1222 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2023 / Notices 
4In compliance with the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 
4321–4347; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508); and DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures and Guidelines (10 CFR part 1021). www.wapa.gov/regions/DSW/Pages/ 
DSW–EIM.aspx. 
Ratemaking Procedure Requirements 
Environmental Compliance 
WAPA is in the process of 
determining whether an environmental 
assessment or an environmental impact statement should be prepared, or if this action can be categorically excluded from those requirements.
4 
Determination Under Executive Order 12866 
WAPA has an exemption from 
centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required. 
Signing Authority 
This document of the Department of 
Energy was signed on December 28, 
2022, by Tracey A. LeBeau, Administrator, Western Area Power Administration, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document, with the original signature and date, is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register. 
Signed in Washington, DC, on January 4, 
2023. 
Treena V. Garrett, Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 
Department of Energy. 
[FR Doc. 2023–00165 Filed 1–6–23; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 
AGENCY 
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2016–0737; FRL–9945–02– 
OCSPP] 
Trichloroethylene (TCE); Revision to 
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Risk Determination; Notice of Availability 
AGENCY : Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA). ACTION : Notice. 
SUMMARY : The Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) is announcing the availability of the final revision to the risk determination for the trichloroethylene (TCE) risk evaluation issued under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The revision to the TCE 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. EPA determined that TCE, 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 workers always appropriately wear personal protective equipment (PPE). EPA understands that there could be adequate occupational safety protections in place at certain 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 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (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 EPA finds unreasonable risk for purposes of TSCA notwithstanding OSHA requirements. This revision supersedes the condition of use-specific no unreasonable risk determinations in the November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation and withdraws the associated TSCA order included in the November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation. 
ADDRESSES : The docket for this action, 
identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2016–0737, is available online at https://www.regulations.gov or in-person at the 
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566–0280. Additional instructions on 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: Katie 
McNamara, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (7404M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 564–4361; email address: mcnamara.katelan@epa.gov. 
For general information contact: The 
TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : 
I. General Information 
A. Does this action apply to me? 
This action is directed to the public 
in general and may 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 TCE, 
including TCE in products. Since other entities may also be interested in this 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 nonrisk 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 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:21 Jan 06, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09JAN1.SGM 09JAN1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES11223 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2023 / Notices 
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 nonrisk 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). Pursuant to such authority, EPA has reconsidered and is now finalizing a revised risk determination for TCE. 
C. What action is EPA taking? 
EPA is announcing the availability of 
the final revision to the risk 
determination for the TCE risk evaluation issued under TSCA that published in November 2020 (Ref. 1). In July 2022, EPA sought public comment on the draft revisions (87 FR 40520, July 7, 2022). EPA appreciates the public comments received on the draft revision to the TCE risk determination. After review of these comments and consideration of the specific circumstances of TCE, EPA concludes that the Agency’s risk determination for TCE is better characterized as a whole chemical risk determination rather than condition-of-use-specific risk determinations. Accordingly, EPA is revising and replacing Section 5 of the November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2) where the findings of unreasonable risk to health were previously made for the individual conditions of use evaluated. EPA is also withdrawing the previously issued TSCA section 6(i)(l) order for two conditions of use previously determined not to present unreasonable risk which was included in Section 5.4.1 of the November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2). 
This final revision to the TCE risk 
determination is consistent with EPA’s plans to revise specific aspects of the first ten TSCA chemical risk evaluations to ensure that the risk evaluations better align with TSCA’s objective of protecting health and the environment. As a result of this revision, removing the assumption that workers always and appropriately wear PPE (see Unit II.C.) does not alter the conditions of use that drive the unreasonable risk determination for TCE, though additional risks for acute non-cancer and cancer effects from inhalation and dermal exposures also drive the unreasonable risk in many of those conditions of use (where previously those conditions of use were identified as presenting unreasonable risk only for chronic non-cancer effects and cancer). However, EPA is not making condition- of-use-specific risk determinations for those conditions of use, and for purposes of TSCA section 6(i), EPA is not issuing a final order under TSCA section 6(i)(1) for the conditions of use that do not drive the unreasonable risk, and does not consider the revised risk determination to constitute a final agency action at this point in time. Overall, 52 conditions of use out of 54 EPA evaluated drive the TCE whole chemical unreasonable risk determination due to risks identified for human health. The full list of the conditions of use evaluated for the TCE TSCA risk evaluation is in Tables 4–59 and 4–60 of the November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2). 
II. Background A. Why is EPA re-issuing the risk 
determination for the TCE risk evaluation conducted under TSCA? 
In accordance 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, 5, and 6), EPA reviewed the risk evaluations for the first ten chemical substances, including TCE, 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). Following a review of specific aspects of the November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2) and after considering comments received on a draft revised risk determination for TCE, EPA has determined that making an unreasonable risk determination for TCE 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 for TCE under the statute and implementing regulations. In addition, EPA’s final risk determination is explicit insofar as it does not rely on assumptions regarding the use of PPE in making the unreasonable risk determination under TSCA section 6, even though some facilities might be using PPE as one means to reduce worker exposures; rather, the use of PPE as a means of addressing unreasonable risk will be considered during risk management, as appropriate. 
Separately, EPA is conducting a 
screening approach to assess risks from the air and water pathways for several of the first 10 chemicals, including this chemical. For TCE 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 November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation). This resulted in the ambient air and ambient water pathways for TCE not being assessed. The goal of the recently-developed screening approach is to remedy this exclusion and to determine if there may be risks that were unaccounted for in the TCE risk evaluation. The screening- level approach has gone through public comment and independent external peer review through the SACC. The Agency received the final peer review report on May 18, 2022, and has reviewed public comments and SACC comments. EPA expects to describe its findings regarding the chemical-specific application of this screening-level approach in the forthcoming proposed rule under TSCA section 6(a) for TCE. 
This action pertains only to the risk 
determination for TCE. 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 these risk evaluations and is 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:21 Jan 06, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09JAN1.SGM 09JAN1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES11224 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2023 / Notices 
incorporating new policy direction in a 
surgical manner, while being mindful of 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 TCE 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. 
As explained in the Federal Register 
document announcing the availability of the draft revised risk determination for TCE (87 FR 40522, July 7, 2022 (FRL– 9945–01–OCSPP)), the proposed Risk Evaluation Procedural Rule (Ref. 8) was premised on the whole chemical approach to making unreasonable risk determinations. 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.’’ The proposed rule, however, was unambiguous on the point that unreasonable risk determinations would be for the chemical substance as a whole, even if based on a subset of uses. See Ref. 8 at pages 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 7480.) 
The final Risk Evaluation Procedural 
Rule stated (82 FR 33726, July 20, 2017 (FRL–9964–38)) (Ref. 9): ‘‘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’’ (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 as part of each risk evaluation document (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 Rule which stated that EPA will make individual risk determinations for all conditions of use identified in the scope. (Ref. 9 at 33744). 
In contrast to this portion of the 
preamble of the final Risk Evaluation 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 previously 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. 9 at 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 TCE, EPA has determined that a whole chemical approach is appropriate for TCE in order to protect health and the environment. The whole chemical approach is appropriate for TCE because there are 
benchmark exceedances for a substantial number of conditions of use (spanning across most aspects of the chemical lifecycle—from manufacturing (including import), processing, industrial and commercial use, consumer use, and disposal) for workers, occupational non-users, consumers, and bystanders associated 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:21 Jan 06, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09JAN1.SGM 09JAN1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES11225 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2023 / Notices 
with TCE 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 TCE 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 November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2)) follow the issuance of a draft revision to the TSCA TCE unreasonable risk determination (87 FR 40520, July 07, 2022) and the receipt of public comment. A response to comments document is also being issued with the final revised unreasonable risk determination for TCE (Ref. 10). The revisions to the unreasonable risk determination are based on the existing risk characterization section of the November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2) (Section 4) and do not involve additional technical or scientific analysis. The discussion of the issues in this Federal Register document and in 
the accompanying final revised risk determination for TCE supersede any conflicting statements in the November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2) and the earlier response to comments document (Ref. 11). 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). 
For purposes of TSCA section 6(i), 
EPA is making a risk determination on TCE as a whole chemical. Under the revised approach, the ‘‘whole chemical’’ risk determination for TCE supersedes 
the no unreasonable risk determinations for TCE that were premised on a condition-of-use-specific approach to determining unreasonable risk and also contains an order withdrawing the TSCA section 6(i)(1) order in Section 5.4.1 of the November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2). 
C. What revision is EPA now making 
final about the use of PPE for the TCE 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 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 used 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., OSHA 
requirements for protection of workers). 
For the November 2020 TCE Risk 
Evaluation (Ref. 2), EPA assumed that workers used PPE for 21 occupational conditions of use. In the November 2020 TCE risk evaluation, EPA determined that there is unreasonable risk to workers for all these conditions of use even with this assumed PPE use. 
EPA is revising the assumption for 
TCE that workers always and properly use PPE. However, this does not mean that EPA questions the veracity of public comments which describe occupational safety practices often followed by industry. EPA believes it is appropriate when conducting risk evaluations under TSCA 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 of workers 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 November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2) 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 and 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 practice 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 (Ref. 12). 
Therefore, EPA is making a 
determination of unreasonable risk for TCE 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. 13), or because the OSHA PEL alone may be inadequate to protect human health, or because EPA finds unreasonable risk for purposes of TSCA notwithstanding OSHA requirements. 
In accordance with this approach, 
EPA is finalizing the revision to the TCE 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 public comments received from industry respondents about occupational safety practices in use) will be considered during the risk management phase, as appropriate. This represents a change from the approach 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:21 Jan 06, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09JAN1.SGM 09JAN1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES11226 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2023 / Notices 
taken in the November 2020 TCE Risk 
Evaluation (Ref. 2). 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, to the extent that applying those measures would address the 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 assumption that 
workers always and appropriately wear PPE in making the whole chemical risk determination for TCE does not result in additional conditions of use to the original 52 conditions of use that drive the unreasonable risk, though EPA identifies additional risks for acute non- cancer and cancer effects from inhalation and dermal exposures as driving the unreasonable risk within many of those conditions of use (where previously those conditions of use were identified as presenting unreasonable risk only for chronic non-cancer effects and cancer due to assumed use of PPE). The finalized revision to the TCE risk determination clarifies that EPA does not rely on the assumed use of PPE 
when making the risk determination for the whole substance; rather, the use of PPE as a means of addressing unreasonable risk will be considered during risk management, as appropriate. 
D. What is TCE? 
TCE is a colorless liquid with a 
pleasant, sweet odor resembling that of 
chloroform. It is considered a volatile organic compound and has a wide range of uses in consumer and commercial products and in industry. An estimated 84% of TCE’s annual production volume is used as an intermediate in the manufacture of the hydrofluorocarbon, 
HFC–134a, an alternative to the refrigerant chlorofluorocarbon, CFC–12. Another 15% of TCE production volume is used as a degreasing solvent, leaving approximately 1% for other uses. The total aggregate production volume decreased from 220.5 to 171.9 million pounds between 2012 and 2015. 
E. What conclusions is EPA finalizing 
today in the revised TSCA risk evaluation based on the whole chemical approach and not assuming the use of PPE? 
EPA determined that TCE presents an 
unreasonable risk to health under the conditions of use. EPA’s unreasonable risk determination for TCE as a chemical substance is driven by risks associated with the following conditions of use, considered singularly or in combination with other exposures: 
•Manufacturing: domestic 
manufacture; 
•Manufacturing: import; 
•Processing: processing as a reactant/ 
intermediate; 
•Processing: incorporation into a 
formulation, mixture or reaction product; 
•Processing: incorporation into 
articles; 
•Processing: repackaging; 
•Processing: recycling; 
•Industrial and commercial use as a 
solvent for open-top batch vapor degreasing; 
•Industrial and commercial use as a 
solvent for closed-loop batch vapor degreasing; 
•Industrial and commercial use as a 
solvent for in-line conveyorized vapor degreasing; 
•Industrial and commercial use as a 
solvent for in-line web cleaner vapor degreasing; 
•Industrial and commercial use as a 
solvent for cold cleaning; 
•Industrial and commercial use as a 
solvent for aerosol spray degreaser/ cleaner and mold release; 
•Industrial and commercial use as a 
lubricant and grease in tap and die fluid; 
•Industrial and commercial use as a 
lubricant and grease in penetrating lubricant; 
•Industrial and commercial use as an 
adhesive and sealant in solvent-based adhesives and sealants; tire repair cement/sealer; mirror edge sealant; 
•Industrial and commercial use as a 
functional fluid in heat exchange fluid; 
•Industrial and commercial use in 
paints and coatings as a diluent in solvent-based paints and coatings; 
•Industrial and commercial use in 
cleaning and furniture care products in carpet cleaner and wipe cleaning; •Industrial and commercial use in 
laundry and dishwashing products in spot remover; 
•Industrial and commercial use in 
arts, crafts, and hobby materials in fixatives and finishing spray coatings; 
•Industrial and commercial use in 
corrosion inhibitors and anti-scaling agents; 
•Industrial and commercial use in 
processing aids in process solvent used in battery manufacture; process solvent used in polymer fabric spinning, fluoroelastomer manufacture and Alcantara manufacture; extraction solvent used in caprolactam manufacture; precipitant used in beta- cyclodextrin manufacture; 
•Industrial and commercial use as 
ink, toner and colorant products in toner aid; 
•Industrial and commercial use in 
automotive care products in brake and parts cleaner; 
•Industrial and commercial use in 
apparel and footwear care products in shoe polish; 
•Industrial and commercial use in 
hoof polish; gun scrubber; pepper spray; other miscellaneous industrial and commercial uses; 
•Consumer use as a solvent in brake 
and parts cleaner; 
•Consumer use as a solvent in 
aerosol electronic degreaser/cleaner; 
•Consumer use as a solvent in liquid 
electronic degreaser/cleaner; 
•Consumer use as a solvent in 
aerosol spray degreaser/cleaner; 
•Consumer use as a solvent in liquid 
degreaser/cleaner; 
•Consumer use as a solvent in 
aerosol gun scrubber; 
•Consumer use as a solvent in liquid 
gun scrubber; 
•Consumer use as a solvent in mold 
release; 
•Consumer use as a solvent in 
aerosol tire cleaner; 
•Consumer use as a solvent in liquid 
tire cleaner; 
•Consumer use as a lubricant and 
grease in tap and die fluid; 
•Consumer use as a lubricant and 
grease in penetrating lubricant; 
•Consumer use as an adhesive and 
sealant in solvent-based adhesives and sealants; 
•Consumer use as an adhesive and 
sealant in mirror edge sealant; 
•Consumer use as an adhesive and 
sealant in tire repair cement/sealer; 
•Consumer use as a cleaning and 
furniture care product in carpet cleaner; 
•Consumer use as a cleaning and 
furniture care product in aerosol spot remover; 
•Consumer use as a cleaning and 
furniture case product in liquid spot remover; 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:21 Jan 06, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09JAN1.SGM 09JAN1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES11227 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2023 / Notices 
•Consumer use in arts, crafts, and 
hobby materials in fixative and finishing 
spray coatings; 
•Consumer use in apparel and 
footwear products in shoe polish; 
•Consumer use in fabric spray; 
•Consumer use in film cleaner; 
•Consumer use in hoof polish; 
•Consumer use in toner aid; and 
•Disposal. 
The following conditions of use do 
not drive EPA’s unreasonable risk determination for TCE: 
•Consumer use in pepper spray; and 
•Distribution in commerce. 
EPA is not making condition of use- 
specific risk determinations for these conditions of use, is not issuing a final order under TSCA section 6(i)(1) for the conditions of use that do not drive the unreasonable risk and does not consider the revised risk determination for TCE to constitute a final agency action at this point in time. 
Consistent with the statutory 
requirements of TSCA section 6(a), EPA will propose a risk management regulatory action to the extent necessary so that TCE no longer presents an unreasonable risk. EPA expects to focus its risk management action on the conditions of use that drive the unreasonable risk. However, it should be noted that, under TSCA section 6(a), EPA is not limited to regulating the specific activities found to drive unreasonable risk and may select from among a suite of risk management requirements in section 6(a) related to manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, commercial use, and disposal as part of its regulatory options to address the unreasonable risk. As a general example, EPA may regulate upstream activities (e.g., processing, distribution 
in commerce) to address downstream activities (e.g., consumer uses) driving 
unreasonable risk, even if the upstream activities do not drive the unreasonable risk. 
III. Summary of Public Comments 
EPA received a total of 15 public 
comments on the July 7, 2022, draft 
revised risk determination for TCE during the comment period that ended August 8, 2022. Commenters included trade organizations, industry stakeholders, environmental groups, and non-governmental health advocacy organizations. A separate document that summarizes all comments submitted and EPA’s responses to those comments has been prepared and is available in the docket for this notice (Ref. 10). IV. Revision of the November 2020 TCE 
Risk Evaluation 
A. Why is EPA revising the risk 
determination for the TCE risk evaluation? 
EPA is finalizing the revised risk 
determination for the TCE 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, 5, 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 TCE risk evaluation, this includes: (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 revisions? 
EPA is now finalizing the revised risk 
determination for the November 2020 
TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2) pursuant to TSCA section 6(b). Under the revised determination (Ref. 1), EPA concludes that TCE, as evaluated in the risk evaluation as a whole, presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health when evaluated under its conditions of 
use. This revision replaces the previous unreasonable risk determinations made for TCE by individual conditions of use, supersedes the determinations (and withdraws 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 clarifies the lack of reliance on assumed use of PPE as part of the risk determination. 
These 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 statements about PPE assumptions in Section 2.3.1.2.5 (Dermal Exposure Modeling) and Section 4.2.2 (Risk Estimation for Occupational Exposures), Table 4–9 (Inhalation Exposure Data Summary and PPE Use Determination). The discussion of the issues in this Notice and in the 
accompanying final revision to the risk determination supersede any conflicting statements in the prior executive summary, and Section 2.3.1.2.5 and Section 4.2.2 (Table 4–9) from the November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2) and the response to comments document (Ref. 11). 
The revised unreasonable risk 
determination for TCE includes additional explanation of how the risk evaluation characterizes the applicable OSHA requirements, or industry or sector best practices, and also clarifies that no additional analysis was done, and the risk determination is based on the risk characterization (Section 4) of the November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2). 
C. Will the revised risk determination be 
peer reviewed? 
The risk determination (Section 5 of 
the November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2)) was not part of the scope of the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) peer review of the TCE risk evaluation. Thus, consistent with that approach, EPA did not conduct peer review of the final revised unreasonable risk determination for the TCE risk evaluation because no technical or scientific changes were made to the hazard or exposure assessments or the risk characterization. 
V. Order Withdrawing Previous Order 
Regarding Unreasonable Risk Determinations for Certain Conditions of Use 
EPA is also issuing a new order to 
withdraw the TSCA Section 6(i)(1) no unreasonable risk order issued in Section 5.4.1 of the November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2). This final revised risk determination supersedes the condition of use-specific no unreasonable risk determinations in the November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2). The order contained in Section 5.5 of the revised risk determination (Ref. 1) withdraws the TSCA section 6(i)(1) order contained in Section 5.4.1 of the November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2). Consistent with the statutory requirements of section 6(a), the Agency will propose risk management action to address the unreasonable risk determined in the TCE risk evaluation. 
VI. 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 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:21 Jan 06, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09JAN1.SGM 09JAN1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES11228 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2023 / Notices 
152 U.S.C. 30101–45. 252 U.S.C. 30111(b). The Commission is required 
by law to audit presidential committees that receive 
public funds. 52 U.S.C. 30111(b); 26 U.S.C. 9007(a), 9038(a). 
3https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/ 
documents/directive_ 70.pdf (adopted in 2010 and 
last modified in 2011). 
474 FR 33,140 (July 10, 2009) and Correction, 74 
FR 39,535 (August 7, 2009). 
5Policy Statement Regarding a Program for 
Requesting Consideration of Legal Questions by the Commission, 84 FR 36,602 (July 29, 2019) (updating Commission’s contact information, recounting history of similar changes to program since adopted in 2011, and publishing current policy in full); Directive 69: FEC Directive on Legal Guidance to the Office of Compliance, https://www.fec.gov/ resources/cms-content/documents/directive_ 69.pdf 
(adopted in 2010). the person listed under FOR FURTHER  
INFORMATION CONTACT . 
1. EPA. Unreasonable Risk Determination for 
Trichloroethylene (TCE). December 
2022. 
2. EPA. Risk Evaluation for 
Trichloroethylene. November 2020. EPA Document #740–R–18–008. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA- HQ-OPPT-2019-0500-0113. 
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. Response to Public Comments to the 
Revised Unreasonable Risk Determination; Trichloroethylene (TCE). December 2022. 
11. EPA. Summary of External Peer Review 
and Public Comments and Disposition for Trichloroethylene (TCE). November 2020. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA- HQ-OPPT-2019-0500-0114. 
12. Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA). Top 10 Most Frequently Cited Standards for Fiscal Year 2021 (October 1, 2020, to September 30, 2021). Accessed October 13, 2022. https://www.osha.gov/top10citedstandards. 
13. OSHA. Permissible Exposure Limits— 
Annotated Tables. Accessed June 13, 2022. https://www.osha.gov/annotated- 
pels. 
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. 
Dated: January 3, 2023. 
Michal Freedhoff, 
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical 
Safety and Pollution Prevention. 
[FR Doc. 2023–00116 Filed 1–6–23; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 
[Notice 2023–01] 
Notice of Public Hearing and Request 
for Public Comments 
AGENCY : Federal Election Commission. 
ACTION : Notice of public hearing and 
request for public comments. 
SUMMARY : The Federal Election 
Commission seeks public comment on its policies and procedures regarding the auditing of political committees that do not receive public funds. The Commission also is announcing a public hearing on its audit procedures. 
DATES : Comments must be submitted on 
or before February 8, 2023. A hybrid public hearing will be held on a later date at the Federal Election Commission, 1050 First St. NE, 12th floor Hearing Room, Washington, DC 20463, and virtually. The Commission will publish a notification of hearing in the Federal Register announcing the 
date and time of the hearing. Anyone seeking to testify at the hearing must file written comments by the due date and must include in the written comments a request to testify. 
ADDRESSES : All comments must be in 
writing. Commenters may submit comments by email to audit2023@fec.gov. 
Each commenter must provide, at a 
minimum, his or her first name, last name, city, and state. All properly submitted comments, including attachments, will become part of the public record, and the Commission will make comments available for public viewing on the Commission’s website and in the Commission’s Public Records Office. Accordingly, commenters should not provide in their comments any information that they do not wish to make public, such as a home street address, date of birth, phone number, social security number, or driver’s license number, or any information that is restricted from disclosure, such as trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Ms. 
Amy L. Rothstein, Assistant General Counsel, or Ms. Joanna S. Waldstreicher, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, at audit2023@fec.gov or 202–694–1650. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : The 
Commission administers the Federal Election Campaign Act,
1in relevant 
part, through a review of disclosure reports that are filed with the Commission. When the Commission’s 
review of a non-publicly-funded political committee’s disclosure reports indicates that the reports appear not to have met the threshold requirements for substantial compliance with the requirements of the Act, the Commission may conduct an audit of the committee to determine whether the committee complied with the Act’s limitations, prohibitions and disclosure requirements.
2The Commission’s 
procedures regarding these audits are primarily set forth in Directive 70: FEC Directive on Processing Audit Reports;
3 
Procedural Rules for Audit Hearings;4 
and a program for requesting consideration of legal questions by the Commission.
5 
In the course of addressing its 
administrative responsibilities, the Commission periodically reviews its programs to ensure that it is fulfilling its mission of enforcing and administering the Act while continuing to afford due process and efficiency to political committees. The purpose of this Notice is to reexamine the Commission’s policies and procedures regarding the auditing of political committees that do not receive public funds, and to give the 
regulated community and representatives of the public an opportunity to bring before the Commission comments and concerns about its audit process. The Commission will use the comments received to help determine whether internal directives or practices should be adjusted, and if so, how. The Commission is not, in this notice, seeking comment on its policies, practices, and procedures regarding audits of publicly funded committees. 
The Commission seeks comments 
addressing the audit process since the most recent changes were made over ten years ago: for example, the Rules for Audit Hearings in 2009, Directives 69 and 70 in 2010, and the Program for Requesting Consideration of Legal Questions in 2011. For example, are committees being given sufficient 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:21 Jan 06, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09JAN1.SGM 09JAN1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1