Law Center Search Results

On October 30, 2024, the NAM filed an amicus brief asking the 5th Circuit to invalidate EPA’s risk management rule for methylene chloride. Methylene chloride is a substance central to manufacturing processes across a huge variety of industries including coatings, refining, petrochemicals, petroleum, forestry, wood products, batteries, electronics, energy, electricity and defense. The risk management rule characterized methylene chloride as presenting an unreasonable risk “as a whole chemical substance,” regardless of the application, and assumed that no person facing potential methylene chloride exposure is using personal protective equipment. As a result, EPA prohibited all but 13 of the 53 conditions of use for methylene chloride. Petitioners challenged the rule in the 5th Circuit, arguing that the rule is inconsistent with the text and structure of TSCA—which requires a risk determination of each condition of use—and unsupported by substantial evidence.

The NAM’s brief underscores that the EPA’s whole chemical approach to risk evaluation is inconsistent with TSCA’s text and the Constitution’s separation of powers. EPA’s approach gives it unbridled authority to regulate any chemical to any extent based on its sole judgment that the chemical presents any risk to health or the environment. TSCA provides no basis for that authority in the statute. And the exercise of such unbridled unilateral legislative power to rule over a significant portion of the economy cannot be delegated to the executive branch.