and Orders.
M-2.....................  PL08-2-000......................  Obtaining Guidance on Regulatory Requirements.
M-3.....................  RM08-8-000......................  Ex Parte Contacts and Separation of Functions.
M-4.....................  AD08-6-000......................  Review of Notices of Penalty for Violations of
                                                             Reliability Standards.
                          RM05-30-002.....................  Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric
                                                             Reliability Organization; and Procedures for the
                                                             Establishment, Approval, and Enforcement of
                                                             Electric Reliability Standards.
M-5.....................  RM01-5-000......................  Electronic Tariff Filings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       GAS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-1.....................  PL07-2-000......................  Composition of Proxy Groups for Determining Gas and
                                                             Oil Pipeline Return on Equity.

G-2.....................  PR05-17-000, PR05-17-002, PR05-   Duke Energy Guadalupe Pipeline, Inc.
                           17-004.
G-3.....................  RP03-221-011....................  High Island Offshore System, L.L.C.
G-4.....................  RP04-274-006, RP04-274-007......  Kern River Gas Transmission Company.
G-5.....................  RP01-245-023, RP06-569-002, RP07- Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation.
                           338-001.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      HYDRO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-1.....................  P-2114-116......................  Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County,
                                                             Washington.
H-2.....................  P-12020-016.....................  Marseilles Hydro Power, LLC.
H-3.....................  P-2602-016......................  Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  CERTIFICATES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-1.....................  CP01-69-009.....................  Petal Gas Storage Company, L.L.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

    A free webcast of this event is available through http://
www.ferc.gov. Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this
event can do so by navigating to http://www.ferc.gov's Calendar of
Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain
a link to its Webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical
support for the free Webcasts. It also offers access to this event via
television in the DC area and via phone bridge for a fee. If you have
any questions, visit http://www.CapitolConnection.org or contact
Danelle Springer or David Reininger at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a
press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of
the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This
statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings
that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at
Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol
Connection service.

[FR Doc. E8-8140 Filed 4-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMORANDUM FOR THE DOCKET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:	Data and Results for the monetized Health Benefits Analysis completed using BenMAP-CE as part of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the MATS RTR Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 	March 14, 2023
EPA has placed into docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0794, files used to estimate the benefits to human health of reducing concentrations of ozone and PM2.5 as part of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the MATS RTR Proposal. The assessment was completed using BenMAP-CE version <IP_ADDRESS>.  Health incidence and valuation estimates can be reproduced either by performing individual parameterized runs for a given air quality scenario and year using the BenMAP graphical user interface (GUI) or performing batch runs using scripts.
BenMAP runs were batch processed using command line and a written script. The full set of estimates can be reproduced using the automation script files available in the docket materials, which can be run from the command prompt using the input air quality surface files. See Appendix L of the BenMAP manual for additional details on running BenMAP through the command line and the Estimating PM2.5- and Ozone-Attributable Health Benefits Technical Support Document (TSD) for additional information of selection of health endpoints and concentration-response relationships.
Standard BenMAP folders are included in the docket materials, described below. Script files can be reviewed and modified in a text editor such as Notepad++, which includes comments preceded by "#". Four script files were used for this analysis.:
 ozone_MATS_RTR_proposal_docket.ctlx produces the national level ozone-related health benefits for the scenario years of 2028, 2030 and 2025
 PM_MATS_RTR_proposal_docket.ctlx produces the national level PM-related health benefits for the scenario years of 2028, 2030 and 2025
 ozone_MATS_RTR_proposal_annual_docket.ctlx produces the national ozone-related health benefits valuation results for each year from 2028-2037
 PM_MATS_RTR_proposal_annual_docket.ctlx produces the national PM-related health benefits valuation results for each year from 2028-2037

The script file can be reviewed and modified in a text editor such as Notepad++, which includes comments preceded by "#". Prior to running the script from the command line, a number of subdirectory pointers within the automation code must be set to where the user has placed the input files and results directories for outputs. Imbedded notes within the automation code highlight the pointers which must be updated, which appear near the beginning of the script file. Once pointers have been updated and the required input files have been placed in the appropriate subdirectories (see below), then the script run is initiated with the below commands from the command prompt:
 Direct to the location where the BenMAP program is located (e.g., "cd\program files (x86)\BenMAP-CE") and hit Enter
 Direct the command line prompt to the script file (e.g., start/wait "" "C:\program files (x86)\benmap-ce\benmap.exe" "C:\[INSERT FILE LOCATION}\ ozone_MATS_RTR_proposal_docket.ctlx ")

In order to run the automated script, make sure that the following subdirectories have been created, include the necessary input files, and the script has been edited to their location:

 "Inputs" Containing the air quality grid .csv (or .xlsx) files
 "AQG" Will be the location of output .aqgx air quality gridded surface files
 "CFG" Containing the BenMAP configuration file used as the basis for generating risk estimates, e.g., Ozone_2028.cfgx
 "APV" Contains BenMAP aggregation and pooling file which allows .apvx and .cfgrx reports containing the risk estimates to be generated, e.g., Ozone_2028.apvx
 "Reports" Will be the location of exposure output .csv files. Please add this folder to your intended file location.
 "Results" Will be the location of exposure output .cfgrx and .apvrx files. Please add this folder to your intended file location.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 5, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39824-39830]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14163]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0742 FRL-9946-01-OCSPP]

Methylene Chloride; Draft Revision to Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) Risk Determination; Notice of Availability and Request for
Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the
availability of and seeking public comment on a draft revision to the
risk determination for the methylene chloride risk evaluation issued
under TSCA. The draft revision to the methylene chloride risk
determination reflects the announced policy changes to ensure the
public is protected from unreasonable risks from chemicals in a way
that is supported by science and the law. In this draft revision to the
risk determination EPA finds that methylene chloride, as a whole
chemical substance, presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health
when evaluated under its conditions of use. In addition, this revised
risk determination does not reflect an assumption that all workers
always appropriately wear personal protective equipment (PPE). EPA
understands that there could be occupational safety protections in
place at workplace locations; however, not assuming use of PPE reflects
EPA's recognition that unreasonable risk may exist for subpopulations
of workers that may be highly exposed because they are not covered by
OSHA standards, or their employers are out of compliance with OSHA
standards, or because many of OSHA's chemical-specific permissible
exposure limits largely adopted in the 1970's are described by OSHA as
being ``outdated and inadequate for ensuring protection of worker
health,'' or because the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) alone
may be inadequate for ensuring protection of worker health. This
revision, when final, would supersede the condition of use-specific no
unreasonable risk determinations in the June 2020 methylene chloride
risk evaluation (and withdraw the associated order) and would make a
revised determination of unreasonable risk for methylene chloride as a
whole chemical substance.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 4, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0742, using the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Additional
instructions on commenting and visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Ingrid Feustel, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (7404M),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to those involved in the manufacture,
processing, distribution, use, disposal, and/or the assessment of risks
involving chemical substances and mixtures. You may be potentially
affected by this action if you manufacture (defined under TSCA to
include import), process (including recycling), distribute in commerce,
use or dispose of methylene chloride, including methylene chloride in
products. Since other entities may also be interested in this draft
revision to the risk determination, EPA has not attempted to describe
all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

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

    TSCA section 6, 15 U.S.C. 2605, requires EPA to conduct risk
evaluations to determine whether a chemical substance presents an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without
consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an
unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation
(PESS) identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by the
Administrator, under the conditions of use. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(A).
TSCA sections 6(b)(4)(A) through (H) enumerate the deadlines and
minimum requirements applicable to this process, including provisions
that provide instruction on chemical substances that must undergo
evaluation, the minimum components of a TSCA risk evaluation, and the
timelines for public comment and completion of the risk evaluation.
TSCA also requires that EPA operate in a manner that is consistent with
the best available science, make decisions based on the weight of the
scientific evidence, and consider reasonably available information. 15
U.S.C. 2625(h), (i), and (k).
    The statute identifies the minimum components for all chemical
substance risk evaluations. For each risk evaluation, EPA must publish
a document that outlines the scope of the risk evaluation to be
conducted, which includes the hazards, exposures, conditions of use,
and the potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations that EPA
expects to consider. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(D). The statute further
provides that each risk evaluation must also: (1) integrate and assess
available information on hazards and exposures for the conditions of
use of the chemical substance, including information that is relevant
to specific risks of injury to health or the environment and
information on relevant potentially exposed or susceptible
subpopulations; (2) describe whether aggregate or sentinel exposures
were considered and the basis for that consideration; (3) take into
account, where relevant, the likely duration, intensity, frequency, and
number of exposures under the conditions of use; and (4) describe the
weight of the scientific evidence for the identified hazards and
exposures. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(i) through (ii) and (iv) through
(v). Each risk evaluation must not consider costs or other non-risk
factors. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(iii).
    EPA has inherent authority to reconsider previous decisions and to
revise, replace, or repeal a decision to the extent permitted by law
and supported by reasoned explanation. FCC v. Fox Television Stations,
Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009); see also Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v.
State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983). Further, on
July 14, 2021, the Ninth Circuit granted EPA's motion for voluntary
remand without vacatur, so that EPA may conduct reconsideration
proceedings on the methylene chloride Risk Evaluation--particularly to
reconsider the no unreasonable risk determinations made within.
Neighbors for Environmental Justice et al., v. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency et al., (9th Cir. No. 20-72091).

C. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is announcing the availability of and seeking public comment on
a draft revision to the risk determination for the risk evaluation for
methylene chloride under TSCA, which was initially published in June
2020 (Ref. 1). EPA is specifically seeking public comment on the draft
revision to the risk determination for the risk evaluation where the
Agency intends to determine that methylene chloride, as a whole
chemical, presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health when
evaluated under its conditions of use. The Agency's risk determination
for methylene chloride is better characterized as a whole chemical risk
determination rather than condition-of-use-specific risk
determinations. Accordingly, EPA would revise and replace section 5 of
the risk evaluation for methylene chloride where the findings of
unreasonable risk to health were previously made for the individual
conditions of use evaluated. EPA would also withdraw the order issued
previously for six conditions of use previously determined not to
present unreasonable risk.
    This revision would be consistent with EPA's plans to revise
specific aspects of the first ten TSCA chemical risk evaluations in
order to ensure that the risk evaluations better align with TSCA's
objective of protecting health and the environment. Under the draft
revision, removing the assumption that workers always appropriately
wear PPE (see Unit II.C.) in making the whole chemical risk
determination for methylene chloride would mean that: five additional
conditions of use in addition to the original 47 would drive the
unreasonable risk determination for methylene chloride; inhalation
risks to workers in addition to the previously identified inhalation
risk to occupational non-users (ONUs) would drive the unreasonable risk
in three conditions of use; and additional risk to workers for acute
and chronic non-cancer dermal exposures and for cancer from inhalation
exposures would also drive the unreasonable risk in many of those 52
conditions of use (where previously those conditions of use were
identified as presenting unreasonable risk only for chronic non-cancer
effects and/or for acute effects) (Ref. 2 at pg. 319 provides the risk
estimates, and Table 5-1 in the risk determination (Ref. 1) provides
information related to the unreasonable risk). Overall, 52 conditions
of use out of 53EPA evaluated would drive the methylene chloride whole
chemical unreasonable risk determination due to risks identified for
human health. The full list of the conditions of use evaluated for the
methylene chloride TSCA risk evaluation is in Tables 4-2 and 4-3 of the
risk evaluation (Ref. 2).

D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed CBI. In addition to one complete
version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy
of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so
marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set
forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

II. Background

A. Why is EPA re-issuing the risk determination for the methylene
chloride risk evaluation conducted under TSCA?

    In 2016, as directed by TSCA section 6(b)(2)(A), EPA chose the
first ten chemical substances to undergo risk evaluations under the
amended TSCA. These chemical substances are asbestos, 1-bromopropane,
carbon tetrachloride, C.I. Pigment Violet 29, HBCD, 1,4-dioxane,
methylene chloride, n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), perchloroethylene (PCE),
and trichloroethylene (TCE).
    From June 2020 to January 2021, EPA published risk evaluations on
the first ten chemical substances, including for methylene chloride in
June 2020. The risk evaluations included individual unreasonable risk
determinations for each condition of use evaluated. EPA issued
determinations that particular conditions of use did not present an
unreasonable risk by order under TSCA section 6(i)(1).
    In accordance with Executive Order 13990 (Ref. 3) and other
Administration priorities (Refs. 4, 5, and 6), EPA reviewed the risk
evaluations for the first ten chemical substances, including methylene
chloride, to ensure that they meet the requirements of TSCA, including
conducting decision making in a manner that is consistent with the best
available science.
    As a result of this review, EPA announced plans to revise specific
aspects of the first ten risk evaluations in order to ensure that the
risk evaluations appropriately identify unreasonable risks and thereby
help ensure the protection of human health and the environment (Ref.
7). To that end, EPA is reconsidering two key aspects of the risk
determinations for methylene chloride published in June 2020. First,
following a review of specific aspects of the June 2020 methylene
chloride risk evaluation, EPA proposes that making an unreasonable risk
determination for HBCD as a whole chemical substance, rather than
making unreasonable risk determinations separately on each individual
condition of use evaluated in the risk evaluation, is the most
appropriate approach to HBCD under the statute and implementing
regulations. Second, EPA proposes that the risk determination should be
explicit that it does not rely on assumptions regarding the use of
personal protective equipment (PPE) in making the unreasonable risk
determination under TSCA section 6, even though some facilities might
be using PPE as one means to reduce workers exposures; rather, the use
of PPE would be considered during risk management as appropriate.
    Separately, EPA is conducting a screening approach to assess
potential risks from the air and water pathways for several of the
first 10 chemicals, including this chemical. For methylene chloride the
exposure pathways that were or could be regulated under another EPA
administered statute were excluded from the final risk evaluation (see
section 1.4.2 of the June 2020 methylene chloride risk evaluation).
This resulted in the surface water, drinking water, ambient air, and
sediment pathways for methylene chloride not being assessed for human
health exposures or the general population. The goal of the recently-
developed screening approach is to remedy this exclusion and to
identify if there are risks that were unaccounted for in the methylene
chloride risk evaluation. While this analysis is underway, EPA is not
incorporating the screening-level approach into this draft revised
unreasonable risk determination. If the results suggest there is
additional risk, EPA will determine if the risk management approaches
being contemplated for methylene chloride will protect against these
risks or if the risk evaluation will need to be formally supplemented
or revised.
    This action pertains only to the risk determination for methylene
chloride. While EPA intends to consider and may take additional similar
actions on other of the first ten chemicals, EPA is taking a chemical-
specific approach to reviewing the risk evaluations and is
incorporating new policy direction in a surgical manner, while being
mindful of the Congressional direction on the need to complete risk
evaluations and move toward any associated risk management activities
in accordance with statutory deadlines.

B. What is a whole chemical view of the unreasonable risk determination
for the methylene chloride risk evaluation?

    TSCA section 6 repeatedly refers to determining whether a chemical
substance presents unreasonable risk under its conditions of use.
Stakeholders have disagreed over whether a chemical substance should
receive: A single determination that is comprehensive for the chemical
substance after considering the conditions of use, referred to as a
whole-chemical determination; or multiple determinations, each of which
is specific to a condition of use, referred to as condition-of-use-
specific determinations.
    The proposed risk evaluation procedural rule was premised on the
whole chemical approach to making an unreasonable risk determination
(Ref. 8). In that proposed rule, EPA acknowledged a lack of specificity
in statutory text that might lead to different views about whether the
statute compelled EPA's risk evaluations to address all conditions of
use of a chemical substance or whether EPA had discretion to evaluate
some subset of conditions of use (i.e., to scope out some
manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal
activities), but also stated that ``EPA believes the word `the' (in
TSCA section 6(b)(4)(A)) is best interpreted as calling for evaluation
that considers all conditions of use.'' (Ref. 8).
    The proposed rule, however, was unambiguous on the point that an
unreasonable risk determination would be for the chemical substance as
a whole, even if based on a subset of uses. (See Ref. 8 at pgs. 7565-
66: ``TSCA section 6(b)(4)(A) specifies that a risk evaluation must
determine whether `a chemical substance' presents an unreasonable risk
of injury to health or the environment `under the conditions of use.'
The evaluation is on the chemical substance--not individual conditions
of use--and it must be based on `the conditions of use.' In this
context, EPA believes the word `the' is best interpreted as calling for
evaluation that considers all conditions of use.''). In the proposed
regulatory text, EPA proposed to determine whether the chemical
substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environment under the conditions of use (Ref. 8 at pg. 7480).
    The final risk evaluation procedural rule (Ref. 9) stated: ``As
part of the risk evaluation, EPA will determine whether the chemical
substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environment under each condition of uses [sic] within the scope of the
risk evaluation, either in a single decision document or in multiple
decision documents.'' (See also 40 CFR 702.47). For the unreasonable
risk determinations in the first ten risk evaluations, EPA applied this
provision by making individual risk determinations for each condition
of use evaluated in each risk evaluation (i.e., the condition-of-use-
specific approach to risk determinations). That approach was based on
one particular passage in the preamble to the final risk evaluation
procedural rule, which stated that EPA will make individual risk

determinations for all conditions of use identified in the scope. (Ref.
9 at pg. 33744).
    In contrast to this portion of the preamble of the final risk
evaluation procedural rule, the regulatory text itself and other
statements in the preamble reference a risk determination for the
chemical substance under its conditions of use, rather than separate
risk determinations for each of the conditions of use of a chemical
substance. In the key regulatory provision excerpted earlier from 40
CFR 702.47, the text explains that ``[a]s part of the risk evaluation,
EPA will determine whether the chemical substance presents an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under each
condition of uses [sic] within the scope of the risk evaluation, either
in a single decision document or in multiple decision documents'' (Ref.
9, emphasis added). Other language reiterates this perspective. For
example, 40 CFR 702.31(a) states that the purpose of the rule is to
establish the EPA process for conducting a risk evaluation to determine
whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment as required under TSCA section 6(b)(4)(B).
Likewise, there are recurring references to whether the chemical
substance presents an unreasonable risk in 40 CFR 702.41(a). See, for
example, 40 CFR 702.41(a)(6), which explains that the extent to which
EPA will refine its evaluations for one or more condition of use in any
risk evaluation will vary as necessary to determine whether a chemical
substance presents an unreasonable risk. Notwithstanding the one
preambular statement about condition-of-use-specific risk
determinations, the preamble to the final rule also contains support
for a risk determination on the chemical substance as a whole. In
discussing the identification of the conditions of use of a chemical
substance, the preamble notes that this task inevitably involves the
exercise of discretion on EPA's part, and ``as EPA interprets the
statute, the Agency is to exercise that discretion consistent with the
objective of conducting a technically sound, manageable evaluation to
determine whether a chemical substance--not just individual uses or
activities--presents an unreasonable risk.'' (Ref. 8 at pg. 33729).
    Therefore, notwithstanding EPA's choice to issue condition-of-use-
specific risk determinations to date, EPA interprets its risk
evaluation regulation to also allow the Agency to issue whole-chemical
risk determinations. Either approach is permissible under the
regulation. A panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also
recognized the ambiguity of the regulation on this point. Safer
Chemicals v. EPA, 943 F.3d 397, 413 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding a
challenge about ``use-by-use risk evaluations [was] not justiciable
because it is not clear, due to the ambiguous text of the Risk
Evaluation Rule, whether the Agency will actually conduct risk
evaluations in the manner Petitioners fear'').
    EPA plans to consider the appropriate approach for each chemical
substance risk evaluation on a case-by-case basis, taking into account
considerations relevant to the specific chemical substance in light of
the Agency's obligations under TSCA. The Agency expects that this case-
by-case approach will provide greater flexibility in the Agency's
ability to evaluate and manage unreasonable risk from individual
chemical substances. EPA believes this is a reasonable approach under
TSCA and the Agency's implementing regulations.
    With regard to the specific circumstances of methylene chloride, as
further explained in this notice, EPA proposes that a whole chemical
approach is appropriate for methylene chloride in order to protect
health and the environment. The whole chemical approach is appropriate
for methylene chloride because there are benchmark exceedances for
multiple conditions of use (spanning across most aspects of the
chemical lifecycle--from manufacturing (including import), processing,
commercial and industrial use, consumer use, and disposal) for health
of workers, occupational non-users, consumers, and bystanders, and the
irreversible health effects (specifically cancer, coma, hypoxia, and
death) associated with methylene chloride exposures. Because these
chemical-specific properties cut across the conditions of use within
the scope of the risk evaluation, a substantial amount of the
conditions of use drive the unreasonable risk; therefore, it is
appropriate for the Agency to make a determination for methylene
chloride that the whole chemical presents an unreasonable risk.
    As explained later in this document, the revisions to the
unreasonable risk determination (section 5 of the risk evaluation)
would be based on the existing risk characterization section of the
risk evaluation (section 4 of the risk evaluation) and would not
involve additional technical or scientific analysis. The discussion of
the issues presented in this Federal Register notice and in the
accompanying draft revision to the risk determination would supersede
any conflicting statements in the prior methylene chloride risk
evaluation and the response to comments document (Ref. 10). With
respect to the methylene chloride risk evaluation, EPA intends to
change the risk determination to a whole chemical approach without
considering the use of PPE and does not intend to amend, nor does a
whole chemical approach require amending, the underlying scientific
analysis of the risk evaluation in the risk characterization section of
the risk evaluation. EPA views the peer reviewed hazard and exposure
assessments and associated risk characterization as robust and
upholding the standards of best available science and weight of the
scientific evidence per TSCA sections 26(h) and (i).
    EPA is announcing the availability of and seeking public comment on
the draft superseding unreasonable risk determination for methylene
chloride, including a description of the risks driving the unreasonable
risk determination under the conditions of use for the chemical
substance as a whole. For purposes of TSCA section 6(i), EPA is making
a draft risk determination on methylene chloride as a whole chemical.
Under the proposed revised approach, the ``whole chemical risk
determination for methylene chloride would supersede the no
unreasonable risk determinations for methylene chloride that were
premised on a condition-of-use-specific approach to determining
unreasonable risk. When finalized, EPA's revised unreasonable risk
determination would also contain an order withdrawing the TSCA section
6(i)(1) order in section 5.4.1 of the June 2020 methylene chloride risk
evaluation. The draft revision to the risk determination would clarify
that EPA does not rely on the assumed use of PPE when making the risk
determination for the whole substance. EPA is requesting comment on
this potential change.

C. What revision does EPA propose about the use of PPE for the
methylene chloride risk evaluation?

    In the risk evaluations for the first ten chemical substances, as
part of the unreasonable risk determination, EPA assumed for several
conditions of use that all workers were provided and always used PPE in
a manner that achieves the stated assigned protection factor (APF) for
respiratory protection or used impervious gloves for dermal protection.
In support of this assumption, EPA considered reasonably available
information such as public comments indicating that some employers,
particularly in the industrial

setting, provide PPE to their employees and follow established worker
protection standards (e.g., Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) requirements for protection of workers,
specifically the existing OSHA standard for methylene chloride at 29
CFR 1910.1052).
    For the June 2020 methylene chloride risk evaluation, EPA assumed
based on reasonably available information, including public comment and
safety data sheets, for methylene chloride that workers use PPE--
specifically, respirators with an APF 25 to 50--for 26 occupational
conditions of use and gloves with PF 10 or 20 for 39 occupational
conditions of use. However, in the June 2020 methylene chloride risk
evaluation, EPA determined that there was unreasonable risk to workers
for 32 of those conditions of use. Overall, EPA determined that 36 of
the 41 occupational COUs present unreasonable risks to workers or
occupational non-users.
    EPA is revising the assumption for methylene chloride that workers
always or properly use PPE, although it does not question the
information received regarding the occupational safety practices often
followed by industry respondents, including as part of compliance with
the OSHA methylene chloride standard. Notwithstanding that standard,
when characterizing the risk to human health from occupational
exposures during risk evaluation under TSCA, EPA believes it is
appropriate to evaluate the levels of risk present in baseline
scenarios where PPE is not assumed to be used by workers. This approach
of not assuming PPE use by workers considers the risk to potentially
exposed or susceptible subpopulations (workers and occupational non-
users) who may not be covered by OSHA standards, such as self-employed
individuals and public sector workers who are not covered by a State
Plan. It should be noted that, in some cases, baseline conditions may
reflect certain mitigation measures, such as engineering controls, in
instances where exposure estimates are based on monitoring data at
facilities that have engineering controls in place.
    In addition, EPA believes it is appropriate to evaluate the levels
of risk present in scenarios considering applicable OSHA requirements
(e.g., chemical-specific permissible exposure limits (PELs) and/or
chemical-specific PELs with additional substance-specific standards) as
well as scenarios considering industry or sector best practices for
industrial hygiene that are clearly articulated to the Agency.
Consistent with this approach, the June 2020 methylene chloride risk
evaluation characterized risk to workers both with and without the use
of PPE. By characterizing risks using scenarios that reflect different
levels of mitigation, EPA risk evaluations can help inform potential
risk management actions by providing information that could be used
during risk management to tailor risk mitigation appropriately to
address any unreasonable risk identified, or to ensure that applicable
OSHA requirements or industry or sector best practices that address the
unreasonable risk are required for all potentially exposed or
susceptible subpopulations (including self-employed individuals and
public sector workers who are not covered by an OSHA State Plan).
    When undertaking unreasonable risk determinations as part of TSCA
risk evaluations, however, EPA does not believe it is appropriate to
assume as a general matter that an applicable OSHA requirement or
industry practices related to PPE use is consistently and always
properly applied. Mitigation scenarios included in the EPA risk
evaluation (e.g., scenarios considering use of various PPE) likely
represent what is happening already in some facilities. However, the
Agency cannot assume that all facilities have adopted these practices
for the purposes of making the TSCA risk determination.
    Therefore, EPA proposes to make its determination of unreasonable
risk for methylene chloride from a baseline scenario that does not
assume compliance with OSHA standards, including any applicable
exposure limits or requirements for use of respiratory protection or
other PPE. Making unreasonable risk determinations based on the
baseline scenario should not be viewed as an indication that EPA
believes there are no occupational safety protections in place at any
location, or that there is widespread non-compliance with applicable
OSHA standards. Rather, it reflects EPA's recognition that unreasonable
risk may exist for subpopulations of workers that may be highly exposed
because they are not covered by OSHA standards, such as self-employed
individuals and public sector workers who are not covered by a State
Plan, or because their employer is out of compliance with OSHA
standards, or because many of OSHA's chemical-specific permissible
exposure limits largely adopted in the 1970's are described by OSHA as
being ``outdated and inadequate for ensuring protection of worker
health,'' (Ref. 11) or because the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit
alone may be inadequate to protect worker health, or because EPA finds
unreasonable risk for purposes of TSCA notwithstanding OSHA
requirements.
    In accordance with this approach, EPA is proposing the draft
revision to the methylene chloride risk determination without relying
on assumptions regarding the occupational use of PPE in making the
unreasonable risk determination under TSCA section 6; rather,
information on the use of PPE as a means of mitigating risk (including
information received from industry respondents about occupational
safety practices in use) would be considered during the risk management
phase as appropriate. This would represent a change from the approach
taken in the 2020 risk evaluation for methylene chloride and EPA
invites comments on this draft change to the methylene chloride risk
determination. As a general matter, when undertaking risk management
actions, EPA intends to strive for consistency with applicable OSHA
requirements and industry best practices, including appropriate
application of the hierarchy of controls, when those measures would
address an identified unreasonable risk including unreasonable risk to
potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations. Consistent with TSCA
section 9(d), EPA will consult and coordinate TSCA activities with OSHA
and other relevant Federal agencies for the purpose of achieving the
maximum applicability of TSCA while avoiding the imposition of
duplicative requirements. Informed by the mitigation scenarios and
information gathered during the risk evaluation and risk management
process, the Agency might propose rules that require risk management
practices that may be already common practice in many or most
facilities. Adopting clear, comprehensive regulatory standards will
foster compliance across all facilities (ensuring a level playing
field) and assure protections for all affected workers, especially in
cases where current OSHA standards may not apply or be sufficient to
address the unreasonable risk.
    Removing the assumptions that workers always and appropriately wear
PPE in making the whole chemical risk determination for methylene
chloride would add five additional conditions of use to the original 47
conditions of use that would drive EPA's unreasonable risk
determination for methylene chloride as a whole chemical. The five
conditions of use affected by this change are: manufacturing (domestic
manufacture); processing as a reactant; processing: recycling;
industrial and commercial use as laboratory chemical; and disposal.
Additionally, removing

this assumption would add inhalation risks to workers in addition to
the previously identified inhalation risk to occupational non-users as
driving the unreasonable risk in three conditions of use and would add
risks to workers for acute and chronic non-cancer dermal exposures and
for cancer from inhalation exposures as driving the unreasonable risk
in many conditions of use (Ref. 2 at pg. 319 provides the risk
estimates, and Table 5-1 in the risk determination (Ref. 1) provides
information related to the unreasonable risk).

D. What is methylene chloride?

    Methylene chloride, which is also called dichloromethane, is a
volatile chemical that is produced and imported into the United States,
with use estimated at over 260 million pounds per year. It is a solvent
used in a variety of industries and applications, such as adhesives,
paint and coating products, metal cleaning, chemical processing, and
aerosols. In addition, it is used as a propellent, processing aid, or
functional fluid in the manufacturing of other chemicals. A variety of
consumer and commercial products use methylene chloride as a solvent
including sealants, automotive products, and paint and coating
removers. Methylene chloride is subject to federal and state
regulations and reporting requirements.

E. What conclusions did EPA reach about the risks of methylene chloride
in the 2020 TSCA risk evaluation and what conclusions is EPA proposing
to reach based on the whole chemical approach and not assuming the use
of PPE?

    In the 2020 risk evaluation, EPA determined that methylene chloride
presents an unreasonable risk to health under the following conditions
of use:
     Manufacture (import);
     Processing into a formulation, mixture, or reaction
product;
     Repackaging;
     Industrial and commercial use as solvent for batch vapor
degreasing;
     Industrial and commercial use as solvent for in-line vapor
degreasing;
     Industrial and commercial use as solvent for cold
cleaning;
     and commercial use as a solvent for aerosol spray
degreasers/cleaners;
     Industrial and commercial use in adhesives, sealants, and
caulks;
     Industrial and commercial use in paints and coatings;
     Industrial and commercial use in paint and coating
removers;
     Industrial and commercial use in adhesive and caulk
removers;
     Industrial and commercial use as metal aerosol degreasers;
     Industrial and commercial use in metal non-aerosol
degreasers;
     Industrial and commercial use in finishing products for
fabric, textiles, and leather;
     Industrial and commercial use in automotive care products
(functional fluids for air conditioners);
     Industrial and commercial use in automotive care products
(interior car care);
     Industrial and commercial use in automotive care products
(degreasers);
     Industrial and commercial use in apparel and footwear care
products;
     Industrial and commercial use in spot removers for apparel
and textiles;
     Industrial and commercial use in liquid lubricants and
greases;
     Industrial and commercial use in spray lubricants and
greases;
     Industrial and commercial use in aerosol degreasers and
cleaners;
     Industrial and commercial use in non-aerosol degreasers
and cleaners;
     Industrial and commercial use in cold pipe insulations;
     Industrial and commercial use as solvent that becomes part
of a formulation or mixture;
     Industrial and commercial use as a processing aid;
     Industrial and commercial use as propellant and blowing
agent;
     Industrial and commercial use for electrical equipment,
appliance, and component manufacturing;
     Industrial and commercial use for plastic and rubber
products manufacturing;
     Industrial and commercial use for cellulose triacetate
film production;
     Industrial and commercial use as anti-spatter welding
aerosol;
     Industrial and commercial use for oil and gas drilling,
extraction, and support activities;
     Industrial and commercial uses for toys, playgrounds, and
sporting equipments (including novelty articles);
     Industrial and commercial use for carbon removers, wood
floor cleaners, and brush cleaners;
     Industrial and commercial use as a lithographic printing
plate cleaner;
     Consumer use as a solvent in an aerosol cleaner/degreaser;
     Consumer use in adhesives and sealants;
     Consumer use in paints and coatings (brush cleaners for
paints and coatings);
     Consumer use in adhesives/caulk removers;
     Consumer use in aerosol and non-aerosol metal degreasers;
     Consumer use in automotive functional fluids (air
conditioners refrigerant, treatment, leak sealer);
     Consumer use in automotive degreasers (gasket remover,
transmission cleaners, carburetor);
     Consumer use in aerosol and non-aerosol lubricants and
greases, consumer use in cold pipe insulation;
     Consumer use in aerosol and non-aerosol lubricants/greases
and aerosol and non-aerosol degreaser/cleaners;
     Consumer use in cold pipe insulation;
     Consumer use in crafting glue and cement/concrete;
     Consumer use in anti-adhesive agent--anti-spatter welding
aerosol; and
     Consumer use in carbon remover and brush cleaner.
    Under the proposed whole chemical approach to the methylene
chloride risk determination, the unreasonable risk from methylene
chloride would continue to be driven by risk from those same condition
of use. In addition, by removing the assumption of PPE use in making
the whole chemical risk determination for methylene chloride, five
conditions of use in addition to the original 47 would drive the draft
unreasonable risk determination:
     Manufacturing (domestic manufacture);
     Processing as a reactant;
     Processing: recycling;
     Industrial and commercial use as laboratory chemical; and
     Disposal.
    Overall, 52 conditions of use out of the 53 EPA evaluated would
drive the methylene chloride whole chemical unreasonable risk
determination.

III. Revision of the June 2020 Risk Evaluation

A. Why is EPA proposing to revise the risk determination for the
methylene chloride risk evaluation?

    EPA is proposing to revise the risk determination for the methylene
chloride risk evaluation pursuant to TSCA section 6(b) and consistent
with Executive Order 13990, (``Protecting Public Health and the
Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis'') and
other Administration priorities (Refs. 3, 4, and 6). EPA is revising
specific aspects of the first ten TSCA existing chemical risk
evaluations in order to ensure that the risk evaluations better align
with TSCA's objective of protecting health and the environment. For the
methylene chloride risk evaluation, this includes the draft revision:
(1) making the risk determination in this instance based on the whole
chemical substance instead of by individual conditions of use, and (2)
emphasizing that EPA does not rely on the assumed use of PPE when
making the risk determination.

B. What are the draft revisions?

    EPA is releasing a draft revision of the risk determination for the
methylene chloride risk evaluation pursuant to TSCA section 6(b). Under
the draft revised determination, EPA preliminarily concludes that
methylene chloride, as evaluated in the risk evaluation as a whole,
presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health under its conditions
of use. This revision would replace the previous unreasonable risk
determinations made for methylene chloride by individual conditions of
use, supersede the determinations (and withdraw the associated order)
of no unreasonable risk for the conditions of use identified in the
TSCA section 6(i)(1) no unreasonable risk order, and clarify the lack
of reliance on assumed use of PPE as part of the risk determination.
    These draft revisions do not alter any of the underlying technical
or scientific information that informs the risk characterization, and
as such the hazard, exposure, and risk characterization sections are
not changed except to the extent that statements about PPE assumptions
in section <IP_ADDRESS> (Consideration of Engineering Controls and PPE) of
the methylene chloride risk evaluation would be superseded. The
discussion of the issues in this notice and in the accompanying draft
revision to the risk determination would supersede any conflicting
statements in the prior executive summary and section <IP_ADDRESS> from the
methylene chloride risk evaluation and the response to comments
document (Refs. 2 and 10). Additional policy changes to other chemical
risk evaluations, including any consideration of potentially exposed or
susceptible subpopulations and/or inclusion of additional exposure
pathways, are not necessarily reflected in these draft revisions to the
risk determination.

C. Will the draft revised risk determination be peer reviewed?

    The risk determination (section 5 in the June 2020 risk evaluation)
was not part of the scope of the peer reviews of the methylene chloride
risk evaluation by the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC).
Thus, consistent with that approach, EPA does not intend to conduct
peer review for the draft revised unreasonable risk determination of
the methylene chloride risk evaluation because no technical or
scientific changes will be made to the hazard or exposure assessments
or the risk characterization.

D. What are the next steps for finalizing revisions to the risk
determination?

    EPA will review and consider public comment received on the draft
revised risk determination for the methylene chloride risk evaluation
and, after considering those public comments, issue the revised final
methylene chloride risk determination. If finalized as drafted, EPA
would also issue a new order to withdraw the TSCA section 6(i)(1) no
unreasonable risk order issued in Section 5.4.1 of the 2020 methylene
chloride risk evaluation. This final revised risk determination would
supersede the June 2020 risk determinations of no unreasonable risk.
Consistent with the statutory requirements of TSCA section 6(a), the
Agency would then propose risk management actions to address the
unreasonable risk determined in the methylene chloride risk evaluation.

IV. References

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

1. EPA. Draft Revised Unreasonable Risk Determination for methylene
chloride, Section 5, July 2022.
2. EPA. Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride (MC). EPA Document
#740-R1-8010. January 2021. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0437-0107.
3. 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.
4. Executive Order 13985. Advancing Racial Equity and Support for
Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government. Federal
Register. 86 FR 7009, January 25, 2021.
5. Executive Order 14008. Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and
Abroad. Federal Register. 86 FR 7619, February 1, 2021.
6. Presidential Memorandum. Memorandum on Restoring Trust in
Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based
Policymaking. Federal Register. 86 FR 8845, February 10, 2021.
7. EPA Press Release. EPA Announces Path Forward for TSCA Chemical
Risk Evaluations. June 2021. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-path-forward-tsca-chemical-risk-evaluations.
8. EPA. Proposed Rule; Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under
the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act. Federal Register. 82 FR
7562, January 19, 2017 (FRL-9957-75).
9. EPA. Final Rule; Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under
the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act. Federal Register. 82 FR
33726, July 20, 2017 (FRL-9964-38).
10. EPA. Summary of External Peer Review and Public Comments and
Disposition for Methylene Chloride (MC); Response to Support Risk
Evaluation of Methylene Chloride (MC). EPA Document# EPA-740-R2-
0022. June 2020. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0437-0083.
11. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Permissible
Exposure Limits--Annotated Tables. Accessed June 13, 2022. https://www.osha.gov/annotated-pels.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: June 28, 2022.
Michal Freedhoff,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2022-14163 Filed 7-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P