Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 29, 2022 / Notices 38747 

cv–03716 (N.D. Cal.), EPA is required to 

publish a final Part 2 Risk Evaluation for 

Asbestos on or before December 1, 2024. 

The final scope of the Risk Evaluation 

for Asbestos Part 2 is the subject of this 

notice. 

The purpose of a risk evaluation is to 

determine whether a chemical 

substance presents an unreasonable risk 

to health or the environment, without 

consideration of costs or other nonrisk 

factors, including an unreasonable risk 

to a relevant potentially exposed or 

susceptible subpopulation, under the 

conditions of use (15 U.S.C. 

2605(b)(4)(A)). As part of this process, 

EPA must evaluate both hazards and 

exposures for the conditions of use; 

describe whether aggregate or sentinel 

exposures were considered and the 

basis for consideration; not consider 

costs or other nonrisk factors; take into 

account where relevant, likely duration, 

intensity, frequency, and number of 

exposures; and describe the weight-ofscientific-evidence for hazards and 

exposures (15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)). This 

process will culminate in a 

determination of whether or not the 

chemical substance presents an 

unreasonable risk of injury to health or 

the environment under the conditions of 

use (15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(A); 40 CFR 

702.47). 

III. Information and Comments 

Received on the Draft Scope 

In the Federal Register of December 

29, 2021 (Ref. 1), EPA announced the 

availability of the draft scope document 

for the Part 2 risk evaluation for asbestos 

to be conducted under TSCA and 

invited public comments on EPA’s draft 

scope document, including additional 

data or information relevant to the 

chemical substance or that otherwise 

could be useful to the Agency in 

finalizing the scope of the risk 

evaluation. To the extent that comments 

provided information on conditions of 

use, as well as other elements of the 

draft scope document, those comments 

and other submitted information (e.g., 

relevant studies, assessments, 

information on degradation products, 

and information on conditions of use) 

were used to inform revisions to the 

draft scope document and may be 

considered in subsequent phases of the 

risk evaluation process. 

EPA received 38 unique submissions, 

including comments from potentially 

affected businesses or trade 

associations, environmental and public 

health advocacy groups, and members 

of the general public. 

Comments addressed the overall 

approach to the risk evaluation process 

(e.g., collection, consideration, and 

systematic review of relevant 

information), the specific elements of 

the scope document (e.g., human 

hazard, exposure, and potentially 

exposed or susceptible subpopulations), 

information specific to asbestos (e.g., 

physical-chemical properties and fate, 

relevant studies, and conditions of use), 

and topics beyond the draft scope 

document phase of the TSCA section 6 

process (e.g., risk management). EPA 

considered those comments, as 

applicable and appropriate, in 

developing the final scope document. 

Concurrently with the publication of the 

final scope document, EPA is 

publishing a response to comments 

document that contains a 

comprehensive summary of and 

response to public comments received 

on the draft scope document for Part 2 

of the Risk Evaluation for Asbestos. The 

comprehensive response to comments 

document is available in the docket 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021–0254 (Ref. 2). 

IV. References 

The following is a listing of the 

documents that are specifically 

referenced in this Federal Register 

notice. The docket for this action 

includes these documents and other 

information considered by EPA, 

including documents that are referenced 

within the documents that are included 

in the docket. For assistance in locating 

these referenced documents, please 

consult the technical person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

1. EPA. Asbestos Part 2: Supplemental 

Evaluation Including Legacy Uses and 

Associated Disposals of Asbestos; Draft 

Scope of the Risk Evaluation To Be 

Conducted Under the Toxic Substances 

Control Act; Notice of Availability and 

Request for Comments. Federal Register. 

(86 FR 74088, December 29, 2021) (FRL– 

9347–01–OCSPP). 

2. EPA. EPA Response to Public Comments 

Received on the Draft Scopes of the Risk 

Evaluations under the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA) for: Asbestos Part 2: 

Supplemental Evaluation Including 

Legacy Uses and Associated Disposals of 

Asbestos (June 2022). 

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

Dated: June 24, 2022. 

Michal Freedhoff, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13852 Filed 6–28–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2019–0237; FRL–9283–03– 

OCSPP] 

Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster 

(HBCD); 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 Cyclic 

Aliphatic Bromide Cluster (HBCD) risk 

evaluation issued under the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA). The 

revision to the HBCD 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 HBCD, as 

a whole chemical substance, presents an 

unreasonable risk of injury to health and 

the environment 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 OSHA has 

not issued a permissible exposure limit 

(PEL) (as is the case for HBCD). This 

revision supersedes the condition of 

use-specific no unreasonable risk 

determinations in the September 2020 

HBCD risk evaluation and withdraws 

the associated order included in section 

5.4.1 of the September 2020 HBCD risk 

evaluation. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2019–0237, is 

available online at https://

www.regulations.gov or in-person at the 

Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket) in the 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
38748 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 29, 2022 / Notices 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPPT 

Docket is (202) 566–0280. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at https://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical information contact: 

Alie Muneer, Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Toxics (7404T), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 

564–6369; email address: muneer.alie@

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. Executive Summary 

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 HBCD, 

including HBCD 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 

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). Further, 

on August 10, 2021, the Ninth Circuit 

granted EPA’s motion for voluntary 

remand without vacatur, so that EPA 

may conduct reconsideration 

proceedings on the HBCD Risk 

Evaluation—particularly to reconsider 

the no unreasonable risk determinations 

made within. Alaska Community Action 

on Toxics at al., v. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency et al., (9th Cir. No. 

20–73099). 

C. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is announcing the availability of 

the final revision to the risk 

determination for the HBCD risk 

evaluation issued under TSCA that 

published in September 2020. In 

December 2021, EPA sought public 

comment on the draft revisions (86 FR 

74082, December 29. 2021 (FRL–9283– 

01–OCSPP)) and reopened the comment 

period for an additional 15 days (87 FR 

9047, February 17, 2022 (FRL–9283–02– 

OCSPP)). EPA appreciates the public 

comments received on the draft revision 

to the HBCD risk determination. After 

review of these comments and 

consideration of the specific 

circumstances of HBCD, EPA concludes 

that the Agency’s risk determination for 

HBCD 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 

2020 risk evaluation for HBCD where 

the findings of unreasonable risk to 

health and the environment were 

previously made for the individual 

conditions of use evaluated. EPA is also 

withdrawing the previously-issued 

TSCA section 6(i)(l) order for six 

conditions of use previously determined 

not to present unreasonable risk that 

was included in section 5.4.1 of the 

September 2020 HBCD risk evaluation. 

This final revision to the HBCD 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. 

The six conditions of use identified in 

the 2020 HBCD risk evaluation as 

presenting unreasonable risk still drive 

the unreasonable risk determination for 

HBCD. By removing the assumption that 

all workers always and appropriately 

wear PPE (See Unit II.C.), four of the six 

conditions of use driving the 

unreasonable risk to the environment in 

the 2020 HBCD risk evaluation now also 

drive unreasonable risk based on health 

risks to workers, an identified 

potentially exposed or susceptible 

subpopulation (PESS). The four 

conditions of use affected by this change 

are: Manufacturing (Import); Processing: 

Incorporation into formulation, mixture, 

or reaction products; Processing: 

Incorporation into articles; and 

Processing: Recycling (of XPS and EPS 

foam, resin, panels containing HBCD). 

Overall, six conditions of use drive the 

HBCD whole chemical unreasonable 

risk determination due to risks 

identified for both health and the 

environment. The full list of the 

conditions of use evaluated for the 

HBCD TSCA risk evaluation is in Table 

1–8 of the risk evaluation available here 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/ 

2020-09/documents/1._risk_evaluation_

for_cyclic_aliphatic_bromide_cluster_

hbcd_casrn25637-99-4_casrn_3194-5_

casrn_3194-57-8.pdf. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 29, 2022 / Notices 38749 

II. Background 

A. Why is EPA re-issuing the risk 

determination for the HBCD risk 

evaluation conducted under TSCA? 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13990 (Ref. 1) and other Administration 

priorities (Refs. 2, 3, and 4), EPA 

reviewed the risk evaluations for the 

first ten chemical substances, including 

HBCD, 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 (available here 

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epaannounces-path-forward-tsca-chemicalrisk-evaluations). Following a review of 

specific aspects of the September 2020 

HBCD risk evaluation and after 

considering comments received on a 

draft revised risk determination for 

HBCD, EPA has determined 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’s final risk 

determination is explicit insofar as 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 as a means of 

addressing unreasonable risk will be 

considered during risk management, as 

appropriate. 

This action pertains only to the risk 

determination for HBCD. 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 

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 

HBCD 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 wholechemical 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 

HBCD (86 FR 74082, December 29, 2021 

(FRL–9283–01–OCSPP), the proposed 

Risk Evaluation Procedural Rule (Ref. 5) 

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. 5 at 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 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. 5 at 7480. 

The final Risk Evaluation Procedural 

Rule stated (82 FR 33726, July 20, 2017 

(FRL–9964–38)) (Ref. 6): ‘‘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-usespecific 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. 6 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’’ (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 ‘‘[e]xplains 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 conditionof-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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
38750 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 29, 2022 / Notices 

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. 6 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 wholechemical 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 HBCD, EPA has 

determined that a whole chemical 

approach is appropriate for HBCD in 

order to protect health and the 

environment. The whole chemical 

approach is appropriate for HBCD 

because there are benchmark 

exceedances for multiple conditions of 

use (spanning across most aspects of the 

chemical lifecycle–from manufacturing 

(import), processing, commercial use, 

and disposal) for both health and the 

environment, HBCD is persistent, 

bioaccumulative and toxic substance, 

and the health effects associated with 

HBCD exposures are irreversible. 

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 

HBCD, EPA has concluded 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) follow the issuance of a 

draft revision to the TSCA HBCD 

unreasonable risk determination (86 FR 

74082, December 29, 2021) and the 

receipt of public comment. A response 

to comments document is also being 

issued with this final revised 

unreasonable risk determination for 

HBCD. The revisions to the 

unreasonable risk determination are 

based on the existing risk 

characterization section of the risk 

evaluation (Section 4 of the risk 

evaluation) 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 HBCD supersede any 

conflicting statements in the prior 

HBCD risk evaluation and the earlier 

response to comments document (Ref. 

9). 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 

HBCD as a whole chemical. Under the 

revised approach, the ‘‘whole chemical’’ 

risk determination for HBCD supersedes 

the no unreasonable risk determinations 

for HBCD 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 September 2020 HBCD risk 

evaluation. 

C. What revision is EPA now making 

final about the use of PPE for the HBCD 

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 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., Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) requirements for protection of 

workers). 

For the September 2020 HBCD risk 

evaluation, EPA assumed that workers 

used PPE for six of the twelve 

conditions of use: 

• Manufacturing—Import; 

• Processing: Incorporating into 

formulation, mixture, or reaction 

products; 

• Processing: Incorporation into 

article; 

• Processing: Recycling (of XPS and 

EPS foam, resin, panels containing 

HBCD); 

• Processing: Recycling (of 

electronics waste containing high 

impact polystyrene (HIPS) that contains 

HBCD); and 

• Commercial/Consumer Use: 

Other—Formulated Products and 

Articles 

EPA is revising the assumption for 

HBCD that workers always or properly 

use PPE, although it does not question 

the public comments received regarding 

the occupational safety practices often 

followed by industry respondents. 

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. 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. This 

approach 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. 

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 

September 2020 HBCD 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, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 29, 2022 / Notices 38751 

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 best sector 

practices that address the unreasonable 

risk are required for all potentially 

exposed and susceptible subpopulations 

of workers (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 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 is making a 

determination of unreasonable risk for 

HBCD 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 EPA finds 

unreasonable risk for purposes of TSCA 

notwithstanding OSHA requirements. 

In accordance with this approach, 

EPA is finalizing the revision to the 

HBCD 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 

taken in the 2020 risk evaluation for 

HBCD. 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. 

By removing the assumption of PPE 

use in making the whole chemical risk 

determination for HBCD, the same six 

conditions of use would continue to 

drive the proposed unreasonable risk 

determination. However, the impact of 

removing the assumption of PPE use 

would cause four of the six conditions 

of use that drive the unreasonable risk 

determination based on only risks to the 

environment to also drive unreasonable 

risk based on health risks to workers. 

The four conditions of use affected by 

this change are: 

• Manufacturing—Import; 

• Processing: Incorporation into 

formulation, mixture, or reaction 

products; 

• Processing: Incorporation into 

article; and 

• Processing: Recycling (of XPS and 

EPS foam, resin, panels containing 

HBCD). 

D. What is HBCD? 

HBCD is a white odorless non-volatile 

solid that is used as a flame retardant 

and wetting agent. Domestic 

manufacture of HBCD ceased in 2017 

and was therefore not considered as a 

condition of use for the risk evaluation. 

U.S. manufacturers have indicated 

complete replacement of HBCD in their 

product lines and that depletion of 

stockpiles and cessation of export was 

completed in 2017 based on 

communications with manufacturers. 

HBCD has also not been imported by 

any major importers since 2017; 

however, it is reasonably foreseen that 

small imports under the TSCA Chemical 

Data Reporting threshold may have 

continued from countries that were not 

parties to the Stockholm Convention 

ban. About 95% of HBCD was 

historically used in insulation boards, 

primarily in construction materials, 

which may include structural insulated 

panels (SIPS). The category ‘‘Building/ 

Construction Materials’’ includes 

products containing HBCD as a flame 

retardant primarily in XPS and EPS 

rigid foam insulation products that are 

used for the construction of residential, 

public, commercial, or other structures. 

HBCD is added to XPS and EPS foam in 

the form of a resin. EPS foam prevents 

freezing, provides a stable fill material, 

and creates high-strength composites in 

construction applications. XPS foam 

board is used mainly for roofing 

applications and architectural molding. 

Minor uses of HBCD include 

replacement car parts (polystyrene 

headliners and solder) and solder paste 

for electronics (circuit boards). 

Historically, HBCD was also 

manufactured (including import) and 

processed for additional articles that 

may still exist, including adhesives, 

coatings, sealants, textiles, and 

electronics. 

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 HBCD presents 

an unreasonable risk to health and the 

environment under the conditions of 

use. EPA’s unreasonable risk 

determination for HBCD is driven by 

risks associated with the following 

conditions of use, considered singularly 

or in combination with other exposures: 

• Manufacturing—Import; 

• Processing: Incorporation into a 

Formulation, Mixture, or Reaction 

Products; 

• Processing: Incorporation into 

Article; 

• Processing: Recycling (of XPS and 

EPS foam, resin, and panels containing 

HBCD); 

• Commercial/Consumer Use: 

Building/Construction Materials 

(Installation); and 

• Disposal (Demolition). 

Note: While commercial and consumer use 

was assessed as part of the same exposure 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
38752 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 29, 2022 / Notices 

scenario for the ‘‘Commercial/Consumer Use: 

Building/Construction Materials 

(Installation)’’ condition of use, risks were 

quantified separately, and consumer use was 

not found to drive the HBCD unreasonable 

risk. 

III. Summary of Public Comments 

EPA received a total of 25 public 

comments on the December 29, 2021, 

draft revised risk determination for 

HBCD during the initial and extended 

comment period from December 29, 

2021 to March 4, 2022. Commenters 

included trade organizations, trade 

unions, industry stakeholders, 

environmental groups, a Tribal 

organization, and non-governmental and 

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. 7). 

A. General Comments in Support of and 

Opposed to the Revised Risk 

Determination 

Several commenters supported the 

HBCD revised unreasonable risk 

determination because the whole 

chemical approach better aligns with 

the goals of TSCA and the 2016 

Lautenberg amendments. In addition, 

commenters noted that by removing the 

assumption that workers always and 

appropriately wear PPE, EPA can better 

protect workers and potentially exposed 

and sensitive subpopulations (PESS). 

Those commenters who opposed the 

revised risk determination indicated 

concerns with unwarranted impacts 

relating to expected risk management 

regulatory decisions, including on 

articles and associated supply chains. 

EPA Response: EPA appreciates the 

support for the revised unreasonable 

risk determination. With respect to 

impacts relating to expected risk 

management regulation of HBCD, EPA 

will propose a regulatory action with 

requirements under TSCA section 6(a) 

to the extent necessary so that HBCD no 

longer presents unreasonable risk. The 

proposed risk management rule will be 

subject to public comments, and EPA 

will consider such public comments 

and any additional reasonably available 

information before finalizing the 

rulemaking, including information 

related to potential impacts to supply 

chains and HBCD-containing articles. 

B. General Legal Issues 

A commentor indicated that EPA 

should use its authority under TSCA to 

research and collect additional 

occupational exposure data, while other 

commentors indicated that the revised 

unreasonable risk determination does 

not comply with TSCA section 26 

scientific requirements and should be 

updated to reflect EPA’s 2021 Draft 

Systematic Review protocol. 

The second major topic of legal 

concern raised was whether EPA can 

revise the HBCD risk determination 

prior to undertaking a notice and 

comment rulemaking to revise the final 

Risk Evaluation Rule (Procedures for 

Chemical Risk Evaluation Under the 

Amended Toxic Substances Control Act 

(82 FR 33726, July 20, 2017). In the view 

of commenters, the final Risk Evaluation 

Rule, allows EPA to assess risk and 

promulgate rules that would apply only 

to the conditions of use that present 

unreasonable risk. Several commenters 

took issue with EPA’s new 

interpretation of the final Risk 

Evaluation Rule, stating that the rule 

lacks the ambiguity necessary to permit 

a court to grant Auer deference to the 

EPA’s regulatory interpretation. In other 

words, the commenters claim the final 

Risk Evaluation Rule unequivocally 

requires EPA to make determinations for 

each condition of use and those 

conditions of use which do not present 

unreasonable risk would not be subject 

to risk management. Commenters 

indicated that EPA should not be 

permitted Auer deference with respect 

to its regulatory interpretation but rather 

must engage in a separate rulemaking 

with notice and comment to revise that 

regulation before engaging in the whole 

chemical approach to risk 

determination. 

A third point raised was by a 

commenter that indicated that EPA did 

not fix existing legal flaws in the final 

risk evaluation, since EPA did not 

evaluate risk to all relevant 

subpopulations, including Alaska 

Indigenous Peoples, firefighters, and 

infants. 

EPA Response: EPA identified and 

reviewed occupational exposure 

information through the systematic 

review process and from public 

commenters to inform the HBCD risk 

evaluation. EPA considers that 

information relied on in the risk 

evaluation, as reflected in the hazard 

and exposure assessments and risk 

characterization in the September 2020 

risk evaluation, to be sufficient on 

occupational exposure to make the 

unreasonable risk determination and 

inform risk management. While EPA is 

undertaking efforts to refine its 2018 

approach to systematic review, the draft 

protocol is not yet final. EPA expects to 

apply that protocol, when final, 

prospectively and not retroactively; 

retroactive application would lead to 

further delays in completing the risk 

evaluations for the first ten substances 

and associated risk management 

activities, contrary to Congressional 

intent. Thus, EPA maintains that the 

2020 HBCD risk evaluation meets TSCA 

section 26(h) requirements. EPA 

welcomes any additional information 

from stakeholders during the 

development of the HBCD risk 

management rule; however, EPA 

expects to be able to complete a 

proposed and final risk management 

rule without additional information 

regarding occupational exposures to 

HBCD. 

EPA has inherent authority to 

reconsider previous decisions and to 

revise, replace, or repeal a decision to 

the 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). As to 

the final Risk Evaluation Rule, EPA 

acknowledges a lack of specificity in the 

statute and inconsistency in the 

regulations with respect to the 

presentation of risk determinations in 

TSCA section 6 risk evaluations. 

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 wholechemical risk determinations. Either 

approach is permissible under the 

regulation, and the Agency’s 

interpretation is entitled to Auer 

deference when using the multifactor 

test set forth in Kisor (See Ref. 7). As 

such, notice and comment rulemaking is 

not necessary before revising the HBCD 

risk determination. 

As a general matter, EPA must apply 

one or more requirements in TSCA 

section 6(a) to the extent necessary to 

address the unreasonable risk 

determined to be presented through a 

TSCA section 6(b) risk evaluation. 

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 options related to 

manufacture, processing, distribution in 

commerce, commercial use, and 

disposal in order to address the 

unreasonable risk. For instance, EPA 

may regulate upstream activities (e.g., 

processing, distribution in commerce) in 

order to address downstream activities 

driving unreasonable risk (e.g., 

consumer use) even if the upstream 

activities do not themselves drive the 

unreasonable risk. 

As explained in Ref. 9, EPA 

incorporated aggregate exposures 

covering all potential exposure routes 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 29, 2022 / Notices 38753 

for the general population and 

consumers in the final risk evaluation 

and the revised unreasonable risk 

determination. In addition, infants and 

subsistence fishers are identified as 

potentially exposed or susceptible 

subpopulations (PESS) and risks are 

reflected in the final risk evaluation. 

Finally, EPA explained how exposures 

to firefighters were considered and 

acknowledges that firefighter exposure 

to HBCD is an uncertainty in the risk 

evaluation (see Section 2.4.1.15.5 of the 

Risk Evaluation). 

C. Revisions to the Risk Determination— 

Whole Chemical Approach vs. 

Individual Conditions of Use 

As mentioned previously, several 

commenters supported the whole 

chemical approach on the basis that 

TSCA requires EPA to identify the full 

risk posed by a chemical substance. One 

commenter believes TSCA requires 

whole chemical determinations of 

unreasonable risk to satisfy the mandate 

to integrate and assess available 

information on hazards and exposures 

from the condition of use, especially in 

cases of potentially exposed or 

susceptible subpopulations, multiple 

routes of exposure, and combined risk 

to exposed populations across the 

chemical’s conditions of use and lifecycle stages. Others questioned whether 

EPA had the authority to change the risk 

determination to a whole chemical 

approach and whether this change was 

appropriate for HBCD. Some 

commenters opposed the whole 

chemical approach because the scope of 

the risk evaluation was based on 

conditions of use. In addition, some 

commenters indicated that EPA does 

not provide support for a whole 

chemical unreasonable risk 

determination given that certain 

conditions of use pose no unreasonable 

risk and a whole chemical approach 

would lump together uses that do not 

present unreasonable risk with those 

that do. Furthermore, the commenter 

noted that EPA has not explained why 

a majority of conditions of use should 

trigger a whole chemical unreasonable 

risk determination, EPA has not 

provided criteria for when to take a 

whole chemical approach, and 

manufacturers will no longer have 

incentives to request risk evaluations. In 

addition, some commenters requested 

that EPA review the whole chemical 

approach in the context of the risk 

management rules, how this approach 

would affect risk management, the need 

to clarify the intended practical and 

legal implications of this new approach, 

and how the implementation of the 

whole chemical approach is consistent 

with the best available science and the 

weight of the scientific evidence. 

EPA Response: The whole chemical 

approach is appropriate for HBCD 

because there are benchmark 

exceedances for multiple conditions of 

use (spanning across most aspects of the 

chemical lifecycle–from manufacturing 

(import), processing, commercial use, 

and disposal) for both health and the 

environment, HBCD is a persistent, 

bioaccumulative and toxic substance, 

and the health effects associated with 

HBCD exposures are irreversible. 

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 that the 

whole chemical presents an 

unreasonable risk. The revised 

unreasonable risk determination for 

HBCD reflects EPA’s objective of 

conducting a technically sound, 

manageable evaluation to determine 

whether the chemical substance—not 

just individual uses or activities— 

presents an unreasonable risk. 

Responding to comments about 

conditions of use which previously 

were found to not present unreasonable 

risk for HBCD, in the final revised risk 

determination, EPA identifies the 

conditions of use that drive the 

unreasonable risk of HBCD. Consistent 

with the statutory requirements of TSCA 

section 6(a), EPA will propose risk 

management regulatory actions to the 

extent necessary so that HBCD no longer 

presents an unreasonable risk. 

Therefore, it is expected that EPA’s risk 

management action likely will focus 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. For example, EPA 

may regulate upstream activities (e.g., 

processing, distribution in commerce) in 

order to address downstream activities 

driving unreasonable risk (e.g., 

consumer use) even if the upstream 

activities are do not drive the 

unreasonable risk. The public will have 

an opportunity to provide comments 

and any additional information during 

the comment period for the proposed 

risk management rule. In the case of 

manufacturer-request risk evaluation 

(MRRE), EPA has the ability to add 

conditions of use to the MRRE and it is 

possible that only some conditions of 

use will drive the unreasonable risk. 

EPA is mindful of this reality and 

intends to continue to be transparent 

during the risk evaluation and when 

making an unreasonable risk 

determination for the chemical 

substance as a whole to articulate which 

conditions of use drive the unreasonable 

risk and which do not. Also, EPA will 

continue to carry out analysis of the 

conditions of use within the scope of 

the risk evaluation and conduct risk 

management rulemaking to address any 

identified unreasonable risk. 

EPA considers the risk 

characterization, including hazard and 

exposure to HBCD, included in the 

September 2020 risk evaluation to 

account for reasonably available 

information for HBCD, and does not 

intend to amend the underlying 

scientific analysis in the risk 

characterization section of the risk 

evaluation. EPA also 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). 

D. Revisions to the Risk 

Determination—Assumptions of Use of 

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) 

Some commenters supported EPA’s 

decision to no longer rely on the 

assumption that workers always and 

properly use PPE when evaluating 

exposures in a risk evaluation. In their 

view, EPA needs to evaluate industry 

practices and EPA cannot assume that 

OSHA regulations will effectively 

require that workers always and 

appropriately use PPE. A commenter 

noted that the assumption of the use of 

PPE is not sufficiently supported by the 

practical realities of many workplaces. 

A commentor indicated that industry 

best practices are not relevant in 

determining whether regulations are 

needed to protect workers, and 

voluntary efforts can disappear in an 

instant, in a workplace or across a 

whole industry, and that regulation is 

thus needed to protect employees. Other 

commenters expressed opposition to 

EPA’s intention not to assume PPE is 

always and properly used when 

conducting risk evaluations. For 

example, several commenters stated that 

EPA’s decision not to assume the use of 

PPE is inconsistent with the definition 

of conditions of use under TSCA and 

contravenes TSCA’s explicit 

requirement under TSCA section 26(k) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
38754 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 29, 2022 / Notices 

to take into consideration information 

relating to a chemical substance or 

mixture, including hazard and exposure 

information, under the conditions of 

use, that is reasonably available to the 

Administrator. Some commentors stated 

that EPA’s proposed approach would 

artificially increase the calculated 

human health risk for particular uses of 

a chemical and create a false and 

misleading perception of worker risk. A 

couple of commentors suggested that 

EPA continue the approach of 

presenting both scenarios—HBCD use 

with and without PPE—to provide the 

appropriate bounding scenarios for 

HBCD risk exposures in the workplace. 

Another commentor added that it would 

also be appropriate for EPA to review 

and revise its modeling assumptions to 

ensure they reflect the state-of-the-art 

facilities and current industry practices. 

A commenter indicated that the 

discussion regarding industrial hygiene 

was imprecise and it is not clear if EPA 

intents to make unreasonable risk 

determinations from a baseline scenario 

that does not assume compliance with 

OSHA standards or the entire industrial 

hygiene hierarchy of controls. Several 

commentors encouraged EPA to 

coordinate and engage with OSHA. 

Finally, there were several comments 

regarding EPA’s use of the OSHA 

particulates not otherwise regulated 

(PNOR) permissible exposure limit 

(PEL) to HBCD as an exposure limit 

reference to workers engaged in 

demolition and disposal of XPS and EPS 

foam insulation. A commenter provided 

specific examples of the controls that 

are utilized on jobsites to comply with 

OSHA requirements and minimize 

worker exposure to dust and other 

particulate matter. 

EPA Response: EPA believes it is 

appropriate to evaluate the levels of risk 

present in scenarios considering 

applicable OSHA requirements as well 

as scenarios considering industry or 

sector best practices for industrial 

hygiene because such evaluation can 

help inform potential risk management 

actions (i.e., by informing EPA’s 

assessment of the feasibility and efficacy 

of different risk management options). 

However, EPA cannot reasonably 

assume that all facilities will have 

adopted these practices. Therefore, EPA 

is making its determination of 

unreasonable risk 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. This 

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 because 

their employer is out of compliance 

with OSHA standards, or because EPA 

finds unreasonable risk for purposes of 

TSCA notwithstanding existing OSHA 

requirements. In accordance with TSCA 

section 26(k), EPA considers reasonably 

available information, including 

information on occupational controls 

and PPE usage, when conducting TSCA 

section 6 risk evaluations and risk 

management rules. 

Under TSCA section 6(a), EPA must 

apply one or more risk management 

requirements to the extent necessary so 

that a chemical substance no longer 

presents unreasonable risk. Those 

requirements may include restrictions 

on the manufacture, processing, 

distribution in commerce, commercial 

use, or disposal of a chemical substance. 

Because the requirements and 

application of TSCA and OSHA 

regulatory analyses differ, it is 

appropriate that EPA conduct risk 

evaluations and, where it finds 

unreasonable risk to workers, develop 

risk management requirements for 

chemical substances that OSHA also 

regulates, and it is expected that EPA’s 

findings and requirements may 

sometimes diverge from OSHA’s. 

However, it is also appropriate that EPA 

consider the standards that OSHA has 

already developed, so as to limit the 

compliance burden to employers by 

aligning management approaches 

required by the agencies, where 

alignment will adequately address 

unreasonable risk to workers. 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 already be common practice in 

many or most facilities, including those 

mentioned by the commenters regarding 

controls used in demolition and 

disposal of XPS and EPS foam 

insulation. 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. 

The revised unreasonable risk 

determination for HBCD is based on the 

underlying risk assessments and risk 

characterization, in which EPA 

evaluated worker risk with and without 

PPE, and which were peer-reviewed by 

the Science Advisory Committee on 

Chemicals (SACC). EPA considers the 

risk characterization, including hazard 

and exposure to HBCD, included in the 

September 2020 risk evaluation to 

account for reasonably available 

information for HBCD, including 

reasonably available information 

regarding state-of-the-art facilities and 

current industry practices. Section 4.5.1 

and Table 4–27 of the final risk 

evaluation summarizes the peer 

reviewed risk estimates without PPE 

and informed the revised unreasonable 

risk determination. 

As previously addressed by the 

Agency in Ref. 9, the OSHA PNOR PEL 

model was used in the absence of 

relevant data for the Demolition and 

Disposal of XPS and EPS Foam 

Insulation in Residential, Public, and 

Commercial Buildings, and Other 

Structures. 

E. Conditions of Use That Drive the 

Unreasonable Risk Determination 

A commenter expressed concern that 

in the 2020 Risk Evaluation EPA 

concluded that the consumer/ 

commercial use of HBCD in articles 

does not pose an unreasonable risk, but 

by taking a whole chemical approach, 

EPA’s action may foster public 

perception that these COUs present an 

unreasonable risk. Another commenter 

said that EPA should use a Significant 

New Use Rule (SNUR) to confirm 

cessation of current use and prevent 

new uses of HBCD without review and 

assent by the EPA. One commenter said 

that data on the recycling of old EPS 

building insulation indicates that it is 

not being recycled in a manner that 

would result in a finding of 

unreasonable risk; and another 

commenter suggested that EPA isolate 

materials containing HBCD and direct 

them to proper disposal. A commenter 

further indicated that the finding of 

demolition of EPS insulation to present 

an unreasonable risk is based on 

inaccurate assumptions and provided 

similar information to comments 

received during the risk evaluation. 

Another commenter cautioned against 

EPA imposing additional duplicative 

requirements or regulatory burdens, 

such as existing stormwater controls. In 

a similar vein, a commenter said that 

the models used to support the 

unreasonable risk determination for 

demolition of buildings with HBCD era 

EPS over-estimated the amount of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 29, 2022 / Notices 38755 

HBCD; conversely, another commenter 

stated that EPA ignored the risk caused 

by the disposal of HBCD, particularly 

the vast quantities of insulation sent to 

landfills and incinerators, which 

resulted in an underestimation of the 

risk HBCD. 

EPA Response: Consistent with the 

statutory requirements of TSCA section 

6(a), EPA will propose risk management 

requirements to the extent necessary so 

that HBCD no longer presents an 

unreasonable risk. 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 

options related to manufacture, 

processing, distribution in commerce, 

commercial use, and disposal in order 

to address the unreasonable risk. EPA’s 

authority under TSCA section 6(a) is not 

affected by the change to a whole 

chemical risk determination for HBCD. 

Processing: Incorporation into Articles 

is one of the conditions of use that 

drives the HBCD unreasonable risk and 

will be subject to risk management 

action. EPA will undertake a separate 

public notice and comment period as 

part of the TSCA section 6(a) risk 

management rulemaking for HBCD, and 

will consider such public comments 

and any additional information before 

finalizing the rulemaking. EPA 

acknowledges the commenter’s 

suggestions related to storm water 

control requirements and risk 

management of HBCD, and encourages 

the commenter to submit specific 

comments along these lines during the 

future public comment period for the 

HBCD risk management rule. 

EPA appreciates the suggestion to 

promulgate a SNUR to confirm cessation 

of current uses and prevent new uses of 

HBCD from commencing without 

notification to and review by the 

Agency; however, given international 

commitments and anticipated impacts 

of TSCA section 6(a) risk management 

rulemaking for HBCD, it is unlikely that 

past practices or new uses of HBCD 

would be initiated. 

With respect to the specific comments 

regarding recycling and disposal, EPA 

originally presented the underlying 

scientific analysis in the draft risk 

evaluation released in July 2019 (84 FR 

31315, July 1, 2019 (FRL–9995–40)). 

The comment period lasted 60 days 

from July 1, 2019. Based on public 

comments and peer review comments 

received, EPA revised and issued the 

risk evaluation in September 2020 (85 

FR 60456, September 25, 2020 (FRL– 

10014–87)). Since changing the risk 

determination to a whole chemical 

approach does not impact the 

underlying data and analysis presented 

in the risk characterization of the risk 

evaluation, information provided by the 

commentors that was not provided 

during the draft risk evaluation and not 

considered in the risk characterization, 

will be considered during risk 

management. 

F. Other Comments 

Commenters indicated that the risk 

characterization did not adequately 

quantify HBCD’s potential harm to 

children, tribal risk for Alaska native 

and arctic indigenous pregnant women 

and children, firefighters, disposal, 

legacy uses, fenceline communities. A 

commenter indicated that even a full 

ban on HBCD cannot be considered to 

be protective of risks from legacy use 

and associated disposal. 

Other comments stated that if EPA 

did not reassess the conditions of use 

that do not present unreasonable risk, 

there is no basis for withdrawal of the 

associated orders. Others stated that 

there would be regulatory issues 

regardless because EPA has yet to 

finalize an amended risk management 

rule and resolve potential preemption 

concerns. 

A commenter noted that, due to the 

highly regulated nature of HBCD on the 

international level, the chemical has 

been phased out of new production or 

manufacture of new replacement parts 

and additional regulation would be 

duplicative. One commenter stated that 

as legacy replacement parts are phased 

out of the automobile sector, HBCD will 

be cleared from trade channels and pose 

very little risk to workers and the 

general population. 

A commenter suggested that EPA 

conducts another peer-review on the 

risk characterization section of the risk 

determination so that the lack of PPE 

use in the future can be thoroughly 

reviewed and assessed. 

Another commenter said that the 

Federal Register Notice does not clearly 

identify the chemicals in HBCD which 

could cause future regulatory confusion 

when applying the whole chemical risk 

determination. 

EPA Response: As previously 

explained in Ref. 9, EPA incorporated 

aggregate exposures covering all 

potential exposure routes for the general 

population and consumers in the final 

risk evaluation and now in the revised 

unreasonable risk determination. In 

addition, infants and subsistence fishers 

are identified as potentially exposed or 

susceptible subpopulations (PESS) and 

risks are reflected in the final risk 

evaluation. Finally, EPA explained how 

exposures to firefighters were 

considered and acknowledges that 

firefighter exposure to HBCD is an 

uncertainty in the risk evaluation (see 

Section 2.4.1.15.5 of the Risk 

Evaluation). Fenceline communities 

living near disposal sites were included 

in the final risk evaluation as part of 

EPA’s assessment of potential exposure 

routes for the general population. EPA 

added conditions of use for the 

activities it had initially excluded as 

legacy uses and associated disposals in 

the risk evaluation for HBCD. Exposure 

to HBCD from use, reuse, recycling, or 

disposal of discontinued products and 

articles is not excluded from the final 

risk evaluation. 

Because EPA is finding that HBCD, as 

a whole chemical substance, presents 

unreasonable risk under the conditions 

of use, EPA is also withdrawing the 

TSCA section 6(i)(1) no unreasonable 

risk order issued in Section 5.4.1 of the 

2020 HBCD risk evaluation. TSCA 

section 18(c)(3) defines the scope of 

federal preemption with respect to any 

final rule EPA issues under TSCA 

section 6(a). That provision provides 

that federal preemption of statutes, 

criminal penalties, and administrative 

actions applies to the hazards, 

exposures, risks, and uses or conditions 

of use of such chemical substances 

included in any final action the 

Administrator takes pursuant to TSCA 

section 6(a)] EPA reads this to mean that 

states are preempted from imposing 

requirements through statutes, criminal 

penalties, and administrative actions 

relating to any hazards, exposures, risks, 

and uses or conditions of use evaluated 

in the final risk evaluation and 

informing the unreasonable risk 

determination that EPA addresses in the 

TSCA section 6(a) rulemaking. For 

example, federal preemption applies 

even if EPA does not regulate in that 

final rule a particular COU, but that 

COU was evaluated in the final risk 

evaluation. 

There is no change in the underlying 

scientific analysis of the September 

2020 risk evaluation with regard to 

COUs that may relate to replacement 

parts. The revised risk determination 

identifies COUs that drive unreasonable 

risk from HBCD, which may include 

COUs that relate to replacement parts or 

articles. Under TSCA section 6(c)(2)(D), 

the consideration of replacement parts 

will take place during the risk 

management rulemaking stage, based on 

the risk evaluation findings. EPA 

acknowledges the comment about 

duplicative regulation of HBCD, and 

encourages the commenter to submit 

specific comments along these lines 

during the future public comment 

period for the HBCD risk management 

rule. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
38756 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 29, 2022 / Notices 

The revised unreasonable risk 

determination for HBCD is based on the 

underlying risk assessments and risk 

characterization, in which EPA 

evaluated worker risk with and without 

PPE, and which were peer-reviewed by 

the SACC. No changes have been made 

to the peer reviewed risk assessments or 

risk characterization as a result of 

revisions to the risk determination for 

HBCD, and therefore EPA does not plan 

to conduct another round of peer 

review. 

The Executive Summary in the final 

risk evaluation states that HBCD is often 

characterized as a mixture of mainly 

three diastereomers, which differ only 

in the spatial disposition of the atoms: 

Hexabromocyclododecane (CASRN 

25637–99–4), 1,2,5,6,9,10- 

hexabromocyclododecane (CASRN 

3194–55–6); and, 1,2,5,6- 

tetrabromocyclooctane (CASRN 3194– 

57–8). The revised unreasonable risk 

determination for HBCD applies to the 

cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster (HBCD) 

that includes all three chemicals. Any 

future proposed and final rule to 

address the unreasonable risk presented 

by HBCD will be for the HBCD cluster: 

Hexabromocyclododecane (CASRN 

25637–99–4), 1,2,5,6,9,10- 

hexabromocyclododecane (CASRN 

3194–55–6); and, 1,2,5,6- 

tetrabromocyclooctane (CASRN 3194– 

57–8). 

IV. Revision of the September 2020 

Risk Evaluation 

A. Why is EPA proposing to revise the 

risk determination for the HBCD risk 

evaluation? 

EPA is finalizing the revised risk 

determination for the HBCD risk 

evaluation pursuant to TSCA section 

6(b) and consistent with Executive 

Order 13990, (Ref 2) and other 

Administration priorities (Refs. 1, 3, and 

4). 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 HBCD risk 

evaluation, this includes: (1) making the 

risk determination in this instance 

based on the whole chemical approach 

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 HBCD Risk 

Evaluation pursuant to TSCA section 

6(b). Under the revised determination, 

EPA concludes that HBCD, as evaluated 

in the risk evaluation as a whole, 

presents an unreasonable risk of injury 

to health and environment under its 

conditions of use. This revision replaces 

the previous unreasonable risk 

determinations made for HBCD 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. 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 from the 

HBCD risk evaluation and the response 

to comments document (Ref. 9). 

In response to public comments, EPA 

is changing the name of the condition of 

use previously named Import to now be 

named Manufacturing—Import to 

clarify that manufacture also includes 

import, as defined by TSCA section 3(9). 

The revised unreasonable risk 

determination for HBCD also 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 2020 HBCD risk evaluation. 

C. Will the revised risk determination be 

peer reviewed? 

The risk determination (Section 5 of 

the Risk Evaluation) was not part of the 

scope of the Science Advisory 

Committee on Chemicals (SACC) peer 

review of the HBCD risk evaluation. 

Thus, consistent with that approach, 

EPA did not conduct peer review of the 

final revised unreasonable risk 

determination for the HBCD 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 2020 HBCD risk 

evaluation. This final revised risk 

determination supersedes the condition 

of use-specific no unreasonable risk 

determinations in the September 2020 

HBCD risk evaluation. The order 

contained in section 5.5 of the revised 

risk determination (Ref. 8) withdraws 

the TSCA section 6(i)(1) order contained 

in section 5.4.1 of the September 2020 

risk evaluation for HBCD. Consistent 

with the statutory requirements of 

section 6(a), the Agency will propose 

risk management actions to address the 

unreasonable risk determined in the 

HBCD 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 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

1. 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). 

2. Executive Order 13985. Advancing Racial 

Equity and Support for Underserved 

Communities Through the Federal 

Government. Federal Register (86 FR 

7009, January 25, 2021). 

3. Executive Order 14008. Tackling the 

Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad. 

Federal Register (86 FR 7619, February 

1, 2021). 

4. Presidential Memorandum. Memorandum 

on Restoring Trust in Government 

Through Scientific Integrity and 

Evidence-Based Policymaking. Federal 

Register (86 FR 8845, February 10, 2021). 

5. 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). 

6. 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). 

7. EPA. Response to Public Comments to the 

revised Unreasonable Risk 

Determination for Cyclic Aliphatic 

Bromide Cluster (HBCD). June 2022. 

8. EPA. Unreasonable Risk Determination for 

Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster 

(HBCD). June 2022. 

9. EPA. Summary of External Peer Review 

and Public Comments and Disposition 

for Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster 

(HBCD), September 2020. Available at: 

https://www.regulations.gov/document/ 

EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0237-0069. 

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


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 29, 2022 / Notices 38757 

Dated: June 23, 2022. 

Michal Freedhoff, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13805 Filed 6–28–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE 

UNITED STATES 

Intent To Conduct a Detailed Economic 

Impact Analysis 

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Charter of the 

Export-Import Bank of the United 

States, this notice is to inform the public 

that the Export-Import Bank of the 

United States has received an 

application for a $525 million long-term 

loan guarantee to support the export of 

approximately $366 million worth of 

U.S. engineering services, design 

services, licenses, catalysts, and refining 

equipment. The U.S. goods and services 

will be exported to Malaysia and 

establish production capacity of refined 

petrochemicals. New capacity from the 

project is anticipated to produce 718 

thousand metric tons per year of jet fuel, 

961 thousand metric tons per year of 

light naphtha, 460 thousand metric tons 

per year of low sulfur fuel oil, 1.68 

million metric tons per year of 

paraxylene, and 591 thousand metric 

tons per year of benzene. Production of 

paraxylene and benzene will primarily 

be sold to China, while production of jet 

fuel, light naphtha, low sulfur fuel oil 

will primarily be sold regionally in 

Southeast Asia. 

DATES: Comments are due 14 days from 

publication in the Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may 

submit comments on this transaction 

electronically on www.regulations.gov, 

or by email to economic.impact@

exim.gov. 

Eric Larger, 

Office of Policy Analysis and International 

Relations. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13827 Filed 6–28–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6690–01–P 

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK 

Intent To Conduct a Detailed Economic 

Impact Analysis 

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Charter of the 

Export-Import Bank of the United 

States, this notice is to inform the public 

that the Export-Import Bank of the 

United States has received an 

application for $39.8 million in 

medium-term insurance to support the 

export of approximately $45.7 million 

worth of U.S. aluminum beverage cans 

and ends manufacturing equipment to 

Brazil. The U.S. exports will enable the 

Brazilian company to expand its 

existing production by 3 billion 

aluminum cans per year and 2.8 billion 

aluminum can ends per year. New 

production will be sold in Brazil. 

DATES: Comments are due 14 days from 

publication in the Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may 

submit comments on this transaction 

electronically on www.regulations.gov, 

or by email to economic.impact@

exim.gov. 

Eric Larger, 

Office of Policy Analysis and International 

Relations. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13826 Filed 6–28–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6690–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

[OMB 3060–0799; FR ID 93240] 

Information Collection Being 

Submitted for Review and Approval to 

Office of Management and Budget 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort 

to reduce paperwork burdens, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC or 

the Commission) invites the general 

public and other Federal Agencies to 

take this opportunity to comment on the 

following information collection. 

Pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC 

seeks specific comment on how it can 

further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

DATES: Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be 

submitted on or before July 29, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to 

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 

Find this particular information 

collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under 

30-day Review—Open for Public 

Comments’’ or by using the search 

function. Your comment must be 

submitted into www.reginfo.gov per the 

above instructions for it to be 

considered. In addition to submitting in 

www.reginfo.gov also send a copy of 

your comment on the proposed 

information collection to Cathy 

Williams, FCC, via email to PRA@

fcc.gov and to Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. 

Include in the comments the OMB 

control number as shown in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information or copies of the 

information collection, contact Cathy 

Williams at (202) 418–2918. To view a 

copy of this information collection 

request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) go 

to the web page http://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the 

section of the web page called 

‘‘Currently Under Review,’’ (3) click on 

the downward-pointing arrow in the 

‘‘Select Agency’’ box below the 

‘‘Currently Under Review’’ heading, (4) 

select ‘‘Federal Communications 

Commission’’ from the list of agencies 

presented in the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box, 

(5) click the ‘‘Submit’’ button to the 

right of the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box, (6) 

when the list of FCC ICRs currently 

under review appears, look for the Title 

of this ICR and then click on the ICR 

Reference Number. A copy of the FCC 

submission to OMB will be displayed. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission may not conduct or 

sponsor a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. No person shall 

be subject to any penalty for failing to 

comply with a collection of information 

subject to the PRA that does not display 

a valid OMB control number. 

As part of its continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork burdens, as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the FCC 

invited the general public and other 

Federal Agencies to take this 

opportunity to comment on the 

following information collection. 

Comments are requested concerning: (a) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Commission, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s 

burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; and (d) ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on the respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. Pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1