Methylene Chloride; Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 39254-39302 [2024-09606]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
39254
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 751
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465; FRL–8155–01–
OCSPP]
RIN 2070–AK70
Methylene Chloride; Regulation Under
the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA)
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
I. Executive Summary
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA or the Agency) is
finalizing a rule to address the
unreasonable risk of injury to health
presented by methylene chloride under
its conditions of use. TSCA requires that
EPA address by rule any unreasonable
risk of injury to health or the
environment identified in a TSCA risk
evaluation and apply requirements to
the extent necessary so that the
chemical no longer presents
unreasonable risk. EPA’s final rule will,
among other things, prevent serious
illness and death associated with
uncontrolled exposures to the chemical
by preventing consumer access to the
chemical, restricting the industrial and
commercial use of the chemical while
also allowing for a reasonable transition
period where an industrial and
commercial use of the chemical is being
prohibited, provide a time-limited
exemption for a critical or essential use
of methylene chloride for which no
technically and economically feasible
safer alternative is available, and protect
workers from the unreasonable risk of
methylene chloride while on the job.
DATES: This final rule is effective on July
8, 2024.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For technical information contact:
Ingrid Feustel, Existing Chemicals Risk
Management Division (7405M), Office of
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460–0001; telephone number: (202)
564–3199; email address:
MethyleneChlorideTSCA@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:
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by
this rule if you manufacture (defined
under TSCA to include import), process,
distribute in commerce, use, or dispose
of methylene chloride or products
containing methylene chloride. TSCA
section 3(9) defines the term
‘‘manufacture’’ to mean to import into
the customs territory of the United
States (as defined in general note 2 of
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States), produce, or manufacture.
Therefore, unless expressly stated
otherwise, importers of methylene
chloride are subject to any provisions
regulating manufacture of methylene
chloride. The following list of North
American Industrial Classification
System (NAICS) codes is not intended
to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether
this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities include:
• Other Chemical and Allied
Products Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS
code 424690);
• Crude Petroleum Extraction (NAICS
code 211120);
• All Other Basic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing (NAICS code 325199);
• Other Chemical and Allied
Products Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS
code 424690);
• Petroleum Bulk Stations and
Terminals (NAICS code 424710);
• Other Basic Inorganic Chemical
Manufacturing (NAICS code 325180);
• Testing Laboratories (NAICS code
541380);
• Research and Development in the
Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences
(except Nanotechnology and
Biotechnology (NAICS code 541715);
• Hazardous Waste Treatment and
Disposal (NAICS code 562211);
• Solid Waste Combustors and
Incinerators (NAICS code 562213);
• Materials Recovery Facilities
(NAICS code 562920);
• Paint and Coating Manufacturing
(NAICS code 325510);
• Air and Gas Compressor
Manufacturing (NAICS code 333912);
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
• Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device
Manufacturing (NAICS code 339991);
• Residential Remodelers (NAICS
code 236118);
• Commercial and Institutional
Building Construction (NAICS code
236220);
• Plumbing, Heating, and AirConditioning Contractors (NAICS code
238220);
• Painting and Wall Covering
Contractors (NAICS code 238320);
• All Other Miscellaneous
Manufacturing (NAICS code 339999);
• Automotive Parts and Accessories
Stores (NAICS code 441310);
• All Other Miscellaneous Store
Retailers (except Tobacco Stores)
(NAICS code 453998);
• Other Support Activities for Air
Transportation (NAICS code 488190);
• All Other Automotive Repair and
Maintenance (NAICS code 811198);
• Commercial and Industrial
Machinery and Equipment (except
Automotive and Electronic) Repair and
Maintenance (NAICS code 811310);
• Footwear and Leather Goods Repair
(NAICS code 811430);
• Adhesive Manufacturing (NAICS
code 325520);
• All Other Miscellaneous Chemical
Product and Preparation Manufacturing
(NAICS code 325998);
• Audio and Video Equipment
Manufacturing (NAICS code 334310);
• Reupholstery and Furniture Repair
(NAICS code 811420);
• All Other Rubber Product
Manufacturing (NAICS code 326299);
• All Other Miscellaneous Textile
Product Mills (NAICS code 314999);
• All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated
Metal Product Manufacturing (NAICS
code 332999);
• Oil and Gas Field Machinery and
Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS code
333132);
• Bare Printed Circuit Board
Manufacturing (NAICS code 334412);
• Other Electronic Component
Manufacturing (NAICS code 334419);
• All Other Miscellaneous Electrical
Equipment and Component
Manufacturing (NAICS code 335999);
• Printing Machinery and Equipment
Manufacturing (NAICS code 333244);
• Petroleum Refineries (NAICS code
324110);
• Petroleum Lubricating Oil and
Grease Manufacturing (NAICS code
324191);
• Painting and Wall Covering
Contractors (NAICS code 238320);
• Welding and Soldering Equipment
Manufacturing (NAICS code 333992);
• New Car Dealers (NAICS code
441110);
• Used Car Dealers (NAICS code
441120);
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
• Drycleaning and Laundry Services
(except Coin-Operated) (NAICS code
812320); and
• Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing
(NAICS code 339930).
This action may also affect certain
entities through pre-existing import,
including import certification, and
export notification rules under TSCA.
Persons who import any chemical
substance in bulk form, as part of a
mixture, or as part of an article (if
required by rule) are also subject to
TSCA section 13 import certification
requirements and the corresponding
regulations at 19 CFR 12.118 through
12.127; see also 19 CFR 127.28. Those
persons must certify that the shipment
of the chemical substance complies with
all applicable rules and orders under
TSCA. The EPA policy in support of
import certification appears at 40 CFR
part 707, subpart B. In addition, any
persons who export or intend to export
a chemical substance that is the subject
of this final rule are subject to the export
notification provisions of TSCA section
12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)), and must
comply with the export notification
requirements in 40 CFR part 707,
subpart D. Any person who exports or
intends to export methylene chloride
must comply with the export
notification requirements in 40 CFR part
707, subpart D.
B. What is the Agency’s authority for
taking this action?
Under TSCA section 6(a) (15 U.S.C.
2605(a)), if EPA determines through a
TSCA section 6(b) risk evaluation that a
chemical substance presents an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment, EPA must by rule
apply one or more requirements listed
in TSCA section 6(a) to the extent
necessary so that the chemical
substance or mixture no longer presents
such risk.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
C. What action is the Agency taking?
Pursuant to TSCA section 6(b), EPA
determined that methylene chloride
presents an unreasonable risk of injury
to health, without consideration of costs
or other non-risk factors, including an
unreasonable risk to potentially exposed
or susceptible subpopulations identified
as relevant to the 2020 Risk Evaluation
for Methylene Chloride by EPA, under
the conditions of use (Refs. 1, 2). A
detailed description of the conditions of
use that contribute to EPA’s
determination that methylene chloride
presents an unreasonable risk is in Unit
II.C.4. Accordingly, to address the
unreasonable risk, EPA is issuing this
final rule under TSCA section 6(a) to:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
(i) Prohibit the manufacture,
processing, and distribution of
methylene chloride for all consumer
use, as outlined in Unit IV.C.;
(ii) Prohibit most industrial and
commercial use of methylene chloride
and delay prohibition for two
conditions of use, as outlined in Unit
IV.C.;
(iii) Require a workplace chemical
protection program (WCPP), including
inhalation exposure concentration
limits and related workplace exposure
monitoring and exposure controls, for
13 conditions of use of methylene
chloride (including manufacture;
processing; several industrial and
commercial uses such as laboratory use;
and disposal), as outlined in Unit IV.B.;
(iv) Identify a de minimis threshold
for products containing methylene
chloride for the prohibitions and
restrictions on methylene chloride, as
outlined in Unit IV.A.;
(v) Require recordkeeping and
downstream notification requirements
for manufacturing, processing, and
distribution in commerce of methylene
chloride, as outlined in Unit IV.E.; and
(vi) Provide a 10-year time-limited
exemption under TSCA section 6(g) for
emergency use of methylene chloride in
furtherance of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration’s mission for
specific conditions which are critical or
essential and for which no technically
and economically feasible safer
alternative is available, taking into
consideration hazard and exposure, as
outlined in Unit IV.F., with conditions
for this exemption to include
compliance with the WCPP described in
Unit IV.B.
EPA notes that all TSCA conditions of
use of methylene chloride (other than
the use of methylene chloride in
consumer paint and coating removers,
which was subject to separate action
under TSCA section 6 (84 FR 11420,
March 27, 2019) (FRL–9989–29) are
subject to this final rule. Condition of
use is defined in TSCA section 3(4) to
mean the circumstances, as determined
by EPA, under which a chemical
substance is intended, known, or
reasonably foreseen to be manufactured,
processed, distributed in commerce,
used, or disposed of.
In addition, EPA is amending the
general provisions of 40 CFR part 751,
subpart A, to define ‘‘Article,’’
‘‘Authorized person,’’ ‘‘Owner or
operator,’’ ‘‘Potentially exposed
person,’’ ‘‘Product,’’ ‘‘Regulated area,’’
and ‘‘Retailer’’ so that these definitions
may be commonly applied to this and
other rules under TSCA section 6 that
would be codified under 40 CFR part
751.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
39255
D. Why is the Agency taking this action?
Under TSCA section 6(a), ‘‘[i]f the
Administrator determines in accordance
with subsection (b)(4)(A) that the
manufacture, processing, distribution in
commerce, use or disposal of a chemical
substance or mixture, or that any
combination of such activities, presents
an unreasonable risk of injury to health
or the environment, the Administrator
shall by rule . . . apply one or more of
the [section 6(a)] requirements to such
substance or mixture to the extent
necessary so that the chemical
substance no longer presents such risk.’’
Methylene chloride was the subject of a
risk evaluation under TSCA section
6(b)(4)(A) that was issued in June 2020
(Ref. 1). In addition, EPA issued a
revised unreasonable risk determination
for methylene chloride in November
2022 (Ref. 2) determining that
methylene chloride, as a whole
chemical substance, presents an
unreasonable risk of injury to health
under the conditions of use. On May 3,
2023, EPA issued a proposed rule (88
FR 28284) (FRL–8155–02–OCSPP)
under TSCA section 6(a) to regulate
methylene chloride, so that it no longer
presents unreasonable risk. The Agency
received public comment on the
proposal. With this action, EPA is
finalizing with modifications the May
2023 proposed rule so that methylene
chloride no longer presents an
unreasonable risk. The conditions of use
that contribute to the unreasonable risk
from methylene chloride are described
in Unit III.B.1. of the proposed rule (88
FR 28284) (FRL–8155–02–OCSPP).
EPA emphasizes that some of the
adverse effects from methylene chloride
exposure, including sudden death, can
be both immediately experienced and
after only a short duration (Ref. 1).
Other effects may result in long-term
human health impacts which are also
considered significant, including liver
effects and cancer. Fatalities from acute
methylene chloride exposures have
been documented and pose a serious
public health threat; these fatalities led
the agency to prohibit the manufacture,
processing, and distribution of
methylene chloride for use in consumer
paint and coating removers in 2019 (84
FR 11420, March 27, 2019) (FRL–9989–
29). This final rule will eliminate the
unreasonable risk to human health from
the remaining conditions of use of
methylene chloride, as identified in the
2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene
Chloride (Ref. 1) and the Revised
Unreasonable Risk Determination for
Methylene Chloride in November 2022
(Ref. 2).
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
39256
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
Although EPA is prohibiting many
conditions of use of the chemical where
it cannot be used without continuing to
present unreasonable risk as described
in Unit IV., EPA is not finalizing a
complete ban on methylene chloride.
While addressing the unreasonable risk,
this final rule allows methylene
chloride’s limited and controlled
continued use in tandem with
additional worker protections for
several purposes, including the
production of hydrofluorocarbon-32
(HFC–32), one of the regulated
substances that are subject to a
phasedown under the American
Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM)
Act of 2020. For many of the conditions
of use for which EPA is finalizing
workplace controls under a WCPP, data
to support the industry’s position that
certain uses could meet the exposure
limit and ancillary requirements of an
effective WCPP in addressing
unreasonable risk were submitted
during the risk evaluation, Small
Business Advocacy Review (SBAR)
Panel process, the comment period
following publication of the proposed
rule, or during stakeholder outreach,
and are available in the corresponding
public dockets (EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–
0465; EPA–HQ–OPPT–2019–0437;
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2016–0742).
E. What are the estimated incremental
impacts of this action?
EPA has prepared an Economic
Analysis of the potential incremental
impacts associated with this rulemaking
that can be found in the rulemaking
docket (Ref. 3). As described in more
detail in the Economic Analysis (Ref. 3),
EPA’s analysis of the incremental, nonclosure-related costs of this rule is
estimated to be $37.0 million
annualized over 20 years at a 3%
discount rate and $39.5 million
annualized over 20 years at a 7%
discount rate. In response to the
updated Circular A–4 published in
November 2023, the incremental, nonclosure related costs of this rule at a 2%
discount rate ($36.4 million annualized
over 20 years) is provided in appendix
D of the Economic Analysis (Ref. 3).
These costs take compliance with
implementation of a WCPP for certain
conditions of use into consideration,
which would include an Existing
Chemical Exposure Limit (ECEL) of 2
ppm (8 mg/m3) for inhalation exposures
as an 8-hour time-weighted average
(TWA), applicable personal protective
equipment (PPE) requirements, and
reformulation costs of numerous
products.
In alignment with the goals of
President Biden’s Cancer Moonshot, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
rule will protect people from cancer and
other adverse health effects of
methylene chloride by prohibiting most
uses of methylene chloride while
ensuring essential uses can safely
continue (Ref. 4). The actions in this
final rule are expected to achieve health
benefits for the American public, some
of which can be monetized and others
that, while tangible and significant,
cannot be monetized. Although some
benefits cannot be quantified, they are
not necessarily less important than the
quantified benefits. The incremental
improvements in health outcomes
achieved by given reductions in
exposure cannot be quantified for noncancer health effects associated with
methylene chloride exposure, and
therefore cannot be converted into
monetized benefits.
The monetized benefits of this rule
are approximately $24.8 million to
$25.1 million annualized over 20 years
at a 3% discount rate and $19.8 million
to $20.0 million annualized over 20
years at a 7% discount rate. In response
to the updated Circular A–4 published
in November 2023, the incremental
benefits at a 2% discount rate ($27.1 to
$27.5 million annualized over 20 years)
are provided in appendix D of the
Economic Analysis (Ref. 3). The
monetized benefits only include
potential reductions in risk of liver
cancer and lung cancer associated with
chronic exposures, and potential deaths
avoided from acute methylene chloride
exposure. Non-monetized benefits
include potential reductions in central
nervous system depressant effects; these
effects include loss of consciousness
and respiratory depression that may
result in irreversible coma and hypoxia.
Risks from acute exposures to
methylene chloride can lead to
workplace accidents and are precursors
to the more severe central nervous
system effects (up to and including
death). Other non-monetized benefits
include reductions in liver disease
(including vacuolization, necrosis,
hemosiderosis and hepatocellular
degeneration), immune system
compromise, and irritation and burns
(Ref. 3).
II. Background
A. Overview of Methylene Chloride
As described in more detail in the
May 2023 proposed rule (88 FR 28284,
May 3, 2023) (FRL–8155–02–OCSPP),
methylene chloride is acutely lethal, a
neurotoxicant, and a carcinogen. This
final rule is specifically intended to
address the unreasonable risk of injury
to health that EPA has identified in the
2020 Risk Evaluation for methylene
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
chloride (Ref. 1) and 2022 Revised
Unreasonable Risk Determination (Ref.
2), as described in Unit II.C.3.
Methylene chloride is a colorless liquid
and a volatile chemical with a sweet
odor resembling chloroform. It is both
produced in and imported into the
United States. Methylene chloride is
manufactured, processed, distributed in
commerce, used, and disposed of as part
of many industrial, commercial, and
consumer conditions of use. As outlined
in Unit II.C.4., methylene chloride is a
widely used solvent in a variety of
consumer and commercial applications
including adhesives and sealants,
automotive products, and paint and
coating removers. Some evidence
suggests that in recent years, use of
methylene chloride has been declining
in certain sectors (Ref. 3), particularly
for consumer products, as the hazards of
methylene chloride are well known, and
certain uses are highly regulated. As
further described in Unit II.B. and in the
regulatory appendix (Ref. 5), these
regulations include EPA’s 2019 final
rule addressing unreasonable risk to
consumers from methylene chloride use
in consumer paint and coating removal
by prohibiting manufacturing,
processing, and distribution in
commerce of methylene chloride for
consumer use in paint and coating
removal (84 FR 11420, March 27, 2019)
(FRL–9989–29).
The total annual aggregate production
volume of methylene chloride was
between 100 million to 500 million
pounds between 2016 and 2019
according to Chemical Data Reporting
(CDR) (Ref. 6). One notable high-volume
use accounting for approximately onefifth of all methylene chloride annual
production volume is processing as a
reactant, which includes the
manufacture of HFCs (Ref. 1). This
condition of use is described in Unit
II.B.1. of the proposed rule, with a
description of final requirements to
address unreasonable risk in Units
II.D.1. and IV. An estimated 35% of the
annual production volume of methylene
chloride is for pharmaceutical uses,
which are not subject to TSCA and will
not be regulated by this rule (15 U.S.C.
2602(2)(B)(vi); 21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)).
B. Regulatory Actions Pertaining to
Methylene Chloride
Because of its adverse health effects,
methylene chloride is subject to
numerous State, Federal, and
international regulations restricting and
regulating its use. A summary of EPA
regulations pertaining to methylene
chloride, as well as other Federal, State,
and international regulations, is in the
docket (Refs. 1, 5).
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
As described in more detail in EPA’s
proposed rule (88 FR 28284, May 3,
2023) (FRL–8155–02–OCSPP), and the
Response to Public Comments
document (Ref. 7), EPA considered the
adequacy of the current standard for
methylene chloride from the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) (29 CFR
1910.1052) for protection of workers.
EPA notes that the standards for
chemical hazards that OSHA
promulgates under the Occupational
Safety and Health (OSH) Act share a
broadly similar purpose with the worker
protection-related standards that EPA
promulgates under TSCA section 6(a).
The control measures OSHA and EPA
require to satisfy the objectives of their
respective statutes may also, in many
circumstances, overlap or coincide.
However, there are important
differences between EPA’s and OSHA’s
regulatory approaches and jurisdiction,
and EPA considers these differences
when deciding whether and how to
account for OSHA requirements when
evaluating and addressing potential
unreasonable risk to workers so that
compliance requirements are clearly
explained to the regulated community.
Additional considerations of OSHA
standards in the revised unreasonable
risk determination are discussed further
in the 2022 Revised Unreasonable Risk
Determination for Methylene Chloride,
published in the Federal Register of
November 10, 2022 (87 FR 67901) (Ref.
2).
EPA intends for this regulation to be
as consistent as possible with the
current OSHA standard for methylene
chloride, with additional requirements
as necessary to address the
unreasonable risk. Consistent with
TSCA section 9(d), EPA consults and
coordinates TSCA activities with OSHA
and other relevant Federal agencies for
the purpose of achieving the maximum
enforcement of TSCA while imposing
the least burdens of duplicative
requirements.
C. Summary of EPA’s Risk Evaluation
Activities on Methylene Chloride
In July 2017, EPA published the scope
of the methylene chloride risk
evaluation (82 FR 31592, July 7, 2017)
(FRL–9963–57), and, after receiving
public comments, published the
problem formulation in June 2018 (83
FR 26998, June 11, 2018) (FRL–9978–
40). In October 2019, EPA published a
draft risk evaluation (84 FR 57866,
October 29, 2019) (FRL–9999–69), and,
after public comment and peer review
by the Science Advisory Committee on
Chemicals (SACC), EPA issued the 2020
Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
in June 2020 in accordance with TSCA
section 6(b) (85 FR 37942, June 24,
2020) (FRL–10011–16). EPA
subsequently issued a draft revised
TSCA risk determination for methylene
chloride (87 FR 39824, July 5, 2022)
(9946–01–OCSPP), and, after public
notice and receipt of comments,
published a Revised Risk Determination
for Methylene Chloride in November
2022 (Ref. 2). The 2020 Risk Evaluation
for Methylene Chloride and
supplemental materials are in docket
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2019–0437, and the
November 2022 revised unreasonable
risk determination and additional
materials supporting the risk evaluation
process are in docket EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2016–0742, on https://
www.regulations.gov.
1. 2020 Risk Evaluation
In the 2020 Risk Evaluation for
Methylene Chloride, EPA evaluated
risks associated with 53 conditions of
use within the following categories:
manufacture (including import),
processing, distribution in commerce,
industrial and commercial use,
consumer use, and disposal (Ref. 1).
Descriptions of these conditions of use
are in Unit III.B.1. of the proposed rule.
The 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene
Chloride identified significant adverse
health effects associated with short- and
long-term exposure to methylene
chloride. A further discussion of the
hazards of methylene chloride is in Unit
III.B.1. of the proposed rule (88 FR
28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL–8155–02–
OCSPP).
2. 2022 Revised Unreasonable Risk
Determination
As described in more detail in EPA’s
proposed rule (88 FR 28284, May 3,
2023) (FRL–8155–02–OCSPP), EPA
revised the original unreasonable risk
determination based on the 2020 Risk
Evaluation for Methylene Chloride and
issued a final revised unreasonable risk
determination in November 2022 (Ref.
2). EPA revised the risk determination
for the 2020 Risk Evaluation for
Methylene Chloride 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. 8, 9, 10). The revisions
consisted of making the risk
determination based on the wholechemical substance instead of making
risk determinations for each individual
condition of use, which resulted in the
revised risk determination superseding
the prior ‘‘no unreasonable risk’’
determinations for specific conditions of
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
39257
use (Ref. 2), the withdrawal of the
associated TSCA section 6(i)(1) ‘‘no
unreasonable risk’’ order, and
clarification that the risk determination
does not reflect an assumption that all
workers are always provided and
appropriately wear PPE (Ref. 2).
EPA determined that methylene
chloride presents an unreasonable risk
of injury to health, and did not identify
risks of injury to the environment that
contribute to the unreasonable risk
determination for methylene chloride.
The methylene chloride conditions of
use that drive EPA’s determination that
the chemical substance poses
unreasonable risk to health are listed in
the unreasonable risk determination
(Ref. 2) and also in Unit III.B.2. of the
proposed rule, with descriptions to aid
chemical manufacturers, processors,
and users in determining how their
particular use or activity would be
addressed under the final regulatory
action.
3. Description of Unreasonable Risk
EPA has determined that methylene
chloride presents an unreasonable risk
of injury to health under the conditions
of use, based on acute and chronic noncancer risks and chronic cancer risks.
As described in more detail in EPA’s
proposed rule (88 FR 28284, May 3,
2023) (FRL–8155–02–OCSPP) and as
described in the TSCA section 6(b) 2020
Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride,
EPA identified non-cancer adverse
effects from both acute and chronic
inhalation and dermal exposures to
methylene chloride, and cancer from
chronic inhalation and dermal
exposures to methylene chloride (Ref.
1). EPA identified neurotoxicity effects
(central nervous system) as the most
sensitive endpoint of the non-cancer
adverse effects from acute inhalation
and dermal exposures, and liver effects
as the most sensitive endpoint of the
non-cancer adverse effects from chronic
inhalation and dermal exposures for all
conditions of use. EPA identified
additional risks associated with other
adverse effects (e.g., other nervous
system effects, immune system effects,
reproductive and developmental effects,
and irritation/burns) resulting from
acute and chronic exposures. By
targeting the sensitive chronic liver
effects endpoint for risk management,
EPA’s final rule will also prevent the
unreasonable risks from acute, chronic
non-cancer and cancer endpoints
associated with methylene chloride.
EPA also recognizes the severity of the
risks from acute inhalation exposures to
methylene chloride, because relatively
small increases in acute exposure can
lead to extreme adverse effects
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
39258
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
associated with central nervous system
suppression, including coma and death.
Occupational fatalities linked to
methylene chloride have been recorded
as recently as June 2020 (Ref. 11) and,
most recently by OSHA, in March 2021
and July 2023 (Ref. 12). Eighty-five (85)
fatalities between 1980 and 2018 have
been documented from methylene
chloride in paint and coating removal or
adhesive and sealant use, and when
methylene chloride is being used as a
cleaning or degreasing solvent, 74 of
which were in occupational settings;
there has been no linear trend indicating
a decrease in fatalities during that time
period (Ref. 11). In some instances,
while trained workers were wearing
respirators, the respirators were
inadequate to protect against methylene
chloride inhalation exposure (Ref. 11).
EPA considered potentially exposed
or susceptible subpopulations identified
as relevant to the risk evaluation by the
Agency, which are included in the
quantitative and qualitative analyses
described in the 2020 Risk Evaluation
for Methylene Chloride (Ref. 1) and
were considered in the determination of
unreasonable risk for methylene
chloride.
4. Conditions of Use Subject to This
Regulatory Action
Conditions of use is defined in TSCA
section 3(4) to mean the circumstances
under which a chemical substance is
intended, known, or reasonably foreseen
to be manufactured, processed,
distributed in commerce, used, or
disposed of. Conditions of use
descriptions are provided in Unit III.B.1.
of the proposed rule (88 FR 28284, May
3, 2023) (FRL–8155–02–OCSPP) and
were obtained from EPA sources such as
CDR use codes, the 2020 Risk
Evaluation for Methylene Chloride and
related documents, as well as the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development harmonized use
codes, and stakeholder engagements.
EPA did not receive public comments
identifying inaccuracies or necessitating
changes to those descriptions; however,
EPA received some comments
requesting clarification for particular
uses, which can be found in the
response to comments document (Ref.
7). Additionally, to assist with
implementation and compliance with
the final rule, in Unit IV.B.1., EPA has
provided a description of the conditions
of use that are subject to the WCPP.
As in the proposed rule, for the
purposes of this final rule,
‘‘occupational conditions of use’’ refers
to the TSCA conditions of use described
in Units III.B.1.a., b., c., and e. of the
proposed rule. Although EPA identified
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
both industrial and commercial uses in
the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene
Chloride (Ref. 1) for purposes of
distinguishing scenarios, the Agency
clarified then and clarifies now that
EPA interprets the authority Congress
gave to the Agency to ‘‘regulat[e] any
manner or method of commercial use’’
under TSCA section 6(a)(5) to reach
both industrial and commercial uses.
Additionally, as described in the
proposed rule (88 FR 28284, May 3,
2023) (FRL–8155–02–OCSPP), in the
2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene
Chloride (Ref. 1), EPA identified and
assessed all known, intended, and
reasonably foreseen industrial,
commercial, and consumer uses of
methylene chloride (other than the use
of methylene chloride in consumer
paint and coating removers, which was
subject to separate action under TSCA
section 6 (84 FR 11420, March 27, 2019)
(FRL–9989–29). EPA determined that all
industrial, commercial, and consumer
use of methylene chloride evaluated in
the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene
Chloride contribute to the unreasonable
risk of injury to health. As such, for
purposes of this risk management rule,
‘‘consumer use’’ refers to all known,
intended, or reasonably foreseen
methylene chloride consumer uses.
Likewise, for the purpose of this risk
management rule, ‘‘industrial and
commercial use’’ refers to all known,
intended, or reasonably foreseen
methylene chloride industrial and
commercial use.
EPA further notes that this rule does
not apply to any substance excluded
from the definition of ‘‘chemical
substance’’ under TSCA section
3(2)(B)(i) through (vi). Those exclusions
include, but are not limited to, any
pesticide (as defined by the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act) when manufactured, processed, or
distributed in commerce for use as a
pesticide; and any food, food additive,
drug, cosmetic, or device, as defined in
section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act, when manufactured,
processed, or distributed in commerce
for use as a food, food additive, drug,
cosmetic or device.
D. EPA’s Proposed Rule Under TSCA
Section 6(a) for Methylene Chloride
1. Description of TSCA Section 6(a)
Requirements
Under TSCA section 6(a), if the
Administrator determines through a
TSCA section 6(b) risk evaluation that a
chemical substance presents an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment, without consideration
of costs or other non-risk factors,
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
including an unreasonable risk to a
potentially exposed or susceptible
subpopulation identified as relevant to
the Agency’s risk evaluation, under the
conditions of use, EPA must by rule
apply one or more of the section 6(a)
requirements to the extent necessary so
that the chemical substance no longer
presents such risk.
The TSCA section 6(a) requirements
can include one or more of the
following actions alone or in
combination:
• Prohibit or otherwise restrict the
manufacturing (including import),
processing, or distribution in commerce
of the substance or mixture, or limit the
amount of such substance or mixture
which may be manufactured, processed,
or distributed in commerce (section
6(a)(1)).
• Prohibit or otherwise restrict the
manufacturing, processing, or
distribution in commerce of the
substance or mixture for a particular use
or above a specific concentration for a
particular use (section 6(a)(2)).
• Limit the amount of the substance
or mixture which may be manufactured,
processed, or distributed in commerce
for a particular use or above a specific
concentration for a particular use
specified (section 6(a)(2)).
• Require clear and adequate
minimum warning and instructions
with respect to the substance or
mixture’s use, distribution in commerce,
or disposal, or any combination of those
activities, to be marked on or
accompanying the substance or mixture
(section 6(a)(3)).
• Require manufacturers and
processors of the substance or mixture
to make and retain certain records or
conduct certain monitoring or testing
(section 6(a)(4)).
• Prohibit or otherwise regulate any
manner or method of commercial use of
the substance or mixture (section
6(a)(5)).
• Prohibit or otherwise regulate any
manner or method of disposal of the
substance or mixture, or any article
containing such substance or mixture,
by its manufacturer or processor or by
any person who uses or disposes of it
for commercial purposes (section
6(a)(6)).
• Direct manufacturers or processors
of the substance or mixture to give
notice of the unreasonable risk
determination to distributors, certain
other persons, and the public, and to
replace or repurchase the substance or
mixture (section 6(a)(7)).
In the 2023 proposed rule for
methylene chloride under TSCA section
6(a) (88 FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL–
8155–02–OCSPP), EPA analyzed how
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
the TSCA section 6(a) requirements
could be applied to address the
unreasonable risk from methylene
chloride so that it no longer presents
such risk. Unit II.D.1., summarizes the
TSCA section 6 considerations for
issuing regulations under TSCA section
6(a). Unit V. outlines how EPA applied
these considerations while managing
the unreasonable risk from methylene
chloride.
As required, EPA developed a
proposed regulatory action and one
primary alternative regulatory action,
which are described in Units IV.A. and
IV.B., respectively, of the 2023 proposed
rule for methylene chloride (88 FR
28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL–8155–02–
OCSPP). To identify and select a
regulatory action, EPA considered the
two routes of exposure driving the
unreasonable risk, inhalation and
dermal, and the exposed populations.
For occupational conditions of use, EPA
considered how it could directly
regulate manufacturing (including
import), processing, distribution in
commerce, industrial and commercial
use, or disposal to address the
unreasonable risk. EPA also considered
how it could exercise its authority
under TSCA to regulate the
manufacturing (including import),
processing, and/or distribution in
commerce of methylene chloride at
different levels in the supply chain to
eliminate exposures or restrict the
availability of methylene chloride and
methylene chloride-containing products
for consumer use in order to address the
unreasonable risk.
As required by TSCA section 6(c)(2),
EPA considered several factors, in
addition to identified unreasonable risk,
when selecting among possible TSCA
section 6(a) regulatory requirements for
the proposed rule. EPA’s considerations
regarding TSCA section 6(c)(2) and
section 6(c)(2)(A) for methylene
chloride are discussed in full in Unit VI.
of the proposed rule (88 FR 28284, May
3, 2023) (FRL–8155–02–OCSPP),
including the statement of effects with
respect to these considerations. After
review of the public comments received,
EPA has revised its statement of effects
considerations in Unit V. of this final
rule.
As described in more detail in EPA’s
proposed rule (88 FR 28284, May 3,
2023) (FRL–8155–02–OCSPP), EPA also
considered regulatory authorities under
statutes administered by other agencies
such as the OSH Act, the Consumer
Product Safety Act (CPSA), and the
Federal Hazardous Substances Act
(FHSA), as well as other EPAadministered statutes, to examine 1)
Whether there are opportunities to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
address unreasonable risk under other
statutes, such that a referral may be
warranted under TSCA section 9(a) or
9(b); or 2) Whether TSCA section 6(a)
regulation could include alignment of
requirements and definitions in and
under existing statutes and regulations
to minimize confusion to the regulated
entities and the general public.
Additionally, as described in more
detail in EPA’s proposed rule in Unit
V.B. (88 FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL–
8155–02–OCSPP), EPA considered the
availability of alternatives when
finalizing a prohibition or a substantial
restriction (TSCA section 6(c)(2)(C))
(Ref. 13), and in setting final compliance
dates in accordance with the
requirements in TSCA section
6(d)(1)(B)).
To the extent information was
reasonably available, EPA considered
pollution prevention strategies and the
hierarchy of controls adopted by OSHA
and the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) when developing its proposed
rule, with the goal of identifying risk
management control methods that
would be permanent, feasible, and
effective. EPA also considered how to
address the unreasonable risk while
providing flexibility to the regulated
community where appropriate, and took
into account the information presented
in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for
Methylene Chloride (Ref. 1), input from
stakeholders, insight received during
consultations, and anticipated
compliance strategies from regulated
entities.
Taken together, these considerations
led EPA to the proposed regulatory
action and primary alternative action
described in this unit. Additional
details related to how the requirements
in this unit were incorporated into
development of the proposed rule and
primary alternative action are in Unit V.
of the proposed rule.
2. Consultations and Other Engagement
a. Consultations
EPA conducted consultations and
outreach as part of development of the
May 2023 proposed rule (88 FR 28284,
May 3, 2023) (FRL–8155–02–OCSPP).
The Agency held a federalism
consultation from October 22, 2020,
until January 23, 2021, as part of the
rulemaking process and pursuant to
Executive Order 13132. (Ref. 14).
EPA also consulted with tribal
officials during the development of the
May 2023 proposed rule (88 FR 28284,
May 3, 2023) (FRL–8155–02–OCSPP)
(Ref. 15). The Agency held a tribal
consultation from October 7, 2020, to
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
39259
January 8, 2021, with meetings on
November 12 and 13, 2020. (Ref. 15).
EPA received no written comments as
part of this consultation.
EPA’s Environmental Justice (EJ)
consultation occurred from November 4,
2020, through January 18, 2021. On
November 16 through 19, 2020, EPA
held public meetings as part of this
consultation. These meetings were held
pursuant to Executive Orders 12898 and
14008. EPA received three written
comments following the EJ meetings, in
addition to oral comments provided
during the consultations (Refs. 16,
17,18). The proposed rule presents a
brief summary of the comments in Unit
III.A.1. of that document (88 FR 28284,
May 3, 2023) (FRL–8155–02–OCSPP).
As required by section 609(b) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), EPA
convened a SBAR Panel to obtain advice
and recommendations from Small Entity
Representatives (SERs) that potentially
would be subject to the rule’s
requirements. EPA met with SERs
before and during Panel proceedings, on
November 4, 2020, and January 28,
2021. Panel recommendations were
addressed in Unit X.C. of the proposed
rule and in the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) (Ref. 19); the
Panel report is in the docket (Ref. 20).
EPA has also prepared a Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
(Ref. 21).
The May 2023 proposed rule presents
more information regarding the
consultations in Units III.A.1., X.C.,
X.E., X.F. and X.J. of that document (88
FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL–8155–02–
OCSPP).
b. Other Stakeholder Consultations
For development of the proposed rule,
in addition to the formal consultations
described in Unit X. of the proposed
rule, EPA provided an overview of the
TSCA risk management process and the
findings in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for
Methylene Chloride (Refs. 22, 23)
during a Small Business Administration
(SBA) Office of Advocacy
Environmental Roundtable on
September 11, 2020, and in a public
webinar on September 16, 2020.
Attendees of these meetings were given
an opportunity to voice their concerns
regarding the risk evaluation and risk
management.
Furthermore, during development of
the proposed rule, EPA engaged in
discussions with representatives from
different industries, non-governmental
organizations, technical experts,
organized labor, and users of methylene
chloride. A list of external meetings
held during the development of the May
2023 proposed rule is in the docket (Ref.
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
39260
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
24); meeting materials and summaries
are also in the docket. A summary of the
topics discussed during the meetings is
in Unit III.A.2. of the proposed rule (88
FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL–8155–02–
OCSPP).
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
c. Children’s Environmental Health
The Agency’s 2021 Policy on
Children’s Health (Ref. 25) requires EPA
to protect children from environmental
exposures by consistently and explicitly
considering early life exposures (from
conception, infancy, and early
childhood and through adolescence
until 21 years of age) and lifelong health
in all human health decisions through
identifying and integrating children’s
health data and information when
conducting risk assessments. TSCA
section 6(b)(4)(A) also requires EPA to
conduct risk evaluations ‘‘to determine
whether a chemical substance presents
an unreasonable risk of injury to health
or the environment . . . including an
unreasonable risk to a potentially
exposed or susceptible subpopulation
identified as relevant to the risk
evaluation by the Administrator, under
the conditions of use.’’ In addition,
TSCA section 6(a) requires EPA to apply
one or more risk management
requirements so that methylene chloride
no longer presents an unreasonable risk
(which includes unreasonable risk to
any relevant potentially exposed or
susceptible subpopulations).
Information on how the Policy was
applied and on the health and risk
assessments supporting this action is
available under Units II.C., II.D. and
V.A., as well as in the 2020 Risk
Evaluation for Methylene Chloride, and
the Economic Analysis for this rule
(Refs. 1, 3).
3. Proposed Regulatory Action
EPA’s proposed rule under TSCA
section 6(a) to address the unreasonable
risk presented by methylene chloride
under its conditions of use (88 FR
28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL–8155–02–
OCSPP) included the following:
(i) Prohibition of the manufacture,
processing, and distribution of
methylene chloride for all consumer
use;
(ii) Prohibition of most industrial and
commercial use of methylene chloride;
(iii) Requirements for a WCPP,
including inhalation exposure
concentration limits and related
workplace exposure monitoring and
exposure controls, for ten conditions of
use of methylene chloride (including
manufacture; processing as a reactant;
laboratory use; industrial or commercial
use in aerospace and military paint and
coating removal from safety-critical,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
corrosion-sensitive components by
Federal agencies and their contractors;
industrial or commercial use as a
bonding agent for acrylic and
polycarbonate in mission-critical
military and space vehicle applications,
including in the production of specialty
batteries for such by Federal agencies
and their contractors; and disposal);
(iv) Requirements for recordkeeping
and downstream notification
requirements for manufacturing,
processing, and distribution in
commerce of methylene chloride;
(v) A 10-year time-limited exemption
under TSCA section 6(g) for civilian
aviation from the prohibition addressing
the use of methylene chloride for paint
and coating removal to avoid significant
disruptions to critical infrastructure,
with conditions for this exemption to
include compliance with the WCPP; and
(vi) A 10-year time-limited exemption
under TSCA section 6(g) for emergency
use of methylene chloride in
furtherance of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration’s mission for
specific conditions which are critical or
essential and for which no technically
and economically feasible safer
alternative is available, with conditions
for this exemption to include
compliance with the WCPP.
EPA notes that all TSCA conditions of
use of methylene chloride (other than
the use of methylene chloride in
consumer paint and coating removers,
which was subject to separate action
under TSCA section 6 (84 FR 11420,
March 27, 2019) (FRL–9989–29) were
subject to the May 2023 proposed rule
(88 FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL–8155–
02–OCSPP) and are subject to this final
rule.
The proposed rule included
timeframes for implementation. The
prohibitions EPA proposed would take
effect in phases, beginning at the top of
the supply chain, and coming into full
effect after 450 days, as described in
Units IV.A.2. and 3. of the proposal.
Likewise, for the WCPP, EPA proposed
timeframes for phases of compliance,
beginning with monitoring at 180 days
and full implementation after 360 days,
as described in Unit IV.A.1. of the
proposed rule.
Under TSCA section 6(c)(2)(A)(iv)(II)
through (III), EPA is mandated to
consider and propose an alternative
regulatory action. This was included in
the proposed rule in Unit IV.B. (88 FR
28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL–8155–02–
OCSPP). Similar to the proposed
regulatory action, it combined
prohibitions and requirements for a
WCPP to address the unreasonable risk
from methylene chloride under its
conditions of use, as well as time-
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
limited exemptions under TSCA section
6(g) for two uses. More specifically, the
alternative regulatory action would
allow for the WCPP, including
requirements to meet an ECEL and EPA
Short-Term Exposure Limit (STEL), for
several additional conditions of use
than would have been allowed under
the proposed regulatory action. The
alternative regulatory action
additionally included longer
compliance timeframes for prohibitions
and a WCPP.
The alternative regulatory action
considered would have allowed a WCPP
for the following additional industrial
and commercial conditions of use:
industrial and commercial use in
finishing products for fabric, textiles,
and leather; industrial and commercial
use as solvent that becomes part of a
formulation or mixture; industrial and
commercial use as a processing aid;
industrial and commercial use for
electrical equipment, appliance, and
component manufacturing; industrial
and commercial use for plastic and
rubber products manufacturing;
industrial and commercial use in
cellulose triacetate film production;
industrial and commercial use for oil
and gas drilling, extraction, and support
activities; and industrial and
commercial use in paint or coating
removal from safety-critical, corrosionsensitive components of aircraft owned
or operated by air carriers or
commercial operators certificated under
14 CFR part 119. At the time of
publication of the proposed rule for
methylene chloride, EPA believed a
WCPP had the potential to be a viable
alternative to the proposed prohibition
for these additional industrial and
commercial conditions of use because
these were generally industrial in
nature; owners or operators were likely
currently complying with the OSHA
methylene chloride standard; and, as far
as the Agency was aware, these
conditions of use had not resulted in
any documented fatalities. However, at
the time of proposal, EPA did not have
reasonably available information that
could confirm that compliance with an
ECEL of 2 ppm was possible (e.g.,
monitoring data or detailed description
of activities involving methylene
chloride for these conditions of use).
Therefore, EPA preliminarily proposed
that these conditions of use be
prohibited.
The alternative regulatory action also
included longer timeframes for
implementation of both the prohibitions
and WCPP. Those timeframes are
described in Unit IV.B. of the proposed
rule, respectively (88 FR 28284, May 3,
2023) (FRL–8155–02–OCSPP).
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
For a comprehensive overview of the
alternative regulatory action, refer to
Unit IV.B. of the proposed rule, with the
rationale for the primary alternative
regulatory action provided in Unit V.B.
of the proposed rule (88 FR 28284, May
3, 2023) (FRL–8155–02–OCSPP).
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
4. Public Comments Received
EPA requested comment on all
aspects of the proposed rule (88 FR
28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL–8155–02–
OCSPP) which published on May 3,
2023. The comment period closed on
July 3, 2023. EPA received almost
40,000 public comments, with a vast
majority received from individuals
participating in mass mailer campaigns
organized by non-governmental
organizations. The public comments
also include approximately 200 unique
comments from industry stakeholders,
trade associations, environmental
groups, unions, non-governmental
health advocacy organizations,
academics, State and local governments,
and members of the regulated
community. A summary of the
comments, as well as EPA’s responses,
is in the docket for this rulemaking (Ref.
7). Additionally, Unit III. contains
summaries of public comments that
informed EPA’s regulatory approach in
this final rule.
After the close of the public comment
period for the proposed rule, EPA held
meetings with stakeholders to receive
clarifying information on their
comments, including affected industry
and interested groups, related to the use
of methylene chloride. Topics of these
meetings included exposure controls,
process descriptions, monitoring data,
and specific conditions of use. EPA
received data as part of and following
these stakeholder meetings and has
made the information available to the
public in the rulemaking docket (EPA–
HQ–OPPT–2020–0465) (Ref. 24).
After review of the public comments
received from the proposed rule (88 FR
28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL–8155–02–
OCSPP) for methylene chloride, EPA
revised certain preliminary
considerations that impacted which
conditions of use were proposed by EPA
to be prohibited or that could continue
under the WCPP (Ref. 7). Similarly,
based on public comments received,
EPA modified for this final rule several
proposed compliance timeframes, with
details in Unit III.
III. Changes From the Proposed Rule
This unit summarizes the main
changes from the proposed rule to the
final rule, based on the consideration of
the public comments.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
A. Changes to Conditions of Use
Allowed To Continue Under WCPP
EPA’s primary alternative regulatory
action described in the proposed rule
included several conditions of use
under the WCPP, rather than
prohibition. As described in Units
III.A.1. through 5., EPA’s final rule
allows three additional conditions of
use under the WCPP (Units III.A.1.
through III.A.3.) and broadens the scope
of two conditions of use allowed to
continue under the WCPP, when
compared to the proposed rule. The
rationale for these changes is described
in this unit and EPA notes that in the
event that sensitive information relating
to national security or critical
infrastructure is submitted to EPA, the
Agency will protect such information in
accordance with applicable authorities.
EPA’s final rule also clarifies that this
rule permits manufacturing and
processing in compliance with the
WCPP for export. More information is
provided in Unit IV.A. regarding export.
EPA emphasizes that implementation
of the WCPP can fully address the
unreasonable risk from methylene
chloride for the conditions of use
allowed to continue, and that these
changes do not significantly impact the
production volume of methylene
chloride expected to remain in
commerce when compared to the
proposed regulatory action. Taken
together, the conditions of use described
in Units III.A.1. through 5. account for
less than an estimated 2% of the total
production volume of methylene
chloride.
1. Industrial and Commercial Use of
Methylene Chloride as a Processing Aid
EPA is finalizing a WCPP for
industrial and commercial use of
methylene chloride as a processing aid,
as included in the primary alternative
regulatory action of EPA’s proposal (88
FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL–8155–02–
OCSPP). While EPA proposed to
prohibit industrial and commercial use
of methylene chloride as a processing
aid, this was due to insufficient
information at the time of proposal to
determine that the sector as a whole
could comply with a WCPP. During the
Small Business Advocacy Review Panel,
EPA received data from a small business
using methylene chloride as a
processing aid, specifically as a heat
transfer fluid, indicating they were able
to meet an ECEL of 2 ppm. Initial data
indicated that the occupational
exposure scenario (cellulose triacetate
film manufacturing) used to assess this
condition of use in the 2020 Risk
Evaluation of methylene chloride (Ref.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
39261
1) may not have been representative of
the overall types of exposures expected
for this condition of use. In the
proposed rule, EPA specifically
requested comment on the degree to
which other entities using methylene
chloride as a processing aid could
comply with the proposed WCPP
requirements for methylene chloride.
Numerous commenters provided EPA
with process descriptions, diagrams,
and monitoring data, summarized in
this unit and in the Response to
Comments document, such that EPA is
now confident that, in general, entities
engaged in this condition of use can
meet the requirements of the methylene
chloride WCPP (Ref.7).
Numerous commenters submitted
information for use of methylene
chloride as a processing aid, including
as a heat transfer fluid and in the
production of separators for lithium-ion
batteries, as well as other processing aid
uses (Refs. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,
34, 35, 36). Many of the same
commenters also submitted process
descriptions indicating that this use of
methylene chloride takes place in a
closed system with little or no
personnel interaction (Refs. 26, 27, 28,
29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37). Some
commenters provided EPA with
standard operating procedures and
describe in detail the use of respiratory
protection (including PPE, as well as
other exposure controls), including
during instances of infrequent
maintenance or repair (Refs. 27, 31, 34,
36). Methylene chloride is often cycled
continuously through the enclosed
process or, in some cases, recovered
through a distillation process and
reused with high efficiency (Refs. 30,
34). Some companies indicated that
they are in compliance with the existing
OSHA standard, and though the WCPP
requires lower exposure limits, the
WCPP processes such as routine
monitoring are similar and indicate
likely success with regards to WCPP
compliance (Refs. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,
35, 36). Of these companies, some
supplied monitoring data that showed
compliance levels below the existing
OSHA safety standard and
demonstrated the ability to measure at
or near EPA’s proposed methylene
chloride WCPP 8-hr TWA of 2 ppm,
indicating an ability to comply with the
EPA level, and further indicating that
the initial exposure data provided by
small entity representatives (SERs)
during EPA’s SBAR process is more
appropriately representative for this
condition of use than the more general
occupational exposure scenario used by
EPA in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
39262
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Methylene Chloride (Refs. 26, 27, 34, 36,
37, 38). Additionally, commenters noted
that the National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for
Organic Hazardous Pollutants for
Equipment Leaks at 40 CFR part 63,
subpart H requires a robust leak
detection and repair program (Ref. 31).
Use of methylene chloride in the
manufacture of separators for lithiumion batteries for electric vehicles also
falls under use as a processing aid.
Based on information reasonably
available to the Agency at this time,
methylene chloride is not currently
used in the United States to
manufacture lithium-ion battery
separators, with some companies
choosing to use trichloroethylene (TCE)
in the production of battery separators
instead (Refs. 39, 40, 41). During the
comment period, at least five
commenters described their plans to
construct manufacturing plants for
lithium-ion battery separators,
specifically for electric vehicles, that
would use methylene chloride as a
processing aid (Refs. 42, 43, 44, 45, 46).
Commenters described how this would
strengthen critical supply chains by
revitalizing domestic manufacturing and
research and development in
accordance with Executive Order on
America’s Supply Chains (E.O. 14017)
(86 FR 11849, March 1, 2021).
Commenters provided details about the
process of using methylene chloride in
the manufacture of battery separators.
Methylene chloride is used in the wet
manufacturing method of high-quality
battery separators (Refs. 42, 45, 46). In
wet manufacturing, polyethylene is
treated to form a porous, monolayer film
(Refs. 42, 46). This film is then treated
with low molecular weight oil,
stretched, and exposed to a highperformance solvent to form a uniform
microporous structure while recovering
and reusing oils in the manufacturing
process (Refs. 42, 46). Methylene
chloride works quickly at high
temperatures, and is also desirable
because of its low water solubility, and
compatibility with manufacturing
equipment (Refs. 42, 46).
Based on the information provided by
commenters and other information
reasonably available to the Agency, EPA
understands that separators are
fundamental components in batteries
that provide the necessary separation
between the internal anode and cathode
components that make batteries work,
and that restrictions on the production
of battery separators could critically
impact the United States battery
manufacturing supply chain and
impede the expansion of domestic
battery production capacity (Refs. 40,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47). EPA
understands that battery separator
manufacturing processes are highlyengineered, specialty products designed
precisely to meet stringent technical
specifications that are essential in
powering vehicles and systems in the
United States’ supply chain for multiple
critical infrastructure sectors.
A commenter who intends to use
methylene chloride in a closed system
for battery separator manufacturing
submitted monitoring information
indicating exposure at or near the ECEL
of 2 ppm (Ref. 42). Commenters indicate
residual methylene chloride is often
treated and recovered as part of this
closed process (Refs. 42, 43, 46). EPA
agrees that unreasonable risk from
methylene chloride when used as a
processing aid in the manufacture of
lithium-ion battery separators, like other
processing aid uses, can be addressed
under the WCPP. Importantly, because
companies have not yet begun
production, they can build their plants
with the WCPP requirements in mind
(Refs. 42, 46).
On October 24, 2023, as part of a
proposed regulation to address the
unreasonable risk from TCE under the
conditions of use, EPA proposed a 10year time-limited TSCA section 6(g)
exemption for the use of TCE in battery
separator manufacturing (88 FR 74712,
October 31, 2023). The period of the
proposed exemption in the TCE
proposed rule would provide sufficient
time to transition from TCE to
alternatives, such as methylene
chloride. As noted by the commenters,
methylene chloride is currently used
overseas to manufacture high quality
lithium-ion battery separators for
electric vehicles (Ref. 42). EPA notes
that while the use of methylene chloride
in battery separator manufacturing
appears to be analogous to use of TCE
for the same function, based on
reasonably available information,
current applications result in different
end-use battery products (e.g., lithiumion battery separators manufactured
with methylene chloride and lead acid
batteries and lithium battery separators
manufactured with TCE). EPA believes
in some cases methylene chloride may
soon be a technologically feasible safer
alternative to the industrial use of TCE
as a processing aid in battery separator
manufacturing.
Based on information provided by
commenters related to processes,
current exposure information and
exposure mitigation practices, and
monitoring data, EPA has determined
the unreasonable risk from methylene
chloride when used as a processing aid
(including as a heat transfer fluid and in
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
battery separator manufacture) could be
addressed with a WCPP.
2. Industrial and Commercial Use of
Methylene Chloride in Plastic and
Rubber Products Manufacturing,
Including Polycarbonate Manufacturing
EPA’s primary alternative regulatory
action described in the proposed rule
included several conditions of use
under the WCPP, rather than
prohibition. EPA is finalizing a WCPP
for industrial and commercial use of
methylene chloride in plastic and
rubber products manufacturing,
including in interfacial polymerization
for polycarbonate plastic manufacturing,
as included in the primary alternative
regulatory action of EPA’s proposal (88
FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL–8155–02–
OCSPP). While EPA proposed to
prohibit industrial and commercial use
of methylene chloride in plastic and
rubber products manufacturing, this was
due to insufficient information at the
time of proposal to determine that
compliance with the WCPP would be
possible. For example, at the time of
proposal, EPA was not aware of any
monitoring data or detailed description
of methylene chloride activities for this
use to confirm that compliance with an
ECEL of 2 ppm as an 8-hr TWA would
be possible. EPA requested comment on
the ability of facilities in this sector to
successfully implement the WCPP for
this particular use because of the
industrial nature of the use.
Commenters submitted monitoring
data for industrial and commercial use
of methylene chloride in plastic and
rubber products manufacturing, which
aided EPA with a determination of
whether users could comply with the
WCPP. The data provided showed that
some companies are close to or already
meeting the proposed ECEL without
additional measures being necessary
(Refs. 26, 35, 36).
A commenter also submitted detailed
descriptions of methylene chloriderelated activities including for
unloading, handling, and recycling;
sample collection; PPE procedures and
itemized requirements; and safety
procedures (Ref. 36). The commenter
submitted an OSHA Compliance Plan;
training materials for OSHA
requirements, PPE, and hazard
recognition; and an Exposure
Assessment Program guideline as well
(Ref. 36). Furthermore, the commenter
provided details regarding its interfacial
polycarbonate production process using
methylene chloride, which is controlled
by an automatic distributed control
system. As described by the commenter
in their comment (and confirmed in a
follow-up meeting), workers using the
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
system are in an isolated control room
that is in a separate location from the
reaction system (Refs. 36, 48). Another
commenter stated that their closed
reactor system adheres to recognized
and generally accepted good
engineering practices as referenced in
OSHA’s Process Safety Management
Standard at 29 CFR 1910.119. The
commenter also explained that the
methylene chloride used within the
reactor system is recycled within the
processing equipment (Ref. 26).
One commenter explained that PPE,
including a full chemical-resistant suit,
supplied-air respirators, rubber boots,
and chemical gloves are used where
manual operations such as unloading,
sampling and maintenance activities
occur (Ref. 36). During the SBAR
process, one SER explained that the
methylene chloride is added into the
reaction system directly from tank
trailers with hard pipes and flange
fittings, and the product is also packed
under vacuum in a scrubber system to
reduce employee exposures, creating
little opportunity for exposures (Ref.
20). Another commenter stated that
direct interactions, such as with
sampling, are performed inside glovebox containment systems where
methylene chloride is used within an
enclosure and the user interacts with
the sample via a viewing glass and
isolation gloves affixed to the enclosure,
similar to those used in laboratory
settings and in industrial sandblasters
(Refs. 26, 35).
The information submitted to EPA as
part of the comment period regarding
this condition of use, supported by
subsequent discussions, demonstrate
the users’ ability to comply with the
WCPP. For this reason, EPA has
determined that the unreasonable risk
from methylene chloride when used in
plastic and rubber products
manufacturing (including in
polycarbonate manufacture) could be
addressed with a WCPP.
3. Industrial and Commercial Use of
Methylene Chloride in Paint and
Coating Removal From Safety Critical,
Corrosion Sensitive Components of
Aircraft and Spacecraft
In the proposed rule, EPA proposed
that industrial or commercial use of
methylene chloride for paint and
coating removal from safety-critical,
corrosion-sensitive components of
aircraft owned or operated by Federal
agencies and their contractors could
continue under the WCPP, and that
other commercial use of methylene
chloride for paint and coating removal
would be prohibited. EPA also proposed
to provide a 10-year exemption for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
commercial aviation and commercial
aerospace applications from the
proposed prohibition on the use of
methylene chloride in commercial paint
and coating removal. Under the primary
alternative regulatory action, EPA
included the WCPP for industrial and
commercial use in paint or coating
removal from safety-critical, corrosionsensitive components of aircraft owned
or operated by air carriers or
commercial operators certificated under
14 CFR part 119. After consideration of
public comments, EPA has determined
to eliminate the distinction between
defense-related and commercial aircraft,
and allow under the WCPP the
continued commercial use of methylene
chloride in paint and coating removal
from safety critical, corrosion sensitive
components of aircraft and spacecraft.
Several commenters argued for the
removal of the distinction between
defense-related, or Federal agencies, and
commercial aircraft in the proposed rule
(Refs. 49, 50, 51). As described by
commenters, critical, corrosion-sensitive
components are present and necessary
for the function of all aircraft and
spacecraft irrespective of the customer
(Refs. 49, 50), and both defense-related
and commercial aviation or aerospace
currently continue to use methylene
chloride for coating removal on these
components. Commenters noted that
both Federal and commercial sectors
use the same repair and maintenance
practices, maintenance facilities, and
environmental health and safety
practices, and that a typical repair or
maintenance scenario is that certain
parts are taken off the aircraft and sent
to a facility owned and operated by the
part/component manufacturer (Refs. 50,
51, 52). These commenters contend that
the same standard of hazard and
exposure control would therefore be
ongoing for both the commercial and the
Federal applications, and both would be
likely to be equally equipped to comply
with a WCPP. Both commercial and
defense sectors share the same supply
chain, and it is likely that any
alternative developed by formulators
will be evaluated by both commercial
and defense sectors and, if found to be
a suitable alternative, would be
implemented under a similar timeframe
(Ref. 49). For this reason, EPA has
determined that the unreasonable risk
from methylene chloride when used in
paint and coating removal from safety
critical, corrosion sensitive components
of aircraft and spacecraft could be
addressed with a WCPP.
EPA emphasizes that only a narrowly
defined subset of commercial use of
methylene chloride for paint and
coating removal is allowed to continue
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
39263
under the WCPP, due to the heavily
industrialized and highly specialized
exposure control systems EPA believes
to be in place for both Federal and
commercial aviation and aerospace
coating removal from corrosionsensitive safety-critical parts, such as
landing gear, gear boxes, turbine engine
parts, and other aircraft and spacecraft
and components composed of metallic
materials (specifically high-strength
steel, aluminum, titanium, and
magnesium) and composite materials.
General paint and coating removal on
aircraft and spacecraft with methylene
chloride is prohibited. In EPA’s view,
persons availing themselves of the
WCPP would need to have a reasonable
basis to conclude that the components
on which methylene chloride is used
are corrosion-sensitive and safety
critical components within the meaning
of the definition. EPA believes such
persons could rely, in part, on
information supplied by the
manufacturer of the component. A
determination of whether a particular
component of an aircraft or spacecraft is
a safety-critical corrosion-sensitive
component would be a fact-specific
determination that takes into account
the substrate and character of the
component, the effects of methylene
chloride paint or coating remover on the
component, and other relevant factors.
4. Industrial and Commercial Use of
Methylene Chloride as a Solvent That
Becomes Part of a Formulation or
Mixture and the Solvent Will Be
Reclaimed
EPA’s primary alternative regulatory
action described in the proposed rule
included several conditions of use
under the WCPP, rather than
prohibition. EPA is finalizing a WCPP
for a sub use of industrial and
commercial use of methylene chloride
as a solvent that becomes part of a
formulation or mixture, as included in
the primary alternative regulatory action
of EPA’s proposal, namely, where that
formulation or mixture will be used
inside a manufacturing process, and the
solvent (methylene chloride) will be
reclaimed (88 FR 28284, May 3, 2023)
(FRL–8155–02–OCSPP). While EPA
proposed to prohibit industrial and
commercial use of methylene chloride
as a solvent that becomes part of a
formulation or mixture, this was due to
insufficient information at the time of
proposal to determine that the use as a
whole could comply with a WCPP. EPA
included this condition of use under the
WCPP in the primary alternative
regulatory action, and requested
comment on additional information that
could increase the Agency’s certainty
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
39264
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
that entities engaged in this use could
comply with a WCPP.
EPA received numerous comments
describing uses of methylene chloride in
industrial processes which take place in
mostly enclosed systems, such as use of
methylene chloride as a processing aid
(see Unit III.A.1.) and in plastic product
manufacturing (see Unit III.A.2.).
Likewise, commenters describe some
uses of methylene chloride as a solvent
which becomes part of a formulation or
mixture where that mixture is used in
a manufacturing process and the solvent
is reclaimed.
Two commenters describe a process
in which methylene chloride is used to
dissolve a polycarbonate coating, and
then the mixture is run over a surface
where the coating is deposited and the
solvent is reclaimed (Refs. 53, 54, 55).
Another commenter describes the use of
methylene chloride in plastic
manufacturing processes as a solvent
(Ref. 56). As with the other commercial
uses, commenters described scenarios
where methylene chloride is used in a
closed system, and identified that the
primary points of exposure in these
processes are the periodic and relatively
infrequent loading of methylene
chloride. As described by commenters,
the system is enclosed and the
methylene chloride is recovered; the
processes are highly industrial and often
remotely performed. One company was
able to supply monitoring data that
indicated exposure levels nearly
meeting the proposed ECEL (Ref. 54).
In this way, these commenters’ uses of
methylene chloride are similar to
processing methylene chloride as a
reactant, industrial and commercial use
of methylene chloride as a processing
aid, and industrial and commercial use
of methylene chloride in plastic product
manufacturing. Namely, when the
commercial use of methylene chloride
as a solvent that becomes part of a
formulation or mixture results in that
formulation or mixture used inside a
manufacturing process, the methylene
chloride is used functionally in the
manufacturing process, frequently in a
closed system, and is reclaimed, such
that it is not present in the final
manufacturing product. Identification of
this narrowly described use of
methylene chloride within a condition
of use, together with information
provided by commenters on their
specific processes, led EPA to determine
that unreasonable risk from methylene
chloride when used as a solvent that
becomes part of a formulation or
mixture, where that formulation will be
used in a manufacturing process and the
solvent (methylene chloride) will be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
reclaimed, could be addressed with a
WCPP.
5. Industrial and Commercial Use of
Methylene Chloride as a Bonding Agent
for Solvent Welding
In the proposed rule, EPA proposed
that industrial and commercial use of
methylene chloride as a bonding agent
for acrylic and polycarbonate in
mission-critical military and space
vehicle applications be allowed to
continue under the WCPP. EPA
included within this condition of use
the use of methylene chloride in the
production of specialty batteries, and
identified the WCPP as an appropriate
means for addressing the unreasonable
risk after a specialty battery
manufacturer submitted information on
its use of methylene chloride in
chemical welding of acrylic and
polycarbonate (Ref. 57). This
application of methylene chloride,
unlike adhesives used to bind two
distinct substrates together, dissolves
plastic surfaces including, but not
limited to, acrylic or polycarbonate and
fuses the substrates into one continuous
unit with increased strength, durability,
and seal integrity (Refs. 58, 59).
Mission-critical applications potentially
include fabrication of fixtures and
enclosures for scientific research;
production of optically clear articles
such as space vehicle windows, space
suit helmet components, or elements of
extraterrestrial habitats; or hermetically
sealing the plastic cases of specialty
batteries. Following publication of the
2023 proposed rule, EPA received
additional public comments describing
other applications of methylene
chloride used in a similar fashion;
however, these applications were not in
mission-critical military and space
vehicle applications, or in the
production of specialty batteries for
such applications (Refs. 58, 60, 61).
Bonding agents used to chemically
weld acrylics or polycarbonates with
methylene chloride do not have a
technically or economically feasible
safer alternative available. This
application is uniquely different from
adhesives which do have technically or
economically feasible safer alternatives
available. Commenters that described
their use of methylene chloride
indicated that they require low
quantities of methylene chloride for its
effect and stated that they are currently
in compliance with the OSHA
methylene chloride standard at 29 CFR
1910.1052 (Refs. 59, 60). Based on the
information received, and the
similarities across multiple uses of
methylene chloride as a bonding
agent—but not as an adhesive—EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
believes that the WCPP will address the
unreasonable risk for use of methylene
chloride as a bonding agent in general,
and is therefore expanding its initial
scope of this allowed use under the
WCPP from mission-critical military
and space vehicle applications to
general industry.
B. Delayed Compliance Dates for
Prohibitions
1. Commercial Use of Methylene
Chloride in Refinishing for Wooden
Furniture, Decorative Pieces, and
Architectural Fixtures of Artistic,
Cultural or Historic Value
EPA proposed to prohibit the
commercial use of methylene chloride
for paint and coating removal, including
for all commercial furniture refinishing.
While EPA proposed to exclude
commercial furniture refinishing from
the regulation of the use of methylene
chloride in commercial paint and
coating removal in 2017, the 2023
proposed rule did not exclude
commercial furniture refinishing from
the proposed prohibition on the use of
methylene chloride for commercial
paint and coating removal, because EPA
determined that this use contributes to
the unreasonable risk presented by
methylene chloride.
EPA’s proposed rule included an
analysis for an exemption under TSCA
section 6(g) for industrial and
commercial use of methylene chloride
as a paint and coating remover in
furniture refinishing, and preliminarily
determined that an exemption was not
warranted. EPA solicited comment on
its analysis, including information on
the availability of alternatives, the time
needed to implement alternatives, and
other information related to this
condition of use. After reviewing
comments and conducting additional
outreach, EPA found, as in the proposed
rule, that a broad exemption for
commercial use of methylene chloride
in paint and coating removal for all
types of furniture refinishing uses under
TSCA section 6(g)(1)(A) is not
warranted because the use of methylene
chloride for all types of furniture
refinishing is not a critical or essential
use for which no technically and
economically feasible safer alternative is
available, taking into consideration
hazard and exposure.
However, EPA acknowledges that for
particular circumstances, such as
removing coatings from wooden
furniture and other items that are of
artistic, historic or cultural significance,
there is no technically or economically
feasible safer alternative to methylene
chloride currently available. Therefore,
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
to provide a reasonable and appropriate
transition period in the final rule
(consistent with TSCA sections
6(c)(2)(C) and 6(d)(1)(E)), EPA is
delaying compliance with the
prohibition for commercial users
engaged in those activities, with certain
interim requirements to reduce worker
exposures.
As discussed in this unit, while in
some cases alternatives are available for
commercial use of methylene chloride
in refinishing wooden furniture,
decorative pieces, and architectural
fixtures, this is not the case for wooden
pieces that are of artistic, cultural or
historic value. These pieces tend to have
increased value because of their age;
their association to significant cultural
figures, buildings, or events; or due to
a combination of these factors.
Additionally, they may contain complex
geometries, such as hand-carved, ornate
embellishments and grooves or other
intricate patterns. The aesthetic and
structural integrity of these pieces
contributes to their value, function, or
both, and therefore must be preserved
during the refinishing process. In other
words, to the extent that alternative
methods or formulations may be able to
remove a coating, if they affect the
underlying substrate’s appearance,
structural integrity, or functionality,
those are not feasible alternatives for
wooden pieces that are of artistic,
cultural, or historic value. In the
absence of such viable alternatives,
cultural items such as religious articles
of virtu, musical instruments, and
ceremonial utensils would be degraded
or rendered non-functional. In some
cases, these wood pieces may be
original, priceless, or irreplaceable and
cannot be remade by simply
commissioning an artisan to craft a
replacement. Examples of these types of
artistic, cultural, or historic pieces
include but are not limited to: Library
furniture and architectural woodwork at
Harvard University (Ref. 62); the
Reredos at St. Paul’s School (Ref. 62);
the John F. Kennedy (JFK) Podium at
the JFK Library (Ref. 62); and the
Arlington Cemetery Old Guard Caisson
(Ref. 63).
Based on information provided to
EPA, these types of wooden pieces
would be aesthetically or structurally
compromised by alternative refinishing
techniques or chemicals other than
methylene chloride (Ref. 64).
Alternatives, both chemical and
mechanical, can damage the underlying
substrate; present flammability hazards;
and take much longer to work such that
they are prohibitively expensive. This
section provides additional details from
commenters and other sources on each
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
of these three qualities, which led EPA
to determine there are no technically or
economically feasible, safer alternatives
for use of methylene chloride to refinish
wooden pieces of artistic, cultural, or
historic value.
At the time of proposal, EPA
identified many alternative products to
methylene chloride for paint and
coating removal, and noted that some
may require adjustments to equipment
and processes for furniture refinishing
or longer periods of time, or may not be
appropriate alternatives for use on wood
substrates (88 FR 28313). In public
comments, commenters emphasized
that these alternatives present their own
risks, and that they are more likely to be
used in paint and coating removal
where the integrity and aesthetics of the
substrate may be less critical to the
refinished product. Commenters
emphasized that for the highly complex
geometries which may be common in
wooden furniture, decorative pieces,
and architectural fixtures of artistic,
cultural, or historic value, methylene
chloride-containing paint and coating
removers are the only products that can
remove coatings without damaging the
underlying wood (Refs. 62, 65, 66).
Similar issues arise when utilizing
mechanical or thermal methods,
because—while they may be useful for
some types of paint and coating
removal—they may damage the
underlying structure, take so long to
work that they are prohibitively
expensive, and cannot reach into the
grooves of complex geometries (i.e.,
sanding, media blasting, or heat guns)
(Refs. 20, 66, 67, 68, 69).
There are significant challenges to
replacing methylene-chloride based
paint and coating removers in furniture
refinishing; these challenges are
exacerbated with wood compositions of
artistic, cultural, or historic value, since
the integrity or character of the piece
would be compromised by alternatives
to methylene chloride. Methylene
chloride-based formulations are the
paint removers of choice for furniture
refinishers in part because they are not
flammable (Ref. 20). Based on the public
comments received, EPA also
understands that an abrupt prohibition
on use of methylene chloride in this
sector could push furniture refinishers
to adopt less safe alternatives, notably
substances that are flammable.
Currently, based on information
available to EPA and provided in public
comments, some alternative paint and
coating removal formulations are
flammable (Ref. 3). EPA’s alternatives
analysis identified 47 chemicals in paint
and coating remover formulations with
reasonably available hazard
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
39265
information; of those, 33 are flammable
to varying degrees (Ref. 13). EPA notes
concern from commenters about the
strong likelihood of regrettable
substitutions in instances where
combustible materials and flammable
liquids may be used in tandem and
result in a combined Class-A and ClassB fire, as defined by OSHA in 29 CFR
1910.155 (Refs. 62, 66, 70, 71), in
workshops where environmental
conditions are likely to contain fine,
combustible particulates in larger
quantities such as saw dust or wood
shavings.
Additionally, based on information
provided by commenters, currently
available alternative paint and coating
removers used in furniture refinishing
can take significantly longer for the
desired effect and may require multiple
applications and scraping to carefully
remove the coating, adding additional
time and labor to the process (Refs. 66,
70). Multiple applications and manual
removal of coatings from artistic,
cultural, or historic pieces—particularly
those with irregular or intricate
shapes—increases the likelihood of
damaging the underlying wood
substrate and presents increasing labor
and cost challenges for this practice.
Additionally, an abrupt prohibition of
methylene chloride use resulting in
additional time and labor would result
in a price increase in this sector; as EPA
noted in the proposed rule, this may
result in significant financial challenges
in a sector where profit margins are
already narrow at about 3.8% of sales
(Ref. 67). Due to the added time, labor,
and cost that an alternative would pose,
commenters contend that the likelihood
of this sector remaining viable would be
minimal and, as commenters describe,
may result in immediate furniture
disposal to landfills that would have
otherwise been recycled through
refinishing (Refs. 64, 66). As discussed
earlier in this unit, commenters have
noted that that while alternative
chemicals or substitute methods could
be used where the integrity and
aesthetics of the substrate may be less
critical to the refinished product, they
also emphasized that methylene
chloride is uniquely suitable for
removing coatings and refinishing
complex pieces made of wood that
cannot be replaced if damaged, due to
its artistic, cultural, or historic value.
While EPA believes that in many
instances, furniture refinishing can be
successfully accomplished with
alternatives to methylene chloride, in
consideration of public comments, EPA
has determined that there is no
technically or economically feasible
alternative that benefits health for
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
39266
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
commercial use of methylene chloride
in paint and coating removal for the
refinishing of wooden compositions of
artistic, cultural, or historic value, since
the integrity or character of the piece
would be compromised by alternatives
to methylene chloride. Therefore, to
provide a reasonable and appropriate
transition period, EPA’s final rule will
delay, until five years after the
publication of this final rule,
compliance with prohibitions for
commercial use of methylene chloride
for refinishing wooden pieces which are
of artistic, cultural, or historic value,
with interim requirements for exposure
controls, based on best practices
described by furniture refinishers.
Commenters provided information on
engineering and exposure controls,
allowing EPA to identify how risks
could be reduced before prohibitions
went into effect, even if the
unreasonable risk could not be
completely addressed. Based on
information received, entities engaged
in the use of methylene chloride for
commercial furniture refinishing have a
number of options for engineering and
administrative controls to reduce
exposure; some commenters noted that
exposures may currently be under the
OSHA action level of 12.5 ppm (Ref.
72). Types of controls that facilitate low
levels of exposure include engineering
controls with linear airflow, such as
some spray booths typically used for
painting, but which can also be used for
paint and coating removal (Ref. 73).
Other examples include custom
engineering controls where fans bring in
fresh exterior air, while an additional
ventilation system pulls methylene
chloride vapors down and away from
the user’s personal breathing zone (Refs.
64, 72). Because methylene chloride
vapors are heavier than air and naturally
flow downward, the intake that removes
methylene chloride vapors is
intentionally positioned below the
working station, and in some instances
incorporated into the refinishing
equipment, such as at the base of a flowover tray, to draw the volatilized
methylene chloride vapors down and
away from the user quickly (Ref. 72).
Additionally, as commenters noted, it is
common practice for refinishing shops
to conduct their refinishing activities in
batches, so that, for example, methylene
chloride is only present in the
workplace once a week or month, rather
than every day (Refs. 64, 66).
EPA recognizes the challenges of
developing and transitioning to
technologically and economically
feasible alternative paint and coating
removers for some applications.
However, while some furniture
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
refinishing businesses have successfully
implemented custom engineering
controls for their operations, EPA
remains concerned about the feasibility
of long-term WCPP compliance for
many businesses in this sector. Custom
ventilation systems, as well as
equipment and training for the use of
supplied-air respiratory protection are
burdensome to procure and implement,
but would be necessary to ensure
protection of human health from this
use. Because of the magnitude of
exposure for this application, which is
primarily conducted in flow over trays
and dip tanks, air supplied respirators—
and associated monitoring—would
likely be a key part of reaching an ECEL
of 2 ppm, adding additional expense.
While EPA expects a majority of
commercial users of methylene chloride
to be familiar with the OSHA standard,
and therefore familiar with many of the
requirements of a successful WCPP, in
the furniture refinishing sector many
workshops are run by self-employed
artisans, who would not be subject to
OSHA regulations. EPA has
encountered furniture refinishers who
were using cartridge respirators, despite
the fact that, as specified in the OSHA
methylene chloride standard at 29 CFR
1910.1052, only supplied air respirators
are effective against methylene chloride,
since cartridges are quickly eroded by
methylene chloride vapors. Since 1985,
at least seven deaths have been
attributed to use of methylene chloride
for paint stripping in the Reupholstery
and Furniture Repair Sector (Ref. 11).
While EPA acknowledges the
commitment of furniture refinishers that
aim to protect workers while providing
a high-quality service, EPA remains
concerned that WCPP implementation
could present significant and
widespread difficulties in this sector,
resulting in high non-compliance rates
that would undermine the healthprotectiveness of the rule and leave
unreasonable risks of injury to health
unmitigated. In the preamble to the
proposed rule, EPA sought public
comments regarding the commercial use
of methylene chloride in furniture
refinishing, as well as detailed
information as part of any comments
requesting that EPA consider a
regulatory alternative that would subject
more conditions of use to the WCPP,
instead of prohibition. EPA requested
that these comments provide
‘‘monitoring data and detailed
descriptions of methylene chloride
involving activities for these conditions
of use to determine whether these
additional conditions of use could
comply with the WCPP such that risks
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
are no longer unreasonable’’ (88 FR
28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL–8155–02–
OCSPP). For commercial use of
methylene chloride in furniture
refinishing, EPA did not receive this
information and the information
provided by commenters did not
provide EPA with adequate information
to establish that furniture refinishers
could successfully comply with the
WCPP, or that could serve as roadmap
for how furniture refinishers might
adapt their processes to reduce
exposures such that the risks were no
longer unreasonable (EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2020–0465–0228, –0233, –0285). For
example, commenters did not provide
monitoring data for this condition of
use, or detailed estimates of the quantity
of methylene chloride used. Information
that would have helped EPA to evaluate
whether commercial use of methylene
chloride in furniture refinishing could
continue under the WCPP would have
included: monitoring information
indicating compliance with the OSHA
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) or a
lower threshold such as the EPA ECEL,
potential process changes that could
mitigate exposure to methylene
chloride, typical administrative and
engineering controls, and other
occupational, environmental, safety, or
health practices that are currently
implemented. EPA notes that other
industries, such as those engaged in the
industrial and commercial use of
methylene chloride as a processing aid
and industrial and commercial use of
methylene chloride in plastic product
manufacturing, were able to provide
such data during the comment period.
Additionally, while commenters did
emphasize the importance of methylene
chloride in furniture refinishing, they
did not provide specific information
regarding EPA’s solicitation on
comments ‘‘on how costs and economic
impacts from firm closure may be
reduced with longer compliance
timeframes.’’
As described in the proposed rule (88
FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL–8155–02–
OCSPP), EPA identified the commercial
use of methylene chloride in furniture
refinishing as contributing to the
unreasonable risk and, despite extensive
stakeholder engagement (described in
Units III.B.1. and V.A.4. of the proposed
rule) (88 FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL–
8155–02–OCSPP), could not conclude
that work practices could be modified to
such an extent that exposures could be
reduced sufficiently to address the
unreasonable risk. Based on stakeholder
interest in continuing this use of
methylene chloride, EPA solicited
comments in the proposed rule
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
specifically to increase the information
available to EPA to inform for this final
rule, whether the use could move to the
WCPP rather than prohibition. While
EPA appreciates the public comments
provided, they did not supply the
information necessary.
However, in recognition of the
challenging and particular
circumstances faced by furniture
refinishers engaged in restoring and
removing coatings from wooden pieces
of artistic, cultural, or historic value,
and to address the unreasonable risk
from methylene chloride contributed by
this condition of use, EPA is finalizing
a delayed compliance date of five years
for the use of methylene chloride in a
subset of furniture refinishing for these
specialty wood pieces where workshops
can meet a minimum standard of
exposure control.
In order to participate in the delayed
compliance with the prohibition,
owners/operators must meet a minimum
standard of exposure control. That
includes: (1) use of a regulated area; (2)
use of local exhaust ventilation, both
bringing air in from outside of the
workspace where methylene chloride is
being used and pulling methylene
chloride vapors away from the
potentially exposed persons; and (3) use
of any NIOSH Approved® Supplied-Air
Respirator (SAR) or airline respirator in
a demand mode equipped with a full
facepiece (Assigned Protection Factor
(APF) 50) or any NIOSH Approved®
Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus
(SCBA) in demand-mode equipped with
a full facepiece or helmet/hood (APF 50)
or the appropriate respirator based on
initial monitoring as outlined in Unit
IV.B.4.b. or 40 CFR 751.109(d) of the
regulatory text. EPA expects that within
five years, either new alternatives to
methylene chloride for paint and
coating removal for refinishing wooden
pieces of artistic, cultural, or historic
value will be identified and put into
use, similar to how alternatives to
methylene chloride for consumer paint
and coating removal were developed
and marketed quickly in advance of
EPA’s 2019 prohibitions, or facilities
will be able to refine processes and
workshop equipment to incorporate
alternative methods for chemical paint
and coating removal. EPA emphasizes
that the Agency would also continue to
be willing to review data on exposures
to methylene chloride in furniture
refinishing, and in particular any data
indicating that furniture refinishers
could meet the ECEL of 2 ppm over an
8-hr TWA, the EPA STEL of 16 ppm as
a 15-minute TWA, or otherwise
consistently comply with the WCPP,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
and could revise this final rule
accordingly if such data were provided.
2. Industrial and Commercial Use of
Methylene Chloride in Adhesives and
Sealants
EPA proposed to prohibit the
industrial and commercial use of
methylene chloride in adhesives,
sealants, and caulks; paints and
coatings; paints and coating removers
for non-corrosion sensitive parts; and
lubricants. TSCA section 6(d) requires
EPA to specify mandatory compliance
dates for all requirements of a TSCA
section 6(a) rule. The mandatory
compliance dates must be ‘‘as soon as
practicable’’ and ‘‘provide for a
reasonable transition period.’’ Except for
full implementation of a ban or phaseout of a chemical substance, the
mandatory compliance date for a
requirement in a TSCA section 6(a) rule,
including the start of ban or phase-out
requirements, must be no later than five
years after the date of promulgation of
the final rule. EPA proposed that the
prohibitions on commercial use of
methylene chloride—in adhesives,
sealants, and caulks as well as nearly all
other commercial uses—take effect 450
days after publication of the final rule
in the Federal Register. In public
comments, regulated entities in the
aerospace sector described anticipated
challenges with the proposed timeframe
for the prohibitions, and requested a 10year delayed compliance date for their
uses of methylene chloride within these
conditions of use (Refs. 49, 51, 52).
While EPA partially agrees with some
aspects of the rationale provided by
commenters, EPA maintains that
technically and economically feasible
alternatives to methylene chloride are
currently available for a majority of
these applications, and formulations
containing methylene chloride are not
uniquely specified to industry or
military standards for paints and
coatings; paints and coating removers
for non-corrosion sensitive parts; and
lubricants. Therefore, the prohibition
timeframes in this final rule, which take
full effect after two years as described in
Unit III.E., should be sufficient for
regulated entities to identify and
implement alternatives for paints and
coatings; paints and coating removers
for non-corrosion sensitive parts; and
lubricants.
Two additional commenters requested
that EPA consider delayed compliance
for use of methylene chloride in
adhesives and sealants in the aerospace
and defense sectors; one commenter
provided rationale in support of a
delayed compliance date of five years
(Refs. 50, 61). The commenter described
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
39267
how certain methylene chloride
adhesives and sealants used in turbine
engines and aircraft systems do not
currently have methylene chloride-free
alternatives identified, including
applications such as: use in bonding
critical turbine engine hardware, use as
a jointing compound in engine parts,
adhesive to bond capacitors,
transformers, components, military
printed circuit (PC) boards and
subassemblies, and gasket sealant in
aerospace systems (Ref. 50). The
commenter estimated that properly
qualifying these products may take as
long as five years and requested delayed
compliance (Ref. 50). EPA agrees that
five years is a reasonable compliance
timeframe for the identification and
qualification of methylene chloride-free
alternatives to both industry and
Federal standards for these uses, and is
therefore finalizing delayed compliance
of five years before prohibition for
industrial and commercial use of
methylene chloride in adhesives and
sealants when that adhesive or sealant
is used in aircraft, space vehicle, or
turbine applications for structural and
safety critical non-structural
applications.
In contrast to the delayed compliance
with the prohibition for a subset of
furniture refinishers as described in
Unit III.B.1., EPA is not requiring
interim controls during the period of
delayed compliance for this subset of
adhesive and sealant users. This is
because for industrial and commercial
use of methylene chloride in adhesives
and sealants when that adhesive or
sealant is used in aircraft, space
vehicles, or turbine applications for
structural and safety critical nonstructural applications, EPA does not
have the same concerns for magnitude
of risk that could result in occupational
fatalities from acute exposures as EPA
has for furniture refinishing. In other
words, while unreasonable risk as a
result of either acute or chronic
exposures exists for industrial and
commercial use of methylene chloride
in adhesives and sealants when that
adhesive or sealant is used in aircraft,
space vehicles, or turbine applications
for structural and safety critical nonstructural applications, the magnitude
of those risks in comparison to the
benchmark, as well as information about
existing controls in this sector, did not
lead EPA to determine that prescribing
minimum interim controls for the
duration of the phaseout was necessary
for this use. This is in contrast to
commercial use of methylene chloride
in furniture refinishing, for which EPA
has concerns for fatalities due to acute
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
39268
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
exposures, as a result of the magnitude
of risk for that condition of use. For
these adhesive and sealant applications,
the volume of adhesive used, the
percent formulation of methylene
chloride, as well as the proportion of
industrial (as opposed to commercial)
workspaces, is much less compared to
the furniture refinishing sector, which is
reflected by the risk characterization
driving the unreasonable risk
determination for both furniture
refinishing and adhesive and sealant
conditions of use (Ref. 1). While interim
exposure controls are not required by
EPA during the delayed prohibition for
this use, EPA expects that owners or
operators will continue to comply with
OSHA’s methylene chloride standard
under 29 CFR 1910.1052 until either a
successful transition to an alternative
has been achieved, or the delayed
prohibition timeframe has been
exhausted, whichever is sooner.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
C. De Minimis Threshold
In the proposed rule, EPA requested
comment on whether the Agency should
consider a de minimis threshold of
methylene chloride in formulations
when finalizing prohibitions, and, if so,
what threshold should be considered de
minimis. EPA received numerous
comments in support of the inclusion of
a de minimis threshold (Refs. 30, 37, 49,
51, 52, 55, 56, 65, 74, 75, 76, 77, 787,
79). Of those, a majority of commenters
agreed with the EPA suggestion of using
0.1% by weight as the de minimis
threshold for the applicability of
prohibitions and restrictions on
methylene chloride; in some cases,
commenters noted that this threshold
would be consistent with the
requirements under the OSHA Hazard
communication standard at 29 CFR
1910.1200 (Refs. 30, 31, 37, 38, 49, 51,
53, 55, 65, 74, 75, 78, 79, 80).
The OSHA Hazard communication
standard at 29 CFR 1910.1200 defines
‘‘health hazard,’’ and provides criteria
for determining whether a chemical is
classified as a health hazard in
Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.1200—
Health Hazard Criteria. Appendix A of
29 CFR 1910.1200 indicates that a
substance is considered a health hazard
if it includes greater than 0.1% of a
substance that, like methylene chloride,
is classified as a carcinogen (Ref. 81).
Other EPA programs, such as the Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI) program, have
adopted a de minimis threshold of 0.1%
for chemicals which are defined as
carcinogens or as a potential carcinogen
under the National Toxicology Program,
International Agency for Research on
Cancer, or OSHA (see 40 CFR 372.38(a)).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
Some commenters, rather than
suggesting a particular de minimis
threshold, suggested EPA identify a de
minimis that is risk protective (Refs. 82,
83). For methylene chloride, due to the
type and quantity of reasonably
available information, EPA conducted
an analysis using input parameters and
exposure scenarios from the 2020 Risk
Evaluation for Methylene Chloride to
confirm that methylene chloride, when
present at a threshold of 0.1% by
weight, does not contribute to
unreasonable risk under the conditions
of use (Ref. 84). EPA’s final rule
includes a de minimis threshold of
0.1%. The adoption of a de minimis
threshold in this final rule means that
products in which methylene chloride
is present below 0.1% by weight are not
subject to the restrictions outlined in
this rulemaking.
D. Changes to Timeframes
1. Changes to the WCPP Timeframe
For the conditions of use for which
EPA proposed the WCPP, EPA proposed
several compliance timeframes,
including requirements that initial
exposure monitoring be conducted
within 180 days of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register, that
each owner or operator ensure that the
airborne concentration of methylene
chloride does not exceed the ECEL or
EPA STEL for all potentially exposed
persons within 270 days of publication
of the final rule in the Federal Register,
and that owners and operators
implement an exposure control plan
within 360 days of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register. In the
primary alternative regulatory action
described in the proposed rule, EPA
described longer timeframes: initial
exposure monitoring under the WCPP
within 360 days; that each owner or
operator ensure that the airborne
concentration of methylene chloride
does not exceed the ECEL or EPA STEL
for all potentially exposed persons
within 450 days of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register, and
that owners and operators implement an
exposure control plan within 540 days
of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register.
After considering comments regarding
timeframes needed for implementing
the WCPP, EPA has determined that the
timeframes in the alternative regulatory
action would ensure that the regulated
community has adequate time to assess,
formulate, procure, and implement the
required chemical safety program for
methylene chloride.
EPA’s proposed rule included an
analysis of the alternative regulatory
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
action and preliminarily determined
that the proposed timeframes for
compliance with the WCPP were
appropriate. For the proposed regulatory
action compliance timeframe, EPA
adopted timeframes similar to those
previously promulgated by OSHA in the
1997 update to the methylene chloride
standard at 29 CFR 1910.1052. However,
public comments indicated that OSHA’s
compliance timeframes are not
universally appropriate, especially
when considering that the proposed
ECEL and EPA STEL are an order of
magnitude lower than the current OSHA
PEL and would require additional time
to execute properly, in some instances
requiring the adoption of new methods
(see section 5.1.2 in the Response to
Comments document (Ref. 7) for a full
discussion of methylene chloride
monitoring methods and the PEL).
Commenters also stated an additional
concern that the proposed timeframes
would be insufficient to document the
novel efforts required under the WCPP
to document the use of the hierarchy of
controls (Ref. 55, 70).
Other commenters highlighted
additional challenges with the proposed
timeframes. For example, one
commenter anticipated an increasing
need for professional services from
industrial hygienists, engineers, or
others in order to implement and
maintain the WCPP as proposed (Ref.
19). To this end, a commenter stated
that the proposed regulation could put
an unintended strain on the safety
industry and laboratories required to
analyze monitoring samples due to the
sudden increase in demand for such
services (Ref. 85). The commenter
expressed concern that the increased
demand for safety professional services
may result in lowered standards and
practices (Ref. 85). Other commenters
added that facilities would need to
determine if a corporate exposure
assessment strategy would need to be
reassessed for the proposed ECEL and
EPA STEL (Refs. 55, 70). Moreover,
because the current OSHA standard
contains criteria for the discontinuation
of air monitoring for methylene
chloride, it is likely that some entities
have not monitored for inhalation
exposures for an extended period of
time. For situations such as this, a
corporate exposure assessment strategy
or similar mechanism would necessitate
the procurement of professional
services, adding logistical demand for
these specialized services.
In consideration of the challenges of
initiating the WCPP, even for facilities
with industrial hygiene programs in
place, and given the difference in the
occupational exposure limits between
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
the OSHA PEL and the EPA ECEL that
may spur an increase in the need for
monitoring or other exposure control
assessment infrastructure, EPA
determined that a longer compliance
deadline of 12 months, as provided in
the primary alternative regulatory action
described in the proposal, would be an
appropriate timeframe to conduct initial
monitoring, which likely would require
regulated entities to contract new
services or realign current industrial
hygiene professionals toward WCPP
compliance. Adopting this timeframe
from the alternative approach
(providing 12 months for initial
monitoring) is intended to (1) prevent
professional safety service sectors from
being overwhelmed by new EPA
requirements; (2) provide time to
procure the necessary services while
ensuring the preservation of safety
quality, standards, and practices; and (3)
provide additional time for a
comprehensive exposure evaluation,
increasing the likelihood of successful
implementation of the WCPP.
As noted by commenters, the
proposed 180-day compliance
timeframe would not provide a
sufficient amount of time to identify
similar exposure groups and facilitate
effective initial exposure monitoring,
and as a result, this raised concern
regarding the successful implementation
of the WCPP for regulated entities.
When EPA initially proposed
compliance timeframes for the WCPP,
beginning with initial monitoring at 180
days and requiring full implementation
of the WCPP for methylene chloride by
360 days, EPA pursued similar
approaches to OSHA’s 1997 revision of
the methylene chloride standard in an
effort to swiftly address unreasonable
risk to workers. While EPA expected
some processes to be streamlined given
the familiarity of its proposed regulatory
structure, information submitted to EPA
stated that delayed compliance is
necessary to identify staffing needs, to
properly evaluate facilities for
exposures using the ECEL and EPA
STEL, and to fully implement the WCPP
(Refs. 55, 70). Furthermore, in addition
to the possible service professionals
identified by EPA in the IRFA (Ref. 19),
commenters noted that an expanded
scope of individuals would be required
to implement a WCPP, including
operations managers, process engineers,
and process safety management
engineers (Refs. 19, 55, 70).
Information was also provided to EPA
during the comment period detailing
evaluation steps that would be required
to assess a facility and fully implement
a WCPP, specifically to perform
appropriate initial monitoring. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
steps noted by commenters included
development of an exposure assessment
strategy (which requires the
identification of stakeholders), the
development of methods to gather
information, the use of similar exposure
groups, the determination of analytical
methods, and the training for proper
execution of monitoring, including the
assessment strategy and exposure
characterization (Refs. 55, 70). Another
commenter provided information on its
process for establishing monitoring to
the EPA exposure level, which
substantiated the steps identified by the
trade associations. This stakeholder was
already in the process of refining its
monitoring approach for its unique
exposures. The stakeholder claimed that
additional time is warranted for targeted
exposure evaluations that would be
most representative of tasks performed
in its facilities (Ref. 48). Given the
precedent of existing OSHA methylene
chloride standards, EPA recognizes that
much of the infrastructure and methods
needed for monitoring may already be
in place; however, EPA also
acknowledges concerns expressed by
commenters that adequate time would
be needed to monitor to EPA’s lower
exposure levels (Refs. 55, 70). After
consideration of comments and
outreach conducted following
publication of the 2023 proposed rule,
due to the increased scope of exposure
evaluation processes and required
personnel, EPA determined that a
delayed compliance date of 360 days to
conduct initial monitoring and 540 days
to fully implement the WCPP as
described in the proposed primary
alternative regulatory action is
necessary, and is finalizing such a
timeframe in this rule.
Although stakeholders commented
that a minimum of 720 days to 1,080
days would be necessary to fully
implement the WCPP (Refs. 55, 58, 70),
EPA considers that suggested change to
the proposed timeframe to be
excessively lengthy for methylene
chloride and would not be in
compliance with the TSCA section 6(d)
requirement that implementation dates
be as soon as practicable (Refs. 55, 58,
70). EPA recognizes that certain
provisions in the Final Rule are new
and diverge from existing OSHA
regulatory requirements for methylene
chloride, and that additional time is
warranted to fulfill those requirements.
This could include, but is not limited to,
the need to formulate an exposure
sampling strategy, consult with
specialized service providers, contract
with specialty service providers or
sampling laboratories, purchase PPE
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
39269
and respirators, procure capital for
facility retrofitting, train workers on
new types of PPE and administrative
procedures, calibrate equipment, or
design and install new engineering
controls (Refs. 35, 55, 70). Based on
comments, outreach, reasonably
available information, and longestablished OSHA standards for
methylene chloride, EPA maintains that
the majority of the exposure reduction
and worker safety infrastructure needed
for compliance is currently in place, but
recognizes the fundamental challenge of
monitoring to new, lower EPA exposure
thresholds. Therefore, EPA determined
that, as outlined in the proposed
primary alternative regulatory action,
providing additional time for the initial
monitoring step with staggered
requirements following in three-month
increments will be sufficient for much
of the regulated community and provide
significant benefit towards the
successful implementation of the WCPP.
Specifically, for the private sector, EPA
is finalizing the proposed primary
alternative regulatory timeframes for
WCPP implementation, including 360
days for initial monitoring, 450 days to
ensure that no person is exposed to an
airborne concentration of methylene
chloride that exceeds the ECEL or EPA
STEL, and 540 days to implement an
exposure control plan.
However, EPA remains concerned
about the ability of certain departments
and agencies of the Federal
Government, as well as Federal
contractors acting for or on behalf of the
Federal Government, to comply with
these timeframes. The importance of
methylene chloride to mission-critical
Department of Defense and National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) operations and overall military
readiness is discussed in Units III.A.5.
and III.B.1., as well as throughout the
proposed rule. While, for example, 29
CFR part 1960 sets forth procedures and
guidelines for ensuring that Federal
workers are protected in comparable
ways to their private sector
counterparts, EPA believes that
compliance with this final rule will
require increased and different
preparations on the part of Federal
agencies. For example, Federal agencies
must follow procurement requirements
which will likely result in increased
compliance timelines. In addition, these
requirements will require support in the
Federal budget, which, for some
agencies, is a multi-year process.
Therefore, EPA is providing an
additional year for agencies of the
Federal Government and their
contractors, when acting for or on behalf
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
39270
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
of the Federal Government, to comply
with the WCPP, including 915 days for
initial monitoring, 1,005 days to ensure
that no person is exposed to an airborne
concentration of methylene chloride
that exceeds the ECEL or EPA STEL,
and 1,095 days to implement an
exposure control plan.
2. Changes to Prohibition Timeframes
For occupational conditions of use
subject to a prohibition, EPA proposed
that prohibitions would become
effective in a staggered schedule for
each stage of the supply chain and
would come into effect in 90 days for
manufacturers, 180 days for processors,
270 days for distributors to retailers, 360
days for all other distributors and
retailers, and 450 days for industrial and
commercial uses after the publication
date of the final rule in the Federal
Register. For consumer uses, EPA
proposed that the prohibitions of
manufacturing, processing, and
distribution in commerce of methylene
chloride for consumer use would occur
in 90 days for manufacturers, 180 days
for processers, 270 days for distributing
to retailers, and 360 days for all other
distributors and retailers after the
publication date of the final rule in the
Federal Register. The EPA proposed
primary alternative regulatory action
included longer timeframes, which
begin at 360 days for manufacturing,
450 days for processors, 630 days for all
other distributors and retailers, and 720
days for industrial and commercial
users.
Several commenters raised concerns
on the timeframe for complying with
prohibitions from the proposed
regulatory action, stating that it does not
allow sufficient time to identify,
research, test, qualify, and implement
alternative substances or processes
(Refs. 75, 83, 86, 87). A commenter also
noted that adopting use of alternatives
would involve making engineering
changes to allow for the manufacturing,
processing, and use of alternatives (Ref.
87). Another commenter highlighted the
general challenges in implementing
shifts to alternative chemicals or
formulations for industries with multitiered supply chains (Ref. 83). EPA
acknowledges and agrees that there
likely will be circumstances in which
chemical alternatives may not be an
exact, drop-in replacement for
conditions of use, or in which new,
additional, or modifications to existing
engineering equipment could be
required, and that coordination with
suppliers or customers across the
supply chain (including with certifying
entities in circumstances where a
formulation change may require
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
recertifying a product to meet
performance standards, for example)
may require a transitioning process.
This point was expanded upon by a
commenter who stated that the
identification, testing, and
implementation of alternatives would
not only affect the commercial users of
methylene chloride, but would also
impact their distributors and customers
downstream (Ref. 86). Due to these and
other concerns, some commenters
supported the proposed alternative
timeframe for prohibition, which would
provide additional time that
commenters described as necessary for
seeking alternatives, successfully
implementing their use, and mitigating
supply chain impacts (Refs. 50, 60, 70,
83). After reviewing all of the
comments, EPA is modifying the
proposed prohibition compliance
timeframe for industrial and commercial
uses to lengthen it in this final rule, to
allow for successful implementation of
the prohibitions, as outlined in the
proposed alternative regulatory action.
This extension will also provide
additional time for industry to consult
with their upstream suppliers and
downstream customers and to make
necessary adjustments, thereby
mitigating immediate concerns for
operational continuity for conditions of
use identified in Unit IV.C.
Regarding consumer use of methylene
chloride, while many commenters that
provided input emphasized the need for
a longer prohibition compliance
timeframe for manufacturers,
formulators, or distributors of these
products, other commenters believed
EPA should maintain or expedite the
timeline for prohibitions related to
consumer use (Refs. 88, 89).
Commenters emphasized the severity of
the hazards posed by methylene
chloride (including to consumer users
and bystanders to consumer use),
particularly the acute hazards which
can include death. Commenters cited
the available alternatives for consumer
uses, which EPA also noted in the
proposed rule (Ref. 13). EPA has not
found that transitions to alternatives to
methylene chloride for consumer use
involve the same considerations or the
need for extended timeframes as for
commercial use. Therefore, EPA is
finalizing the prohibition
implementation timeframe from the
proposed regulatory action for retailer
restrictions to expeditiously restrict
access by consumers, while allowing
additional transition time for the
commercial sector. EPA is finalizing this
with the proposed alternative action
timeframes for manufacture, processing,
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
use, and all other distribution (i.e., nonretailer) for industrial and commercial
use, while finalizing the proposed
timeframes for distribution to and by
retailers for consumers. As described in
the proposal, and in Unit IV.C., a
retailer is any person or business entity
that distributes or makes available
products to consumers, including
through e-commerce internet sales or
distribution.
EPA acknowledges that the final
approach potentially allows for
manufacturing and processing of
methylene chloride and methylene
chloride-containing products for three
to six months beyond when they could
be distributed to or by retailers. EPA
took this approach to expeditiously
remove methylene chloride-containing
products from the consumer market.
While EPA acknowledges that, in some
cases, upstream manufacturers and
processors may lack awareness of the
downstream uses of their products, in
the case of methylene chloride,
manufacturers and processers should be
aware of restrictions downstream
(distributing to and by retailers) that
would make them unable to distribute
products that end up on the consumer
market, as a result of the 2019
rulemaking prohibiting methylene
chloride in paint and coating removers
for consumer use because that
regulation required manufacturers of
methylene chloride, regardless of
downstream uses, to revise their SDS
effective August 26, 2019 (84 FR 11420,
March 27, 2019) (FRL–9989–29). EPA
intends to conduct outreach with the
regulated community and particularly
manufacturers of methylene chloride,
who have been actively engaged
throughout the rulemaking and risk
evaluation process, to address this issue.
With a combination of proposed
timeframes and primary alternative
timeframes presented in the proposed
rule, the prohibitions under this
finalized regulatory action will take
effect in 270 days for distributing to
retailers, 360 days for retailers
distributing more broadly, 360 days for
manufacturers, 450 days for processors,
630 days for all other distributors and
720 days for industrial and commercial
users following this publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register. EPA
is also finalizing downstream
notification requirements in accordance
with these changes; details of these
changes are outlined in Unit IV.D.2.
E. Changes to WCPP Requirements:
Exposure Monitoring Requirements
As part of the WCPP, EPA proposed
to require that owners or operators meet
certain documentation requirements for
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
each instance of monitoring of
methylene chloride, including
compliance with the Good Laboratory
Practice (GLP) Standards in accordance
with 40 CFR part 792.
Numerous commenters expressed
concern regarding the requirement that
the WCPP include compliance with the
GLP Standards at 40 CFR part 792.
Commenters stated that it is atypical, for
industrial hygiene purposes, to use this
standard for air sampling of methylene
chloride (Refs. 65, 70, 75, 78).
According to the commenters, it is
common practice within the industrial
hygiene community to have analyses
performed by American Industrial
Hygiene Association (AIHA) accredited
labs (Refs. 65, 78). A commenter further
reasoned that because labs in the United
States are usually certified by ISO/IEC
17025 Testing and Calibration
Laboratories, a standard that differs
from the proposed GLP, they
recommended that provisions of
monitoring results and recordkeeping in
the final rule be allowed from any
accredited laboratory, without regard to
a specific type (Ref. 65).
EPA agrees with the commenter that
the WCPP for methylene chloride is
incompletely served by solely relying on
the GLP standard initially put forth in
the 2023 proposed rule. Given the
concern from commenters regarding
potential increases in demand for
professional safety services and
sampling laboratories having a negative
impact due to anticipated industry
strain and sampling limitations (Refs.
70, 85), EPA is inclined to broaden the
scope of laboratory accreditation
accordingly. EPA has considered this
laboratory capacity issue, in addition to
other revisions for finalization in this
rule, so that the additional
infrastructure is in place for the
regulated community to successfully
implement the WCPP. Therefore, EPA is
finalizing a provision that expands
monitoring results and associated
recordkeeping requirements to any
accredited lab including GLP, AIHA
(AIHA Laboratory Accreditation
Programs (LAP), LLC Policy Module 2A/
B/E of Revision 17.3), or other
analogous industry-recognized program.
Another commenter noted that EPA
omitted a provision from the OSHA
methylene chloride standard that they
stated is important for air monitoring
and protections to potentially exposed
persons. More specifically, the
commenter referred to 29 CFR
1910.1052(b) where OSHA defines
employee exposure to mean that
airborne concentration of methylene
chloride that either occurs, or would
occur, in the absence of respiratory
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
protection (Ref. 90). EPA agrees with the
commenter that exposure monitoring
should be conducted without regard to
respiratory protection to inform
engineering control options and
respiratory protection considerations.
Therefore, EPA is finalizing this rule to
explicitly state that air sampling is
required to measure ambient
concentrations for methylene chloride
without taking respiratory protections
into account when being performed.
This will ensure the highest degree of
protection to potentially exposed
persons by logging accurate ambient air
concentrations of methylene chloride,
thus empowering owners or operators to
appropriately consider the hierarchy of
controls.
F. Other Changes
EPA is also adding a definition of
‘‘article’’ and a definition of ‘‘product’’
to the definitions that EPA proposed to
add to 40 CFR part 751, subpart A. In
order to provide additional clarity on
the de minimis provision in this final
rule, as well as the provisions relating
to the refinishing of wooden furniture,
decorative pieces, and architectural
fixtures of artistic, cultural, or historic
value, EPA is incorporating into subpart
A the definitions of ‘‘article’’ and
‘‘product’’ that already exist in 40 CFR
part 751, subpart E. The article
definition is consistent with other
article definitions in regulations under
TSCA. The product definition makes it
clear that when EPA uses the term
‘‘product’’ in this regulation, EPA is not
referring to articles. These definitions
are consistent with the usage of these
terms in previously promulgated TSCA
regulations, including the 2021
regulation on 2,4,6-tris(tert-butyl)phenol
(86 FR 866, January 6, 2021 (FRL–
10018–90), which incorporated the
same definitions into 40 CFR part 751,
subpart B, and the 2019 regulation
prohibiting the manufacture, processing,
and distribution of methylene chloride
for use in consumer paint and coating
removers (84 FR 11420, March 27, 2019)
(FRL–9989–29), which does not refer to
articles, but uses the term ‘‘product’’ to
refer to methylene chloride and
mixtures containing methylene
chloride. EPA is also promulgating the
proposed definitions of ‘‘ECEL’’ and
‘‘EPA STEL’’ in 40 CFR 751.103 rather
than in subpart A to allow EPA the
flexibility to tailor the definitions to
address unique circumstances with
future chemicals. Lastly, EPA has
revised its proposed description of
industrial and commercial use as a
laboratory chemical condition of use to
provide additional clarity as suggested
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
39271
by a commenter (Ref. 77). The revised
description appears in Unit IV.B.1.c.iv.
IV. Provisions of the Final Rule
EPA intends that each provision of
this rulemaking be severable. In the
event of litigation staying, remanding, or
invalidating EPA’s risk management
approach for one or more conditions of
use in this rule, EPA intends to preserve
the risk management approaches in the
rule for all other conditions of use to the
fullest extent possible. The Agency
evaluated the risk management options
in TSCA section 6(a)(1) through (7) for
each condition of use and generally
EPA’s regulation of one condition of use
to address its contribution to the
unreasonable risk from methylene
chloride functions independently from
EPA’s regulation of other conditions of
use, which may have different
characteristics leading to EPA’s risk
management decisions. Further, the
Agency crafted this rule so that different
risk management approaches are
reflected in different provisions or
elements of the rule that are capable of
operating independently. Accordingly,
the Agency has organized the rule so
that if any provision or element of this
rule is determined by judicial review or
operation of law to be invalid, that
partial invalidation will not render the
remainder of this rule invalid.
There are many permutations of this.
For example, as discussed in Unit IV.C.,
this final rule prohibits commercial use
of paint and coating removal products
that contain methylene chloride and are
used in furniture refinishing (though a
subset of this use has a delayed
compliance date, as described in Unit
III.B.1.), and also adhesives and sealants
that contain methylene chloride (also
with a subset of this use having a
delayed compliance date as described in
Unit III.B.2.). To the extent that a court
were to find that EPA lacked substantial
evidence to support its prohibition of
paint and coating removal products
used in furniture refinishing or
otherwise found legal issues with EPA’s
approach to that condition of use, it
would have no bearing on other
similarly situated conditions of use such
as adhesives and sealants unless the
specific issue also applies to the
particular facts associated with
adhesives and sealants. This is reflected
in the structure of the rule, which
describes the specific prohibitions
separately by compliance date.
As another example, for commercial
use of methylene chloride in paint and
coating removal products used in
furniture refinishing and industrial and
commercial use of methylene chloride
as a laboratory chemical, EPA took
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
39272
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
different risk management approaches—
prohibition for paint and coating
removal products used in furniture
refinishing (though a subset of this use
has a delayed compliance date, as
described in Unit III.B.1.) and
application of the WCPP for the
industrial and commercial use of
methylene chloride as a laboratory
chemical. To the extent that a court
were to find a legal issue with EPA’s
approach to the WCPP, impacting
industrial and commercial use of
methylene chloride as a laboratory
chemical, it would have no bearing on
EPA’s decision to prohibit paint and
coating removal products used in
furniture refinishing, and vice versa.
This is reflected in the structure of the
rule, which organizes the prohibitions
and the WCPP into different sections of
the regulation.
In some circumstances, EPA also
intends certain portions of the WCPP to
be severable from the rest of the WCPP.
For example, EPA intends the methods
of compliance with the ECEL and EPA
STEL described in paragraph (e)(1) to
function somewhat independently. The
provisions in paragraph (e)(1)(i) through
(iii) are generally applicable to all
impacted owners or operators. However,
paragraph (e)(1)(iv) is specifically
applicable to a scenario where the
Department of Defense, based on
ongoing or planned military
construction that requires Congressional
authorization and appropriation prior to
start of construction, may need
additional time to comply with the
requirements of paragraph (e)(1)(i).
Since the Department of Defense is also
covered by the more general provision
in paragraph (e)(1)(i), if a court were to
find a legal issue with EPA’s decision to
provide the independently functioning
paragraph (e)(1)(iv) to provide the
Department of Defense with additional
time in a particular circumstance, it
would not have any bearing on EPA’s
broader regulatory approach reflected in
paragraph (e)(1)(i) through (iii) to strike
that provision.
EPA also intends all TSCA section
6(a) risk management elements in this
rule to be severable from each TSCA
section 6(g) exemption. EPA has the
authority to promulgate TSCA section
6(g) exemptions ‘‘as part of a rule
promulgated under [TSCA section
6(a)].’’ However, EPA’s risk management
decisions under TSCA sections 6(a) and
6(c) are independent from EPA’s
consideration of whether it is
appropriate, based on the factors in
TSCA section 6(g), to exempt specific
conditions of use from the requirements
of the TSCA section 6(a) risk
management elements in the rule. In
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
other words, EPA first decides whether
and how to regulate each condition of
use, per TSCA sections 6(a) through (c),
and only then determines whether an
exemption under TSCA section 6(g) is
appropriate. Accordingly, the
underlying TSCA section 6(a) risk
management elements would not be
impacted if a TSCA section 6(g)
exemption is determined by judicial
review or operation of law to be invalid.
Rather, the exempted condition of use
would become subject to the underlying
TSCA section 6(a) risk management
element(s).
To that end, EPA acknowledges that
after the issuance of this rule, Federal
agencies, their contractors, and other
related entities may become aware of
important information which indicates a
particular use, that would otherwise be
prohibited, could meet the criteria of
section 6(g) or the requirements of a
WCPP. EPA also notes that there are
multiple avenues to ask EPA to revisit
issues in this TSCA section 6(a)
rulemaking, both before and after the
mandatory compliance dates are set
consistent with TSCA section 6(d). EPA
has the authority under TSCA section
6(g) to consider whether a time limited
exemption is appropriate and,
consistent with TSCA section 6(g)(1),
could expeditiously promulgate such
exemptions independently from this
rulemaking, including consideration of
emergency or interim rulemaking. EPA
will initiate a notice of proposed
rulemaking for public comment on this
topic and will add this to the Spring
2024 Regulatory Agenda. Additionally,
any person could petition EPA to
request that EPA issue or amend a rule
under TSCA section 6.
destination country (Ref. 91). Because
distribution in commerce did not
contribute to EPA’s unreasonable risk
determination for methylene chloride,
and because this final rule permits
manufacturing and processing for
various uses under the WCPP, EPA
intends this final rule to permit
manufacturing and processing in
compliance with the WCPP for export,
as well as distribution in commerce for
export, without regard for the intended
use in the destination country. EPA has
clarified the regulatory text accordingly.
As discussed in Unit III.C., EPA’s
final rule is adopting a de minimis
threshold of 0.1% to account for
impurities and the unintended presence
of methylene chloride. In other words,
the provisions of this rulemaking only
apply when methylene chloride is
present in a formulation at 0.1% or
greater. Additionally, the provisions of
this final rule only apply to chemical
substances as defined under TSCA
section 3. Notably, TSCA section 3(2)
excludes from the definition of chemical
substance ‘‘any food, food additive,
drug, cosmetic, or device (as such terms
are defined in section 201 of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C.
321]) when manufactured, processed, or
distributed in commerce for use as a
food, food additive, drug, cosmetic, or
device’’ and ‘‘any pesticide (as defined
in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act [7 U.S.C. 136 et
seq.]) when manufactured, processed, or
distributed in commerce for use as a
pesticide.’’ Additional details regarding
TSCA statutory authorities can be found
in section 2 of the Response to
Comments document (Ref. 7).
A. Applicability
This final rule sets prohibitions and
restrictions on the manufacture
(including import), processing,
distribution in commerce, commercial
use, and disposal of methylene chloride
to prevent unreasonable risk of injury to
health in accordance with TSCA section
6(a), 15 U.S.C. 2605(a).
Additionally, pursuant to TSCA
section 12(a)(2), this rule applies to
methylene chloride even if being
manufactured, processed, or distributed
in commerce solely for export from the
United States because EPA has
determined that methylene chloride
presents an unreasonable risk to health
within the United States. A commenter
expressed concern that distribution for
export would be prohibited under the
proposed rule if the intended use in the
destination country is prohibited in the
United States, even if it is permissible
under other risk mitigation rules in the
B. Workplace Chemical Protection
Program (WCPP)
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1. Applicability
EPA is finalizing the WCPP for the
conditions of use for which it was
proposed, as well as for additional
conditions of use for which either
prohibition was proposed, or for which
the WCPP was proposed only for a subset of uses within the condition of use.
EPA has not removed from the WCPP
any conditions of use proposed to be
included. EPA’s descriptions of changes
from the proposed rule are in Unit III.
and EPA’s rationale for why the WCPP
addresses the unreasonable risk for
certain conditions of use is in Unit V.
of the proposed rule (88 FR 28284, May
3, 2023) (FRL–8155–02–OCSPP). EPA is
additionally requiring that uses
receiving an exemption under TSCA
section 6(g), as outlined in Unit IV.E.,
comply with the WCPP.
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
EPA is finalizing the WCPP for the
following conditions of use: domestic
manufacturing; import; processing as a
reactant; processing for incorporation
into a formulation, mixture, or reaction
product; processing in repackaging;
processing in recycling; industrial and
commercial use as a laboratory
chemical; industrial and commercial
use as a paint and coating remover from
safety critical, corrosion-sensitive
components of aircraft and spacecraft;
industrial or commercial use as a
bonding agent for solvent welding;
industrial and commercial use as a
processing aid; industrial and
commercial use for plastic and rubber
products manufacturing; industrial and
commercial use as a solvent that
becomes part of a formulation or
mixture, where that formulation or
mixture will be used inside a
manufacturing process, and the solvent
(methylene chloride) will be reclaimed;
and disposal. This unit provides a
description of the uses subject to the
WCPP in order to assist with
compliance.
a. Manufacturing (Includes Import)
i. Domestic Manufacturing
This condition of use refers to
manufacturing, or producing, a
chemical substance within the United
States (including manufacturing for
export). Manufacture includes the
extraction of a component chemical
substance from a previously existing
chemical substance or complex
combination of chemical substances.
ii. Import
This condition of use refers to the act
of causing a chemical substance or
mixture to arrive within the customs
territory of the United States.
b. Processing
i. Processing as a Reactant
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
This condition of use refers to
processing methylene chloride in
chemical reactions for the
manufacturing of another chemical
substance or product, e.g.,
difluoromethane, also known as HFC–
32, which is used in fluorocarbon
blends for refrigerants, and bis-2,2dinitropropyl-acetal/formal.
ii. Processing: Incorporation Into a
Formulation, Mixture, or Reaction
Product
This condition of use refers to when
methylene chloride is added to a
product (or product mixture) prior to
further distribution of the product.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
iii. Processing: Repackaging
This condition of use refers to the
preparation of methylene chloride for
distribution in commerce in a different
form, state, or quantity. This includes
transferring the chemical from a bulk
container into smaller containers.
iv. Processing: Recycling
This condition of use refers to the
process of treating generated waste
streams(i.e., which would otherwise be
disposed of as waste) that are collected,
either on-site or transported to a thirdparty site, for commercial purpose.
Waste solvents can be restored to a
condition that permits reuse via solvent
reclamation/recycling. The recovery
process may involve an initial vapor
recovery or mechanical separation step
followed by distillation, purification,
and final packaging.
c. Industrial and Commercial Uses
i. Industrial and Commercial Use as a
Solvent That Becomes Part of a
Formulation or Mixture, Where That
Formulation or Mixture Will Be Used
Inside a Manufacturing Process, and the
Solvent (Methylene Chloride) Will Be
Reclaimed
This condition of use refers to
industrial or commercial use of
methylene chloride added to a product
(or product mixture) in an industrial or
commercial setting for use inside a
closed-loop manufacturing process,
where the solvent will be reclaimed and
reused.
ii. Industrial and Commercial Use as a
Processing Aid
This condition of use refers to the
industrial or commercial use of
methylene chloride to improve the
processing characteristics or the
operation of process equipment or to
alter or buffer the pH of the substance
or mixture, when added to a process or
to a substance or mixture to be
processed. Processing agents do not
become a part of the reaction product
and are not intended to affect the
function of a substance or article
created. For methylene chloride, the use
as a processing aid condition of use also
encompasses use of methylene chloride
as a heat transfer fluid, and use in the
manufacture of battery separators. Use
of methylene chloride as a processing
aid also refers to use of methylene
chloride in blending powder for
flashtube and ignition booster pellets
and as a de-sensitizer for nitroglycerine
shipment. Additionally, the use of
methylene chloride in a closed-loop
chiller system that supports
performance of FAA-required aviation
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
39273
fuel testing, these are considered under
the condition of use industrial and
commercial use as a processing aid. The
analogous use of methylene chloride in
a chiller system in the Department of
Defense McKinley Climatic Laboratory
would likewise be considered industrial
and commercial use as a processing aid.
(EPA notes that these chiller uses were
identified under ‘‘Industrial and
commercial use as a laboratory
chemical’’ under the proposed rule.
However, EPA has determined they are
more accurately categorized under the
condition of use ‘‘industrial and
commercial use as a processing aid,’’ as
with other heat transfer fluid uses).
iii. Industrial and Commercial Use as a
Laboratory Chemical
This condition of use refers to the
industrial or commercial use of
methylene chloride in a laboratory
process or in specialized laboratory
equipment for instrument calibration/
maintenance chemical analysis,
chemical synthesis, extracting and
purifying other chemicals, dissolving
other substances, executing research,
development, test and evaluation
methods, and similar activities, such as
use as a solvent, reagent, analytical
standard, or other experimental use. For
the purposes of this rulemaking, EPA
emphasizes that industrial and
commercial use of methylene chloride
as a laboratory chemical applies to
research, government, and academic
institutions, as well as to industrial and
commercial laboratories. Laboratory use
of methylene chloride includes
Department of Defense sampling,
examining, and testing of solid
propellants, detail specifications of
nitrocellulose, and laboratory analysis
for TNT conformity with TNT acidity
requirements.
iv. Industrial and Commercial Use for
Plastic and Rubber Products
Manufacturing
This condition of use refers to the
industrial or commercial use of
methylene chloride in the manufacture
and processing of plastic and rubber
products, including in interfacial
polymerization for polycarbonate plastic
manufacturing.
v. Industrial and Commercial Use as a
Paint and Coating Remover From Safety
Critical, Corrosion-Sensitive
Components of Aircraft and Spacecraft
This condition of use refers to the
industrial or commercial use of
methylene chloride or methylene
chloride-containing products applied to
corrosion-sensitive surfaces to remove
paint, coatings, and other finishes and
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
39274
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
to clean the underlying surface in safety
critical components of aircraft and
spacecraft.
vi. Industrial or Commercial Use as a
Bonding Agent for Solvent Welding
This condition of use refers to the
industrial or commercial use of
methylene chloride or a solvent blend
including methylene chloride to
chemically bond polymer substrates
including, but not limited to, acrylic or
polycarbonate, creating an airtight,
waterproof, and in some cases seamless
joint.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
d. Disposal
This condition of use refers to the
process of disposing generated waste
streams of methylene chloride that are
collected either on-site or transported to
a third-party site for disposal.
2. Overview
A WCPP encompasses inhalation
exposure thresholds, includes
monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements to verify that those
thresholds are not exceeded, and may
include other components, such as
dermal protection, to ensure that the
chemical substance no longer presents
unreasonable risk. Under a WCPP,
owners or operators have some
flexibility, within the parameters
outlined in this unit, regarding how
they prevent exceedances of the
identified EPA exposure limit
thresholds. In the case of methylene
chloride, meeting the EPA exposure
limit thresholds for certain occupational
conditions of use would address the
unreasonable risk to potentially exposed
persons from inhalation exposure.
EPA is finalizing these requirements
to begin taking effect on May 5, 2025 for
the private sector and on November 9,
2026 for Federal agencies and Federal
contractors acting for or on behalf of the
Federal Government, at which point
entities would be required to conduct
initial monitoring (as described in Unit
IV.B.4.b.). Additionally, EPA requires
that each owner or operator ensure that
the airborne concentration of methylene
chloride does not exceed the ECEL or
EPA STEL for all potentially exposed
persons no later than August 1, 2025 for
the private sector, or no later than
February 8, 2027 for Federal agencies
and Federal contractors acting for or on
behalf of the Federal Government.
Implementation of any needed exposure
controls based on initial monitoring and
development of an exposure control
plan would be required no later than
October 30, 2025, for the private sector,
or May 10, 2027 for Federal agencies
and Federal contractors acting for or on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
behalf of the Federal Government (as
described in Unit III.D.1.).
EPA uses the term ‘‘potentially
exposed person’’ in this unit and in the
regulatory text to include workers,
occupational non-users, employees,
independent contractors, employers,
and all other persons in the work area
where methylene chloride is present
and who may be exposed to methylene
chloride under the conditions of use for
which a WCPP would apply. One
important reason to define a potentially
exposed person for the purposes of a
WCPP as any person who may be
exposed in the workplace is to
emphasize the broad scope of exposures
which must be categorized when
implementing a WCPP. EPA notes that
this definition is intended to apply only
in the context of risk management, and
specifically in the context of a WCPP
(e.g., workers directly using the
chemical, workers in the vicinity of the
use, students in a laboratory setting).
The term is not intended as a
replacement for the term Potentially
Exposed or Susceptible Subpopulation
as defined by TSCA section 3(12). EPA
additionally recognizes that other
individuals or communities may be
exposed to methylene chloride as
consumers, members of fenceline
communities, or members of the general
population, which is separate and apart
from those potentially exposed for the
purposes of the regulatory requirements
of the WCPP. In those instances, where
regulatory requirements address
exposures unrelated to a WCPP EPA
would use distinct terminology to refer
to those other populations. EPA requires
a comprehensive WCPP to address the
unreasonable risk from methylene
chloride to workers directly handling
the chemical or in the area where the
chemical is being used. Similarly, the
2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene
Chloride (Ref. 1) did not distinguish
between employers, contractors, or
other legal entities or businesses that
manufacture, process, distribute in
commerce, use, or dispose of methylene
chloride. For this reason, EPA uses the
term ‘‘owner or operator’’ to describe
the entity responsible for implementing
the WCPP in any workplace where an
applicable condition of use identified in
the following paragraph and subject to
the WCPP is occurring. The term
includes any person who owns, leases,
operates, controls, or supervises such a
workplace. While owners or operators
remain responsible for ensuring
compliance with the WCPP
requirements in the workplace, they
may contract with others to provide
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
training or implement a respiratory
protection program, for example.
EPA emphasizes that this approach is
essential for addressing the
unreasonable risk presented by
methylene chloride, including to
individuals who may not be covered by
OSHA requirements, such as university
students, volunteers, self-employed
persons, and state and local government
workers who are not covered by a state
plan. EPA uses the term ‘‘owner or
operator’’ in TSCA programs because
the term is used in other EPA programs
to describe persons with responsibilities
for implementing statutory and
regulatory requirements at particular
locations. See, for example, section 113
of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C.
7412, which defines ‘‘owner or
operator’’ as a person who owns, leases,
operates, controls, or supervises a
stationary source. There is a similar
definition in section 306 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1316. EPA
understands that the use of this term
may result in multiple persons bearing
responsibility for complying with
provisions of this final rule, including
the WCPP. However, this is also the case
for workplaces regulated by OSHA,
including those regulated under OSHA’s
general industry standards at 29 CFR
part 1910. OSHA’s 1999 Multi-Employer
Citation Policy explains which
employers should be cited for a hazard
that violates an OSHA standard (Ref.
92). The Policy describes four different
roles that employers may fill at a
workplace and describes who should be
cited for a violation based on factors
such as whether the employer created
the hazard, had the ability to prevent or
correct the hazard, and knew or should
have known about the hazard. More
than one employer may be cited for the
same hazard. This final rule will have
similar results, in that more than one
owner or operator may be responsible
for compliance.
The OSHA multi-employer citation
policy is an example of a guidance
governing situations where more than
one regulated entity is present. EPA has
received several requests for
clarification of the applicability of the
term ‘‘owner or operator’’ to sites where
more than one entity owns, leases, or
controls a workplace where a methylene
chloride condition of use is ongoing and
where implementation of the WCPP is
required. EPA understands that there
are a wide variety of situations where
these questions could arise, and plans to
issue guidance consistent with TSCA
authorities that explains how EPA will
approach the issue of responsibility for
implementation of, and compliance
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
with, the WCPP requirements in
practice.
EPA’s implementation of the ECEL as
part of a WCPP aligns with, to the extent
possible, certain elements of the existing
OSHA standard for regulating
methylene chloride under 29 CFR
1910.1052. However, EPA is finalizing
new, lower exposure thresholds,
derived from the TSCA 2020 Risk
Evaluation for Methylene Chloride,
while aligning with existing
requirements wherever possible (Refs. 1,
93). For methylene chloride, this final
rule will eliminate the unreasonable risk
from methylene chloride contributed to
by the conditions of use subject to the
WCPP, enable continued industry use
where appropriate, and provide the
familiarity of a pre-existing framework
for the regulated community.
EPA’s requirements include specific
exposure limits and ancillary
requirements necessary for successful
implementation of an ECEL as part of a
WCPP. Taken together, these WCPP
requirements apply to the extent
necessary so that the unreasonable risk
from methylene chloride under the
conditions of use listed earlier in this
unit would no longer be presented.
This unit includes a summary of the
WCPP, including a description of the
finalized exposure limits including an
ECEL, ECEL action level, and EPA
STEL; implementation requirements
including monitoring requirements; a
description of potential exposure
controls, including engineering controls,
administrative controls, and PPE as it
relates to dermal protections and
respirator selection; and additional
finalized requirements for
recordkeeping, workplace participation,
and notification in accordance with the
hierarchy of controls. This unit also
describes compliance timeframes
revised from the proposed rule, changes
by EPA to certain provisions of the
WCPP based on public comments, and
addition of new provisions in the WCPP
based on public comments used to
inform this final rule.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
3. Existing Chemical Exposure Limit
(ECEL), EPA Action Level, Short-Term
Exposure Limit (STEL)
EPA is finalizing as proposed an ECEL
under TSCA section 6(a) of 2 ppm (8
mg/m3) as an 8-hour TWA based on the
chronic non-cancer human equivalent
concentration for liver toxicity. EPA has
determined that ensuring exposures
remain at or below the 8-hour TWA
ECEL of 2 ppm will eliminate the
unreasonable risk of injury to health
resulting from acute and chronic
inhalation exposures for certain
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
occupational conditions of use of
methylene chloride (Ref. 93).
If ambient exposures are kept at or
below the 8-hour TWA ECEL of 2 ppm
and at or below the 15-minute TWA
EPA STEL of 16 ppm also finalized in
this unit, a potentially exposed person
will be protected against the effects
described in this unit, including effects
resulting from acute exposure (central
nervous system depression), chronic
non-cancer effects (liver toxicity), and
cancer. Using the TWA concept, as long
as the 8-hr TWA or 15-min EPA STEL
are not exceeded, airborne
concentrations could temporarily
exceed the ECEL.
EPA is finalizing as proposed an ECEL
action level at half of the 8-hour ECEL,
or 1 ppm (4 mg/m3) as an 8-hour TWA.
Below the ECEL action level, certain
compliance activities, such as periodic
monitoring, would be required once
every five years as described further in
this unit. In this way, EPA’s WCPP for
methylene chloride aligns with the
familiar framework that is in place in 29
CFR 1910.1052 and many other
occupational settings where the action
level is half the relevant occupational
exposure level. OSHA explained that its
decision to set the action level at onehalf the PEL was based on its successful
experience using this fraction as the
action level in many standards (e.g.,
arsenic, ethylene oxide, vinyl chloride
and benzene); for most workplaces, the
agency found that variability in
employee exposures is normally such
that an action level set at one-half the
TWA PEL is appropriate (Ref. 94).
In addition to the 8-hour TWA ECEL,
EPA is finalizing as proposed a STEL of
16 ppm (57 mg/m3) as a 15-minute
TWA. This STEL is based on the noncancer endpoint of central nervous
system depression resulting from acute
exposures. EPA has also determined
that ensuring exposures remain at or
below the EPA STEL will eliminate the
unreasonable risk of injury to health
from methylene chloride due to acute
inhalation exposures in an occupational
setting. EPA is finalizing the EPA STEL
as a 15-minute TWA for the protection
of potentially exposed persons to
methylene chloride for shorter durations
and at higher concentrations that fall
outside the parameters of the ECEL 8hour TWA.
In summary, EPA is finalizing as
proposed that owners or operators must
ensure the airborne concentration of
methylene chloride within the personal
breathing zone of potentially exposed
persons remains at or below 2 ppm as
an 8-hour TWA ECEL, with an action
level finalized as 1 ppm as an 8-hour
TWA. OSHA defines the personal
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
39275
breathing zone as a hemispheric area
forward of the shoulders within a six-tonine-inch radius of a worker’s nose and
mouth and requires that exposure
monitoring air samples be collected
from within this space (Ref. 95). EPA is
finalizing as proposed that owners or
operators must also ensure the airborne
concentration of methylene chloride
within the personal breathing zone of
potentially exposed persons remains at
or below a 15-minute TWA, or EPA
STEL, of 16 ppm. EPA is finalizing the
ECEL and EPA STEL for certain
occupational conditions of use to ensure
that no person is exposed to inhalation
of methylene chloride in excess of these
concentrations resulting from those
conditions of use. For the identified
conditions of use for which the
concentration thresholds are being
finalized, EPA recognizes that the
regulated community has the ability to
detect the values for the ECEL, ECEL
action level, and EPA STEL because of
viable detection limits and analytical
methods of methylene chloride for
monitoring devices that are widely
available in commerce, currently in use,
and approved by OSHA and NIOSH,
which generally range from 0.2 to
0.4 ppm (Ref. 93). EPA also recognizes
that analytical methods for monitoring
are available from OSHA and NIOSH
that are capable of detecting the
exposure limits with a higher degree of
accuracy (Refs. 96, 97).
4. Monitoring Requirements
a. In General
Initial monitoring for methylene
chloride is critical for establishing a
baseline of exposure for potentially
exposed persons; similarly, periodic
exposure monitoring assures continued
compliance over time so that potentially
exposed persons are not exposed to
levels that would result in an
unreasonable risk of injury to health.
Exposure monitoring could be
suspended if certain conditions
described in this unit are met. Also, in
some cases, a change in workplace
conditions with the potential to impact
exposure levels would warrant
additional monitoring, which is also
described.
EPA is finalizing as proposed its
requirement that owners or operators
determine each potentially exposed
person’s exposure by taking a personal
breathing zone air sample, or by taking
personal breathing zone air samples that
are representative of each potentially
exposed person’s exposure. Owners or
operators will be permitted to consider
personal breathing zone air samples to
be representative of each potentially
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
39276
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
exposed person’s exposure when one or
more samples are taken for at least one
potentially exposed person in each job
classification in a work area during
every work shift, and the person
sampled is expected to have the highest
methylene chloride exposure; or when
one or more samples are taken which
indicate the highest likely 15-minute
exposures during such operations for at
least one potentially exposed person in
each job classification in the work area
during every work shift, and the person
sampled is expected to have the highest
methylene chloride exposure. Personal
breathing zone air samples taken during
one work shift may be used to represent
potentially exposed person exposures
on other work shifts where the owner or
operator can document that the tasks
performed and conditions in the
workplace are similar across shifts.
Additionally, air sampling is required to
measure ambient concentrations for
methylene chloride without taking
respiratory protections into account as
sampling is being performed. These
final requirements align with the
approach taken for characterization of
employee exposure in the 1997 OSHA
standard for methylene chloride (see 29
CFR 1910.1052(b), (d)(1)(i) and (ii)).
EPA is also finalizing requirements that
the owner or operator ensure, for initial
and periodic monitoring, that their
exposure monitoring methods are
accurate to a confidence level of 95%
and are within (plus or minus) 25% of
airborne concentrations of methylene
chloride above the 8-hour TWA ECEL or
the 15-minute TWA EPA STEL, or
within (plus or minus) 35% for airborne
concentrations of methylene chloride at
or above the ECEL action level but at or
below the 8-hour TWA ECEL. These
requirements, including the 35%, would
align with the approach taken in the
1997 OSHA standard for methylene
chloride (see 29 CFR
1910.1052(d)(1)(iii)). Though EPA is
finalizing the accuracy range as
proposed, EPA recognizes that more
recent monitoring methods and
technologies currently exist and allow
for greater accuracy, and thus a
narrower accuracy range for monitoring
results such as the NIOSH 3900 method
and the OSHA 1025 method (Refs. 96,
97). To ensure compliance for
monitoring activities, EPA is finalizing
recordkeeping requirements and will
require that owners or operators
document their choice of monitoring
method outlined in this unit.
b. Initial Exposure Monitoring
Under the final regulation, each
owner or operator of a facility in the
private sector that is engaged in one or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
more of the conditions of use listed
earlier in Unit IV.B.1. will be required
to perform initial exposure monitoring
within 360 days after publication of the
final rule to determine the extent of
exposure of potentially exposed persons
to methylene chloride. In consideration
of public comments, EPA has changed
the timeframe for completion of initial
monitoring from 180 days after
publication of the final rule to 360 days
after publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register. As discussed in Unit
III.D.1., EPA is providing additional
time for Federal agencies and Federal
contractors acting for or on behalf of the
Federal Government to comply with the
provisions of the WCPP, so they will be
required to conduct initial monitoring
within 915 days after publication. Initial
monitoring will notify owners and
operators of the magnitude of possible
exposures to potentially exposed
persons with respect to their work
conditions and environments. Based on
the magnitude of possible exposures in
the initial exposure monitoring, the
owner or operator may need to increase
or decrease the frequency of future
periodic monitoring, adopt new
exposure controls (such as engineering
controls, administrative controls, and/or
a respiratory protection program), or to
continue or discontinue certain
compliance activities such as periodic
monitoring. In addition, the initial
monitoring will be required when and
where the operating conditions are best
representative of each potentially
exposed person’s work-shift exposures.
If the owner or operator chooses to use
a sample that is representative of
potentially exposed persons’ full shift
exposures (rather than monitor every
individual), such sampling should be
representative of the most highly
exposed persons in the workplace.
Additionally, EPA expects that owners
and operators will conduct initial
exposure monitoring representative to
determine the extent of methylene
chloride exposure for potentially
exposed persons. EPA understands that
certain tasks may occur less frequently
or may reflect upset conditions (for
example, due to malfunction).
EPA also recognizes that the values
for the ECEL action level and EPA STEL
may mean that some owners or
operators currently in compliance with
the OSHA standard would have to
establish a new monitoring baseline for
EPA’s Final Rule for methylene
chloride. Aligning with the existing
OSHA standard (29 CFR
1910.1052(d)(2)) to the extent possible,
EPA is finalizing as proposed that an
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
owner or operator may temporarily
forgo initial exposure monitoring if:
(i) An owner or operator could
provide EPA with objective data
generated during the last five years
demonstrating that methylene chloride
cannot be released in the workplace in
airborne concentrations at or above the
ECEL action level (1-ppm 8-hour TWA)
and above the EPA STEL (16 ppm 15minute TWA), and that the data
represent the highest methylene
chloride exposures likely to occur under
reasonably foreseeable conditions of
manufacturing, processing, use, or
disposal, as applicable, including
handling of methylene chloride during
those activities. Owners or operators
who rely on objective data must
maintain records including the use of
methylene chloride evaluated, the
source of the objective data, the
measurement methods, measurement
results, and measurement analysis of the
use of methylene chloride, and any
other data relevant to the operations,
processes, or person’s exposure. The
oldest objective data used to
demonstrate that exposures are below
the ECEL action level and EPA STEL
will indicate the beginning of the fiveyear cycles of recurring exposure
monitoring as described in Unit
IV.B.4.b.;
(ii) Where potentially exposed
persons are exposed to methylene
chloride for fewer than 30 days per year
and the owner or operator has
measurements by direct-metering
devices that give immediate results and
provide sufficient information regarding
potentially exposed persons’ exposures
to determine and implement the control
measures that are necessary to reduce
exposures to below the ECEL action
level and EPA STEL.
As described in more detail later in
this unit, the owner or operator must
conduct periodic monitoring at least
once every five years since its last
monitoring. This periodic monitoring
must be representative of all the
potentially exposed persons in the
workplace and the tasks that they are
expected to do. Additionally, if a facility
were to commence one or more
conditions of use listed in Unit IV.B.1.
after May 5, 2025, the owner or operator
must perform an initial exposure
monitoring within 30 days of
commencing the condition(s) of use and
would be required to conduct periodic
monitoring in accordance with table 1
in Unit IV.B.4.c. For facilities that
commence one or more conditions of
use listed in Unit IV.B.1. after May 5,
2025, the owner or operator must ensure
that the airborne concentration of
methylene chloride does not exceed the
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
ECEL or EPA STEL for all potentially
exposed persons within 90 days of the
initial exposure monitoring.
c. Periodic Exposure Monitoring
EPA’s final rule is aligned with
elements of the existing OSHA standard
(29 CFR 1910.1052(d)(3)) to the extent
possible. Based on the results from the
initial exposure monitoring, EPA is
finalizing as proposed the following
periodic monitoring for owners or
operators. These finalized requirements
are also outlined in table 1.
• If the initial exposure monitoring is
below the ECEL action level (1 ppm 8hour TWA) and at or below the EPA
STEL (16 ppm 15-minute TWA), the
ECEL and EPA STEL periodic
monitoring would be required once
every five years, except when additional
exposure monitoring (Unit IV.B.4.e.)
measurements require it.
• If the initial exposure monitoring
concentration is below the ECEL action
level (1 ppm 8-hour TWA) and above
the EPA STEL (16 ppm 15-minute
TWA), the ECEL periodic monitoring
would be required once every five years
or when additional monitoring (Unit
IV.B.4.e.) measurements require it, but
EPA STEL periodic monitoring would
be required every three months.
• If the initial exposure monitoring
concentration is at or above the ECEL
action level (1 ppm 8-hour TWA) and at
or below the ECEL (2 ppm 8-hour
TWA), and at or below the EPA STEL
(16 ppm 15-minute TWA), the ECEL
periodic monitoring would be required
every six months.
• If the initial exposure monitoring
concentration is at or above the ECEL
action level (1 ppm 8-hour TWA) and at
or below the ECEL (2 ppm 8-hour
TWA), and above the EPA STEL, the
ECEL periodic monitoring would be
required every six months and EPA
STEL periodic monitoring would be
required every three months.
• If the initial exposure monitoring
concentration is: Above the ECEL (2
ppm 8-hour TWA) and below, at, or
above the EPA STEL (16 ppm 15-minute
TWA), the ECEL and EPA STEL
periodic monitoring would be required
every three months.
• The owner or operator would be
permitted to transition the ECEL
periodic exposure monitoring frequency
from every three months to every six
months if two consecutive monitoring
events taken at least seven days apart
indicate that the potential exposure has
decreased to or below the ECEL, but at
or above the ECEL action level.
• The owner or operator would be
permitted to transition from the ECEL
periodic exposure monitoring frequency
from every six months to once every five
years if two consecutive monitoring
events taken at least seven days apart
indicate that the potential exposure has
decreased below the ECEL action level
and at or below the EPA STEL. The
second consecutive monitoring event
would delineate the new date from
which the next five-year periodic
exposure monitoring must occur.
39277
In addition to the periodic monitoring
standards described earlier, EPA is
finalizing two additional provisions:
• Based on its monitoring results, if
the owner or operator would be required
to monitor either the ECEL or EPA STEL
in a three-month interval but does not
engage in any of the conditions of use
listed in Unit IV.B.1. for which the
WCPP is finalized over the entirety of
those three months, the owner or
operator would be permitted to forgo the
upcoming periodic monitoring event.
However, documentation of cessation of
use of methylene chloride would be
required, and initial monitoring would
be required when the owner or operator
resumes or starts any of the conditions
of use listed in Unit IV.B.1. for which
the WCPP is finalized.
• Based on its monitoring results, if
the owner or operator would be required
to monitor the ECEL in a six-month
interval but does not engage in any of
the conditions of use listed in Unit
IV.B.1. for which the WCPP is finalized
over the entirety of those six months,
the owner or operator would be
permitted to forgo the upcoming
periodic monitoring event. However,
documentation of cessation of use of
methylene chloride would be required,
and initial monitoring would be
required when the owner or operator
resumes or starts any of the conditions
of use listed in Unit IV.B.1. for which
the WCPP is finalized.
• Periodic monitoring would be
required to occur at least once every five
years if methylene chloride is present.
TABLE 1—PERIODIC MONITORING REQUIREMENTS BASED ON INITIAL EXPOSURE MONITORING RESULTS
Air concentration condition
Periodic monitoring requirement
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
If the initial exposure monitoring concentration is below the ECEL action level and at or below the EPA STEL.
If the initial exposure monitoring concentration is below the ECEL action level and above the EPA STEL.
If the initial exposure monitoring concentration is at or above the ECEL
action level and at or below the ECEL; and at or below the EPA
STEL.
If the initial exposure monitoring concentration is at or above the ECEL
action level and at or below the ECEL; and above the EPA STEL.
If the initial exposure monitoring concentration is above the ECEL and
below, at, or above the EPA STEL.
If 2 consecutive monitoring events have taken place at least 7 days
apart that indicate that potential exposure has decreased from above
the ECEL to at or below the ECEL, but at or above the ECEL action
level.
If 2 consecutive monitoring events have taken place at least 7 days
apart that indicate that potential exposure has decreased to below
the ECEL action level and at or below the EPA STEL.
If the owner or operator engages in any of the conditions of use for
which WCPP is finalized and is required to monitor either the ECEL
or EPA STEL in a 3-month interval, but does not engage in any of
those conditions of use for the entirety of the 3-month interval.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
ECEL and EPA STEL periodic monitoring at least once every 5 years.
ECEL periodic monitoring at least once every 5 years, and EPA STEL
periodic monitoring required every 3 months.
ECEL periodic monitoring every 6 months.
ECEL periodic monitoring every 6 months and EPA STEL periodic
monitoring every 3 months.
ECEL periodic monitoring every 3 months and EPA STEL periodic
monitoring every 3 months.
Transition from ECEL periodic monitoring frequency from every 3
months to every 6 months.
Transition from ECEL periodic monitoring frequency every 6 months to
once every 5 years. The second consecutive monitoring event will
delineate the new date from which the next 5-year periodic exposure
monitoring must occur.
The owner or operator may forgo the upcoming periodic monitoring
event. However, documentation of cessation of manufacture, processing, use, or disposal of methylene chloride must be maintained,
and initial monitoring would be required when the owner or operator
resumes or starts any of the conditions of use for which the WCPP
is finalized.
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
39278
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—PERIODIC MONITORING REQUIREMENTS BASED ON INITIAL EXPOSURE MONITORING RESULTS—Continued
Air concentration condition
Periodic monitoring requirement
If the owner or operator engages in any of the conditions of use for
which WCPP is finalized and is required to monitor the ECEL in a 6month interval, but does not engage in any of those conditions of
use for the entirety of the 6-month interval.
The owner or operator may forgo the upcoming periodic monitoring
event. However, documentation of cessation of manufacture, processing, use, or disposal of methylene chloride must be maintained,
and initial monitoring would be required when the owner or operator
resumes or starts any of the conditions of use for which the WCPP
is finalized.
Note: Additional scenarios in which monitoring may be required are discussed in Unit IV.B.4.e.
d. Minimum Frequency of Exposure
Monitoring
EPA is finalizing the proposed
requirement that a monitoring event be
conducted at a minimum frequency of
every five years by owners or operators
using methylene chloride for any
condition of use subject to the WCPP.
To better reflect the periodic nature of
such monitoring, the final rule describes
it as a periodic monitoring requirement,
rather than a requirement to re-conduct
initial exposure monitoring every five
years, as it was described in the
proposed rule. EPA emphasizes that this
monitoring must represent all
potentially exposed persons in the
workplace. Moreover, EPA is finalizing
that monitoring requirements can only
be made less frequent based on the
results of the initial exposure
monitoring or the periodic exposure
monitoring outlined under Units
IV.B.4.b. and IV.B.4.c., respectively.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
e. Additional Exposure Monitoring
EPA is finalizing the requirement that
the owner or operator complying with
the WCPP must carry out an additional
exposure monitoring after any change
that may reasonably be expected to
introduce additional sources of
exposure, or result in a change in
exposure levels, to methylene chloride.
Examples include changes in the
production, production volume, use
rate, process, control equipment, or
work practices that may reasonably be
anticipated to cause additional sources
of exposure or result in increased
exposure levels to methylene chloride;
and start-up, shutdown, or malfunction
of the facility or facility equipment that
may reasonably be anticipated to cause
additional sources of exposure or result
in increased exposure levels to
methylene chloride. This additional
exposure monitoring event may result in
increased frequency of periodic
monitoring. The required additional
exposure monitoring should not delay
implementation of any necessary
cleanup or other remedial action to
reduce the exposures to potentially
exposed persons.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
5. Exposure Control Plan
EPA is finalizing its requirement that
entities implementing the WCPP use
elimination and substitution, followed
by the use of engineering controls,
administrative controls, and work
practices prior to requiring the use of
PPE (i.e., respirators) as a means of
controlling inhalation exposures below
EPA’s ECEL or STEL, in accordance
with the hierarchy of controls (Ref. 98).
If an owner or operator chooses to
replace methylene chloride with a
substitute, EPA recommends careful
review of the available hazard and
exposure information on the potential
substitutes to avoid a substitute
chemical that might later be found to
present unreasonable risks or be subject
to regulation (sometimes referred to as
a ‘‘regrettable substitution’’). EPA
expects that, for conditions of use for
which EPA is finalizing a WCPP,
compliance at most workplaces would
be part of an established industrial
hygiene program that aligns with the
hierarchy of controls.
EPA is finalizing its requirement that
the owner or operator demarcate any
area where airborne concentrations of
methylene chloride are reasonably
expected to exceed the ECEL or the EPA
STEL. In response to comments
requesting more clarity regarding how
regulated areas must be demarcated,
EPA has incorporated the language from
the analogous OSHA requirement into
this final rule. Owners and operators
must demarcate regulated areas from the
rest of the workplace in any manner that
adequately establishes and alerts
potentially exposed persons to the
boundaries of the area and minimizes
the number of authorized persons
exposed to methylene chloride within
the regulated area. This can be
accomplished using administrative
controls, e.g., highly visible signifiers, in
multiple languages as appropriate (e.g.,
when potentially exposed persons who
are primarily Spanish-speaking are
present, owners and operators should
post additional highly visible signifiers
in Spanish), placed in conspicuous
areas. The owner or operator is required
to restrict access to the regulated area
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
from any potentially exposed person
that lacks proper training or is otherwise
unauthorized to enter.
EPA is finalizing the requirement that
regulated entities use the hierarchy of
controls, instituting one or a
combination of controls to the extent
feasible, and supplement such
protections using PPE, where necessary,
including respirators for potentially
exposed persons at risk of inhalation
exposure above the ECEL or EPA STEL.
If efforts of elimination, substitution,
engineering controls, and administrative
controls are not sufficient to reduce
exposures to or below the ECEL or EPA
STEL for all potentially exposed persons
in the workplace, EPA requires that the
owner or operator use feasible controls
to reduce methylene chloride
concentrations in the workplace to the
lowest levels achievable and
supplement these controls with
respiratory protection and PPE as
needed to achieve the ECEL before
potentially exposed persons enter a
regulated area. In such cases, EPA
requires that the owner or operator
provide potentially exposed persons
reasonably likely to be exposed to
methylene chloride by inhalation to
concentrations above the ECEL or EPA
STEL with respirators affording
sufficient protection against inhalation
risk and appropriate training on the
proper use of such respirators, to ensure
that their exposures do not exceed the
ECEL or EPA STEL, as described in this
unit. As part of the training
requirement, the owner or operator is
required to provide information and
comprehensive training in an
understandable manner (i.e., plain
language), considering factors such as
the skills required to perform the work
activity and the existing skill level of
the staff performing the work, and in
multiple languages as appropriate (e.g.,
based on languages spoken by
potentially exposed persons) to
potentially exposed persons. This
training must be provided prior to or at
the time of initial assignment to a job
involving potential exposure to
methylene chloride. Furthermore, EPA
also requires that the owner or operator
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
document their efforts in using
elimination, substitution, engineering
controls, and administrative controls to
reduce exposure to or below the ECEL
or EPA STEL in an exposure control
plan.
EPA is finalizing its requirement that
the owner or operator include and
document in the exposure control plan
or through any existing documentation
of the facility’s safety and health
program developed as part of meeting
OSHA requirements or other safety and
health standards, the following:
• Identification in the exposure
control plan of available exposure
controls and rationale for using or not
using available exposure controls in the
following sequence (i.e., elimination
and substitution, then engineering
controls and administrative controls) to
reduce exposures in the workplace to
either at or below the ECEL or to the
lowest level achievable, and the
exposure controls selected based on
feasibility, effectiveness, and other
relevant considerations;
• For the exposure controls not
selected, document the efforts
identifying why these are not feasible,
not effective, or otherwise not
implemented;
• A description of actions the owner
or operator must take to implement
exposure controls selected, including
proper installation, regular inspections,
maintenance, training, or other steps
taken;
• A description of regulated areas,
how they are demarcated, and persons
authorized to enter the regulated areas;
• A description of activities
conducted by the owner or operator to
review and update the exposure control
plan to ensure effectiveness of the
exposure controls, identify any
necessary updates to the exposure
controls, and confirm that all persons
are properly implementing the exposure
controls; and
• An explanation of the procedures
for responding to any change that may
reasonably be expected to introduce
additional sources of exposure to
methylene chloride, or otherwise result
in increased exposure to methylene
chloride, including procedures for
implementing corrective actions to
mitigate exposure to methylene
chloride.
Under this final rule, owners or
operators are prohibited from using
rotating work schedules to comply with
the ECEL 8-hour TWA. Owners or
operators must maintain the
effectiveness of any engineering
controls, administrative controls, or
work practices instituted as part of the
exposure control plan. They must also
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
review and update the exposure control
plan as necessary, but at least every five
years, to reflect any significant changes
in the status of the owner or operator’s
approach to compliance with the
exposure control requirements. EPA
intends that the exposure control plan
identify the available exposure controls
and, for the exposure controls not
selected, document the efforts
identifying why these are not feasible,
not effective, or otherwise not
implemented. For entities for which
significant amounts of time are needed
to verify suitability of alternatives or
procure funds or authorization for
additional engineering controls, for
example, EPA expects that as those
controls become available the exposure
control plan would be updated
accordingly. EPA requires that the
exposure control plan be revisited under
certain conditions (and at least every
five years) and encourages updates as
more sophisticated controls are
available.
This final rule requires owners or
operators to make the exposure control
plan and associated records available to
potentially exposed persons, at a
reasonable time, place, and manner,
within 15 working days of receiving a
request. Owners or operators must also
provide notice of the availability of the
plan and associated records to
potentially exposed persons.
6. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
Where elimination, substitution,
engineering, and administrative controls
are not feasible or sufficiently protective
to reduce the air concentration to or
below the ECEL, or if inhalation
exposure above the ECEL is still
reasonably likely, EPA is finalizing its
minimum respiratory PPE requirements
based on an owner or operator’s
measured air concentration for one or
more potentially exposed persons and
the level of PPE needed to reduce
exposure to or below the ECEL. In those
circumstances, EPA is finalizing its
requirement that the owner or operator
also comply with OSHA’s General
Requirements for PPE standard at 29
CFR 1910.132 for application of a PPE
program. EPA is also requiring that the
owner or operator comply with 29 CFR
1910.134 for proper use, maintenance,
fit-testing, and training of respirators.
a. Required Dermal Protection
EPA is finalizing the provision and
use of chemically resistant gloves in
combination with specific activity
training (e.g., glove selection (type,
material), expected duration of glove
effectiveness, actions to take when glove
integrity is compromised, storage
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
39279
requirements, procedure for glove
removal and disposal, chemical
hazards) for tasks where dermal
exposure can be expected to occur.
Additionally, EPA is requiring that
owners and operators comply with
relevant sections of the methylene
chloride OSHA standard to minimize
and protect potentially exposed persons
from dermal exposure, including 29
CFR 1910.1052(h) and (i). Additional
information related to choosing
appropriate gloves can be found in the
NIOSH Hazard Alert (Ref. 99) and in
appendix F of the 2020 Risk Evaluation
for Methylene Chloride (Ref. 1).
b. Required Respiratory Protection
EPA is finalizing the following
requirements for respiratory protection,
based on the exposure monitoring
concentrations measured as an 8-hour
TWA that exceeds the ECEL (2 ppm) or
15-minute TWA that exceeds the EPA
STEL (16 ppm); see also the following
table (table 2). These requirements
apply after all other feasible controls are
exhausted or proven ineffective to
control inhalation exposure (including
elimination, substitution, engineering
controls, and administrative controls in
accordance with the hierarchy of
controls). EPA is finalizing its minimum
respiratory protection requirements,
such that any respirator affording the
same or a higher degree of protection
than the following proposed
requirements may be used. Under this
final regulatory action, air-purifying
respirators (in contrast to air-supplied
respirators) are not permitted as a means
of mitigating methylene chloride
exposure, as they do not provide
adequate respiratory protection against
this chemical (Ref. 100). Additionally,
EPA acknowledges that there may be
respirator limitations dependent upon
the nature of the activity in which
methylene chloride is used (e.g., a
decreased range of motion or access to
a small space could hinder PPE use).
Nevertheless, owners and operators
must provide respirators that are
protective of the measured exposure
concentration after all other feasible
controls are considered.
• If the measured exposure
concentration is at or below the ECEL (2
ppm 8-hour TWA) and EPA STEL (16
ppm 15-minute TWA): Respiratory
protection is not required.
• If the measured exposure
concentration is above 2 ppm and less
than or equal to 50 ppm (25 times the
ECEL): The required respirator
protection is any NIOSH Approved®
SAR or airline respirator in a
continuous-flow mode equipped with a
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
39280
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
loose-fitting facepiece or helmet/hood
(APF 25).
• If the measured exposure
concentration is above 50 ppm and less
than or equal to 100 ppm (50 times the
ECEL): The required respirator
protection is: (i) Any NIOSH Approved®
SAR or airline respirator in a demand
mode equipped with a full facepiece
(APF 50); or (ii) Any NIOSH Approved®
SCBA in demand-mode equipped with
a full facepiece or helmet/hood (APF
50).
• If the measured exposure
concentration is unknown or at any
value above 100 ppm and up to 2,000
ppm (1,000 times the ECEL): The
required respirator protection is: (i) Any
NIOSH Approved® SAR or Airline
Respirator in a continuous-flow mode
equipped with a full facepiece or
certified helmet/hood (APF 1,000)); or
(ii) Any NIOSH Approved® SAR or
Airline Respirator in pressure-demand
or other positive-pressure mode
equipped with a full facepiece and an
auxiliary self-contained air supply (APF
1,000)); or (iii) Any NIOSH Approved®
SCBA in a pressure-demand or other
positive-pressure mode equipped with a
full facepiece or certified helmet/hood
(APF 1,000+).
TABLE 2—RESPIRATORY PROTECTION CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
Concentration condition
Minimum required respirator protection
At or below the ECEL and EPA STEL .....................................................
Above ECEL (2 ppm) and less than or equal to 50 ppm (25 times the
ECEL).
No respirator required.
Any NIOSH Approved® supplied-air respirator (SAR) or airline respirator in a continuous-flow mode equipped with a loose-fitting facepiece or helmet/hood (APF 25).
Either (i) any NIOSH Approved® Supplied-Air Respirator (SAR) or airline respirator in a demand mode equipped with a full facepiece
(APF 50); or (ii) any NIOSH Approved® Self-Contained Breathing
Apparatus (SCBA) in demand-mode equipped with a full facepiece or
helmet/hood (APF 50).
One of (i) any NIOSH Approved® Supplied-Air Respirator (SAR) or Airline Respirator in a continuous-flow mode equipped with a full facepiece or certified helmet/hood (APF 1,000); or (ii) any NIOSH Approved® Supplied-Air Respirator (SAR) or Airline Respirator in pressure-demand or other positive-pressure mode equipped with a full
facepiece and an auxiliary self-contained air supply (APF 1,000); or
(iii) any NIOSH Approved® Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus
(SCBA) in a pressure-demand or other positive-pressure mode
equipped with a full facepiece or certified helmet/hood (APF 10,000).
Above 50 ppm and less than or equal to 100 ppm (50 times the ECEL)
Unknown concentration or at any value above 100 ppm and up to
2,000 ppm (1,000 times the ECEL).
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
7. Additional Finalized Requirements
a. Workplace Participation
EPA encourages owners and operators
to consult with potentially exposed
persons and on the development and
implementation of exposure control
plans and PPE/respirator programs. EPA
is finalizing its requirement that owners
and operators provide potentially
exposed persons regular access to the
exposure control plans, exposure
monitoring records, PPE program
implementation, and respirator program
implementation (such as fit-testing and
other requirements) described in 29 CFR
1910.134(l). To ensure compliance with
workplace participation, EPA is
finalizing its requirement that the owner
or operator document the notice to and
ability of any potentially exposed
person that may reasonably be affected
by methylene chloride inhalation
exposure to readily access the exposure
control plans, facility exposure
monitoring records, PPE program
implementation, or any other
information relevant to methylene
chloride inhalation exposure in the
workplace.
b. Notification of Monitoring Results
EPA is finalizing the requirement that
when a potentially exposed person’s
exposure to methylene chloride exceeds
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
the ECEL action level within a regulated
area, the owner or operator will be
required to inform each potentially
exposed person of the quantity,
location, manner of use, release, and
storage of methylene chloride and the
specific operations in the workplace
that could result in exposure to
methylene chloride, particularly noting
where exposures may be above the
ECEL or EPA STEL. EPA further
requires that the owner or operator
must, within 15 working days after
receipt of the results of any exposure
monitoring, notify each potentially
exposed person whose exposure is
represented by that monitoring in
writing, either individually to each
potentially exposed person or by
posting the information in an
appropriate and accessible location,
such as public spaces or common areas,
for potentially exposed persons outside
of the regulated area. The notice would
be required to identify the ECEL, ECEL
action level, and EPA STEL and what
they mean in plain language, the
exposure monitoring results, and any
corresponding respiratory protection
required. If the ECEL or STEL is
exceeded, the notice would also be
required to include a description of the
actions taken by the owner or operator
to reduce inhalation exposures to or
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
below the ECEL or EPA STEL which
states the actions to be taken to reduce
exposures. The notice must be posted in
multiple languages if necessary (e.g.,
notice must be in a language that the
potentially exposed person understands,
including a non-English language
version representing the language of the
largest group of workers who cannot
readily comprehend or read English).
c. Recordkeeping
For each monitoring event of
methylene chloride, EPA is requiring
that the owner or operator record,
similar to OSHA under 29 CFR
1910.1052(m), information including
but not limited to, dates; operations
involving exposure; sampling and
analytical methods; the number of
samples; durations, and results of each
sample taken; the type of respirator and
PPE worn (if any); the potentially
exposed persons’ names, work shifts,
and job classifications; and exposure of
all the potentially exposed persons
represented by monitoring, indicating
which potentially exposed persons were
actually monitored. EPA further
requires documentation of the following
whenever monitoring for the WCPP is
required under TSCA section 6(a):
(i) All measurements that may be
necessary to determine the conditions
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
(e.g., work site temperatures, humidity,
ventilation rates, monitoring equipment
type and calibration dates) that may
affect the monitoring results;
(ii) All other potentially exposed
persons whose exposure was not
measured but whose exposure is
intended to be represented by the area
or representative sampling monitoring;
(iii) Use of established analytical
methods such as those outlined in
appendix A of the ECEL memo (Ref. 93)
with a limit of detection below the ECEL
action level and accuracy of monitoring
within 25% for the ECEL and 35% for
the EPA STEL, as discussed in Unit
IV.B.4.a., so that the owner or operator
may identify when the implementation
of additional exposure controls is
necessary, determine the monitoring
frequency according to the requirements
described in this unit, and properly
identify and provide persons exposed to
methylene chloride with the required
respiratory equipment and PPE in this
unit;
(iv) Compliance with the GLP
Standards at 40 CFR part 792 or any
accredited lab including AIHA (e.g.,
AIHA LAP, LLC Policy Module 2A/B/E
of Revision 17.3), or other analogous
industry-recognized program;
(v) Information regarding air
monitoring equipment, including: Type,
maintenance, calibrations, performance
tests, limits of detection, and any
malfunctions.
For owners and operators to
demonstrate compliance with the WCPP
provisions, EPA is requiring that owners
and operators must retain compliance
records for five years (although this
requirement does not supplant any
longer recordkeeping retention time
periods such as those required under 29
CFR 1910.1020, or other applicable
regulations). EPA is requiring the owner
or operator to retain records of:
• Exposure control plan;
• Regulated areas and authorized
personnel;
• Facility exposure monitoring
records;
• Notifications of exposure
monitoring results;
• PPE and respiratory protection used
and program implementation; and
• Information and training required
under 29 CFR 1910.1052(l) and
appendix A, provided by the owner or
operator to each potentially exposed
person prior to or at the time of initial
assignment to a job involving potential
exposure to methylene chloride.
EPA emphasizes that all records
required to be maintained can be kept
in the most administratively convenient
form; electronic record form or paper
form. The owner or operator is required
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
to document training or re-training of
any potentially exposed person as
necessary to ensure that, in the event of
monitoring results that indicate
exposure or possible exposures above
the ECEL action level or the EPA STEL,
the potentially exposed person has
demonstrated understanding of how to
safely use and handle methylene
chloride and how to appropriately use
required PPE. In addition, the owner or
operator is required to update the
training and requisite documentation
when there is reasonable expectation
that exposure may exceed the ECEL
action level due to change in tasks or
procedures.
8. Compliance Timeframes
With regard to the compliance
timeframe for those occupational
conditions of use which are subject to
the WCPP, EPA is not finalizing the
timeframes proposed. Rather, as
discussed in Unit III.D.1., based on
consideration of public comments, EPA
is finalizing the timeframes considered
in the primary alternative action for the
private sector and is providing Federal
agencies and Federal contractors acting
for or on behalf of the Federal
Government additional time to comply
with each of the provisions of the
WCPP. Specifically, EPA is finalizing its
requirement that owners and operators
in the private sector establish initial
exposure monitoring according to the
process outlined in this unit within 360
days after date of publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register, while
Federal agencies and Federal
contractors acting for or on behalf of the
Federal Government must conduct
initial exposure monitoring within 915
days after the date of publication. EPA
is also finalizing its requirement that
each owner or operator in the private
sector ensure that the airborne
concentration of methylene chloride
does not exceed the ECEL or EPA STEL
for all potentially exposed persons
within 450 days after the date of
publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register, while Federal agencies
and Federal contractors acting for or on
behalf of the Federal Government must
comply with the ECEL and the EPA
STEL within 1,005 days after the date of
publication. If applicable, each owner or
operator must provide respiratory
protection sufficient to reduce
inhalation exposures to below the ECEL
or EPA STEL to all potentially exposed
persons in the regulated area within
three months after receipt of the results
of any exposure monitoring. For the
private sector, this will be within 15
months after the date of publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
39281
For Federal agencies and Federal
contractors acting for or on behalf of the
Federal Government, this will be within
33 months after the date of publication.
For any new facilities, or any facility
commencing one or more conditions of
use listed in Unit IV.B.1. after May 5,
2025, the timeframe for the requirement
for initial exposure monitoring is
described earlier in Unit IV.B.4.b.;
following that, the requirements and
timeframes for periodic monitoring in
Unit IV.B.4.c. would apply and owners
and operators must ensure that no
person is exposed to an airborne
concentration of methylene chloride
that exceeds the ECEL or EPA STEL
within 90 days following the initial
exposure monitoring). EPA is also
finalizing the requirement that owners
and operators demarcate a regulated
area within three months after receipt of
any exposure monitoring that indicates
exposures exceeding the ECEL or EPA
STEL. Owners and operators in the
private sector shall proceed accordingly
to implement an exposure control plan,
including institution of feasible
exposure controls other than PPE,
within 540 days after date of publication
of the final rule in the Federal Register,
while Federal agencies and Federal
contractors acting for or on behalf of the
Federal Government must implement an
exposure control plan within 1095 days
after the date of publication.
C. Prohibition of Manufacture,
Processing, Distribution, and
Commercial Use of Methylene Chloride
In general, EPA is finalizing the
prohibitions as proposed, with some
modifications, including for compliance
timeframes to provide for reasonable
transitions, based on consideration of
the public comments, as described in
Unit III. The rule prohibits manufacture,
processing, distribution, and all
industrial and commercial use of
methylene chloride and methylene
chloride containing products, except for
those uses which will continue under
the WCPP, as identified in Unit IV.B.1.
After consideration of public comments,
EPA is finalizing timeframes longer than
proposed for prohibition of
manufacture, processing, distribution,
and commercial use of methylene
chloride broadly, as well as for
particular uses such as commercial use
of methylene chloride in adhesives and
sealants in aircraft, space vehicles, and
turbine applications; and commercial
use of methylene chloride in paint and
coating removal for the refinishing of
wooden pieces of artistic, cultural, or
historic value. The rationale for these
changes from the proposed rule is in
Unit III.B. and Unit III.D.2.
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
39282
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
As discussed in Unit IV.A. and in the
Response to Comments, the prohibitions
do not apply to any substance that is
excluded from the definition of
‘‘chemical substance’’ under TSCA
section 3(2)(B)(ii) through (vi) (Ref. 7).
The final regulation will impose
prohibitions in a staggered timeframe,
beginning at the top of the supply chain,
as proposed. As discussed in Unit
III.D.2., in response to comments
received, EPA is finalizing longer
timeframes than proposed for
prohibition of manufacturing,
processing, distributing, or commercial
use of methylene chloride, but finalizing
as proposed for distribution to and by
retailers, in order to expeditiously
remove exposures to consumers. EPA is
finalizing timeframes for prohibitions
according to the following staggered
timeframe:
• Within 270 days of publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register for
prohibitions on distributing to retailers;
• Within 360 days of publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register for
prohibitions on distribution by retailers;
• Within 360 days of publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register for
prohibitions on manufacturing;
• Within 450 days of publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register for
prohibitions on processors;
• Within 630 days of publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register for
prohibitions on all distributors other
than retailers; and
• Within 720 days of publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register for
prohibitions on most industrial and
commercial use after the publication
date of the final rule in the Federal
Register.
(Timeframes for prohibitions on
distribution of methylene chloride and
methylene-chloride containing products
to retailers are provided in Unit IV.D.,
in relation to consumer use).
Additionally, for two conditions of
use, EPA is finalizing prohibitions that
would take effect in five years. Those
two conditions of use are commercial
use of methylene chloride in adhesives
and sealants in aircraft, space vehicle,
and turbine applications for structural
and safety critical non-structural
applications, and for commercial use of
methylene chloride in refinishing wood
pieces of artistic, cultural, or historic
value (which also includes interim
requirements for minimum exposure
controls). While EPA had proposed that
these prohibitions begin to be
implemented within 90 days for
manufacturers, 180 days for processors,
270 days for distributors to retailers, 360
days for all other distributors and
retailers, and 450 days for industrial and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
commercial uses after the publication
date of the final rule, EPA is modifying
the timeframes proposed based on the
information received in public
comment.
EPA is delaying compliance with the
prohibition for a subset of the industrial
and commercial use of methylene
chloride in adhesives and sealants,
namely when that adhesive or sealant is
used in aircraft, space vehicle, or
turbine applications for structural and
safety critical non-structural
applications. As described in Unit
III.B.2., this use of methylene chloride
includes applications such as use in
bonding critical turbine engine
hardware, use as a joining compound in
engine parts, and adhesive to bond
capacitors, transformers, components,
military PC boards and subassemblies,
and gasket sealants in aerospace
systems. Based on information received
in public comments, EPA is finalizing
delayed compliance of five years before
prohibition for industrial or commercial
use of methylene chloride for adhesives
and sealants in aircraft, space vehicle,
and turbine applications for structural
and safety critical non-structural
applications.
Regarding commercial use of
methylene chloride for paint and
coating removal for wood furniture,
decorative pieces, and architectural
fixtures of artistic, cultural, or historic
value, as discussed in Unit III.B.1., EPA
is modifying the compliance dates
proposed for prohibitions and is
finalizing a compliance date of five
years before prohibitions only for the
narrowly described commercial use of
methylene chloride in this unit: For
refinishing wood pieces of artistic,
cultural, or historic value, as discussed
in Unit III.B.1.
During the interim period before
prohibition, owners or operators must
not only restrict refinishing using
methylene chloride only to wooden
furniture, decorative pieces, and
architectural fixtures of artistic, cultural
or historic value, but also must meet a
minimum standard of exposure control.
That includes: (1) Use of a regulated
area; (2) use of local exhaust ventilation,
both bringing air in from outside of the
workspace where methylene chloride is
being used and pulling methylene
chloride vapors away from the
potentially exposed person; and (3) use
of any NIOSH Approved® SAR or
airline respirator in a demand mode
equipped with a full facepiece (APF 50)
or any NIOSH Approved® SCBA in
demand-mode equipped with a full
facepiece or helmet/hood (APF 50) or
the appropriate respirator based on
initial monitoring as outlined in Unit
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
IV.B.4.b. and in the regulatory text
under 40 CFR 751.109(d).
The owner or operator shall document
each instance of refinishing wooden
furniture, decorative pieces, and
architectural fixtures of artistic, cultural
or historic value. The documentation
shall make record of the date of the
refinishing activity, a description of the
piece that was refinished and an
explanation of its artistic, cultural, or
historic value, the owner of the
refinished piece, and the methylene
chloride product used. EPA generally
expects this information to be part of
normal business records.
D. Prohibition of Manufacture,
Processing, and Distribution in
Commerce for Consumer Use of
Methylene Chloride
The final rule prohibits the
manufacture, processing, and
distribution in commerce of methylene
chloride and methylene chloride
containing products for all consumer
use. EPA is finalizing as proposed the
prohibition on retailers from
distributing in commerce methylene
chloride and all methylene chloridecontaining products, in order to prevent
products intended for industrial and
commercial use under the WCPP from
being purchased by consumers. EPA is
finalizing that the prohibition on
distribution in commerce of methylene
chloride within 270 days for
distributing to retailers, and 360 days
for retailers distributing in commerce
after the publication date of the final
rule in the Federal Register.
A retailer is any person or business
entity that distributes or makes available
products to consumers, including
through e-commerce internet sales or
distribution. If a person or business
entity distributes or makes available any
product to at least one consumer, then
it is considered a retailer (40 CFR
751.103). For a distributor not to be
considered a retailer, the distributor
must distribute or make available
products solely to commercial or
industrial end-users or businesses.
Prohibiting manufacturers (including
importers), processors, and distributors
from distributing methylene chloride, or
any products containing methylene
chloride, to retailers prevents retailers
from making these products available to
consumers, which addresses that part of
the unreasonable risk from methylene
chloride contributed by consumer use.
EPA first promulgated this definition,
with this rationale, in the earlier rule to
regulate methylene chloride in
consumer paint and coating removers
(84 FR 11420, March 27, 2019) (FRL–
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
9989–29) and is finalizing as proposed
for this regulation as well.
E. Other Requirements
1. Recordkeeping
For conditions of use that are not
otherwise prohibited under this final
rule, EPA is finalizing as proposed the
requirement that manufacturers,
processors, and distributors maintain
ordinary business records, such as
invoices and bills-of-lading, that
demonstrate compliance with
restrictions and other provisions of this
final regulation; and that they maintain
such records for a period of five years
from the date the record is generated.
This requirement begins at the effective
date of the rule (60 days following
publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register). Recordkeeping
requirements ensure that owners or
operators can demonstrate compliance
with the proposed regulations if
necessary. Note that this requirement
expands those recordkeeping
requirements promulgated in 2019 at 40
CFR 751.109 affecting manufacturers,
processors, and distributors of
methylene chloride.
2. Downstream Notification
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
For conditions of use that are not
otherwise prohibited under this final
regulation, EPA is finalizing as
proposed the requirements that
manufacturers (including importers),
processors, and distributors, excluding
retailers, of methylene chloride and
methylene chloride-containing products
provide downstream notification of
certain prohibitions through Safety Data
Sheets (SDSs) by adding to sections 1(c)
and 15 of the SDS the following
language:
After February 3, 2025, this chemical
substance (as defined in TSCA section 3(2))/
product cannot be distributed in commerce
to retailers. After January 28, 2026, this
chemical substance (as defined in TSCA
section 3(2))/product is and can only be
distributed in commerce or processed with a
concentration of methylene chloride equal to
or greater than 0.1% by weight for the
following purposes: (1) Processing as a
reactant; (2) Processing for incorporation into
a formulation, mixture, or reaction product;
(3) Processing for repackaging; (4) Processing
for recycling; (5) Industrial or commercial
use as a laboratory chemical; (6) Industrial or
commercial use as a bonding agent for
solvent welding; (7) Industrial and
commercial use as a paint and coating
remover from safety critical, corrosionsensitive components of aircraft and
spacecraft; (8) Industrial and commercial use
as a processing aid; (9) Industrial and
commercial use for plastic and rubber
products manufacturing; (10) Industrial and
commercial use as a solvent that becomes
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
part of a formulation or mixture, where that
formulation or mixture will be used inside a
manufacturing process, and the solvent
(methylene chloride) will be reclaimed; (11)
Industrial and commercial use in the
refinishing for wooden furniture, decorative
pieces, and architectural fixtures of artistic,
cultural or historic value until May 8, 2029;
(12) Industrial and commercial use in
adhesives and sealants in aircraft, space
vehicle, and turbine applications for
structural and safety critical non-structural
applications until May 8, 2029; (13) Disposal;
and (14) Export.
To provide adequate time to update
the SDS and ensure that all products in
the supply chain include the revised
SDS, EPA’s final rule requires
manufacturers revise their SDS within
150 days of publication and processors
and distributors revise their SDS within
210 days of publication of the final rule.
The intention of downstream
notification is to spread awareness
throughout the supply chain of the
restrictions on methylene chloride
under TSCA and to provide information
to commercial end-users about
allowable uses of methylene chloride.
Note that this requirement would
amend and add to the downstream
notification requirements promulgated
in 2019 at 40 CFR 751.107 for paint and
coating removers for consumer use and
additionally redesignate that section as
40 CFR 751.111. As they become
effective, the new amended
requirements will supersede those
notification requirements promulgated
in 2019.
F. TSCA Section 6(g) Exemptions
EPA is finalizing as proposed a 10year exemption for emergency use of
methylene chloride in furtherance of the
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA)’s mission for
the following specific conditions of use:
Industrial and commercial use as a
solvent for cold cleaning; Industrial and
commercial use as a solvent for aerosol
spray degreaser/cleaner; Industrial and
commercial use in adhesives, sealants
and caulks; Industrial and commercial
use in adhesive and caulk removers;
Industrial and commercial use in metal
non-aerosol degreasers; Industrial and
commercial use in non-aerosol
degreasers and cleaners; and Industrial
and commercial use as a solvent that
becomes part of a formulation or
mixture. The exemption includes
additional requirements, pursuant to
TSCA section 6(g)(4), including required
notification and controls for exposure,
to the extent feasible: (1) NASA and its
contractors must provide notice to the
EPA Assistant Administrators of both
the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance and the Office of
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
39283
Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention of each instance of
emergency use within 15 working days
and; (2) NASA and its contractors
would have to comply with the WCPP
described in Unit IV.B. to the extent
feasible.
Specifically, this regulation requires
NASA and its contractors to notify the
EPA Assistant Administrators of both
the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance and the Office of
Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention within 15 days of the
emergency use. The notification must
include a description of the specific use
of methylene chloride in the context of
one of the conditions of use for which
this exemption is being finalized, an
explanation of why the use described
qualifies as an emergency, and an
explanation with regard to the lack of
availability of technically and
economically feasible alternatives.
EPA expects NASA and its
contractors have the ability to
implement a WCPP as described in Unit
IV.B. for the identified uses in the
context of an emergency, to some extent
even if not to the full extent of WCPP
implementation. Therefore, NASA and
its contractors must comply with the
WCPP to the extent technically feasible
in light of the particular emergency.
NASA and its contractors would still
be subject to the general recordkeeping
requirements discussed in Unit IV.B.7.c.
V. TSCA Section 6(c)(2) Considerations
A. Health Effects of Methylene Chloride
and the Magnitude of Human Exposure
to Methylene Chloride
EPA’s analysis of the health effects of
methylene chloride is in the 2020 Risk
Evaluation for Methylene Chloride (Ref.
1). A summary is presented here.
The 2020 Risk Evaluation for
Methylene Chloride identified six noncancer adverse health effects: Effects
from acute/short-term exposure, liver
effects, immune system effects, nervous
system effects, reproductive/
developmental effects, and irritation/
burns (Ref. 1). The 2020 Risk Evaluation
for Methylene Chloride also identified
cancer hazards from carcinogenicity as
well as genotoxicity, particularly for
liver and lung tumors (Ref. 1).
Among the non-cancer adverse health
effects, the 2020 Risk Evaluation for
Methylene Chloride identified
neurotoxicity indicative of central
nervous system depression as a primary
effect of methylene chloride in humans
following acute inhalation exposures
(Ref. 1). Identified central nervous
system depressive symptoms include
drowsiness, confusion, headache,
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
39284
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
dizziness, and neurobehavioral deficits
when performing various tasks. Central
nervous system depressant effects can
result in loss of consciousness and
respiratory depression, possibly
resulting in irreversible coma, hypoxia,
and eventual death (Ref. 1).
Additionally, the 2020 Risk
Evaluation for Methylene Chloride
identified the liver as a sensitive target
organ for inhalation exposure (Ref. 1).
For human health risks to workers and
consumers, EPA identified cancer and
non-cancer human health risks. Risks
from acute exposures include central
nervous system risks such as central
nervous system depression and a
decrease in peripheral vision, each of
which can lead to workplace accidents
and are precursors to more severe
central nervous system effects such as
incapacitation, loss of consciousness,
coma, and death. For chronic exposures,
EPA identified risks of non-cancer liver
effects as well as liver and lung tumors
(Ref. 1).
The 2020 Risk Evaluation for
Methylene Chloride also identified
several irritation hazards from
methylene chloride exposure. Following
exposures to methylene chloride vapors,
irritation has been observed in the
respiratory tract and eyes. Direct contact
with liquid methylene chloride on the
skin has caused chemical burns in
workers and gastrointestinal irritation in
individuals who accidentally ingested
methylene chloride (Ref. 1).
Regarding the magnitude of human
exposure, one factor EPA considers for
the conditions of use that contribute to
the unreasonable risk is the size of the
exposed population, which, for
methylene chloride, EPA estimates is
785,000 workers, 135,000 occupational
non-users, and 15 million consumers
(Ref. 1).
In addition to these estimates of
numbers of workers, occupational nonusers, consumers, and bystanders to
consumer use directly exposed to
methylene chloride, EPA recognizes
there is exposure to the general
population from air and water pathways
for methylene chloride. (While
bystanders are individuals in proximity
to a consumer use of methylene
chloride, fenceline communities are a
subset of the general population who
may be living in proximity to a facility
where methylene chloride is being used
in an occupational setting). EPA
separately conducted a screening
approach to assess whether there may
be risks to the general population from
these exposure pathways. This analysis
is summarized in full in the proposed
rule, which includes information on the
SACC peer review (88 FR 28284, May 3,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
2023) (FRL–8155–02–OCSPP). This unit
addresses those areas where some risk
was indicated at the fenceline, and the
use will be continuing under the rule.
EPA’s analysis was presented to the
SACC peer review panel in March 2022,
and EPA is including SACC
recommendations, as appropriate, in
assessing general population exposures
in upcoming risk evaluations.
EPA’s fenceline analysis for the water
pathway for methylene chloride, based
on methods presented to the SACC, did
not find risks from incidental oral and
dermal exposure to surface water, and
while EPA found one facility which
indicated acute risk from drinking
water, additional assessment of this
location identified that there are no
source drinking water intakes for public
drinking water systems in proximity to
the facility estimated to have risk,
thereby making risks to the general
population through the drinking water
pathway unlikely.
Although the initial analysis
presented to SACC and the multi-year
analysis conducted in response to SACC
feedback for methylene chloride
indicated exposure and associated risks
to select populations within the general
population living or working near
particular facilities from the ambient air
pathway, EPA is unable to formally
determine with this screening
methodology whether those risks
contribute to the unreasonable risk,
because the screening methodology was
not developed for that purpose.
However, EPA believes that the
prohibitions being finalized for
manufacturing (including importing),
processing, and distribution in
commerce for all consumer use and
most commercial use would address the
majority of exposures to the general
population, including fenceline
communities. Of the 14 facilities which
indicated some risk for methylene
chloride, under the final regulation,
only six will continue to use methylene
chloride (three facilities for processing:
Incorporation into formulation, mixture,
or reaction product, two facilities for
plastic and rubber product
manufacturing, and one facility for paint
and coating remover), and thus
exposures at the fenceline at the
remainder of those facilities would be
addressed.
Of those six facilities, the multi-year
analysis indicated potential risk at 100
meters for only three facilities
representing two conditions of use—two
for plastic and rubber product
manufacturing and one for processing:
Incorporation into a formulation,
mixture, or reaction process.
Anticipated use trends for these three
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
conditions of use are discussed in this
unit.
EPA anticipates processing into a
formulation, mixture, or reaction
product to decline because, while
processing into a formulation, mixture,
or reaction product will continue under
a WCPP, all downstream distribution
and use of formulations, mixtures, or
reaction products will be prohibited
except those handful of uses which will
continue under the WCPP, a majority of
which require the application of neat
methylene chloride, rather than a
formulated product. Additionally, the
facility with identified risk at the
fenceline for processing: Incorporation
into formulation, mixture, or reaction
product does not appear to have
communities currently located at the
fenceline based on land use analysis
(Ref. 101). For use of methylene
chloride in plastic and rubber product
manufacturing, EPA does not have
reason to believe the use of methylene
chloride will increase, nor that there
will be significant increase in fenceline
exposures in this sector, which is
heavily regulated by the CAA (Ref. 102).
For both processing: Incorporation
into a formulation, mixture, or reaction
product and plastic and rubber product
manufacturing, the final rule would
require exposure controls via
implementation of a WCPP as described
in Unit IV.B. While it is plausible that
efforts to reduce exposures in the
workplace to levels below the ECEL and
EPA STEL could lead to adoption of
engineering controls that ventilate more
methylene chloride outside, EPA
determined this outcome is unlikely,
particularly for plastic and rubber
product manufacturing. This is because,
as discussed in Unit III.A.2., monitoring
data submitted during the comment
period indicates current exposure levels
are already very near or below the ECEL
so the addition of engineering controls
that could, in theory, ventilate more
methylene chloride outside is not
expected to occur. Additionally, in a
scenario where venting methylene
chloride out of the work area and into
the outside air, this potential exposure
would be required to be limited as a
result of the numerous existing
NESHAPs for methylene chloride for
these conditions of use under the CAA
(applicable NESHAPs: 40 CFR part 63,
subparts F, G, H, and I; 40 CFR part 63,
subpart DD; 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY
(79 FR 60898, October 8 2014); 40 CFR
part 63, subpart VVV; and 40 CFR part
63 subpart VVVVVV, and any
exceedances would be an enforcement
issue. Thus, prohibition of manufacture,
processing, and distribution in
commerce of methylene chloride for all
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
consumer use and most industrial and
commercial use, and prohibition of most
industrial and commercial use of
methylene chloride, is expected to
largely address the risks identified in
the screening analysis to any general
population or fenceline communities
close to facilities engaging in methylene
chloride use. EPA therefore does not
intend to revisit the air pathway for
methylene chloride as part of a
supplemental risk evaluation.
B. Environmental Effects of Methylene
Chloride and the Magnitude of
Environmental Exposure to Methylene
Chloride
EPA’s analysis of the environmental
effects of and the magnitude of exposure
of the environment to methylene
chloride is in the 2020 Risk Evaluation
for Methylene Chloride (Ref. 1). The
unreasonable risk determination for
methylene chloride is based solely on
risks to human health; based on the
2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene
Chloride, EPA determined that
exposures to the environment did not
contribute to the unreasonable risk.
For all conditions of use, exposures
via water for acute and chronic
exposures to methylene chloride for
amphibians, fish, and aquatic
invertebrates do not contribute to the
unreasonable risk. To characterize
aquatic organisms’ exposure to
methylene chloride, modeled data were
used to represent surface water
concentrations near facilities actively
releasing methylene chloride to surface
water, and monitored concentrations
were used to represent ambient water
concentrations of methylene chloride.
EPA considered the biological relevance
of the species to determine the
concentrations of concern for the
location of surface water concentration
data to produce risk quotients, as well
as frequency and duration of the
exposure. While some site-specific risk
quotients, calculated from modeled
release data from facilities conducting
recycling, disposal, and wastewater
treatment plant activities, exceeded risk
benchmarks, uncertainties in the
analysis were considered. These
uncertainties include limitations in
data, since monitoring data were not
available near facilities where
methylene chloride is released, and data
incorporated from the Toxics Release
Inventory, which does not include
release data for facilities with fewer
than ten employees. As an additional
uncertainty, the model does not
consider chemical fate or hydrologic
transport properties and may not
consider dilution in static water bodies.
Additional analysis indicated that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
model outputs, rather than monitoring
estimates, may best represent
concentrations found at the point of
discharge from the facilities (Ref. 1).
The toxicity of methylene chloride to
sediment-dwelling invertebrates is
similar to its toxicity to aquatic
invertebrates. Methylene chloride is
most likely present in the pore waters
and not absorbed to the sediment
organic matter because methylene
chloride has low partitioning to organic
matter. The concentrations in sediment
pore water are similar to or less than the
concentrations in the overlying water,
and concentrations in the deeper part of
sediment are lower than the
concentrations in the overlying water.
Therefore, the risk estimates, based on
the highest ambient surface water
concentration, do not support an
unreasonable risk determination to
sediment-dwelling organisms from
acute or chronic exposures. There is
uncertainty due to the lack of
ecotoxicity studies specifically for
sediment-dwelling organisms and
limited sediment monitoring data (Ref.
1).
Based on its physical-chemical
properties, methylene chloride does not
partition to or accumulate in soil.
Therefore, the physical chemical
properties of methylene chloride do not
support an unreasonable risk
determination to terrestrial organisms.
C. Benefits of Methylene Chloride for
Various Uses
As described in the proposed rule,
methylene chloride is a solvent used in
a variety of industrial, commercial, and
consumer use applications, including
adhesives, pharmaceuticals, metal
cleaning, chemical processing, and
feedstock in the production of
refrigerant HFC–32 (82 FR 7467).
Specifically, methylene chloride use in
commercial paint and coating removal
provides benefits for some users because
it is readily available and works quickly
and effectively on nearly all coatings
without damaging most substrates. For a
variety of additional uses (e.g.,
adhesives, adhesive removers, cold pipe
insulation, welding anti-spatter spray)
methylene chloride is relatively
inexpensive, highly effective, evaporates
quickly, and is not flammable, making
it a popular and effective solvent for
many years. As of 2016, the leading
applications for methylene chloride are
as a solvent in the production of
pharmaceuticals and polymers and
paint removers, although recent
regulations and voluntary industry
actions are expected to decrease the
chemical’s use in the paint remover
sector (40 CFR part 751, subpart B). The
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
39285
total aggregate production volume
ranged from 100 to 500 million pounds
between 2016 and 2019 according to
CDR (Ref. 6).
D. Reasonably Ascertainable Economic
Consequences of the Final Rule
1. Likely Effect of the Rule on the
National Economy, Small Business,
Technological Innovation, the
Environment, and Public Health
The reasonably ascertainable
economic consequences of this final
rule include several components, all of
which are described in the Economic
Analysis (Ref. 3). With respect to the
anticipated effects of this final rule on
the national economy, EPA considered
the number of businesses and workers
that would be affected and the costs and
benefits to those businesses and workers
and did not find that there would be an
impact on the national economy (Ref. 3).
The economic impact of a regulation on
the national economy becomes
measurable only if the economic impact
of the regulation reaches 0.25% to 0.5%
of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Ref.
103). Given the current GDP, this is
equivalent to a cost of $40 billion to $80
billion. Therefore, because EPA has
estimated that the non-closure-related
cost of the proposed rule would range
from $37.0 million annualized over 20
years at a 3% discount rate and $39.5
million annualized over 20 years at a
7% discount rate, EPA has concluded
that this rule is highly unlikely to have
any measurable effect on the national
economy (Ref. 3). In response to the
updated Circular A–4 published in
November 2023, the incremental, nonclosure related costs of this rule at a 2%
discount rate ($36.4 million annualized
over 20 years) is provided in appendix
D of the Economic Analysis (Ref. 3). In
addition, EPA considered the
employment impacts of this final rule,
and found that the direction of change
in employment is uncertain, but EPA
expects the short-term and longer-term
employment effects to be small.
Of the small businesses potentially
impacted by this final rule, 99%
(229,635 firms) are expected to have
impacts of less than 1% to their firm
revenues (rounded metric), 1% (1,668
firms) are expected to have impacts
between 1 and 3% to their firm
revenues (rounded metric), and 0.5%
(1,148 firms) are expected to have
impacts greater than 3% to their firm
revenues (rounded metric). Excluding
end-users, total estimated impacts on
small businesses are $9.3 million
(annualized using a 7 percent discount
rate). End users with economic and
technologically feasible alternatives
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
39286
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
available do not have economic impacts
that are estimated beyond rule
familiarization costs ($1.8 million in
total costs, annualized using a 7 percent
discount rate).
With respect to this rule’s effect on
technological innovation, EPA expects
this rule to spur more innovation than
it will hinder. A prohibition or
significant restriction on the
manufacture, processing, and
distribution in commerce of methylene
chloride for uses covered in this final
rule may increase demand for existing,
as well as development of additional,
safer chemical substitutes. In specifying
delayed compliance with a restriction,
EPA must specify a date as soon as
practicable, and that period may be
necessary to develop and implement
alternatives to a restricted chemical. For
example, the 5-year delayed compliance
with the prohibition for certain
furniture refinishers allows extra time
for the continued development and
implementation of alternative paint and
coating removers to be developed and
tested in the marketplace. Outreach
with processors indicated some were
working on paint and coating removers
to fill the void from methylene chloride
products in the event of a prohibition in
commercial industries (e.g. EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2020–0465–0181). This rule is
not likely to have significant effects on
the environment because, as discussed
in Unit II.C.3., methylene chloride does
not present an unreasonable risk to the
environment, though this rule does
present the potential for small
reductions in air emissions and soil
contamination associated with improper
disposal of products containing
methylene chloride. The effects of this
rule on public health are estimated to be
positive, due to the potential prevention
of deaths from acute exposure and
reduced risk of cancer from chronic
exposure to methylene chloride, as well
as other reduced risks from other effects
which, while tangible and significant,
cannot be monetized, as described in
Unit V.D.2.
2. Costs and Benefits of the Regulatory
Action and of the One or More Primary
Alternative Regulatory Actions
Considered by the Administrator
The costs and benefits that can be
monetized for this rulemaking are
described at length in in the Economic
Analysis (Ref. 3). The non-closurerelated costs for this final rule are
estimated to be $37.0 million
annualized over 20 years at a 3%
discount rate and $39.5 million
annualized over 20 years at a 7%
discount rate. The monetized benefits
are estimated to be $24.8 to $25.1
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
million annualized over 20 years at a
3% discount rate and $19.8 to $20.0
million annualized over 20 years at a
7% discount rate. In response to the
updated Circular A–4 published in
November 2023, the incremental, nonclosure related costs of this rule at a 2%
discount rate ($36.4 million annualized
over 20 years) and benefits ($27.1 to
$27.5 million annualized over 20 years)
are provided in appendix D of the
Economic Analysis (Ref. 3).
Due to unique circumstances in
furniture refinishing, and, in particular,
commercial use of methylene chloride
in refinishing for wooden furniture,
decorative pieces, and architectural
fixtures of artistic, cultural or historic
value (as discussed in detail in Unit
III.B.1.), a prohibition of methylene
chloride in this industry may result in
firm closures for the sector as a whole.
It is possible to estimate that profits for
the 4,899 furniture refinishing firms that
use methylene chloride are
approximately $63 million using the
average estimated revenues per firm for
NAICS 811420, Reupholstery and
Furniture Repair ($338,525 is average
revenue) and an IRS (2013) estimate for
profit in this sector of 3.8% of sales.
Profit is related to, but not the same as
producer surplus. Producer surplus is
generally larger than profit since
producer surplus is the difference
between total revenue and marginal cost
and profit is the difference between total
revenue and total cost. Total revenue for
the 4,899 furniture refinishing firms that
use methylene chloride is estimated to
be $1.7 billion. Total revenue provides
a measure of overall economic activity
for these firms, but does not directly
relate to the potential loss of producer
and consumer surplus (i.e., social cost)
from potential closures or price
increases in the furniture refinishing
industry (Ref. 3). In addition, due to the
uncertainty of the number and type of
closures, EPA is unable to include these
potential impacts in the monetized cost
estimates for this action.
EPA considered the estimated costs to
regulated entities as well as the cost to
administer and enforce alternative
regulatory actions. Estimated costs for
regulatory alternatives can be found in
the Economic Analysis for this final rule
(Ref. 3).
This final rule is expected to achieve
health benefits for the American public,
some of which can be monetized and
others that, while tangible and
significant, cannot be monetized due to
lack of dose-response data, as discussed
in Unit I.E. At a discount rate of 2
percent over 20 years the monetized net
benefits range from ($9.3M) to ($9.0)
million (Ref. 3). EPA believes that the
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
balance of costs and benefits of this final
rule cannot be fairly described without
considering the additional, nonmonetized benefits of mitigating the
non-cancer adverse effects. The
multitude of adverse effects from
methylene chloride exposure can
profoundly impact an individual’s
quality of life, as discussed in the
proposed rule in Units II.A. (overview),
III.B.2. (description of the unreasonable
risk), V.A. (discussion of the health
effects), and in the Risk Evaluation (85
FR 37942). Some of the adverse effects
can be immediately experienced and
can result in sudden death; others can
have impacts that are experienced for a
shorter portion of life but are
nevertheless significant in nature. The
incremental improvements in health
outcomes achieved by given reductions
in exposure cannot be quantified for
non-cancer health effects associated
with methylene chloride exposure, and
therefore cannot be converted into
monetized benefits. The qualitative
discussion throughout this rulemaking
and in the Economic Analysis highlights
the importance of these non-cancer
effects, which are not able to be
monetized in the way that EPA is able
to for cancer and death. These effects
include not only cost of illness but also
personal costs such as emotional and
mental stress that are hard to measure
appropriately. Considering only
monetized benefits significantly
underestimates the impacts of
methylene chloride adverse outcomes
and underestimates the benefits of this
final rule.
The 2020 Risk Evaluation for
Methylene Chloride identified two noncancer health effects in reviewed
scientific literature relevant to children,
namely reproductive and developmental
hazards (Ref. 1). The 2020 Risk
Evaluation for Methylene Chloride
summarizes human health hazards
identified in the review of scientific
literature, including studies
investigating methylene chloride
exposure and reproductive and
developmental effects as well as
developmental neurotoxicity. Some
epidemiological studies identified
effects that include reduced fertility,
spontaneous abortions, oral cleft
defects, heart defects, and autism
spectrum disorder (ASD). For ASD, due
to methodological reasons including
confounding by other chemicals and
lack of temporal specificity, the 2020
Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride
did not advance this hazard to a dose
response calculation. Additionally, EPA
did not carry reproductive/
developmental effects forward for dose-
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
response, because epidemiological
studies lacked controls for co-exposures
and animal studies observed effects
mostly at higher methylene chloride
concentrations. EPA also did not
identify relevant mechanistic
information, which informed this
decision (Ref. 1). Nonetheless,
additional health benefits may be
achieved by reducing the incidence of
reproductive effects for workers in
commercial facilities or companies that
use methylene chloride for the
commercial uses proposed to be
regulated (Ref. 3).
EPA was unable to estimate either the
precise reduction in individual risk of
these reproductive and developmental
effects from reducing exposure to
methylene chloride or the total number
of cases avoided can be estimated due
to a lack of necessary data. Nevertheless,
reproductive hazards such as reduced
fertility are important considerations.
These health effects are serious and can
have impacts throughout a lifetime; for
example, infertility and fertility
treatment can have deleterious social
and psychological consequences such as
mental distress (Ref. 104).
The potential impacts of these effects
include monetary impacts from
associated healthcare costs such as
fertility treatments, as well as
complications from fertility treatments
(e.g., higher multiple birth rates), mental
stress and emotional suffering, which
cannot be quantified or monetized but
should not be ignored.
3. Cost Effectiveness of the Regulatory
Action and of One or More Primary
Alternative Regulatory Actions
Considered by the Administrator
Cost effectiveness is a method of
comparing certain actions in terms of
the expense per item of interest or goal.
A goal of this regulatory action is to
prevent user deaths resulting from
exposure to methylene chloride. While
preventing potential deaths due to
methylene chloride exposure is not the
only benefit of this regulatory action, it
was the goal selected to use for the cost
effectiveness calculations. The final rule
regulatory option costs $27 million per
potential prevented death while the
alternative option costs $151 million per
potential prevented death (using the 3
percent discount rate), indicating that
the final rule option is more cost
effective compared to the alternative
option (Ref. 3). The primary difference
between the final and alternative option
is that the alternative includes
prohibitions on some uses which fall
under WCPP in the final rule, most
notably the use of methylene chloride as
a processing aid. EPA received multiple
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
public comments providing detailed
cost information on the impacts of a
prohibition of methylene chloride for
this condition of use. This information
was incorporated into the cost estimates
for the alternative option (Ref. 3).
VI. TSCA Section 9 Analysis and
Section 14 and 26 Considerations
A. TSCA Section 9(a) Analysis
TSCA section 9(a) provides that, if the
Administrator determines, in the
Administrator’s discretion, that an
unreasonable risk may be prevented or
reduced to a sufficient extent by an
action taken under a Federal law not
administered by EPA, the Administrator
must submit a report to the agency
administering that other law that
describes the risk and the activities that
present such risk. TSCA section 9(a)
describes additional procedures and
requirements to be followed by EPA and
the other Federal agency after
submission of the report. As discussed
in this Unit, the Administrator does not
determine that unreasonable risk from
methylene chloride under the
conditions of use may be prevented or
reduced to a sufficient extent by an
action taken under a Federal law not
administered by EPA. EPA’s section 9(a)
analysis can be found in full in Unit
VII.A. of the proposed rule, and
responses to comments on that 9(a)
analysis can be found in the Response
to Comments, section 8.5.1 (Ref. 7).
TSCA section 9(d) instructs the
Administrator to consult and coordinate
TSCA activities with other Federal
agencies for the purpose of achieving
the maximum enforcement of TSCA
while imposing the least burden of
duplicative requirements. For this
rulemaking, EPA has coordinated with
appropriate Federal executive
departments and agencies including but
not limited to OSHA, CPSC, and NIOSH
to, among other things, identify their
respective authorities, jurisdictions, and
existing laws with regard to the risk
evaluation and risk management of
methylene chloride.
As discussed in more detail in the
proposed rule, OSHA requires that
employers provide safe and healthful
working conditions by setting and
enforcing standards and by providing
training, outreach, education, and
assistance. OSHA has established health
standards for methylene chloride
covering employers in General Industry,
Shipyards, and Construction (29 CFR
1910.1052(a)). Gaps exist between
OSHA’s authority to set workplace
standards under the OSH Act and EPA’s
obligations under TSCA section 6 to
eliminate unreasonable risk presented
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
39287
by chemical substances under the
conditions of use. OSHA lacks direct
jurisdiction over state and local
government workers, and does not cover
self-employed workers, military
personnel, and uniquely military
equipment, systems, and operations,
and workers whose occupational safety
and health hazards are regulated by
another Federal agency (for example,
the Mine Safety and Health
Administration, the Department of
Energy, or the Coast Guard) (Ref. 105).
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC), under authority
provided to it by Congress in the CPSA,
protects the public from unreasonable
risk of injury or death associated with
consumer products. Under the CPSA,
CPSC has the authority to regulate
methylene chloride in consumer
products, but not in other sectors such
as automobiles, some industrial and
commercial products, or aircraft, for
example.
Therefore, EPA maintains that TSCA
is the only vehicle to deliver broad
protections to consumers who may use
formulations that contain methylene
chloride and whose use contributes to
the unreasonable risk of injury to health
from methylene chloride. An action
under TSCA is also able to address
occupational unreasonable risk and
would reach entities that are not subject
to OSHA. The timeframe and any
exposure reduction as a result of
updating OSHA or CPSC regulations for
methylene chloride cannot be estimated,
while TSCA imposes a much more
accelerated two-year statutory
timeframe for proposing and finalizing
requirements to address unreasonable
risk. Regulating methylene chloride’s
unreasonable risk utilizing TSCA
authority will also avoid the situation
where a patchwork of regulations
amongst several Agencies using
multiple laws and differing legal
standards would occur and is therefore
a more efficient and effective means of
addressing the unreasonable risk of
methylene chloride. Finally, as
discussed in greater detail in the
proposed rule, the 2016 amendments to
TSCA altered both the manner of
identifying unreasonable risk and EPA’s
authority to address unreasonable risk,
such that risk management is
increasingly distinct from provisions of
the CPSA, FHSA, or OSH Act.
EPA therefore concludes that TSCA is
the only regulatory authority able to
prevent or reduce unreasonable risk of
methylene chloride to a sufficient extent
across the range of conditions of use,
exposures, and populations of concern.
For this reason, in the Administrator’s
discretion, the Administrator has
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
39288
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
analyzed this issue and does not
determine that unreasonable risk from
methylene chloride may be prevented or
reduced to a sufficient extent by an
action taken under a Federal law not
administered by EPA.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
B. TSCA Section 9(b) Analysis
If EPA determines that actions under
other Federal laws administered in
whole or in part by EPA could eliminate
or sufficiently reduce a risk to health or
the environment, TSCA section 9(b)
instructs EPA to use these other
authorities to protect against that risk
‘‘unless the Administrator determines,
in the Administrator’s discretion, that it
is in the public interest to protect
against such risk’’ under TSCA. In
making such a public interest finding,
TSCA section 9(b)(2) states ‘‘the
Administrator shall consider, based on
information reasonably available to the
Administrator, all relevant aspects of
the risk . . . and a comparison of the
estimated costs and efficiencies of the
action to be taken under this title and
an action to be taken under such other
law to protect against such risk.’’
Although several EPA statutes have
been used to limit methylene chloride
exposure (Refs. 3,5), regulations under
those EPA statutes largely regulate
releases to the environment, rather than
occupational or consumer exposures.
While these limits on releases to the
environment are protective in the
context of their respective statutory
authorities, regulation under TSCA is
also appropriate for occupational and
consumer exposures and in some cases
can provide upstream protections that
would prevent the need for release
restrictions required by other EPA
statutes (e.g., Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), CAA, CWA).
Updating regulations under other EPA
statutes would not be sufficient to
address the unreasonable risks from
methylene chloride to workers,
occupational non-users, consumers, and
bystanders who are exposed under its
conditions of use. EPA’s section 9(b)
analysis can be found in full in Unit
VII.B. of the proposed rule, and
responses to comments on that 9(b)
analysis can be found in the Response
to Comments, section 8.5.2 (Ref. 7).
For these reasons, the Administrator
does not determine that unreasonable
risk from methylene chloride under its
conditions of use, as evaluated in the
2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene
Chloride (Ref. 1), could be eliminated or
reduced to a sufficient extent by actions
taken under other Federal laws
administered in whole or in part by
EPA.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
C. TSCA Section 14 Requirements
EPA is also providing notice to
manufacturers, processors, and other
interested parties about potential
impacts to CBI. Under TSCA sections
14(a) and 14(b)(4), if EPA promulgates a
rule pursuant to TSCA section 6(a) that
establishes a ban or phase-out of a
chemical substance, the protection from
disclosure of any CBI regarding that
chemical substance and submitted
pursuant to TSCA will be ‘‘presumed to
no longer apply,’’ subject to the
limitations identified in TSCA section
14(b)(4)(B)(i) through (iii). Pursuant to
TSCA section 14(b)(4)(B)(iii), the
presumption against protection from
disclosure will apply only to
information about the specific
conditions of use that this rule prohibits
or phases out. Per TSCA section
14(b)(4)(B)(i), the presumption against
protection will not apply to information
about certain emergency uses that this
rule exempts from a ban or phase-out
pursuant to TSCA section 6(g).
Manufacturers or processors seeking to
protect such information may submit a
request for nondisclosure as provided
by TSCA sections 14(b)(4)(C) and
14(g)(1)(E). Any request for
nondisclosure must be submitted within
30 days after receipt of notice from EPA
under TSCA section 14(g)(2)(A) stating
EPA will not protect the information
from disclosure. EPA anticipates
providing such notice via the Central
Data Exchange (CDX).
D. TSCA Section 26 Considerations
As explained in the proposed rule,
EPA fulfilled TSCA section 26(h) by
using scientific information, technical
procedures, measures, methods,
protocols, methodologies, and models
consistent with the best available
science. Comments received on the
proposed rule about whether EPA
adequately assessed reasonably
available information under TSCA
section 26 on the risk evaluation, and
responses to those comments, can be
found in section 8.5.3 of the Response
to Comments document (Ref. 7).
VII. References
The following is a listing of the
documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket
includes these documents and other
information considered by EPA,
including documents that are referenced
within the documents that are included
in the docket, even if the referenced
document is not itself physically located
in the docket. For assistance in locating
these other documents, please consult
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
1. EPA. Risk Evaluation for Methylene
Chloride (MC). EPA Document #740–R1–
8010. June 2022. https://
www.regulations.gov/document/EPAHQ-OPPT-2019-0437-0107.
2. EPA. Final Revised Unreasonable Risk
Determination for Methylene Chloride,
Section 5. 2022. https://
www.regulations.gov/document/EPAHQ-OPPT-2016-0742-0120.
3. EPA. Economic Analysis of the Final
Regulation of Methylene Chloride Under
TSCA Section 6(a) (RIN 2070–AK70).
April 2024.
4. President Joseph R. Biden. The White
House. The President and First Lady’s
Cancer Moonshot: Ending Cancer As We
Know It. Accessed February 26, 2024.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/cancer
moonshot/.
5. EPA. Regulatory Actions Pertaining to
Methylene Chloride. February 2023.
https://www.regulations.gov/document/
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0115.
6. EPA. Access CDR Data: 2016 CDR Data.
Last Updated on May 2020. https://
www.epa.gov/chemical-data-reporting/
access-cdr-data#2016.
7. EPA. Methylene Chloride; Methylene
Chloride; Regulation Under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA);
Response to Public Comments. RIN
2070–AK70. April 2024.
8. Executive Order 13985. Advancing Racial
Equity and Support for Underserved
Communities Through the Federal
Government. Federal Register. 86 FR
7009, January 25, 2021.
9. 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.
10. Executive Order 14008. Tackling the
Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.
Federal Register. 86 FR 7619, February
1, 2021.
11. Hoang, Ahn, Fagan, Kathleen, Cannon,
Dawn L., et al. Assessment of Methylene
Chloride–Related Fatalities in the United
States, 1980–2018. JAMA Internal
Medicine. American Medical
Association. Chicago, Illinois. 181(6):
797–805. April 19, 2021.
12. OSHA. Accident Search Results.
Keyword: Methylene Chloride. Accessed
February 28, 2024.
13. EPA. An Alternatives Assessment for Use
of Methylene Chloride. November 2022.
https://www.regulations.gov/document/
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0082.
14. EPA. Notes from Federalism Consultation
on Forthcoming Proposed Rulemakings
for Methylene Chloride and 1Bromopropane under TSCA Section 6(a).
Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics. October 2020. https://
www.regulations.gov/document/EPAHQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0094.
15. EPA. Notes from Tribal Consultations on
Forthcoming Proposed Rulemakings for
Methylene Chloride and 1Bromopropane under TSCA Section 6(a).
Office of Pollution Prevention and
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Toxics. October 2020. https://
www.regulations.gov/document/EPAHQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0123.
16. Liz Hitchcock; Safer Chemicals Healthy
Families. 11/20 Environmental Justice
Consultations for 1-Bromopropane and
Methylene Chloride. November 20, 2020.
https://www.regulations.gov/document/
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0088.
17. California Communities Against Toxics et
al. Comment letter re TSCA
environmental justice consultations.
November 13, 2020. https://
www.regulations.gov/document/EPAHQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0088.
18. Swati Rayasam; Program on Reproductive
Health and the Environment (PRHE).
PRHE follow up documents from EJ
consultation meeting. November 30,
2020. https://www.regulations.gov/
document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-04650088.
19. EPA. Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis for Methylene Chloride;
Regulation of Methylene Chloride under
TSCA Section 6(a) Proposed Rule; RIN
2070–AK70. November 22, 2022.
20. EPA. Final Report of the Small Business
Advocacy Review Panel on EPA’s
Planned Proposed Rule Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) Section 6(a)
Methylene Chloride. RIN 2070–AK70.
October 28, 2021.
21. EPA. Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (FRFA) for Methylene Chloride;
Regulation of Methylene Chloride under
TSCA Section 6(a) Proposed Rule. RIN
2070–AK70. April 2024.
22. EPA. Methylene Chloride: Risk
Evaluation and Risk Management under
TSCA Section 6. SBA Small Business
Roundtable. September 11, 2020. https://
www.regulations.gov/document/EPAHQ-OPPT-2020-0471-0010.
23. EPA. Public Webinar on Methylene
Chloride; Risk Evaluation and Risk
Management under TSCA Section 6.
2020.
24. EPA. Stakeholder Meeting List for
Proposed Rulemaking for Methylene
Chloride under TSCA Section 6(a).
25. EPA. 2021 Policy on Children’s Health.
October 5, 2021.
26. Chris Banach. VanDeMark Chemical Inc.
Comment EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465–
0193. June 30, 2023.
27. Stephanie N Daigle. Celanese Corporation
Comment EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465–
0217. June 30, 2023.
28. Leigh Bausinger. Faegre Drinker Biddle &
Reath LLP Comment EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2020–0465–0218. June 30, 2023.
29. Karen Ethier. ThermoFisher Comment
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465–0213. July
6, 2023.
30. Lee French. DuPont de Nemours, Inc.
Comment EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465–
0224. June 30, 2023.
31. Danielle Jones. Chemours Company
Comment EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465–
0242. July 3, 2023.
32. Wanda Copeland Smith. Halocarbon
Comment EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465–
0252. July 3, 2023.
33. EMD Electronics. EMD Electronics
Comment EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465–
0269. July 3, 2023.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
34. Michael Boucher. LANXESS Corporation
Comment EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465–
0278. July 3, 2023.
35. SABIC Innovative Plastics. SABIC
Innovative Plastics US LLC Comment
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465–0367. July
3, 2023.
36. Haakan Jonsson. Covestro LLC Comment
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465–0377. June
29, 2023.
37. Genevieve Strand. Society of Chemical
Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA)
Comment EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465–
0250. July 3, 2023.
38. Major L. Clark, III. Small Business
Administration Comment EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2020–0465–0235. July 3, 2023.
39. EPA. Economic Analysis of the Proposed
Regulation of Trichloroethylene. October
2023. https://www.regulations.gov/
document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-06420178.
40. Kim Medford. ENTEK Manufacturing
Comment EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0642–
0230. July 14, 2021.
41. John Reeves. Microporous LLC
(‘‘Microporous’’), Request for Section
6(g) Exemption. August 10, 2022.
42. SKIET. Sk ie Technology Co. Ltd. (SKIET)
Comment EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465–
0226. June 30, 2023.
43. Ohio EPA. Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency Comment EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2020–0465–0261. July 3, 2023.
44. Yonhjik Kim. SK On Co. Ltd. Comment
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465–0223. July
6, 2023.
45. Chad Schumann. Polypore International,
LP Comment EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–
0465–0251. June 30, 2023.
46. Dong Woo Kim. W-Scope Chungju Plant
Co. Ltd (WCP) Comment EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2020–0465–0275. July 4, 2023.
47. Federal Consortium for Advanced
Batteries (FCAB). National Blueprint for
Lithium Batteries 2021–2030. June 2021.
48. EPA. Covestro LLC Meeting Memo.
August 22, 2023.
49. Remy Nathan. Aerospace Industries
Association (AIA) Comment EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2020–0465–0168. June 30, 2023.
50. Andy Barsala. GE Aerospace Comment
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465–0234. July
3, 2023.
51. Steve Shestag. The Boeing Company
Comment EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465–
0253. July 3, 2023.
52. Judah Prero. Chemical Users Coalition
(CUC) Comment EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–
0465–0241. July 3, 2023.
53. Carrie McMichael. Solvay Specialty
Polymers USA, LLC Comment EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2020–0465–0215. June 30, 2023.
54. Information Technology Industry.
Information Technology Industry
Council (ITI) Comment EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2020–0465–0254. July 3, 2023.
55. Paul DeLeo. American Chemistry Council
(ACC) Comment EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–
0465–0281. July 3, 2023.
56. Giorgio Zanchi. 3V Sigma USA Comment
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465–0225. June
30, 2023.
57. Aaron Rice; EaglePicher Technologies,
LLC. Re: TSCA Section 6(g) Exemption
Request for Use of N-methylpyrrolidone
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
39289
and Methylene Chloride in Production of
Specialized Batteries. June 3, 2022.
58. James Lee. Ohio Manufacturers’
Association (OMA) Comment EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2020–0465–0185. May 30, 2023.
59. EaglePicher. EaglePicher Technologies,
LLC Comment EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–
0465–0214. June 30, 2023.
60. A. Richard Szembrot. Eastman Kodak
Company Comment EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2020–0465–0236. July 3, 2023.
61. Michael G. Anderson. Lockheed Martin
Corporation Comment EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2020–0465–0244. July 3, 2023.
62. Master Finishing and Restoration. Master
Finishing and Restoration Inc. Comment
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465–0233. July
6, 2023.
63. Restorations Unlimited. Restorations
Unlimited. Accessed 11/13/2023. https://
restorationsunlimited.com/gallery.
64. EPA. Restorations Unlimited Meeting
Memo. July 27, 2023.
65. Steve Bennett. Household & Commercial
Products Association (HCPA) Comment
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465–0257. July
3, 2023.
66. Benco Sales. Benco Sales Inc. Comment
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465–0228. July
6, 2023.
67. EPA. Economic Analysis of the Proposed
Regulation of Methylene Chloride. RIN
2070–AK70. August 2022.
68. EPA. Public Workshop on Use of
Methylene Chloride in Furniture
Refinishing in collaboration with the
Small Business Administration Office of
Advocacy. September 12, 2017. https://
www.regulations.gov/document/EPAHQ-OPPT-2017-0139-0006.
69. Charles Paint Research. Charles Paint
Research Inc. Comment EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2020–0465–0194. June 30, 2023.
70. Halogenated Solvent Industry Alliance.
Halogenated Solvent Industry Alliance,
Inc. (HSIA) Comment EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2020–0465–0285. May 3, 2023.
71. OSHA. OSHA 1910.155. Access 10/27/23.
https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/
regulations/standardnumber/1910/
1910.155.
72. EPA. Master Finishing and Restoration,
Inc. Meeting Memo. August 8, 2023.
73. EPA. Benco Sales, Inc. Meeting Memo.
August 3, 2023.
74. Michael Kennedy. American Petroleum
Institute (API) Comment EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2020–0465–0198. June 29, 2023.
75. LeaAnne Forest. American Chemistry
Council Comment EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2020–0465–0268. July 3, 2023.
76. Martin J. Durbin. U.S. Chamber of
Commerce Comment EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2020–0465–0279. July 3, 2023.
77. Melanie Barrett. Millipore Sigma
Comment EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465–
0212. June 30, 2023.
78. 3M. 3M Company Comment EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2020–0465–0222. June 30, 2023.
79. Mike LaFore. Dow Chemical Comment
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465–0245. July
3, 2023.
80. Jennifer C. Gibson. National Association
of Chemical Distributors (NACD)
Comment EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465–
0188. June 21, 2023.
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
39290
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
81. OSHA. 29 CFR 1910.1200—Appendix A.
Accessed 10/27/2023. https://
www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/
standardnumber/1910/1910.1200AppA.
82. Mark Ames. American Industrial Hygiene
Association (AIHA) Comment EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2020–0465–0187. June 20, 2023.
83. Catherine Palin. Alliance for Automotive
Innovation Comment EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2020–0465–0248. July 3, 2023.
84. EPA. Additional Worker and Consumer
Risk Analyses in Support of the 2023
Proposed Regulation of Methylene
Chloride under TSCA Section 6(a).
August 14, 2023.
85. Kenji Saito. American College of
Occupational and Environmental
Medicine (ACOEM) Comment EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2020–0465–0237. July 3, 2023.
86. James Lee. Hach Company Comment
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465–0200. June
29, 2023.
87. William E. Allmond, IV. The Adhesives
and Sealants Council, Inc. Comment
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465–0229. June
30, 2023.
88. Environmental Defense Fund.
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
Comment EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465–
0270. July 3, 2023.
89. EarthJustice et al. EarthJustice et al.
Comment EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465–
0262. July 3, 2023.
90. AFL–CIO. American Federation of Labor
and Congress of Industrial Organizations
(AFL–CIO) Comment EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2020–0465–0219. June 30, 2023.
91. Jean Warshaw. Jean Warshaw Comment
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465–0266. July
3, 2023.
92. OSHA. OSHA 1999 Multi-Employer
Citation Policy. Accessed 10/27/2023.
https://www.osha.gov/enforcement/
directives/cpl-02-00-124.
93. EPA. Existing Chemical Exposure Limit
(ECEL) for Occupational Use of
Methylene Chloride. December 10, 2020.
94. OSHA. Final Rule. Occupational
Exposure to Methylene Chloride. Federal
Register. 62 FR 1494, January 10, 1997.
95. OSHA. OSHA Technical Manual (OTM)
Section II: Chapter 1. Personal Sampling
for Air Contaminants. Last updated on
September 14, 2023. https://
www.osha.gov/otm/section-2-healthhazards/chapter-1.
96. OSHA. OSHA Method 1025, Methylene
Chloride. January 5, 2024.
97. NIOSH. NIOSH Manual of Analytical
Methods (NMAM), Fifth Edition. Volatile
Organic Compounds, C1 to C10, Canister
Method: METHOD 3900, Issue 1. August
30, 2018.
98. NIOSH. Hierarchy of Controls. Accessed
October 6, 2022. https://www.cdc.gov/
niosh/topics/hierarchy/.
99. OSHA; NIOSH. Hazard Alert: Methylene
Chloride Hazards for Bathtub
Refinishers. January 2013. https://
www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/
publications/methylene_chloride_
hazard_alert.pdf.
100. OSHA. 1910.1052 App A—Substance
Safety Data Sheet and Technical
Guidelines for Methylene Chloride.
Accessed October 6, 2022. https://
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/
standardnumber/1910/1910.1052AppA.
101. EPA. Methylene Chloride: TRI Release
Data Sensitivity Analysis. September 1,
2022.
102. Texas Commission of Environmental
Quality. Covestro LLC Comment EPA–
HQ–OPPT–2020–0465–0377 Attachment
4: NSR (State) Permit. May 24, 2022.
103. OMB. Guidance for Implementing Title
II of [UMRA]. March 31, 1995.
104. Cousineau, Tara M., Domar, Alice, D.
Psychological Impact of Infertility. Best
Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics &
Gynaecology. Harvard Medical School.
Waltham, Massachusetts. 21(2): 293–308.
April 2007.
105. U.S. Department of Labor—
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA). Letter to James
J. Jones from David Michaels, Ph.D.,
MPH. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2016–0231–0153.
March 31, 2016.
106. EPA. Supporting Statement for an
Information Collection Request (ICR)
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA): Regulation of Methylene Chloride
under TSCA Section 6(a) (RIN 2070–
AK70). OMB Control No. 2070–0229.
April 2024.
107. OSHA. Industry Profile for an OSHA
Standard Results: Establishment Size:
All Sizes: Standard: 19101052 Methylene
Chloride. Accessed February 22, 2024.
108. OSHA. Accident Report Detail. Accident
Summary Nr: 157996.015—Employee Is
Killed By Overexposure to Methylene
Chloride. Accessed February 22, 2024.
109. Ashley, Kevin. Harmonization of NIOSH
Sampling and Analytical Methods with
Related International Voluntary
Consensus Standards. Journal of
Occupational and Environmental
Hygiene. Taylor and Fracis Group.
London, England. 12(7): 107–15. 2015.
110. EPA. Notes from Environmental Justice
Consultations on Forthcoming Proposed
Rulemakings for Methylene Chloride and
1-Bromopropane under TSCA Section
6(a). Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive orders can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory
Review
This action is a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ as defined under section 3(f)(1)
of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), as amended by
Executive Order 14094 (88 FR 21879,
April 11, 2023). Accordingly, EPA
submitted this action to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
Executive Order 12866 review.
Documentation of any changes made in
response to Executive Order 12866
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
review is available in the docket. EPA
prepared an analysis of the potential
costs and benefits associated with this
action. This analysis (Ref. 3), is
available in the docket and summarized
in Unit I.E.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities
in this final rule have been submitted to
OMB for approval under the PRA, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that
EPA prepared has been assigned EPA
ICR No. 2735.02 and OMB Control No.
2070–0229 (Ref. 106). You can find a
copy of the ICR in the docket for this
rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
The information collection requirements
are not enforceable until OMB approves
them.
There are three primary provisions of
the final rule that are expected to
increase burden under the PRA.
The first is downstream notification,
which will be carried out by updates to
the relevant SDS and which is required
for manufacturers, processors, and
distributors in commerce of methylene
chloride, who will provide notice to
companies downstream upon shipment
of methylene chloride about the
prohibitions. The information submitted
to downstream companies through the
SDS will provide knowledge and
awareness of the restrictions to these
companies.
The second primary provision of the
rule that is expected to increase burden
under the PRA is WCPP-related
information generation, recordkeeping,
and notification requirements
(including development of exposure
control plans; exposure level monitoring
and related recordkeeping; development
of documentation for a PPE program and
related recordkeeping; development of
documentation for a respiratory
protection program and related
recordkeeping; development and
notification to potentially exposed
persons (employees and others in the
workplace) about how they can access
the exposure control plans, exposure
monitoring records, PPE program
implementation documentation, and
respirator program documentation; and
related recordkeeping).
The third primary provision of the
rule that is expected to increase burden
under the PRA is recordkeeping for
interim requirements for commercial
use of methylene chloride for
refinishing wood pieces of artistic,
historic or cultural significance
(including documentation of details
related to the refinishing activity and
records demonstrating compliance with
the exposure reduction controls).
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Respondents/affected entities:
Persons that manufacture, process, use,
distribute in commerce, or dispose of
methylene chloride or products
containing methylene chloride. See also
Unit I.A.
Respondent’s obligation to respond:
Mandatory (TSCA section 6(a) and 40
CFR part 751).
Estimated number of respondents:
237,969.
Frequency of response: On occasion.
Total estimated burden: 149,090
hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $16,563,299 (per
year), includes $4,451,405 annualized
capital or operation and maintenance
costs.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for the EPA regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When
OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will
announce that approval in the Federal
Register and publish a technical
amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display
the OMB control number for the
approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
Pursuant to sections 603 and 609(b) of
the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., EPA
prepared an IRFA for the proposed rule
and convened a SBAR Panel to obtain
advice and recommendations from SER
that potentially would be subject to the
rule’s requirements. Summaries of the
IRFA and Panel recommendations are
presented in the proposed rule (88 FR
28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL–8155–02–
OCSPP).
As required by section 604 of the
RFA, EPA prepared a FRFA for this
action (Ref.21). The FRFA addresses the
issues raised by public comments on the
IRFA for the proposed rule. The
complete FRFA is available for review
in the docket and is summarized here.
1. Statement of Need and Rule
Objectives
Under section 6(a) of TSCA (15 U.S.C.
2605(a)), if EPA determines after a
TSCA section 6(b) risk evaluation that a
chemical substance presents an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment, without consideration
of costs or other non-risk factors,
including an unreasonable risk to a
potentially exposed or susceptible
subpopulation identified as relevant to
the risk evaluation, under the
conditions of use, EPA must by rule
apply one or more requirements listed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
in TSCA section 6(a) to the extent
necessary so that the chemical
substance or mixture no longer presents
such risk. Methylene chloride was the
subject of a risk evaluation under TSCA
section 6(b)(4)(A) that was issued in
June 2020. In addition, in November
2022, EPA issued a revised
unreasonable risk determination that
methylene chloride as a whole chemical
substance presents an unreasonable risk
of injury to health under the conditions
of use. As a result, EPA is taking action
to the extent necessary so that
methylene chloride no longer presents
such risk.
EPA developed this final rule after
considering EPA’s unreasonable risk
determination for methylene chloride,
information provided in public
comments on the proposed rule,
findings from and comments on the
SBAR panel, other required
consultations, and additional public
outreach. For more information on the
proposed rule, SBAR panel, and
outreach efforts for this action, see the
docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID
Number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0465).
To address the identified
unreasonable risk, this rule: (1)
Prohibits the manufacture, processing,
and distribution in commerce of
methylene chloride for consumer use;
(2) prohibits most industrial and
commercial uses of methylene chloride
using the alternative timeframes from
the proposed rule; (3) delays prohibition
timeframes for two conditions of use of
methylene chloride (including as a paint
remover in furniture refinishing) to
allow for reasonable transitions to
alternatives; (4) requires a WCPP to be
implemented within the alternative
timeframes from the proposed rule for
several occupational conditions of use,
including three conditions of use for
which the WCPP was not proposed; (5)
removes the proposed distinction
between Federal and commercial use of
methylene chloride for two conditions
of use under the WCPP; (6) allows for
a de minimis threshold of methylene
chloride in for products to account for
impurities and non-intentional
presence; (7) requires recordkeeping and
downstream notification requirements
for several conditions of use of
methylene chloride; and (8) provides
certain time-limited exemptions from
requirements for uses of methylene
chloride which are critical that have no
technically feasible, safer alternative
available.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
39291
2. Significant Issues Raised by the
Public Comments in Response to the
IRFA and EPA Response
An industry trade organization
commented that the proposed rule
‘‘discriminates’’ against small
businesses by providing them no
opportunity to use methylene chloride
under the proposed WCPP. The
commenter also stated that the proposed
rule contravenes the RFA by failing to
discuss comments provided by small
businesses. The commenter also faulted
EPA for not discussing feedback
received from small businesses
regarding substitution costs prior to the
proposed rule.
EPA Response: EPA’s primary
responsibility under TSCA is to address
unreasonable risks presented by the
chemical substance under the
conditions of use, irrespective of the
size of the business. Entities of any size
under the conditions of use for which
EPA is finalizing the WCPP, phaseouts,
or time-limited exemptions may
continue to process or use methylene
chloride under the restrictions and
requirements of the rule; EPA is not
prohibiting or limiting participation due
to firm size. Regarding the RFA, as
required by the RFA, EPA convened a
SBAR Panel, solicited input from SERs,
used that feedback to generate Panel
recommendations, incorporated those
recommendations into the proposed
rule, and published an IRFA and FRFA.
EPA also identified the impacts of this
rulemaking on small businesses (Ref.
19) and sought to identify flexibilities
that could be provided. For the
Economic Analysis, to the extent
possible, EPA included specific and
detailed substitution costs; however,
most information the Agency received
was not detailed enough to be
incorporated.
3. SBA Office of Advocacy Comments
and EPA Response
SBA Office of Advocacy provided
comments on the proposed rule (EPA–
HQ–OPPT–2020–0465). The comments
below reflect a portion of the comments
received by the SBA Office of Advocacy
during the comment period. For the full
list of comments and responses, see
section 3 of the FRFA (Ref. 21).
Comment: SBA Office of Advocacy
requested that EPA accept additional
data after the close of the public
comment period.
EPA Response: The Agency is
working to finalize rules consistent with
statutory timeframes under TSCA
section 6(c)(1), which are to propose a
risk management rulemaking within one
year of a final risk evaluation for the
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
39292
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
chemical substance, and to finalize the
rulemaking within two years of the final
risk evaluation. Should a late
submission contain data that could be
used to inform a future rulemaking, EPA
may consider such information at that
time.
Comment: SBA Office of Advocacy
stated that, while EPA refers to
uncertainty as to capacity for ECEL
compliance as justification for proposed
bans of methylene chloride, TSCA does
not specify any level of certainty or
compliance capability. TSCA simply
requires that the unreasonable risk be
addressed only to the extent necessary.
SBA Office of Advocacy further stated
that, by issuing the ECEL, EPA has
identified the threshold at which the
unreasonable risk is considered
addressed, so if a user can comply with
the ECEL, as proposed by EPA, there
should be no unreasonable risk present.
In the commenter’s view, speculating
about compliance capability goes
beyond the scope of the statute.
EPA Response: EPA disagrees with
the interpretation that TSCA requires
EPA to ignore available information
related to the ability of workplaces to
successfully implement the WCPP for
methylene chloride. The fact that there
continue to be occupational deaths and
nonfatal incidents related to methylene
chloride exposure, as well as ongoing
non-trivial levels of noncompliance
with the OSHA Methylene Chloride
Standard (Ref. 11), indicate that
compliance with regulatory controls on
workplace exposures to methylene
chloride, including the WCPP, cannot
be assumed. Moreover, if EPA were to
regulate all workplaces via
implementation of the WCPP, EPA
believes that it would present
significant and widespread
implementation difficulties across
multiple industry sectors, leading to
high non-compliance rates that would
undermine the health-protectiveness of
the rule. EPA is aware that there remain
ongoing non-trivial levels of
noncompliance with the existing OSHA
Methylene Chloride Standard. For
example, between October 2022 through
September 2023, OSHA issued 44
citations and conducted 14 inspections
on their methylene chloride standard,
spanning 11 industries including
furniture manufacturing and automotive
repair. In addition, OSHA has
documented a fatality from methylene
chloride as recently as July 2023 (Ref.
11, 12, 107, 108). Given this
background, EPA does not believe it is
reasonable to assume that entities with
ongoing difficulty implementing the
WCPP will cease use of methylene
chloride because they are unable to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
comply with the WCPP. Rather, EPA
expects that those entities would
instead continue attempting (albeit
unsuccessfully) to implement such
protections, leaving the unreasonable
risk unmitigated. Accordingly, EPA’s
rule would fail to ensure that methylene
chloride no longer presents an
unreasonable risk to health, as required
by TSCA section 6(a). Conversely,
where EPA has information
demonstrating that companies can meet
the WCPP reliably, there is a record
basis upon which EPA can determine
that the condition of use can continue
under the WCPP without contributing to
the unreasonable risk posed by
methylene chloride. EPA notes that all
industry sectors had numerous
opportunities to provide the agency
with monitoring or other data to
indicate the ability for effective
exposure reduction for their uses, but,
in some cases, none were provided.
Comment: SBA Office of Advocacy
asserted that EPA’s proposal exceeds the
statutory directive because it would
prohibit the use of methylene chloride
as a processing aid even for a business
that provided data indicating that
worker inhalation exposures were
frequently below the ECEL or even the
level of detection. SBA Office of
Advocacy also argued that EPA’s
consideration in the alternative
regulatory action of allowing the WCPPcontrolled use of methylene chloride as
a processing aid and for other uses
indicates that such an option would
address unreasonable risks.
EPA Response: In the proposed rule,
EPA signaled its willingness to
reconsider the proposed prohibition on
the commercial use of methylene
chloride as a processing aid should EPA
receive adequate supporting information
during the public comment period. As
a result of the information provided by
the business referenced by SBA Office
of Advocacy, and additional
information received during the
comment period, the final rule permits
the commercial use of methylene
chloride as a processing aid to continue
under the WCPP.
Comment: SBA Office of Advocacy
stated that the proposed ECEL Action
Level is too low and cannot be
measured in real time on-site. SBA
Office of Advocacy stated that the ECEL
Action Level should be adjusted to
account for the practical limitations
faced by small businesses and ensure
the ECEL Action Level is both feasible
and accurately measurable in real-time.
EPA Response: EPA notes that while
real-time monitoring is not required for
rule compliance, EPA understands the
practical benefits of real-time
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
occupational exposure monitoring. EPA
notes that in the response to comments,
multiple stakeholders acknowledged the
viability of real-time detection for
methylene chloride at 1 ppm. EPA
acknowledges that some portable
monitoring devices may not be able to
reliably detect the action level in realtime. In conditions that may ideally
benefit real-time monitoring
measurements or expedited results,
stationary monitoring devices such as
mass spectrometers, as noted by another
commenter, may be helpful. EPA may
not always set the action level for a
given chemical at one half the assigned
ECEL value. In some situations, EPA
may adjust the action level in a risk
management rule as part of the WCPP.
4. Estimate of the Number of Small
Entities to Which the Final Rule Applies
This final rule potentially affects
small manufacturers (including
importers), processors, distributors,
retailers, users of methylene chloride or
of products containing methylene
chloride, and entities engaging in
disposal. EPA estimates that the final
rule would affect approximately 237,969
firms using methylene chloride, of
which 232,451 small entities (based on
SBA definitions published in March
2023) have estimated impacts. End users
with economic and technologically
feasible alternatives available do not
have estimated cost impacts beyond rule
familiarization costs except for vapor
degreasing and furniture refinishing. For
a full description of the estimated
number of small entities affected by this
rule, see the FRFA (Ref. 21).
5. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping
and Other Compliance Requirements of
the Final Rule
a. Compliance Requirements
EPA is prohibiting most conditions of
use of methylene chloride. As described
in the final rule, EPA is prohibiting all
manufacturing (including import),
processing, and distribution in
commerce of methylene chloride for
consumer use. After the publication
date of the final rule in the Federal
Register, prohibitions on
manufacturing, processing, and
distribution in commerce of methylene
chloride for consumer use will occur in
360 days for manufacturers, 450 days for
processers, 270 days for distributing to
retailers, and 360 days for all other
distributors and retailers.
EPA is also prohibiting manufacturing
(including import), processing,
distribution in commerce of methylene
chloride for commercial use, and all
commercial use of methylene chloride
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
other than those conditions of use for
which EPA is finalizing a WCPP or
providing a time-limited exemption
under TSCA section 6(g). The
prohibitions for these commercial uses
would become effective following
prohibitions relevant to these uses in
stages of the supply chain before the
industrial and commercial use (e.g.,
manufacturing and processing). The
restrictions follow a staggered schedule
for each stage of the supply chain.
Prohibitions come into effect in 360
days for manufacturers, 450 days for
processors, 270 days for distributing to
retailers, 630 days for all other
distributors and retailers, and 720 days
for industrial and commercial uses after
the publication date of the final rule.
EPA is finalizing a prohibition
compliance date delayed by five years
after the publication date of the final
rule for commercial use of methylene
chloride in furniture refinishing for
wood pieces of artistic, cultural, or
historic value where workshops can
meet a minimum standard of exposure
control. Additionally, EPA is finalizing
a delayed prohibition compliance date
of five years for industrial and
commercial use in adhesives and
sealants in aircraft, space vehicle, and
turbine applications for structural and
safety critical non-structural
applications after the publication date of
the final rule.
For other conditions of use that
contribute to the unreasonable risk from
methylene chloride, EPA is finalizing a
WCPP to address the unreasonable risk
as outlined in Unit IV.
A WCPP encompasses inhalation
exposure thresholds, includes
monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements to verify that those
thresholds are not exceeded, and other
components, such as dermal protection,
to ensure that the chemical substance no
longer presents unreasonable risk. In the
case of methylene chloride, meeting the
exposure thresholds finalized by EPA
for certain occupational conditions of
use would address unreasonable risk
driven by inhalation exposure from
those conditions of use for potentially
exposed persons.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
b. Classes of Small Entities Subject to
the Compliance Requirements
The small entities that would be
potentially directly regulated by this
rule are small businesses that
manufacture (including import),
process, distribute in commerce, use, or
dispose of methylene chloride,
including retailers of methylene
chloride for end-consumer uses.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
c. Professional Skills Needed To
Comply
Entities subject to this rule that
manufacture (including import),
process, or distribute methylene
chloride in commerce for consumer use
would be required to cease such
activity. The entity would be required to
modify their Safety Data Sheet to inform
their customers of the prohibition on
manufacture, processing, and
distribution of methylene chloride for
consumer use. They would also be
required to keep records of how much
methylene chloride they sold, and to
whom, and maintain a copy of the
method they use for notifying their
customers. None of these activities
require any special skills.
Entities that use methylene chloride
in any of the industrial and commercial
conditions of use that are prohibited
would be required to cease those
activities. Restriction or prohibition of
these uses will likely require the
implementation of an alternative
chemical or the cessation of use of
methylene chloride in a process or
equipment that may require persons
with specialized skills, such as
engineers or other technical experts.
Instead of developing an alternative
method themselves, commercial users of
methylene chloride may choose to
contract with another entity to do so.
Entities that are permitted to continue
to manufacture, process, distribute in
commerce, use, or dispose of methylene
chloride are required to implement a
WCPP and would have to meet the
provisions of the program for continued
use of methylene chloride. Adaption to
a WCPP may require persons with
specialized skills such as an engineer,
chemist, health and safety professional,
or laboratory technicians to process
monitoring samples. Instead of
implementing the WCPP themselves,
entities that use methylene chloride
may choose to contract with another
entity to do so. Records would have to
be maintained for compliance with a
WCPP. While this recording activity
itself may not require a special skill, the
airborne concentrations to be measured
and recorded may require persons with
specialized skills such as an industrial
hygienist or laboratory technician.
Additionally, potentially exposed
persons reasonably likely to be exposed
to methylene chloride by inhalation to
concentrations above the ECEL or EPA
STEL are required to be trained for the
proper use of respirators. While this
does not necessarily entail a specialized
skill, it does require specialized training
for those handling methylene chloride
within regulated areas and includes
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
39293
activity-specific training for proper PPE
use such as gloves. EPA’s respirator
provision, in alignment with OSHA
under 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(ii), also
requires medical qualification to employ
the use of respirators. While this is also
not a specialized skill, it is a specialized
pre-qualifier for use of respirators.
Refinishers of wood pieces of artistic,
cultural, or historic value using
methylene chloride may need to
exercise use of additional exposure
controls such as engineering,
administrative, and PPE/respirators.
Establishing adequate controls for this
use may require knowledgeable persons
with specialized skills or equipment
such as an engineer or a health and
safety professional. Instead of
developing the required exposure
mitigation methods themselves to
demonstrate compliance, commercial
users of methylene chloride for this use
may choose to contract with another
entity to do so.
6. Steps Taken To Minimize Economic
Impact to Small Entities
a. SBAR Panel
As required by section 609(b) of the
RFA, as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA), EPA conducted outreach to
small entities and convened a SBAR
Panel on November 4, 2020, to obtain
advice and recommendations of
representatives of the small entities that
potentially would be subject to the
rule’s requirements. The Panel solicited
input on all aspects of these proposed
regulations. Thirteen potentially
impacted small entities served as smallentity representatives (SERs) to the
Panel, representing a broad range of
small entities from diverse geographic
locations. The Panel Report was signed
on October 28, 2021.
Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA
requirements, the Panel evaluated the
assembled materials and small-entity
comments on issues related to elements
of the regulatory flexibility analysis. It is
important to note that the Panel’s
findings and discussion were based on
the information available at the time the
final report was prepared. For the full
list of Panel recommendations, see
section 8.A. of the FRFA (Ref.21).
EPA detailed the SBAR Panel’s
request for comment on these specific
topics in the IRFA and proposed rule
(88 FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL–8155–
02–OCSPP) and solicited comment from
the public. During the comment period,
the public provided comment on some
of these areas. Those comments and
others received on the proposed rule
and EPA’s responses are in the
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
39294
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Response to Comments document in the
docket (Ref. 7).
available on the EPA website prior to
the effective date of this final rule.
b. Alternatives Considered
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain an
unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C.
1531–1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The
action will affect entities that use
methylene chloride. It is not expected to
affect State, local, or Tribal governments
because the use of use of methylene
chloride by government entities is
minimal. This action is not expected to
result in expenditures by State, local,
and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100 million or more (when adjusted
annually for inflation) in any 1 year.
Accordingly, this action is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202, 203, or
205 of UMRA.
To identify the regulatory approach
that would address the unreasonable
risk from methylene chloride, EPA
analyzed alternative regulatory
approaches to identify which would be
feasible, reduce burden to small
businesses, and achieve the objective of
the statute (i.e., applying one or more
requirements list in TSCA section 6(a)
to the extent necessary so that the
chemical substance or mixture no longer
presents an unreasonable risk). As
described in more detail in Unit V. of
the proposed rule (88 FR 28284, May 3,
2023) (FRL–8155–02–OCSPP), and Unit
II.D. of the final rule, EPA considered
several factors, in addition to identified
unreasonable risk, when selecting
among possible TSCA section 6(a)
requirements. To the extent practicable,
EPA factored into its decisions: the
effects of methylene chloride on health
and the environment, the magnitude of
exposure to methylene chloride of
human beings and the environment, the
benefits of methylene chloride for
various uses, and the reasonably
ascertainable economic consequences of
the rule. As part of this analysis, EPA
considered a wide variety of control
measures to address the unreasonable
risk from methylene chloride such as
weight fractions, prescriptive controls,
and a certification and limited access
program. EPA’s consideration of these
alternative control measures is
described in detail in the IRFA for the
proposed rule, and throughout Unit
V.A.4. of the proposed rule.
Based on consideration of public
comments received on the proposed
rule, EPA has made some changes from
the proposed rule to the final rule.
These changes include the finalization
of additional conditions of use under
the WCPP, rather than prohibition, and
changes to timeframes for compliance
for the WCPP and for prohibitions.
Additional changes to the rule based on
consideration of public comments are
detailed in Unit III of the final rule and
include identification of a de minimis
threshold of methylene chloride in
formulations, and modifications to
provisions of the WCPP (including to
exposure monitoring requirements). For
additional information and rationale
towards alternative actions, see Unit
III.D. of this final rule and section 8.B.
of the FRFA (Ref. 21).
In addition, EPA is preparing a Small
Entity Compliance Guide to help small
entities comply with this rule. EPA
expects that this guide will be made
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
EPA has concluded that this action
has federalism implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), because regulation
under TSCA section 6(a) may preempt
state law. EPA provides the following
federalism summary impact statement.
The Agency consulted with state and
local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed action to
permit them to have meaningful and
timely input into its development. This
included a consultation meeting on
October 22, 2020, and a background
presentation on September 9, 2020. EPA
invited the following national
organizations representing State and
local elected officials to these meetings:
Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators, National Association of
Clean Water Agencies, Western States
Water Council, National Water
Resources Association, American Water
Works Association, Association of
Metropolitan Water Agencies,
Association of Clean Water
Administrators, Environmental Council
of the States, National Association of
Counties, National League of Cities,
County Executives of America, U.S.
Conference of Mayors, and National
Association of Attorneys General. A
summary of the meeting with these
organizations, including the views that
they expressed, is available in the
docket (Ref. 14). As discussed in Unit
VIII.E. and in the proposed rule, during
Federalism consultation meetings EPA
provided information on TSCA section
6 regulations and participants discussed
preemption as well as the relationship
between TSCA and existing statutes
such as the CWA and Safe Drinking
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Water Act (SDWA) (Ref. 14). EPA
provided an opportunity for these
organizations to provide follow-up
comments in writing but did not receive
any such comments.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have Tribal
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000) because it will not have
substantial direct effects on Tribal
governments, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
the Indian Tribes, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian
Tribes. Methylene chloride is not
manufactured, processed, or distributed
in commerce by Tribes and, therefore,
this rulemaking would not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
Tribal governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.
Notwithstanding the lack of Tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175, EPA consulted with Tribal
officials during the development of this
action, consistent with the EPA Policy
on Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribes, which EPA applies more
broadly than Executive Order 13175.
The Agency held a Tribal consultation
from October 7, 2020, to January 8,
2021, with meetings on November 12
and 13, 2020. Tribal officials were given
the opportunity to meaningfully interact
with EPA concerning the current status
of risk management. During the
consultation, EPA discussed risk
management under TSCA section 6(a),
findings from the 2020 Risk Evaluation
for Methylene Chloride, types of
information to inform risk management,
principles for transparency during risk
management, and types of information
EPA sought from Tribal officials (Ref.
15). EPA briefed Tribal officials on the
Agency’s risk management
considerations and Tribal officials
raised no related issues or concerns to
EPA during or in follow-up to those
meetings (Ref. 15). EPA received no
written comments as part of this
consultation.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) directs Federal agencies
to include an evaluation of the health
and safety effects of the planned
regulation on children in Federal health
and safety standards and explain why
the regulation is preferable to
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because EPA does not believe the
environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children as
reflected by the conclusions of the
methylene chloride risk evaluation (Ref.
1). EPA did not find that the adverse
health impacts for children and for men
and women of reproductive age was
disproportionate in comparison to other
populations. While there is some
evidence of an association between
methylene chloride and developmental
neurological effects, the literature
contains methodological limitations in
human studies and concentration
limitations in animal studies, and thus
reproductive/development effects were
not carried forward to dose-response.
However, EPA’s Policy on Children’s
health applies to this action.
Information on how the Policy was
applied is available under ‘‘Children’s
Environmental Health’’ in Unit II.D.2.c.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
This action is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under Executive Order
13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001)
because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy and has not
been designated by the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs as a significant energy action.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Pursuant to the NTTAA section 12(d),
15 U.S.C. 272, the Agency has
determined that this rulemaking
involves environmental monitoring or
measurement, specifically for
occupational inhalation exposures to
methylene chloride. Consistent with the
Agency’s Performance Based
Measurement System (PBMS), EPA has
decided not require the use of specific,
prescribed analytic methods. Rather, the
Agency will allow the use of any
method that meets the prescribed
performance criteria. The PBMS
approach is intended to be more flexible
and cost-effective for the regulated
community; it is also intended to
encourage innovation in analytical
technology and improved data quality.
EPA is not precluding the use of any
method, whether it constitutes a
voluntary consensus standard or not, as
long as it meets the performance criteria
specified.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
For this rulemaking, the key
consideration for the PBMS approach is
the ability to accurately detect and
measure airborne concentrations of
methylene chloride at the ECEL, the
ECEL action level, and the EPA STEL.
Some examples of methods which meet
the criteria are included in appendix A
of the ECEL memo (Ref. 93). EPA
recognizes that there may be voluntary
consensus standards that meet the
criteria (Ref. 109).
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations and Executive
Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation’s
Commitment to Environmental Justice
for All
EPA believes that the human health
and environmental conditions that exist
prior to this action do not result in or
have the potential to result in
disproportionate and adverse human
health or environmental effects on
communities with environmental justice
concerns in accordance with Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994) and Executive Order 14096 (88 FR
25251, April 26, 2023). As described
more fully in the Economic Analysis for
this rulemaking (Ref. 3), EPA conducted
an analysis to characterize the baseline
conditions faced by communities and
workers affected by the regulation to
identify the potential for
disproportionate impacts on
communities with EJ concerns using
information about the facilities,
workforce, and communities potentially
affected by the regulatory options under
current conditions, before the regulation
would go into effect. The analysis drew
on publicly available data provided by
EPA, U.S. Census Bureau, and Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), including data from TRI, EPA
Enforcement and Compliance History
Online (ECHO), National Air Toxics
Assessment (NATA), the American
Community Survey, and the Behavioral
Risk Factor Surveillance System. The
baseline characterization suggests that
workers in affected industries and
regions, as well as residents of nearby
communities, are not more likely to be
people of color than the general
population in affected states, although
this varied by use assessed.
Based on reasonably available
information, EPA believes that there are
not potential EJ concerns in
communities surrounding facilities
subject to this regulation (Ref. 3).
Therefore, EPA believes that this action
is likely to not result in new
disproportionate and adverse effects on
communities with EJ concerns. This
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
39295
regulatory action would apply
requirements to the extent necessary so
that methylene chloride no longer
presents an unreasonable risk. While
this regulatory action will address
unreasonable risks from methylene
chloride under the conditions of use as
required by TSCA section 6(a), EPA is
not able to quantify the distribution of
the change in risk for affected
populations due to data limitations that
prevented EPA from conducting a more
comprehensive analysis of such a
change.
EPA additionally identified and
addressed potential EJ concerns by
conducting outreach to advocates of
communities that might be subject to
disproportionate exposure to methylene
chloride.
On November 16 and 19, 2020, EPA
held public meetings as part of this
consultation. (Ref. 110). See also Unit
II.D. These meetings were held pursuant
to Executive Order 12898 and Executive
Order 14008, Tackling the Climate
Crisis at Home and Abroad (86 FR 7619,
February 1, 2021). EPA received three
written comments following the EJ
meetings, in addition to oral comments
provided during the consultations (Refs.
16, 17, 18). In general, commenters
supported strong regulation of
methylene chloride to protect lowerincome communities and workers.
Commenters supported strong outreach
to affected communities, encouraged
EPA to follow the hierarchy of controls,
favored prohibitions, and noted the
uncertainty of use—and in some cases
inadequacy—of PPE.
The information supporting this
Executive order review is contained in
Unit II.D., as well as in the Economic
Analysis (Refs. 3, 110). EPA’s
presentations, a summary of EPA’s
presentation and public comments
made, and fact sheets for the EJ
consultations related to this rulemaking
are available at https://www.epa.gov/
assessing-and-managing-chemicalsunder-tsca/environmental-justiceconsultations-methylene-chloride.
These materials are also available in the
public docket for this rulemaking.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA will submit
a rule report to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. This action meets
the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 751
Environmental protection, Chemicals,
Export notification, Hazardous
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
39296
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
substances, Import certification,
Reporting and recordkeeping.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
Therefore, for the reasons stated in the
preamble, 40 CFR chapter I is amended
to read as follows:
PART 751—REGULATION OF CERTAIN
CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES AND
MIXTURES UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT
1. The authority citation for part 751
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 15 U.S.C.
2625(l)(4).
2. Amend § 751.5 by adding in
alphabetical order the definitions for
‘‘Article’’, ‘‘Authorized person’’,
‘‘Owner or operator’’, ‘‘Potentially
exposed person’’, ‘‘Product’’, ‘‘Regulated
area’’, and ‘‘Retailer’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 751.5
Definitions.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
*
*
*
*
*
Article means a manufactured item:
(1) Which is formed to a specific
shape or design during manufacture;
(2) Which has end use function(s)
dependent in whole or in part upon its
shape or design during end use; and
(3) Which has either no change of
chemical composition during its end
use or only those changes of
composition which have no commercial
purpose separate from that of the article,
and that result from a chemical reaction
that occurs upon end use of other
chemical substances, mixtures, or
articles; except that fluids and particles
are not considered articles regardless of
shape or design.
Authorized person means any person
specifically authorized by the owner or
operator to enter, and whose duties
require the person to enter, a regulated
area.
*
*
*
*
*
Owner or operator means any person
who owns, leases, operates, controls, or
supervises a workplace covered by this
part.
*
*
*
*
*
Potentially exposed person means any
person who may be exposed to a
chemical substance or mixture in a
workplace as a result of a condition of
use of that chemical substance or
mixture.
Product means the chemical
substance, a mixture containing the
chemical substance, or any object that
contains the chemical substance or
mixture containing the chemical
substance that is not an article.
Regulated area means an area
established by the regulated entity to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
demarcate areas where airborne
concentrations of a specific chemical
substance exceed, or there is a
reasonable possibility they may exceed,
the applicable Existing Chemical
Exposure Limit (ECEL) or the EPA Short
Term Exposure Limit (EPA STEL).
Retailer means a person who
distributes in commerce or makes
available a chemical substance or
mixture to consumer end users,
including e-commerce internet sales or
distribution. Any distributor with at
least one consumer end user customer is
considered a retailer. A person who
distributes in commerce or makes
available a chemical substance or
mixture solely to commercial or
industrial end users or solely to
commercial or industrial businesses is
not considered a retailer.
■ 3. Revise § 751.101 to read as follows:
§ 751.101
General.
(a) Applicability. This subpart sets
certain restrictions on the manufacture
(including import), processing,
distribution in commerce, use, and
disposal of methylene chloride (CASRN
75–09–2) to prevent unreasonable risks
of injury to health.
(b) De minimis threshold. Unless
otherwise specified in this subpart, the
prohibitions and restrictions of this
subpart do not apply to products
containing methylene chloride at
thresholds less than 0.1 percent by
weight. This provision does not apply to
§ 751.105.
■ 4. Amend § 751.103 by:
■ a. Revising the definition of
‘‘Distribution in commerce’’; and
■ b. Adding in alphabetical order
definitions for ‘‘ECEL’’, ‘‘ECEL action
level’’, and ‘‘EPA STEL’’.
The revision and additions read as
follows:
§ 751.103
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Distribution in commerce has the
same meaning as in section 3 of the Act,
except that the term does not include
retailers for purposes of §§ 751.111 and
751.113.
ECEL is an Existing Chemical
Exposure Limit, and means an airborne
concentration calculated as an eight (8)hour time-weighted average (TWA).
ECEL action level means a
concentration of airborne methylene
chloride of 1 part per million (1 ppm)
calculated as an 8-hour time weighted
average (TWA).
EPA STEL is a Short Term Exposure
Limit, which is an EPA regulatory limit
on workplace exposure to an airborne
concentration of a chemical substance,
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
based on an exposure of less than eight
hours.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. Amend § 751.105 by revising the
section heading to read as follows:
§ 751.105 Prohibition of manufacturing
(including import), processing, and
distribution in commerce related to
consumer paint and coating removal.
§ 751.107
[Redesignated as § 751.111]
6. Redesignate § 751.107 as § 751.111.
■ 7. Add new § 751.107 to read as
follows:
■
§ 751.107 Other prohibitions of
manufacturing (including import),
processing, distribution in commerce, and
use.
(a) Applicability. (1) This section
applies to all manufacturing (including
import), processing, and distribution in
commerce of methylene chloride for
consumer use other than for the paint
and coating removal use addressed
under § 751.105.
(2) This section applies to:
(i) All manufacturing (including
import), processing, and distribution in
commerce of methylene chloride for
industrial or commercial use, other than
for the conditions of use addressed
under § 751.109(a); and
(ii) All commercial or industrial use
of methylene chloride, other than the
conditions of use addressed under
§ 751.109(a).
(3) This section does not apply to
manufacturing, processing, or
distribution in commerce of methylene
chloride solely for export that meets the
conditions described in TSCA section
12(a)(1)(A) and (B).
(b) Prohibitions. (1) After February 3,
2025, all persons are prohibited from
distributing in commerce (including
making available) methylene chloride,
including any methylene chloridecontaining products, to retailers for any
use.
(2) After May 5, 2025, all retailers are
prohibited from distributing in
commerce (including making available)
methylene chloride, including any
methylene chloride-containing
products, for any use.
(3) After May 5, 2025, all persons are
prohibited from manufacturing
(including import) methylene chloride,
for the uses listed in paragraphs (a)(1)
and (2) of this section except for those
uses specified in paragraphs (b)(7)
through (9) of this section.
(4) After August 1, 2025, all persons
are prohibited from processing
methylene chloride, including any
methylene chloride-containing
products, for the uses listed in
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section
except for those uses specified in
paragraphs (b)(7) through (9) of this
section.
(5) After January 28, 2026, all persons
are prohibited from distributing in
commerce (including making available)
methylene chloride, including any
methylene chloride-containing
products, for any use described in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section
except for those uses specified in
paragraphs (b)(7) through (9) of this
section.
(6) After April 28, 2026, all persons
are prohibited from industrial or
commercial use of methylene chloride,
including any methylene chloride
containing products, for the uses listed
in paragraph (a)(2) of this section except
for those uses specified in paragraphs
(b)(7) through (9) of this section.
(7) After May 8, 2034, all persons are
prohibited from manufacturing
(including import), processing,
distribution in commerce, or use of
methylene chloride, including any
methylene chloride containing
products, for industrial or commercial
use in an emergency by the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
or its contractors as described in
§ 751.115(b).
(8) After May 8, 2029, all persons are
prohibited from manufacturing
(including import), processing,
distribution in commerce, or use of
methylene chloride, including any
methylene chloride containing
products, for industrial or commercial
use for paint and coating removal for
refinishing of wooden furniture,
decorative pieces and architectural
fixtures of artistic, cultural, or historic
significance, with interim requirements
as described in § 751.117.
(9) After May 8, 2029, all persons are
prohibited from manufacturing
(including import), processing,
distribution in commerce, or use of
methylene chloride, including any
methylene chloride-containing
products, for industrial or commercial
use for adhesives and sealants in
aircraft, space vehicle, and turbine
applications for structural and safety
critical non-structural applications.
§ 751.109
[Redesignated as § 751.113]
8. Redesignate § 751.109 as § 751.113.
■ 9. Add new § 751.109 to read as
follows:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
■
§ 751.109
Program.
Workplace Chemical Protection
(a) Applicability. The provisions of
this section apply to the following
conditions of use of methylene chloride,
including manufacturing and processing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
for export, except to the extent the
conditions of use are prohibited by
§§ 751.105 and 751.107:
(1) Manufacturing (domestic
manufacture);
(2) Manufacturing (import);
(3) Processing: as a reactant;
(4) Processing: incorporation into a
formulation, mixture, or reaction
product;
(5) Processing: repackaging;
(6) Processing: recycling;
(7) Industrial and commercial use as
a laboratory chemical;
(8) Industrial or commercial use for
paint and coating removal from safetycritical, corrosion-sensitive components
of aircraft and spacecraft;
(9) Industrial or commercial use as a
bonding agent for solvent welding;
(10) Industrial and commercial use as
a processing aid;
(11) Industrial and commercial use for
plastic and rubber products
manufacturing;
(12) Industrial and commercial use as
a solvent that becomes part of a
formulation or mixture, where that
formulation or mixture will be used
inside a manufacturing process, and the
solvent (methylene chloride) will be
reclaimed; and
(13) Disposal.
(b) Relationship to other regulations.
For purposes of this section:
(1) Any provisions applying to
‘‘employee’’ in 29 CFR 1910.132,
1910.134, and 1910.1052 also apply
equally to potentially exposed persons;
and
(2) Any provisions applying to
‘‘employer’’ in 29 CFR 1910.132,
1910.134, and 1910.1052 also apply
equally to any owner or operator for the
regulated area.
(c) Exposure limits—(1) ECEL. The
owner or operator must ensure that no
person is exposed to an airborne
concentration of methylene chloride in
excess of 2 parts of methylene chloride
per million parts of air (2 ppm) as an 8hour TWA after February 8, 2027 for
Federal agencies and Federal
contractors acting for or on behalf of the
Federal Government, August 1, 2025 for
other owners and operators, or
beginning 4 months after introduction of
methylene chloride into the workplace
if methylene chloride use commences
after May 5, 2025, consistent with
paragraphs (d) through (f) of this
section.
(2) EPA STEL. The owner or operator
must ensure that no person is exposed
to an airborne concentration of
methylene chloride in excess of 16 parts
of methylene chloride per million parts
of air (16 ppm) as determined over a
sampling period of 15 minutes after
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
39297
February 8, 2027 for Federal agencies
and Federal contractors acting for or on
behalf of the Federal Government,
August 1, 2025 for other owners and
operators, or beginning 4 months after
introduction of methylene chloride into
the workplace if methylene chloride use
commences after May 5, 2025,
consistent with paragraphs (d) through
(f) of this section.
(3) Regulated areas. The owner or
operator must:
(i) Establish and maintain regulated
areas in accordance with 29 CFR
1910.1052(e)(2) and (4) through (7) by
February 8, 2027 for Federal agencies
and Federal contractors acting for or on
behalf of the Federal Government,
August 1, 2025 for other owners and
operators, or within 3 months after
receipt of the results of any monitoring
data consistent with paragraph (d) of
this section.
(ii) Establish a regulated area
wherever a potentially exposed person’s
exposure to airborne concentrations of
methylene chloride exceeds or can
reasonably be expected to exceed either
the ECEL or EPA STEL.
(iii) Demarcate regulated areas from
the rest of the workplace in any manner
that adequately establishes and alerts
potentially exposed persons to the
boundaries of the area and minimizes
the number of authorized persons
exposed to methylene chloride within
the regulated area.
(iv) Restrict access to the regulated
area by any potentially exposed person
who lacks proper training, personal
protective equipment, or is otherwise
unauthorized to enter.
(d) Exposure monitoring—(1) In
general—(i) Characterization of
exposures. Owners or operators must
determine each potentially exposed
person’s exposure, without regard to
respiratory protection, by either:
(A) Taking a personal breathing zone
air sample of each potentially exposed
person’s exposure; or
(B) Taking personal breathing zone air
samples that are representative of each
potentially exposed person’s exposure.
(ii) Representative samples. Owners
or operators are permitted to consider
personal breathing zone air samples to
be representative of each potentially
exposed person’s exposure, without
regard to respiratory protection, when
they are taken as follows:
(A) ECEL. The owner or operator has
taken one or more personal breathing
zone air samples for at least one
potentially exposed person in each job
classification in a work area during
every work shift, and the person
sampled is expected to have the highest
methylene chloride exposure.
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
39298
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
(B) EPA STEL. The owner or operator
has taken one or more personal
breathing zone air samples which
indicate the highest likely 15-minute
exposures during such operations for at
least one potentially exposed person in
each job classification in the work area
during every work shift, and the person
sampled is expected to have the highest
methylene chloride exposure.
(C) Exception. Personal breathing
zone air samples taken during one work
shift may be used to represent
potentially exposed person exposures
on other work shifts where the owner or
operator can document that the tasks
performed and conditions in the
workplace are similar across shifts.
(iii) Accuracy of monitoring. Owners
or operators must ensure that the
methods used to perform exposure
monitoring produce results that are
accurate to a confidence level of 95%,
and are:
(A) Within plus or minus 25% for
airborne concentrations of methylene
chloride above the ECEL or the EPA
STEL; or
(B) Within plus or minus 35% for
airborne concentrations of methylene
chloride at or above the ECEL action
level but at or below the ECEL.
(iv) Currency of monitoring data.
Owners or operators are not permitted
to rely on monitoring data that is more
than 5 years old to demonstrate
compliance with initial or periodic
monitoring requirements for either the
ECEL or the EPA STEL.
(2) Initial monitoring. By November 9,
2026 for Federal agencies and Federal
contractors acting for or on behalf of the
Federal Government, by May 5, 2025 for
other owners and operators, or within
30 days of introduction of methylene
chloride into the workplace, whichever
is later, each owner or operator covered
by this section must perform an initial
exposure monitoring to determine each
potentially exposed person’s exposure,
unless:
(i) An owner or operator has objective
data generated within the last 5 years
prior to May 8, 2024 that demonstrates
to EPA that methylene chloride cannot
be released in the workplace in airborne
concentrations at or above the ECEL
action level (1-ppm 8-hour TWA) or
above the EPA STEL (16 ppm 15-minute
TWA) and that the data represents the
highest methylene chloride exposures
likely to occur under conditions of use
described in paragraph (a) of this
section; or
(ii) Where potentially exposed
persons are exposed to methylene
chloride for fewer than 30 days per year,
and the owner or operator has
measurements by direct-metering
devices which give immediate results
and which provide sufficient
information regarding exposures to
determine and implement the control
measures that are necessary to reduce
exposures to below the ECEL action
level and EPA STEL.
(3) Periodic monitoring. The owner or
operator must establish an exposure
monitoring program for periodic
monitoring of exposure to methylene
chloride in accordance with table 1.
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (d)(3)—PERIODIC MONITORING REQUIREMENTS BASED ON INITIAL EXPOSURE MONITORING
RESULTS
Air concentration condition observed during
initial exposure monitoring
Periodic monitoring requirement
If the initial exposure monitoring concentration is below the ECEL action level and at or below the EPA STEL.
If the initial exposure monitoring concentration is below the ECEL action level and above the EPA STEL.
If the initial exposure monitoring concentration is at or above the ECEL
action level and at or below the ECEL; and at or below the EPA
STEL.
If the initial exposure monitoring concentration is at or above the ECEL
action level and at or below the ECEL; and above the EPA STEL.
If the initial exposure monitoring concentration is above the ECEL and
below, at, or above the EPA STEL.
If 2 consecutive monitoring events have taken place at least 7 days
apart that indicate that potential exposure has decreased from above
the ECEL to at or below the ECEL, but at or above the ECEL action
level.
If 2 consecutive monitoring events have taken place at least 7 days
apart that indicate that potential exposure has decreased to below
the ECEL action level and at or below the EPA STEL.
If the owner or operator engages in any conditions of use described in
paragraph (a) of this section and is required to monitor either the
ECEL or EPA STEL in a 3-month interval, but does not engage in
any of those uses for the entirety of the 3-month interval.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
Owner or operator engages in any conditions of use described in paragraph (a) of this section and is required to monitor the ECEL in a 6month interval, but does not engage in any of those uses for the entirety of the 6-month interval.
(4) Additional monitoring. The owner
or operator must conduct the exposure
monitoring required by paragraph (d)(2)
of this section within 30 days after any
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
ECEL and EPA STEL periodic monitoring at least once in every 5
years.
ECEL periodic required at least once every 5 years, and EPA STEL
periodic monitoring required every 3 months.
ECEL periodic monitoring every 6 months.
ECEL periodic monitoring every 6 months and EPA STEL periodic
monitoring every 3 months.
ECEL periodic monitoring every 3 months and EPA STEL periodic
monitoring every 3 months.
Transition from ECEL periodic monitoring frequency from every 3
months to every 6 months.
Transition from ECEL periodic monitoring frequency from every 6
months to once every 5 years. The second consecutive monitoring
event will delineate the new date from which the next 5-year periodic
exposure monitoring must occur.
The owner or operator may forgo the upcoming periodic monitoring
event. However, documentation of cessation of use of methylene
chloride must be maintained, and initial monitoring is required when
the owner or operator resumes or starts any of the conditions of use
described in paragraph (a) of this section.
The owner or operator may forgo the upcoming periodic monitoring
event. However, documentation of cessation of the condition(s) of
use must be maintained until periodic monitoring resumes, and initial
monitoring is required when the owner or operator resumes or starts
any of the conditions of use described in paragraph (a) of this section.
change that may reasonably be expected
to introduce additional sources of
exposure to methylene chloride, or
otherwise result in increased exposure
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
to methylene chloride compared to the
most recent monitoring event. Examples
of situations that may require additional
monitoring include changes in
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
production, process, control equipment,
or work practices, or a leak, rupture, or
other breakdown.
(5) Notification of monitoring results.
(i) The owner or operator must inform
potentially exposed persons of
monitoring results within 15 working
days.
(ii) This notification must include the
following:
(A) Exposure monitoring results;
(B) Identification and explanation of
the ECEL, ECEL Action Level, and EPA
STEL;
(C) Whether the airborne
concentration of methylene chloride
exceeds the ECEL action level, ECEL or
the EPA STEL;
(D) If the ECEL or EPA STEL is
exceeded, descriptions of actions taken
by the owner or operator to reduce
exposure in accordance with paragraph
(e)(1)((i) of this section;
(E) Explanation of any required
respiratory protection provided in
accordance with as paragraphs (e)(1)(ii)
and (f) of this section;
(F) Quantity of methylene chloride in
use at the time of monitoring;
(G) Location of methylene chloride
use at the time of monitoring;
(H) Manner of methylene chloride use
at the time of monitoring; and
(I) Identified releases of methylene
chloride.
(iii) Notice must be provided in plain
language writing, in a language that the
person understands, to each potentially
exposed person or posted in an
appropriate and accessible location
outside the regulated area with an
English-language version and a nonEnglish language version representing
the language of the largest group of
workers who do not read English.
(6) Observation of monitoring. (i) The
owner or operator must provide affected
potentially exposed persons an
opportunity to observe exposure
monitoring conducted in accordance
with this paragraph (d) that is
representative of the potentially
exposed person’s exposure.
(ii) The owner or operator must
ensure that potentially exposed persons
are provided with personal protective
equipment appropriate for the
observation of monitoring.
(e) ECEL control procedures and
plan—(1) Methods of compliance. (i) By
May 10, 2027 for Federal agencies and
Federal contractors acting for or on
behalf of the Federal Government, or by
October 30, 2025 for other owners and
operators, the owner or operator must
institute one or a combination of
elimination, substitution, engineering
controls, work practices, or
administrative controls to reduce
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
exposure to or below the ECEL and EPA
STEL except to the extent that the
owner or operator can demonstrate that
such controls are not feasible.
(ii) If the feasible controls, required by
paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section that
can be instituted do not reduce
exposures for potentially exposed
persons to or below the ECEL or EPA
STEL, then the owner or operator must
use such controls to reduce exposure to
the lowest levels achievable by these
controls and must supplement those
controls with the use of respiratory
protection that complies with the
requirements of paragraph (f) of this
section to reduce exposures to or below
the ECEL or EPA STEL.
(iii) Where an owner or operator
cannot demonstrate exposure below the
ECEL, including through the use of all
feasible engineering controls, work
practices, or administrative controls as
described in paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this
section, and, has not demonstrated that
it has appropriately supplemented with
respiratory protection that complies
with the requirements of paragraphs
(e)(1)(ii) and (f) of this section, this will
constitute a failure to comply with the
ECEL.
(iv) For the Department of Defense
and Federal contractors acting for or on
behalf of the Department of Defense, in
the event that ongoing or planned
construction is necessary to implement
the feasible controls required by
paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section such
that no one is exposed above the ECEL
or EPA STEL, the deadlines in
paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section are
extended to May 7, 2029. Ongoing or
planned construction efforts to address
exposures above the ECEL and EPA
STEL must be documented in the
exposure control plan required by
paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
(2) Exposure control plan. By May 10,
2027 for Federal agencies and Federal
contractors acting for or on behalf of the
Federal Government, or by October 30,
2025 for other owners and operators, the
owner or operator must develop and
implement an exposure control plan.
(i) Exposure control plan contents.
The exposure control plan must include
documentation of the following:
(A) Identification of exposure controls
that were considered, including those
that were used or not used to meet the
requirements of paragraph (e)(1)(i) of
this section, in the following sequence—
elimination, substitution, engineering
controls, and work practices and
administrative controls;
(B) For each exposure control
considered, a rationale for why the
exposure control was selected or not
selected based on feasibility,
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
39299
effectiveness, and other relevant
considerations;
(C) A description of actions the owner
or operator must take to implement the
exposure controls selected, including
proper installation, regular inspections,
maintenance, training, or other actions;
(D) A description of regulated areas,
how they are demarcated, and persons
authorized to enter the regulated areas;
(E) A description of activities
conducted by the owner or operator to
review and update the exposure control
plan to ensure effectiveness of the
exposure controls, identify any
necessary updates to the exposure
controls, and confirm that all persons
are properly implementing the exposure
controls; and
(F) An explanation of the procedures
for responding to any change that may
reasonably be expected to introduce
additional sources of exposure to
methylene chloride, or otherwise result
in increased exposure to methylene
chloride, including procedures for
implementing corrective actions to
mitigate exposure to methylene
chloride.
(ii) Exposure control plan
requirements. (A) The owner or operator
must not implement a schedule of
personnel rotation as a means of
compliance with the ECEL.
(B) The owner or operator must
maintain the effectiveness of any
controls, instituted under paragraph (e)
of this section.
(C) The exposure control plan must be
reviewed and updated as necessary, but
at least every 5 years, to reflect any
significant changes in the status of the
owner or operator’s approach to
compliance with paragraphs (c) through
(e) of this section.
(iii) Availability of exposure control
plan. (A) Owners or operators must
make the exposure control plan and
associated records, including exposure
monitoring, respiratory protection
program implementation, and dermal
protection program implementation
records, available to potentially exposed
persons.
(B) Owners or operators must notify
potentially exposed persons of the
availability of the plan and associated
records within 30 days of the date that
the exposure control plan is completed
and at least annually thereafter. The
notification must be provided in
accordance with the requirements of
paragraph (d)(5)(iii) of this section.
(C) Upon request by the potentially
exposed person, the owner or operator
must provide the specified records at a
reasonable time, place, and manner. If
the owner or operator is unable to
provide the requested records within 15
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
39300
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
days, the owner or operator must,
within those 15 days, inform the
potentially exposed person requesting
the record(s) of the reason for the delay
and the earliest date when the record
can be made available.
(3) Respirator requirements. The
owner or operator must supply a
respirator, selected in accordance with
paragraph (f) of this section, to each
potentially exposed person who enters a
regulated area and must ensure each
potentially exposed person uses that
respirator whenever methylene chloride
exposures may exceed the ECEL or EPA
STEL.
(f) Respiratory protection—(1)
Respirator conditions. After February 8,
2027 for Federal agencies and Federal
contractors acting for or on behalf of the
Federal Government, after August 1,
2025 for other owners and operators, or
within 3 months after receipt of the
results of any exposure monitoring as
described in paragraph (d) of this
section, owners or operators must
provide respiratory protection to all
potentially exposed persons in the
regulated area as outlined in paragraph
(c)(3) of this section, and according to
the provisions outlined in 29 CFR
1910.134(a) through (l) (except 29 CFR
1910.134(d)(1)(iii)) and as specified in
this paragraph (f) for potentially
exposed persons exposed to methylene
chloride in concentrations above the
ECEL or the EPA STEL. For the purpose
of this paragraph (f), the maximum use
concentration (MUC) as used in 29 CFR
1910.134 must be calculated by
multiplying the assigned protection
factor (APF) specified for a respirator by
the ECEL or EPA STEL.
(2) Respirator selection criteria. The
type of respiratory protection that
regulated entities must select and
provide to potentially exposed persons
in accordance with 29 CFR
1910.1052(g)(3)(i), is directly related to
the monitoring results, as follows:
(i) If the measured exposure
concentration is at or below the ECEL or
EPA STEL: no respiratory protection is
required.
(ii) If the measured exposure
concentration is above 2 ppm and less
than or equal to 50 ppm: the respirator
protection required is any NIOSH
Approved® supplied-air respirator
(SAR) or airline respirator in a
continuous-flow mode equipped with a
loose-fitting facepiece or helmet/hood
(APF 25).
(iii) If the measured exposure
concentration is above 50 ppm and less
than or equal to 100 ppm the respirator
protection required is:
(A) Any NIOSH Approved® SuppliedAir Respirator (SAR) or airline
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
respirator in a demand mode equipped
with a full facepiece (APF 50); or
(B) Any NIOSH Approved® SelfContained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA)
in demand-mode equipped with a full
facepiece or helmet/hood (APF 50).
(iv) If the measured exposure
concentration is unknown or at any
value above 100 ppm and up to 2,000
ppm the respirator protection required
is:
(A) Any NIOSH Approved® SuppliedAir Respirator (SAR) or airline
respirator in a continuous-flow mode
equipped with a full facepiece or
certified helmet/hood that has been
tested to demonstrate performance at a
level of a protection of APF 1,000 or
greater. (APF 1,000); or
(B) Any NIOSH Approved® SuppliedAir Respirator (SAR) or airline
respirator in pressure-demand or other
positive-pressure mode equipped with a
full facepiece and an auxiliary selfcontained air supply (APF 1,000); or
(C) Any NIOSH Approved® SelfContained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA)
in a pressure-demand or other positivepressure mode equipped with a full
facepiece or certified helmet/hood (APF
10,000).
(3) Minimal respiratory protection.
Requirements outlined in paragraph
(e)(2) of this section represent the
minimum respiratory protection
requirements, such that any respirator
affording a higher degree of protection
than the required respirator may be
used.
(g) Dermal protection. (1) After
February 8, 2027 for Federal agencies
and Federal contractors acting for or on
behalf of the Federal Government, or
after August 1, 2025 for other owners
and operators, owners or operators must
require the donning of gloves that are
chemically resistant to methylene
chloride with activity-specific training
where dermal contact with methylene
chloride is possible, after application of
the requirements in paragraph (e) of this
section, in accordance with the NIOSH
hierarchy of controls.
(2) Owners or operators must
minimize and protect potentially
exposed persons from dermal exposure
in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1052(h)
and (i).
(h) Training. Owners or operators
must provide training in accordance
with 29 CFR 1910.1052(l)(1) through (6)
to potentially exposed persons prior to
or at the time of initial assignment to a
job involving potential exposure to
methylene chloride. In addition, if
respiratory protection or PPE must be
worn within a regulated area, owners or
operators must provide training in
accordance with 29 CFR 1910.132(f) to
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
potentially exposed persons within that
regulated area.
■ 10. Revise newly redesignated
§ 751.111 to read as follows:
§ 751.111
Downstream notification.
(a) After August 26, 2019, and before
October 7, 2024, each person who
manufactures (including imports), and
before December 4, 2024 processes or
distributes in commerce methylene
chloride for any use must, prior to or
concurrent with the shipment, notify
companies to whom methylene chloride
is shipped, in writing, of the restrictions
described in § 751.105. Notification
must occur by inserting the following
text in section 1(c) and section 15 of the
SDS provided with the methylene
chloride or with any methylene
chloride-containing product:
This chemical/product is not and cannot
be distributed in commerce (as defined in
TSCA section 3(5)) or processed (as defined
in TSCA section 3(13)) for consumer paint or
coating removal.
(b) Beginning on October 7, 2024,
each person who manufactures
(including import) methylene chloride
for any use must, prior to or concurrent
with the shipment, notify companies to
whom methylene chloride is shipped, in
writing, of the restrictions described in
this subpart in accordance with
paragraph (d) of this section.
(c) Beginning on December 4, 2024,
each person who processes or
distributes in commerce methylene
chloride or methylene chloridecontaining products for any use must,
prior to or concurrent with the
shipment, notify companies to whom
methylene chloride is shipped, in
writing, of the restrictions described in
this subpart in accordance with
paragraph (d) of this section.
(d) The notification required under
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section
must occur by inserting the following
text in section 1(c) and section 15 of the
SDS provided with the methylene
chloride or with any methylene
chloride-containing product:
After February 3, 2025, this chemical
substance (as defined in TSCA section 3(2))/
product cannot be distributed in commerce
to retailers. After January 28, 2026, this
chemical substance (as defined in TSCA
section 3(2))/product is and can only be
distributed in commerce or processed with a
concentration of methylene chloride equal to
or greater than 0.1% by weight for the
following purposes: (1) Processing as a
reactant; (2) Processing for incorporation into
a formulation, mixture, or reaction product;
(3) Processing for repackaging; (4) Processing
for recycling; (5) Industrial or commercial
use as a laboratory chemical; (6) Industrial or
commercial use as a bonding agent for
solvent welding; (7) Industrial and
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
commercial use as a paint and coating
remover from safety critical, corrosionsensitive components of aircraft and
spacecraft; (8) Industrial and commercial use
as a processing aid; (9) Industrial and
commercial use for plastic and rubber
products manufacturing; (10) Industrial and
commercial use as a solvent that becomes
part of a formulation or mixture, where that
formulation or mixture will be used inside a
manufacturing process, and the solvent
(methylene chloride) will be reclaimed; (11)
Industrial and commercial use in the
refinishing for wooden furniture, decorative
pieces, and architectural fixtures of artistic,
cultural or historic value until May 8, 2029;
(12) Industrial and commercial use in
adhesives and sealants in aircraft, space
vehicle, and turbine applications for
structural and safety critical non-structural
applications until May 8, 2029; (13) Disposal;
and (14) Export.
11. Revise newly redesignated
§ 751.113 to read as follows:
■
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
§ 751.113
Recordkeeping requirements.
(a) General records. Each person who
manufactures (including imports),
processes, or distributes in commerce
any methylene chloride after August 26,
2019, must retain in one location at the
headquarters of the company, or at the
facility for which the records were
generated beginning July 8, 2024,
documentation showing:
(1) The name, address, contact, and
telephone number of companies to
whom methylene chloride was shipped;
(2) A copy of the notification
provided under § 751.111; and
(3) The amount of methylene chloride
shipped.
(b) Exposure control records. Owners
or operators must retain records of:
(1) The exposure control plan as
described in § 751.109(e)(2);
(2) Implementation of the exposure
control plan described in
§ 751.109(e)(2), including:
(i) Any regular inspections,
evaluations, and updating of the
exposure controls to maintain
effectiveness; and
(ii) Confirmation that all persons are
properly implementing the exposure
controls.
(3) Personal protective equipment
(PPE) and respiratory protection used by
potentially exposed persons and
program implementation, including fittesting, pursuant to § 751.109(f) and (g);
(4) Information and training provided
pursuant to § 751.109(h); and
(5) Occurrence and duration of any
start-up, shutdown, or malfunction of
exposure controls or of facility
equipment that causes air
concentrations to be above the ECEL or
EPA STEL and subsequent corrective
actions taken during start-up, shutdown,
or malfunctions to mitigate exposures to
methylene chloride.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
(c) Objective data. Objective data
generated during the previous 5 years,
when used to forgo the initial exposure
monitoring, must include:
(1) The use of methylene chloride
being evaluated;
(2) The source of objective data;
(3) The measurement methods,
measurement results, and measurement
analysis of the use of methylene
chloride; and
(4) Any other relevant data to the
operations, processes, or person’s
exposure.
(d) Exposure monitoring records. (1)
Owners or operators are required to
retain monitoring records that include,
at minimum, the information described
at 29 CFR 1910.1052(m)(2)(ii)(A)
through (F). For the purposes of this
paragraph (d)(1), cross-referenced
provisions in 29 CFR
1910.1052(m)(2)(ii) applying to an
‘‘employee’’ apply equally to potentially
exposed persons and cross-referenced
provisions applying to an ‘‘employer’’
also apply equally to owners or
operators.
(2) For each monitoring event of
methylene chloride required under this
subpart, owners or operators must also
document the following:
(i) All measurements that may be
necessary to determine the conditions
that may affect the monitoring results;
(ii) The identity of all other
potentially exposed persons whose
exposure was not measured and whose
exposure is intended to be represented
by the area or representative sampling
monitoring;
(iii) Use of established analytical
methods;
(iv) Compliance with the Good
Laboratory Practice Standards in
accordance with 40 CFR part 792 or use
of a laboratory accredited by the AIHA
or another industry-recognized program;
and
(v) Information regarding air
monitoring equipment including: Type,
maintenance, calibrations, performance
tests, limits of detection, and any
malfunctions.
(3) Owners or operators must
maintain copies of exposure monitoring
notifications provided pursuant to
§ 751.109(d)(5).
(e) Availability of exposure control
plans. Owners or operators must
document the notice to and ability of
any potentially exposed persons to
access the exposure control plan and
other associated records in accordance
with § 751.109(e)(2)(iii).
(f) Records related to exemptions. To
maintain eligibility for an exemption
described in § 751.115, the records
maintained by the owners or operators
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
39301
must demonstrate compliance with the
specific conditions of the exemption.
(g) Records related to the refinishing
of wooden furniture, decorative pieces,
and architectural fixtures. (1) Owners
and operators of workplaces engaged in
the industrial or commercial use of
methylene chloride for the refinishing of
wooden furniture, decorative pieces,
and architectural fixtures of artistic,
cultural, or historic value must
document each instance of refinishing
such pieces.
(2) The documentation required by
paragraph (g)(1) of this section must
include:
(i) The date of the refinishing activity;
(ii) A description of the wooden piece
that was refinished and an explanation
of its artistic, cultural, or historic value;
(iii) The name of the owner of the
refinished wooden piece;
(iv) The name of the individual(s) that
refinished the wooden piece;
(v) A description of the methylene
chloride product used and the quantity
of the product used to perform the
refinishing; and
(vi) Records demonstrating
compliance with the requirements of
§ 751.117.
(h) Minimum record retention period.
The records required under this section
must be retained for at least 5 years from
the date that such records were
generated.
■ 12. Add § 751.115 to read as follows:
§ 751.115
Exemptions.
(a) In general. (1) Time-limited
exemptions described in this section are
established in accordance with 15
U.S.C. 2605(g)(1).
(2) To be eligible for the exemptions
established in this section, regulated
parties must comply with all conditions
promulgated in this section for such
exemptions in accordance with 15
U.S.C. 2605(g)(4).
(b) Exemption for emergency use by
the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. Under 15 U.S.C.
2605(g)(1)(A), the use of methylene
chloride or methylene chloridecontaining products in an emergency by
the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration and its contractors
operating within the scope of their
contracted work for the conditions of
use identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section is exempt from the requirements
of § 751.107(b)(3) through (6) until May
8, 2034.
(1) Applicability. This exemption
shall apply to the following specific
conditions of use:
(i) Industrial and commercial use as
solvent for cold cleaning;
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
39302
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES5
(ii) Industrial and commercial use as
a solvent for aerosol spray degreaser/
cleaner;
(iii) Industrial and commercial use in
adhesives, sealants, and caulks;
(iv) Industrial and commercial use in
adhesive and caulk removers;
(v) Industrial and commercial use in
metal non-aerosol degreasers;
(vi) Industrial and commercial use in
non-aerosol degreasers and cleaners;
and
(vii) Industrial and commercial use as
solvent that becomes part of a
formulation or mixture.
(2) Emergency use. (i) In general. An
emergency is a serious and sudden
situation requiring immediate action,
within 15 days or less, necessary to
protect:
(A) Safety of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration’s or their
contractors’ personnel;
(B) The National Aeronautics and
Space Administration’s missions;
(C) Human health, safety, or property,
including that of adjacent communities;
or
(D) The environment.
(ii) Duration. Each emergency is a
separate situation; if use of methylene
chloride exceeds 15 days, then
justification must be documented.
(3) Eligibility. To be eligible for the
exemption, the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration and its
contractors must:
(i) Select methylene chloride because
there are no technically and
economically feasible safer alternatives
available during the emergency.
(ii) Perform the emergency use of
methylene chloride at locations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 May 07, 2024
Jkt 262001
controlled by the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration or its
contractors.
(iii) Comply with the following
conditions:
(A) Notification. Within 15 working
days of the emergency use by the
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration or its contractors, the
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration and its contractors must
provide notice to the EPA Assistant
Administrators of both the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
and the Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention that includes the
following:
(1) Identification of the condition of
use detailed in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section to which the emergency use
applies;
(2) An explanation for why the
emergency use met the definition of
emergency in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this
section; and
(3) An explanation of why methylene
chloride was selected, including why
there were no technically and
economically feasible safer alternatives
available in the particular emergency.
(B) Exposure. The owner or operator
must comply with and document such
compliance efforts under the Workplace
Chemical Protection Program provisions
in § 751.109, to the extent technically
feasible in light of the particular
emergency.
(C) Recordkeeping. The owner or
operator of the location where the use
takes place must comply with the
recordkeeping requirements in
§ 751.113.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
■
13. Add § 751.117 to read as follows:
§ 751.117 Interim requirements for paint
and coating removal for the refinishing of
wooden furniture, decorative pieces, and
architectural fixtures of artistic, cultural, or
historic value.
Beginning July 8, 2024, and
notwithstanding the timeframes
identified in § 751.109, all persons using
methylene chloride, including any
methylene chloride containing
products, for industrial and commercial
use for the refinishing of wooden
furniture, decorative pieces and
architectural fixtures of artistic, cultural,
or historic value must:
(a) Establish a regulated area in
accordance with § 751.109(c)(3);
(b) Use local exhaust ventilation, both
bringing air in from outside and pulling
methylene chloride vapors away from
the potentially exposed person; and
(c) Provide minimum respiratory
protection:
(1) Use any NIOSH Approved®
Supplied-Air Respirator (SAR) or airline
respirator in a demand mode equipped
with a full facepiece (APF 50) or any
NIOSH Approved® Self-Contained
Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) in
demand-mode equipped with a full
facepiece or helmet/hood (APF 50); or
(2) Use the appropriate respirator
based on initial monitoring as identified
in § 751.109(f)(2).
(d) Comply with the recordkeeping
requirements in § 751.113(g).
[FR Doc. 2024–09606 Filed 5–7–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\08MYR5.SGM
08MYR5
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39254-39302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-09606]
[[Page 39253]]
Vol. 89
Wednesday,
No. 90
May 8, 2024
Part V
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 751
Methylene Chloride; Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA); Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 2024 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 39254]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 751
[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465; FRL-8155-01-OCSPP]
RIN 2070-AK70
Methylene Chloride; Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is
finalizing a rule to address the unreasonable risk of injury to health
presented by methylene chloride under its conditions of use. TSCA
requires that EPA address by rule any unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment identified in a TSCA risk evaluation and
apply requirements to the extent necessary so that the chemical no
longer presents unreasonable risk. EPA's final rule will, among other
things, prevent serious illness and death associated with uncontrolled
exposures to the chemical by preventing consumer access to the
chemical, restricting the industrial and commercial use of the chemical
while also allowing for a reasonable transition period where an
industrial and commercial use of the chemical is being prohibited,
provide a time-limited exemption for a critical or essential use of
methylene chloride for which no technically and economically feasible
safer alternative is available, and protect workers from the
unreasonable risk of methylene chloride while on the job.
DATES: This final rule is effective on July 8, 2024.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For technical information contact: Ingrid Feustel, Existing
Chemicals Risk Management Division (7405M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-3199; email address: [email protected].
For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by this rule if you manufacture
(defined under TSCA to include import), process, distribute in
commerce, use, or dispose of methylene chloride or products containing
methylene chloride. TSCA section 3(9) defines the term ``manufacture''
to mean to import into the customs territory of the United States (as
defined in general note 2 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States), produce, or manufacture. Therefore, unless expressly
stated otherwise, importers of methylene chloride are subject to any
provisions regulating manufacture of methylene chloride. The following
list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes
is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help
readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially
affected entities include:
Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers
(NAICS code 424690);
Crude Petroleum Extraction (NAICS code 211120);
All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS code
325199);
Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers
(NAICS code 424690);
Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals (NAICS code 424710);
Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS code
325180);
Testing Laboratories (NAICS code 541380);
Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and
Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology (NAICS code
541715);
Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal (NAICS code
562211);
Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators (NAICS code
562213);
Materials Recovery Facilities (NAICS code 562920);
Paint and Coating Manufacturing (NAICS code 325510);
Air and Gas Compressor Manufacturing (NAICS code 333912);
Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device Manufacturing (NAICS
code 339991);
Residential Remodelers (NAICS code 236118);
Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (NAICS
code 236220);
Plumbing, Heating, and Air-Conditioning Contractors (NAICS
code 238220);
Painting and Wall Covering Contractors (NAICS code
238320);
All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing (NAICS code 339999);
Automotive Parts and Accessories Stores (NAICS code
441310);
All Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers (except Tobacco
Stores) (NAICS code 453998);
Other Support Activities for Air Transportation (NAICS
code 488190);
All Other Automotive Repair and Maintenance (NAICS code
811198);
Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment (except
Automotive and Electronic) Repair and Maintenance (NAICS code 811310);
Footwear and Leather Goods Repair (NAICS code 811430);
Adhesive Manufacturing (NAICS code 325520);
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation
Manufacturing (NAICS code 325998);
Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS code
334310);
Reupholstery and Furniture Repair (NAICS code 811420);
All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing (NAICS code
326299);
All Other Miscellaneous Textile Product Mills (NAICS code
314999);
All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product
Manufacturing (NAICS code 332999);
Oil and Gas Field Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
(NAICS code 333132);
Bare Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing (NAICS code
334412);
Other Electronic Component Manufacturing (NAICS code
334419);
All Other Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and Component
Manufacturing (NAICS code 335999);
Printing Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS code
333244);
Petroleum Refineries (NAICS code 324110);
Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing (NAICS
code 324191);
Painting and Wall Covering Contractors (NAICS code
238320);
Welding and Soldering Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS code
333992);
New Car Dealers (NAICS code 441110);
Used Car Dealers (NAICS code 441120);
[[Page 39255]]
Drycleaning and Laundry Services (except Coin-Operated)
(NAICS code 812320); and
Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing (NAICS code 339930).
This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing
import, including import certification, and export notification rules
under TSCA. Persons who import any chemical substance in bulk form, as
part of a mixture, or as part of an article (if required by rule) are
also subject to TSCA section 13 import certification requirements and
the corresponding regulations at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127; see also
19 CFR 127.28. Those persons must certify that the shipment of the
chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under
TSCA. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40
CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, any persons who export or intend
to export a chemical substance that is the subject of this final rule
are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b)
(15 U.S.C. 2611(b)), and must comply with the export notification
requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D. Any person who exports or
intends to export methylene chloride must comply with the export
notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.
B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
Under TSCA section 6(a) (15 U.S.C. 2605(a)), if EPA determines
through a TSCA section 6(b) risk evaluation that a chemical substance
presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment,
EPA must by rule apply one or more requirements listed in TSCA section
6(a) to the extent necessary so that the chemical substance or mixture
no longer presents such risk.
C. What action is the Agency taking?
Pursuant to TSCA section 6(b), EPA determined that methylene
chloride presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health, without
consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an
unreasonable risk to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations
identified as relevant to the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene
Chloride by EPA, under the conditions of use (Refs. 1, 2). A detailed
description of the conditions of use that contribute to EPA's
determination that methylene chloride presents an unreasonable risk is
in Unit II.C.4. Accordingly, to address the unreasonable risk, EPA is
issuing this final rule under TSCA section 6(a) to:
(i) Prohibit the manufacture, processing, and distribution of
methylene chloride for all consumer use, as outlined in Unit IV.C.;
(ii) Prohibit most industrial and commercial use of methylene
chloride and delay prohibition for two conditions of use, as outlined
in Unit IV.C.;
(iii) Require a workplace chemical protection program (WCPP),
including inhalation exposure concentration limits and related
workplace exposure monitoring and exposure controls, for 13 conditions
of use of methylene chloride (including manufacture; processing;
several industrial and commercial uses such as laboratory use; and
disposal), as outlined in Unit IV.B.;
(iv) Identify a de minimis threshold for products containing
methylene chloride for the prohibitions and restrictions on methylene
chloride, as outlined in Unit IV.A.;
(v) Require recordkeeping and downstream notification requirements
for manufacturing, processing, and distribution in commerce of
methylene chloride, as outlined in Unit IV.E.; and
(vi) Provide a 10-year time-limited exemption under TSCA section
6(g) for emergency use of methylene chloride in furtherance of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration's mission for specific
conditions which are critical or essential and for which no technically
and economically feasible safer alternative is available, taking into
consideration hazard and exposure, as outlined in Unit IV.F., with
conditions for this exemption to include compliance with the WCPP
described in Unit IV.B.
EPA notes that all TSCA conditions of use of methylene chloride
(other than the use of methylene chloride in consumer paint and coating
removers, which was subject to separate action under TSCA section 6 (84
FR 11420, March 27, 2019) (FRL-9989-29) are subject to this final rule.
Condition of use is defined in TSCA section 3(4) to mean the
circumstances, as determined by EPA, under which a chemical substance
is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured,
processed, distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of.
In addition, EPA is amending the general provisions of 40 CFR part
751, subpart A, to define ``Article,'' ``Authorized person,'' ``Owner
or operator,'' ``Potentially exposed person,'' ``Product,'' ``Regulated
area,'' and ``Retailer'' so that these definitions may be commonly
applied to this and other rules under TSCA section 6 that would be
codified under 40 CFR part 751.
D. Why is the Agency taking this action?
Under TSCA section 6(a), ``[i]f the Administrator determines in
accordance with subsection (b)(4)(A) that the manufacture, processing,
distribution in commerce, use or disposal of a chemical substance or
mixture, or that any combination of such activities, presents an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, the
Administrator shall by rule . . . apply one or more of the [section
6(a)] requirements to such substance or mixture to the extent necessary
so that the chemical substance no longer presents such risk.''
Methylene chloride was the subject of a risk evaluation under TSCA
section 6(b)(4)(A) that was issued in June 2020 (Ref. 1). In addition,
EPA issued a revised unreasonable risk determination for methylene
chloride in November 2022 (Ref. 2) determining that methylene chloride,
as a whole chemical substance, presents an unreasonable risk of injury
to health under the conditions of use. On May 3, 2023, EPA issued a
proposed rule (88 FR 28284) (FRL-8155-02-OCSPP) under TSCA section 6(a)
to regulate methylene chloride, so that it no longer presents
unreasonable risk. The Agency received public comment on the proposal.
With this action, EPA is finalizing with modifications the May 2023
proposed rule so that methylene chloride no longer presents an
unreasonable risk. The conditions of use that contribute to the
unreasonable risk from methylene chloride are described in Unit
III.B.1. of the proposed rule (88 FR 28284) (FRL-8155-02-OCSPP).
EPA emphasizes that some of the adverse effects from methylene
chloride exposure, including sudden death, can be both immediately
experienced and after only a short duration (Ref. 1). Other effects may
result in long-term human health impacts which are also considered
significant, including liver effects and cancer. Fatalities from acute
methylene chloride exposures have been documented and pose a serious
public health threat; these fatalities led the agency to prohibit the
manufacture, processing, and distribution of methylene chloride for use
in consumer paint and coating removers in 2019 (84 FR 11420, March 27,
2019) (FRL-9989-29). This final rule will eliminate the unreasonable
risk to human health from the remaining conditions of use of methylene
chloride, as identified in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene
Chloride (Ref. 1) and the Revised Unreasonable Risk Determination for
Methylene Chloride in November 2022 (Ref. 2).
[[Page 39256]]
Although EPA is prohibiting many conditions of use of the chemical
where it cannot be used without continuing to present unreasonable risk
as described in Unit IV., EPA is not finalizing a complete ban on
methylene chloride. While addressing the unreasonable risk, this final
rule allows methylene chloride's limited and controlled continued use
in tandem with additional worker protections for several purposes,
including the production of hydrofluorocarbon-32 (HFC-32), one of the
regulated substances that are subject to a phasedown under the American
Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act of 2020. For many of the
conditions of use for which EPA is finalizing workplace controls under
a WCPP, data to support the industry's position that certain uses could
meet the exposure limit and ancillary requirements of an effective WCPP
in addressing unreasonable risk were submitted during the risk
evaluation, Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel process, the
comment period following publication of the proposed rule, or during
stakeholder outreach, and are available in the corresponding public
dockets (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465; EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0437; EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2016-0742).
E. What are the estimated incremental impacts of this action?
EPA has prepared an Economic Analysis of the potential incremental
impacts associated with this rulemaking that can be found in the
rulemaking docket (Ref. 3). As described in more detail in the Economic
Analysis (Ref. 3), EPA's analysis of the incremental, non-closure-
related costs of this rule is estimated to be $37.0 million annualized
over 20 years at a 3% discount rate and $39.5 million annualized over
20 years at a 7% discount rate. In response to the updated Circular A-4
published in November 2023, the incremental, non-closure related costs
of this rule at a 2% discount rate ($36.4 million annualized over 20
years) is provided in appendix D of the Economic Analysis (Ref. 3).
These costs take compliance with implementation of a WCPP for certain
conditions of use into consideration, which would include an Existing
Chemical Exposure Limit (ECEL) of 2 ppm (8 mg/m\3\) for inhalation
exposures as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA), applicable personal
protective equipment (PPE) requirements, and reformulation costs of
numerous products.
In alignment with the goals of President Biden's Cancer Moonshot,
the rule will protect people from cancer and other adverse health
effects of methylene chloride by prohibiting most uses of methylene
chloride while ensuring essential uses can safely continue (Ref. 4).
The actions in this final rule are expected to achieve health benefits
for the American public, some of which can be monetized and others
that, while tangible and significant, cannot be monetized. Although
some benefits cannot be quantified, they are not necessarily less
important than the quantified benefits. The incremental improvements in
health outcomes achieved by given reductions in exposure cannot be
quantified for non-cancer health effects associated with methylene
chloride exposure, and therefore cannot be converted into monetized
benefits.
The monetized benefits of this rule are approximately $24.8 million
to $25.1 million annualized over 20 years at a 3% discount rate and
$19.8 million to $20.0 million annualized over 20 years at a 7%
discount rate. In response to the updated Circular A-4 published in
November 2023, the incremental benefits at a 2% discount rate ($27.1 to
$27.5 million annualized over 20 years) are provided in appendix D of
the Economic Analysis (Ref. 3). The monetized benefits only include
potential reductions in risk of liver cancer and lung cancer associated
with chronic exposures, and potential deaths avoided from acute
methylene chloride exposure. Non-monetized benefits include potential
reductions in central nervous system depressant effects; these effects
include loss of consciousness and respiratory depression that may
result in irreversible coma and hypoxia. Risks from acute exposures to
methylene chloride can lead to workplace accidents and are precursors
to the more severe central nervous system effects (up to and including
death). Other non-monetized benefits include reductions in liver
disease (including vacuolization, necrosis, hemosiderosis and
hepatocellular degeneration), immune system compromise, and irritation
and burns (Ref. 3).
II. Background
A. Overview of Methylene Chloride
As described in more detail in the May 2023 proposed rule (88 FR
28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL-8155-02-OCSPP), methylene chloride is acutely
lethal, a neurotoxicant, and a carcinogen. This final rule is
specifically intended to address the unreasonable risk of injury to
health that EPA has identified in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for
methylene chloride (Ref. 1) and 2022 Revised Unreasonable Risk
Determination (Ref. 2), as described in Unit II.C.3. Methylene chloride
is a colorless liquid and a volatile chemical with a sweet odor
resembling chloroform. It is both produced in and imported into the
United States. Methylene chloride is manufactured, processed,
distributed in commerce, used, and disposed of as part of many
industrial, commercial, and consumer conditions of use. As outlined in
Unit II.C.4., methylene chloride is a widely used solvent in a variety
of consumer and commercial applications including adhesives and
sealants, automotive products, and paint and coating removers. Some
evidence suggests that in recent years, use of methylene chloride has
been declining in certain sectors (Ref. 3), particularly for consumer
products, as the hazards of methylene chloride are well known, and
certain uses are highly regulated. As further described in Unit II.B.
and in the regulatory appendix (Ref. 5), these regulations include
EPA's 2019 final rule addressing unreasonable risk to consumers from
methylene chloride use in consumer paint and coating removal by
prohibiting manufacturing, processing, and distribution in commerce of
methylene chloride for consumer use in paint and coating removal (84 FR
11420, March 27, 2019) (FRL-9989-29).
The total annual aggregate production volume of methylene chloride
was between 100 million to 500 million pounds between 2016 and 2019
according to Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) (Ref. 6). One notable high-
volume use accounting for approximately one-fifth of all methylene
chloride annual production volume is processing as a reactant, which
includes the manufacture of HFCs (Ref. 1). This condition of use is
described in Unit II.B.1. of the proposed rule, with a description of
final requirements to address unreasonable risk in Units II.D.1. and
IV. An estimated 35% of the annual production volume of methylene
chloride is for pharmaceutical uses, which are not subject to TSCA and
will not be regulated by this rule (15 U.S.C. 2602(2)(B)(vi); 21 U.S.C.
321(g)(1)).
B. Regulatory Actions Pertaining to Methylene Chloride
Because of its adverse health effects, methylene chloride is
subject to numerous State, Federal, and international regulations
restricting and regulating its use. A summary of EPA regulations
pertaining to methylene chloride, as well as other Federal, State, and
international regulations, is in the docket (Refs. 1, 5).
[[Page 39257]]
As described in more detail in EPA's proposed rule (88 FR 28284,
May 3, 2023) (FRL-8155-02-OCSPP), and the Response to Public Comments
document (Ref. 7), EPA considered the adequacy of the current standard
for methylene chloride from the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) (29 CFR 1910.1052) for protection of workers. EPA
notes that the standards for chemical hazards that OSHA promulgates
under the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act share a broadly
similar purpose with the worker protection-related standards that EPA
promulgates under TSCA section 6(a). The control measures OSHA and EPA
require to satisfy the objectives of their respective statutes may
also, in many circumstances, overlap or coincide. However, there are
important differences between EPA's and OSHA's regulatory approaches
and jurisdiction, and EPA considers these differences when deciding
whether and how to account for OSHA requirements when evaluating and
addressing potential unreasonable risk to workers so that compliance
requirements are clearly explained to the regulated community.
Additional considerations of OSHA standards in the revised unreasonable
risk determination are discussed further in the 2022 Revised
Unreasonable Risk Determination for Methylene Chloride, published in
the Federal Register of November 10, 2022 (87 FR 67901) (Ref. 2).
EPA intends for this regulation to be as consistent as possible
with the current OSHA standard for methylene chloride, with additional
requirements as necessary to address the unreasonable risk. Consistent
with TSCA section 9(d), EPA consults and coordinates TSCA activities
with OSHA and other relevant Federal agencies for the purpose of
achieving the maximum enforcement of TSCA while imposing the least
burdens of duplicative requirements.
C. Summary of EPA's Risk Evaluation Activities on Methylene Chloride
In July 2017, EPA published the scope of the methylene chloride
risk evaluation (82 FR 31592, July 7, 2017) (FRL-9963-57), and, after
receiving public comments, published the problem formulation in June
2018 (83 FR 26998, June 11, 2018) (FRL-9978-40). In October 2019, EPA
published a draft risk evaluation (84 FR 57866, October 29, 2019) (FRL-
9999-69), and, after public comment and peer review by the Science
Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC), EPA issued the 2020 Risk
Evaluation for Methylene Chloride in June 2020 in accordance with TSCA
section 6(b) (85 FR 37942, June 24, 2020) (FRL-10011-16). EPA
subsequently issued a draft revised TSCA risk determination for
methylene chloride (87 FR 39824, July 5, 2022) (9946-01-OCSPP), and,
after public notice and receipt of comments, published a Revised Risk
Determination for Methylene Chloride in November 2022 (Ref. 2). The
2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride and supplemental materials
are in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0437, and the November 2022 revised
unreasonable risk determination and additional materials supporting the
risk evaluation process are in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0742, on https://www.regulations.gov.
1. 2020 Risk Evaluation
In the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride, EPA evaluated
risks associated with 53 conditions of use within the following
categories: manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in
commerce, industrial and commercial use, consumer use, and disposal
(Ref. 1). Descriptions of these conditions of use are in Unit III.B.1.
of the proposed rule. The 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride
identified significant adverse health effects associated with short-
and long-term exposure to methylene chloride. A further discussion of
the hazards of methylene chloride is in Unit III.B.1. of the proposed
rule (88 FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL-8155-02-OCSPP).
2. 2022 Revised Unreasonable Risk Determination
As described in more detail in EPA's proposed rule (88 FR 28284,
May 3, 2023) (FRL-8155-02-OCSPP), EPA revised the original unreasonable
risk determination based on the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene
Chloride and issued a final revised unreasonable risk determination in
November 2022 (Ref. 2). EPA revised the risk determination for the 2020
Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride 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. 8, 9, 10). The
revisions consisted of making the risk determination based on the
whole-chemical substance instead of making risk determinations for each
individual condition of use, which resulted in the revised risk
determination superseding the prior ``no unreasonable risk''
determinations for specific conditions of use (Ref. 2), the withdrawal
of the associated TSCA section 6(i)(1) ``no unreasonable risk'' order,
and clarification that the risk determination does not reflect an
assumption that all workers are always provided and appropriately wear
PPE (Ref. 2).
EPA determined that methylene chloride presents an unreasonable
risk of injury to health, and did not identify risks of injury to the
environment that contribute to the unreasonable risk determination for
methylene chloride. The methylene chloride conditions of use that drive
EPA's determination that the chemical substance poses unreasonable risk
to health are listed in the unreasonable risk determination (Ref. 2)
and also in Unit III.B.2. of the proposed rule, with descriptions to
aid chemical manufacturers, processors, and users in determining how
their particular use or activity would be addressed under the final
regulatory action.
3. Description of Unreasonable Risk
EPA has determined that methylene chloride presents an unreasonable
risk of injury to health under the conditions of use, based on acute
and chronic non-cancer risks and chronic cancer risks. As described in
more detail in EPA's proposed rule (88 FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL-
8155-02-OCSPP) and as described in the TSCA section 6(b) 2020 Risk
Evaluation for Methylene Chloride, EPA identified non-cancer adverse
effects from both acute and chronic inhalation and dermal exposures to
methylene chloride, and cancer from chronic inhalation and dermal
exposures to methylene chloride (Ref. 1). EPA identified neurotoxicity
effects (central nervous system) as the most sensitive endpoint of the
non-cancer adverse effects from acute inhalation and dermal exposures,
and liver effects as the most sensitive endpoint of the non-cancer
adverse effects from chronic inhalation and dermal exposures for all
conditions of use. EPA identified additional risks associated with
other adverse effects (e.g., other nervous system effects, immune
system effects, reproductive and developmental effects, and irritation/
burns) resulting from acute and chronic exposures. By targeting the
sensitive chronic liver effects endpoint for risk management, EPA's
final rule will also prevent the unreasonable risks from acute, chronic
non-cancer and cancer endpoints associated with methylene chloride. EPA
also recognizes the severity of the risks from acute inhalation
exposures to methylene chloride, because relatively small increases in
acute exposure can lead to extreme adverse effects
[[Page 39258]]
associated with central nervous system suppression, including coma and
death. Occupational fatalities linked to methylene chloride have been
recorded as recently as June 2020 (Ref. 11) and, most recently by OSHA,
in March 2021 and July 2023 (Ref. 12). Eighty-five (85) fatalities
between 1980 and 2018 have been documented from methylene chloride in
paint and coating removal or adhesive and sealant use, and when
methylene chloride is being used as a cleaning or degreasing solvent,
74 of which were in occupational settings; there has been no linear
trend indicating a decrease in fatalities during that time period (Ref.
11). In some instances, while trained workers were wearing respirators,
the respirators were inadequate to protect against methylene chloride
inhalation exposure (Ref. 11).
EPA considered potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations
identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by the Agency, which are
included in the quantitative and qualitative analyses described in the
2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride (Ref. 1) and were
considered in the determination of unreasonable risk for methylene
chloride.
4. Conditions of Use Subject to This Regulatory Action
Conditions of use is defined in TSCA section 3(4) to mean the
circumstances under which a chemical substance is intended, known, or
reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in
commerce, used, or disposed of. Conditions of use descriptions are
provided in Unit III.B.1. of the proposed rule (88 FR 28284, May 3,
2023) (FRL-8155-02-OCSPP) and were obtained from EPA sources such as
CDR use codes, the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride and
related documents, as well as the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development harmonized use codes, and stakeholder
engagements. EPA did not receive public comments identifying
inaccuracies or necessitating changes to those descriptions; however,
EPA received some comments requesting clarification for particular
uses, which can be found in the response to comments document (Ref. 7).
Additionally, to assist with implementation and compliance with the
final rule, in Unit IV.B.1., EPA has provided a description of the
conditions of use that are subject to the WCPP.
As in the proposed rule, for the purposes of this final rule,
``occupational conditions of use'' refers to the TSCA conditions of use
described in Units III.B.1.a., b., c., and e. of the proposed rule.
Although EPA identified both industrial and commercial uses in the 2020
Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride (Ref. 1) for purposes of
distinguishing scenarios, the Agency clarified then and clarifies now
that EPA interprets the authority Congress gave to the Agency to
``regulat[e] any manner or method of commercial use'' under TSCA
section 6(a)(5) to reach both industrial and commercial uses.
Additionally, as described in the proposed rule (88 FR 28284, May
3, 2023) (FRL-8155-02-OCSPP), in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene
Chloride (Ref. 1), EPA identified and assessed all known, intended, and
reasonably foreseen industrial, commercial, and consumer uses of
methylene chloride (other than the use of methylene chloride in
consumer paint and coating removers, which was subject to separate
action under TSCA section 6 (84 FR 11420, March 27, 2019) (FRL-9989-
29). EPA determined that all industrial, commercial, and consumer use
of methylene chloride evaluated in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for
Methylene Chloride contribute to the unreasonable risk of injury to
health. As such, for purposes of this risk management rule, ``consumer
use'' refers to all known, intended, or reasonably foreseen methylene
chloride consumer uses. Likewise, for the purpose of this risk
management rule, ``industrial and commercial use'' refers to all known,
intended, or reasonably foreseen methylene chloride industrial and
commercial use.
EPA further notes that this rule does not apply to any substance
excluded from the definition of ``chemical substance'' under TSCA
section 3(2)(B)(i) through (vi). Those exclusions include, but are not
limited to, any pesticide (as defined by the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) when manufactured, processed, or
distributed in commerce for use as a pesticide; and any food, food
additive, drug, cosmetic, or device, as defined in section 201 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, when manufactured, processed, or
distributed in commerce for use as a food, food additive, drug,
cosmetic or device.
D. EPA's Proposed Rule Under TSCA Section 6(a) for Methylene Chloride
1. Description of TSCA Section 6(a) Requirements
Under TSCA section 6(a), if the Administrator determines through a
TSCA section 6(b) risk evaluation that a chemical substance presents an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without
consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an
unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation
identified as relevant to the Agency's risk evaluation, under the
conditions of use, EPA must by rule apply one or more of the section
6(a) requirements to the extent necessary so that the chemical
substance no longer presents such risk.
The TSCA section 6(a) requirements can include one or more of the
following actions alone or in combination:
Prohibit or otherwise restrict the manufacturing
(including import), processing, or distribution in commerce of the
substance or mixture, or limit the amount of such substance or mixture
which may be manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce
(section 6(a)(1)).
Prohibit or otherwise restrict the manufacturing,
processing, or distribution in commerce of the substance or mixture for
a particular use or above a specific concentration for a particular use
(section 6(a)(2)).
Limit the amount of the substance or mixture which may be
manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce for a particular
use or above a specific concentration for a particular use specified
(section 6(a)(2)).
Require clear and adequate minimum warning and
instructions with respect to the substance or mixture's use,
distribution in commerce, or disposal, or any combination of those
activities, to be marked on or accompanying the substance or mixture
(section 6(a)(3)).
Require manufacturers and processors of the substance or
mixture to make and retain certain records or conduct certain
monitoring or testing (section 6(a)(4)).
Prohibit or otherwise regulate any manner or method of
commercial use of the substance or mixture (section 6(a)(5)).
Prohibit or otherwise regulate any manner or method of
disposal of the substance or mixture, or any article containing such
substance or mixture, by its manufacturer or processor or by any person
who uses or disposes of it for commercial purposes (section 6(a)(6)).
Direct manufacturers or processors of the substance or
mixture to give notice of the unreasonable risk determination to
distributors, certain other persons, and the public, and to replace or
repurchase the substance or mixture (section 6(a)(7)).
In the 2023 proposed rule for methylene chloride under TSCA section
6(a) (88 FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL-8155-02-OCSPP), EPA analyzed how
[[Page 39259]]
the TSCA section 6(a) requirements could be applied to address the
unreasonable risk from methylene chloride so that it no longer presents
such risk. Unit II.D.1., summarizes the TSCA section 6 considerations
for issuing regulations under TSCA section 6(a). Unit V. outlines how
EPA applied these considerations while managing the unreasonable risk
from methylene chloride.
As required, EPA developed a proposed regulatory action and one
primary alternative regulatory action, which are described in Units
IV.A. and IV.B., respectively, of the 2023 proposed rule for methylene
chloride (88 FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL-8155-02-OCSPP). To identify
and select a regulatory action, EPA considered the two routes of
exposure driving the unreasonable risk, inhalation and dermal, and the
exposed populations. For occupational conditions of use, EPA considered
how it could directly regulate manufacturing (including import),
processing, distribution in commerce, industrial and commercial use, or
disposal to address the unreasonable risk. EPA also considered how it
could exercise its authority under TSCA to regulate the manufacturing
(including import), processing, and/or distribution in commerce of
methylene chloride at different levels in the supply chain to eliminate
exposures or restrict the availability of methylene chloride and
methylene chloride-containing products for consumer use in order to
address the unreasonable risk.
As required by TSCA section 6(c)(2), EPA considered several
factors, in addition to identified unreasonable risk, when selecting
among possible TSCA section 6(a) regulatory requirements for the
proposed rule. EPA's considerations regarding TSCA section 6(c)(2) and
section 6(c)(2)(A) for methylene chloride are discussed in full in Unit
VI. of the proposed rule (88 FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL-8155-02-
OCSPP), including the statement of effects with respect to these
considerations. After review of the public comments received, EPA has
revised its statement of effects considerations in Unit V. of this
final rule.
As described in more detail in EPA's proposed rule (88 FR 28284,
May 3, 2023) (FRL-8155-02-OCSPP), EPA also considered regulatory
authorities under statutes administered by other agencies such as the
OSH Act, the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), and the Federal
Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), as well as other EPA-administered
statutes, to examine 1) Whether there are opportunities to address
unreasonable risk under other statutes, such that a referral may be
warranted under TSCA section 9(a) or 9(b); or 2) Whether TSCA section
6(a) regulation could include alignment of requirements and definitions
in and under existing statutes and regulations to minimize confusion to
the regulated entities and the general public.
Additionally, as described in more detail in EPA's proposed rule in
Unit V.B. (88 FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL-8155-02-OCSPP), EPA
considered the availability of alternatives when finalizing a
prohibition or a substantial restriction (TSCA section 6(c)(2)(C))
(Ref. 13), and in setting final compliance dates in accordance with the
requirements in TSCA section 6(d)(1)(B)).
To the extent information was reasonably available, EPA considered
pollution prevention strategies and the hierarchy of controls adopted
by OSHA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) when developing its proposed rule, with the goal of identifying
risk management control methods that would be permanent, feasible, and
effective. EPA also considered how to address the unreasonable risk
while providing flexibility to the regulated community where
appropriate, and took into account the information presented in the
2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride (Ref. 1), input from
stakeholders, insight received during consultations, and anticipated
compliance strategies from regulated entities.
Taken together, these considerations led EPA to the proposed
regulatory action and primary alternative action described in this
unit. Additional details related to how the requirements in this unit
were incorporated into development of the proposed rule and primary
alternative action are in Unit V. of the proposed rule.
2. Consultations and Other Engagement
a. Consultations
EPA conducted consultations and outreach as part of development of
the May 2023 proposed rule (88 FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL-8155-02-
OCSPP). The Agency held a federalism consultation from October 22,
2020, until January 23, 2021, as part of the rulemaking process and
pursuant to Executive Order 13132. (Ref. 14).
EPA also consulted with tribal officials during the development of
the May 2023 proposed rule (88 FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL-8155-02-
OCSPP) (Ref. 15). The Agency held a tribal consultation from October 7,
2020, to January 8, 2021, with meetings on November 12 and 13, 2020.
(Ref. 15). EPA received no written comments as part of this
consultation.
EPA's Environmental Justice (EJ) consultation occurred from
November 4, 2020, through January 18, 2021. On November 16 through 19,
2020, EPA held public meetings as part of this consultation. These
meetings were held pursuant to Executive Orders 12898 and 14008. EPA
received three written comments following the EJ meetings, in addition
to oral comments provided during the consultations (Refs. 16, 17,18).
The proposed rule presents a brief summary of the comments in Unit
III.A.1. of that document (88 FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL-8155-02-
OCSPP).
As required by section 609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), EPA convened a SBAR Panel to obtain advice and recommendations
from Small Entity Representatives (SERs) that potentially would be
subject to the rule's requirements. EPA met with SERs before and during
Panel proceedings, on November 4, 2020, and January 28, 2021. Panel
recommendations were addressed in Unit X.C. of the proposed rule and in
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) (Ref. 19); the Panel
report is in the docket (Ref. 20). EPA has also prepared a Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) (Ref. 21).
The May 2023 proposed rule presents more information regarding the
consultations in Units III.A.1., X.C., X.E., X.F. and X.J. of that
document (88 FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL-8155-02-OCSPP).
b. Other Stakeholder Consultations
For development of the proposed rule, in addition to the formal
consultations described in Unit X. of the proposed rule, EPA provided
an overview of the TSCA risk management process and the findings in the
2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride (Refs. 22, 23) during a
Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy Environmental
Roundtable on September 11, 2020, and in a public webinar on September
16, 2020. Attendees of these meetings were given an opportunity to
voice their concerns regarding the risk evaluation and risk management.
Furthermore, during development of the proposed rule, EPA engaged
in discussions with representatives from different industries, non-
governmental organizations, technical experts, organized labor, and
users of methylene chloride. A list of external meetings held during
the development of the May 2023 proposed rule is in the docket (Ref.
[[Page 39260]]
24); meeting materials and summaries are also in the docket. A summary
of the topics discussed during the meetings is in Unit III.A.2. of the
proposed rule (88 FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL-8155-02-OCSPP).
c. Children's Environmental Health
The Agency's 2021 Policy on Children's Health (Ref. 25) requires
EPA to protect children from environmental exposures by consistently
and explicitly considering early life exposures (from conception,
infancy, and early childhood and through adolescence until 21 years of
age) and lifelong health in all human health decisions through
identifying and integrating children's health data and information when
conducting risk assessments. TSCA section 6(b)(4)(A) also requires EPA
to conduct risk evaluations ``to determine whether a chemical substance
presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment .
. . including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or
susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant to the risk evaluation
by the Administrator, under the conditions of use.'' In addition, TSCA
section 6(a) requires EPA to apply one or more risk management
requirements so that methylene chloride no longer presents an
unreasonable risk (which includes unreasonable risk to any relevant
potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations). Information on how
the Policy was applied and on the health and risk assessments
supporting this action is available under Units II.C., II.D. and V.A.,
as well as in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride, and the
Economic Analysis for this rule (Refs. 1, 3).
3. Proposed Regulatory Action
EPA's proposed rule under TSCA section 6(a) to address the
unreasonable risk presented by methylene chloride under its conditions
of use (88 FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL-8155-02-OCSPP) included the
following:
(i) Prohibition of the manufacture, processing, and distribution of
methylene chloride for all consumer use;
(ii) Prohibition of most industrial and commercial use of methylene
chloride;
(iii) Requirements for a WCPP, including inhalation exposure
concentration limits and related workplace exposure monitoring and
exposure controls, for ten conditions of use of methylene chloride
(including manufacture; processing as a reactant; laboratory use;
industrial or commercial use in aerospace and military paint and
coating removal from safety-critical, corrosion-sensitive components by
Federal agencies and their contractors; industrial or commercial use as
a bonding agent for acrylic and polycarbonate in mission-critical
military and space vehicle applications, including in the production of
specialty batteries for such by Federal agencies and their contractors;
and disposal);
(iv) Requirements for recordkeeping and downstream notification
requirements for manufacturing, processing, and distribution in
commerce of methylene chloride;
(v) A 10-year time-limited exemption under TSCA section 6(g) for
civilian aviation from the prohibition addressing the use of methylene
chloride for paint and coating removal to avoid significant disruptions
to critical infrastructure, with conditions for this exemption to
include compliance with the WCPP; and
(vi) A 10-year time-limited exemption under TSCA section 6(g) for
emergency use of methylene chloride in furtherance of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration's mission for specific conditions
which are critical or essential and for which no technically and
economically feasible safer alternative is available, with conditions
for this exemption to include compliance with the WCPP.
EPA notes that all TSCA conditions of use of methylene chloride
(other than the use of methylene chloride in consumer paint and coating
removers, which was subject to separate action under TSCA section 6 (84
FR 11420, March 27, 2019) (FRL-9989-29) were subject to the May 2023
proposed rule (88 FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL-8155-02-OCSPP) and are
subject to this final rule.
The proposed rule included timeframes for implementation. The
prohibitions EPA proposed would take effect in phases, beginning at the
top of the supply chain, and coming into full effect after 450 days, as
described in Units IV.A.2. and 3. of the proposal. Likewise, for the
WCPP, EPA proposed timeframes for phases of compliance, beginning with
monitoring at 180 days and full implementation after 360 days, as
described in Unit IV.A.1. of the proposed rule.
Under TSCA section 6(c)(2)(A)(iv)(II) through (III), EPA is
mandated to consider and propose an alternative regulatory action. This
was included in the proposed rule in Unit IV.B. (88 FR 28284, May 3,
2023) (FRL-8155-02-OCSPP). Similar to the proposed regulatory action,
it combined prohibitions and requirements for a WCPP to address the
unreasonable risk from methylene chloride under its conditions of use,
as well as time-limited exemptions under TSCA section 6(g) for two
uses. More specifically, the alternative regulatory action would allow
for the WCPP, including requirements to meet an ECEL and EPA Short-Term
Exposure Limit (STEL), for several additional conditions of use than
would have been allowed under the proposed regulatory action. The
alternative regulatory action additionally included longer compliance
timeframes for prohibitions and a WCPP.
The alternative regulatory action considered would have allowed a
WCPP for the following additional industrial and commercial conditions
of use: industrial and commercial use in finishing products for fabric,
textiles, and leather; industrial and commercial use as solvent that
becomes part of a formulation or mixture; industrial and commercial use
as a processing aid; industrial and commercial use for electrical
equipment, appliance, and component manufacturing; industrial and
commercial use for plastic and rubber products manufacturing;
industrial and commercial use in cellulose triacetate film production;
industrial and commercial use for oil and gas drilling, extraction, and
support activities; and industrial and commercial use in paint or
coating removal from safety-critical, corrosion-sensitive components of
aircraft owned or operated by air carriers or commercial operators
certificated under 14 CFR part 119. At the time of publication of the
proposed rule for methylene chloride, EPA believed a WCPP had the
potential to be a viable alternative to the proposed prohibition for
these additional industrial and commercial conditions of use because
these were generally industrial in nature; owners or operators were
likely currently complying with the OSHA methylene chloride standard;
and, as far as the Agency was aware, these conditions of use had not
resulted in any documented fatalities. However, at the time of
proposal, EPA did not have reasonably available information that could
confirm that compliance with an ECEL of 2 ppm was possible (e.g.,
monitoring data or detailed description of activities involving
methylene chloride for these conditions of use). Therefore, EPA
preliminarily proposed that these conditions of use be prohibited.
The alternative regulatory action also included longer timeframes
for implementation of both the prohibitions and WCPP. Those timeframes
are described in Unit IV.B. of the proposed rule, respectively (88 FR
28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL-8155-02-OCSPP).
[[Page 39261]]
For a comprehensive overview of the alternative regulatory action,
refer to Unit IV.B. of the proposed rule, with the rationale for the
primary alternative regulatory action provided in Unit V.B. of the
proposed rule (88 FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL-8155-02-OCSPP).
4. Public Comments Received
EPA requested comment on all aspects of the proposed rule (88 FR
28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL-8155-02-OCSPP) which published on May 3, 2023.
The comment period closed on July 3, 2023. EPA received almost 40,000
public comments, with a vast majority received from individuals
participating in mass mailer campaigns organized by non-governmental
organizations. The public comments also include approximately 200
unique comments from industry stakeholders, trade associations,
environmental groups, unions, non-governmental health advocacy
organizations, academics, State and local governments, and members of
the regulated community. A summary of the comments, as well as EPA's
responses, is in the docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 7). Additionally,
Unit III. contains summaries of public comments that informed EPA's
regulatory approach in this final rule.
After the close of the public comment period for the proposed rule,
EPA held meetings with stakeholders to receive clarifying information
on their comments, including affected industry and interested groups,
related to the use of methylene chloride. Topics of these meetings
included exposure controls, process descriptions, monitoring data, and
specific conditions of use. EPA received data as part of and following
these stakeholder meetings and has made the information available to
the public in the rulemaking docket (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465) (Ref. 24).
After review of the public comments received from the proposed rule
(88 FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL-8155-02-OCSPP) for methylene chloride,
EPA revised certain preliminary considerations that impacted which
conditions of use were proposed by EPA to be prohibited or that could
continue under the WCPP (Ref. 7). Similarly, based on public comments
received, EPA modified for this final rule several proposed compliance
timeframes, with details in Unit III.
III. Changes From the Proposed Rule
This unit summarizes the main changes from the proposed rule to the
final rule, based on the consideration of the public comments.
A. Changes to Conditions of Use Allowed To Continue Under WCPP
EPA's primary alternative regulatory action described in the
proposed rule included several conditions of use under the WCPP, rather
than prohibition. As described in Units III.A.1. through 5., EPA's
final rule allows three additional conditions of use under the WCPP
(Units III.A.1. through III.A.3.) and broadens the scope of two
conditions of use allowed to continue under the WCPP, when compared to
the proposed rule. The rationale for these changes is described in this
unit and EPA notes that in the event that sensitive information
relating to national security or critical infrastructure is submitted
to EPA, the Agency will protect such information in accordance with
applicable authorities. EPA's final rule also clarifies that this rule
permits manufacturing and processing in compliance with the WCPP for
export. More information is provided in Unit IV.A. regarding export.
EPA emphasizes that implementation of the WCPP can fully address
the unreasonable risk from methylene chloride for the conditions of use
allowed to continue, and that these changes do not significantly impact
the production volume of methylene chloride expected to remain in
commerce when compared to the proposed regulatory action. Taken
together, the conditions of use described in Units III.A.1. through 5.
account for less than an estimated 2% of the total production volume of
methylene chloride.
1. Industrial and Commercial Use of Methylene Chloride as a Processing
Aid
EPA is finalizing a WCPP for industrial and commercial use of
methylene chloride as a processing aid, as included in the primary
alternative regulatory action of EPA's proposal (88 FR 28284, May 3,
2023) (FRL-8155-02-OCSPP). While EPA proposed to prohibit industrial
and commercial use of methylene chloride as a processing aid, this was
due to insufficient information at the time of proposal to determine
that the sector as a whole could comply with a WCPP. During the Small
Business Advocacy Review Panel, EPA received data from a small business
using methylene chloride as a processing aid, specifically as a heat
transfer fluid, indicating they were able to meet an ECEL of 2 ppm.
Initial data indicated that the occupational exposure scenario
(cellulose triacetate film manufacturing) used to assess this condition
of use in the 2020 Risk Evaluation of methylene chloride (Ref. 1) may
not have been representative of the overall types of exposures expected
for this condition of use. In the proposed rule, EPA specifically
requested comment on the degree to which other entities using methylene
chloride as a processing aid could comply with the proposed WCPP
requirements for methylene chloride. Numerous commenters provided EPA
with process descriptions, diagrams, and monitoring data, summarized in
this unit and in the Response to Comments document, such that EPA is
now confident that, in general, entities engaged in this condition of
use can meet the requirements of the methylene chloride WCPP (Ref.7).
Numerous commenters submitted information for use of methylene
chloride as a processing aid, including as a heat transfer fluid and in
the production of separators for lithium-ion batteries, as well as
other processing aid uses (Refs. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,
35, 36). Many of the same commenters also submitted process
descriptions indicating that this use of methylene chloride takes place
in a closed system with little or no personnel interaction (Refs. 26,
27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37). Some commenters provided
EPA with standard operating procedures and describe in detail the use
of respiratory protection (including PPE, as well as other exposure
controls), including during instances of infrequent maintenance or
repair (Refs. 27, 31, 34, 36). Methylene chloride is often cycled
continuously through the enclosed process or, in some cases, recovered
through a distillation process and reused with high efficiency (Refs.
30, 34). Some companies indicated that they are in compliance with the
existing OSHA standard, and though the WCPP requires lower exposure
limits, the WCPP processes such as routine monitoring are similar and
indicate likely success with regards to WCPP compliance (Refs. 26, 27,
28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36). Of these companies, some supplied monitoring
data that showed compliance levels below the existing OSHA safety
standard and demonstrated the ability to measure at or near EPA's
proposed methylene chloride WCPP 8-hr TWA of 2 ppm, indicating an
ability to comply with the EPA level, and further indicating that the
initial exposure data provided by small entity representatives (SERs)
during EPA's SBAR process is more appropriately representative for this
condition of use than the more general occupational exposure scenario
used by EPA in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for
[[Page 39262]]
Methylene Chloride (Refs. 26, 27, 34, 36, 37, 38). Additionally,
commenters noted that the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Organic Hazardous Pollutants for Equipment
Leaks at 40 CFR part 63, subpart H requires a robust leak detection and
repair program (Ref. 31).
Use of methylene chloride in the manufacture of separators for
lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles also falls under use as a
processing aid. Based on information reasonably available to the Agency
at this time, methylene chloride is not currently used in the United
States to manufacture lithium-ion battery separators, with some
companies choosing to use trichloroethylene (TCE) in the production of
battery separators instead (Refs. 39, 40, 41). During the comment
period, at least five commenters described their plans to construct
manufacturing plants for lithium-ion battery separators, specifically
for electric vehicles, that would use methylene chloride as a
processing aid (Refs. 42, 43, 44, 45, 46). Commenters described how
this would strengthen critical supply chains by revitalizing domestic
manufacturing and research and development in accordance with Executive
Order on America's Supply Chains (E.O. 14017) (86 FR 11849, March 1,
2021). Commenters provided details about the process of using methylene
chloride in the manufacture of battery separators. Methylene chloride
is used in the wet manufacturing method of high-quality battery
separators (Refs. 42, 45, 46). In wet manufacturing, polyethylene is
treated to form a porous, monolayer film (Refs. 42, 46). This film is
then treated with low molecular weight oil, stretched, and exposed to a
high-performance solvent to form a uniform microporous structure while
recovering and reusing oils in the manufacturing process (Refs. 42,
46). Methylene chloride works quickly at high temperatures, and is also
desirable because of its low water solubility, and compatibility with
manufacturing equipment (Refs. 42, 46).
Based on the information provided by commenters and other
information reasonably available to the Agency, EPA understands that
separators are fundamental components in batteries that provide the
necessary separation between the internal anode and cathode components
that make batteries work, and that restrictions on the production of
battery separators could critically impact the United States battery
manufacturing supply chain and impede the expansion of domestic battery
production capacity (Refs. 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47). EPA
understands that battery separator manufacturing processes are highly-
engineered, specialty products designed precisely to meet stringent
technical specifications that are essential in powering vehicles and
systems in the United States' supply chain for multiple critical
infrastructure sectors.
A commenter who intends to use methylene chloride in a closed
system for battery separator manufacturing submitted monitoring
information indicating exposure at or near the ECEL of 2 ppm (Ref. 42).
Commenters indicate residual methylene chloride is often treated and
recovered as part of this closed process (Refs. 42, 43, 46). EPA agrees
that unreasonable risk from methylene chloride when used as a
processing aid in the manufacture of lithium-ion battery separators,
like other processing aid uses, can be addressed under the WCPP.
Importantly, because companies have not yet begun production, they can
build their plants with the WCPP requirements in mind (Refs. 42, 46).
On October 24, 2023, as part of a proposed regulation to address
the unreasonable risk from TCE under the conditions of use, EPA
proposed a 10-year time-limited TSCA section 6(g) exemption for the use
of TCE in battery separator manufacturing (88 FR 74712, October 31,
2023). The period of the proposed exemption in the TCE proposed rule
would provide sufficient time to transition from TCE to alternatives,
such as methylene chloride. As noted by the commenters, methylene
chloride is currently used overseas to manufacture high quality
lithium-ion battery separators for electric vehicles (Ref. 42). EPA
notes that while the use of methylene chloride in battery separator
manufacturing appears to be analogous to use of TCE for the same
function, based on reasonably available information, current
applications result in different end-use battery products (e.g.,
lithium-ion battery separators manufactured with methylene chloride and
lead acid batteries and lithium battery separators manufactured with
TCE). EPA believes in some cases methylene chloride may soon be a
technologically feasible safer alternative to the industrial use of TCE
as a processing aid in battery separator manufacturing.
Based on information provided by commenters related to processes,
current exposure information and exposure mitigation practices, and
monitoring data, EPA has determined the unreasonable risk from
methylene chloride when used as a processing aid (including as a heat
transfer fluid and in battery separator manufacture) could be addressed
with a WCPP.
2. Industrial and Commercial Use of Methylene Chloride in Plastic and
Rubber Products Manufacturing, Including Polycarbonate Manufacturing
EPA's primary alternative regulatory action described in the
proposed rule included several conditions of use under the WCPP, rather
than prohibition. EPA is finalizing a WCPP for industrial and
commercial use of methylene chloride in plastic and rubber products
manufacturing, including in interfacial polymerization for
polycarbonate plastic manufacturing, as included in the primary
alternative regulatory action of EPA's proposal (88 FR 28284, May 3,
2023) (FRL-8155-02-OCSPP). While EPA proposed to prohibit industrial
and commercial use of methylene chloride in plastic and rubber products
manufacturing, this was due to insufficient information at the time of
proposal to determine that compliance with the WCPP would be possible.
For example, at the time of proposal, EPA was not aware of any
monitoring data or detailed description of methylene chloride
activities for this use to confirm that compliance with an ECEL of 2
ppm as an 8-hr TWA would be possible. EPA requested comment on the
ability of facilities in this sector to successfully implement the WCPP
for this particular use because of the industrial nature of the use.
Commenters submitted monitoring data for industrial and commercial
use of methylene chloride in plastic and rubber products manufacturing,
which aided EPA with a determination of whether users could comply with
the WCPP. The data provided showed that some companies are close to or
already meeting the proposed ECEL without additional measures being
necessary (Refs. 26, 35, 36).
A commenter also submitted detailed descriptions of methylene
chloride-related activities including for unloading, handling, and
recycling; sample collection; PPE procedures and itemized requirements;
and safety procedures (Ref. 36). The commenter submitted an OSHA
Compliance Plan; training materials for OSHA requirements, PPE, and
hazard recognition; and an Exposure Assessment Program guideline as
well (Ref. 36). Furthermore, the commenter provided details regarding
its interfacial polycarbonate production process using methylene
chloride, which is controlled by an automatic distributed control
system. As described by the commenter in their comment (and confirmed
in a follow-up meeting), workers using the
[[Page 39263]]
system are in an isolated control room that is in a separate location
from the reaction system (Refs. 36, 48). Another commenter stated that
their closed reactor system adheres to recognized and generally
accepted good engineering practices as referenced in OSHA's Process
Safety Management Standard at 29 CFR 1910.119. The commenter also
explained that the methylene chloride used within the reactor system is
recycled within the processing equipment (Ref. 26).
One commenter explained that PPE, including a full chemical-
resistant suit, supplied-air respirators, rubber boots, and chemical
gloves are used where manual operations such as unloading, sampling and
maintenance activities occur (Ref. 36). During the SBAR process, one
SER explained that the methylene chloride is added into the reaction
system directly from tank trailers with hard pipes and flange fittings,
and the product is also packed under vacuum in a scrubber system to
reduce employee exposures, creating little opportunity for exposures
(Ref. 20). Another commenter stated that direct interactions, such as
with sampling, are performed inside glove-box containment systems where
methylene chloride is used within an enclosure and the user interacts
with the sample via a viewing glass and isolation gloves affixed to the
enclosure, similar to those used in laboratory settings and in
industrial sandblasters (Refs. 26, 35).
The information submitted to EPA as part of the comment period
regarding this condition of use, supported by subsequent discussions,
demonstrate the users' ability to comply with the WCPP. For this
reason, EPA has determined that the unreasonable risk from methylene
chloride when used in plastic and rubber products manufacturing
(including in polycarbonate manufacture) could be addressed with a
WCPP.
3. Industrial and Commercial Use of Methylene Chloride in Paint and
Coating Removal From Safety Critical, Corrosion Sensitive Components of
Aircraft and Spacecraft
In the proposed rule, EPA proposed that industrial or commercial
use of methylene chloride for paint and coating removal from safety-
critical, corrosion-sensitive components of aircraft owned or operated
by Federal agencies and their contractors could continue under the
WCPP, and that other commercial use of methylene chloride for paint and
coating removal would be prohibited. EPA also proposed to provide a 10-
year exemption for commercial aviation and commercial aerospace
applications from the proposed prohibition on the use of methylene
chloride in commercial paint and coating removal. Under the primary
alternative regulatory action, EPA included the WCPP for industrial and
commercial use in paint or coating removal from safety-critical,
corrosion-sensitive components of aircraft owned or operated by air
carriers or commercial operators certificated under 14 CFR part 119.
After consideration of public comments, EPA has determined to eliminate
the distinction between defense-related and commercial aircraft, and
allow under the WCPP the continued commercial use of methylene chloride
in paint and coating removal from safety critical, corrosion sensitive
components of aircraft and spacecraft.
Several commenters argued for the removal of the distinction
between defense-related, or Federal agencies, and commercial aircraft
in the proposed rule (Refs. 49, 50, 51). As described by commenters,
critical, corrosion-sensitive components are present and necessary for
the function of all aircraft and spacecraft irrespective of the
customer (Refs. 49, 50), and both defense-related and commercial
aviation or aerospace currently continue to use methylene chloride for
coating removal on these components. Commenters noted that both Federal
and commercial sectors use the same repair and maintenance practices,
maintenance facilities, and environmental health and safety practices,
and that a typical repair or maintenance scenario is that certain parts
are taken off the aircraft and sent to a facility owned and operated by
the part/component manufacturer (Refs. 50, 51, 52). These commenters
contend that the same standard of hazard and exposure control would
therefore be ongoing for both the commercial and the Federal
applications, and both would be likely to be equally equipped to comply
with a WCPP. Both commercial and defense sectors share the same supply
chain, and it is likely that any alternative developed by formulators
will be evaluated by both commercial and defense sectors and, if found
to be a suitable alternative, would be implemented under a similar
timeframe (Ref. 49). For this reason, EPA has determined that the
unreasonable risk from methylene chloride when used in paint and
coating removal from safety critical, corrosion sensitive components of
aircraft and spacecraft could be addressed with a WCPP.
EPA emphasizes that only a narrowly defined subset of commercial
use of methylene chloride for paint and coating removal is allowed to
continue under the WCPP, due to the heavily industrialized and highly
specialized exposure control systems EPA believes to be in place for
both Federal and commercial aviation and aerospace coating removal from
corrosion-sensitive safety-critical parts, such as landing gear, gear
boxes, turbine engine parts, and other aircraft and spacecraft and
components composed of metallic materials (specifically high-strength
steel, aluminum, titanium, and magnesium) and composite materials.
General paint and coating removal on aircraft and spacecraft with
methylene chloride is prohibited. In EPA's view, persons availing
themselves of the WCPP would need to have a reasonable basis to
conclude that the components on which methylene chloride is used are
corrosion-sensitive and safety critical components within the meaning
of the definition. EPA believes such persons could rely, in part, on
information supplied by the manufacturer of the component. A
determination of whether a particular component of an aircraft or
spacecraft is a safety-critical corrosion-sensitive component would be
a fact-specific determination that takes into account the substrate and
character of the component, the effects of methylene chloride paint or
coating remover on the component, and other relevant factors.
4. Industrial and Commercial Use of Methylene Chloride as a Solvent
That Becomes Part of a Formulation or Mixture and the Solvent Will Be
Reclaimed
EPA's primary alternative regulatory action described in the
proposed rule included several conditions of use under the WCPP, rather
than prohibition. EPA is finalizing a WCPP for a sub use of industrial
and commercial use of methylene chloride as a solvent that becomes part
of a formulation or mixture, as included in the primary alternative
regulatory action of EPA's proposal, namely, where that formulation or
mixture will be used inside a manufacturing process, and the solvent
(methylene chloride) will be reclaimed (88 FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL-
8155-02-OCSPP). While EPA proposed to prohibit industrial and
commercial use of methylene chloride as a solvent that becomes part of
a formulation or mixture, this was due to insufficient information at
the time of proposal to determine that the use as a whole could comply
with a WCPP. EPA included this condition of use under the WCPP in the
primary alternative regulatory action, and requested comment on
additional information that could increase the Agency's certainty
[[Page 39264]]
that entities engaged in this use could comply with a WCPP.
EPA received numerous comments describing uses of methylene
chloride in industrial processes which take place in mostly enclosed
systems, such as use of methylene chloride as a processing aid (see
Unit III.A.1.) and in plastic product manufacturing (see Unit
III.A.2.). Likewise, commenters describe some uses of methylene
chloride as a solvent which becomes part of a formulation or mixture
where that mixture is used in a manufacturing process and the solvent
is reclaimed.
Two commenters describe a process in which methylene chloride is
used to dissolve a polycarbonate coating, and then the mixture is run
over a surface where the coating is deposited and the solvent is
reclaimed (Refs. 53, 54, 55). Another commenter describes the use of
methylene chloride in plastic manufacturing processes as a solvent
(Ref. 56). As with the other commercial uses, commenters described
scenarios where methylene chloride is used in a closed system, and
identified that the primary points of exposure in these processes are
the periodic and relatively infrequent loading of methylene chloride.
As described by commenters, the system is enclosed and the methylene
chloride is recovered; the processes are highly industrial and often
remotely performed. One company was able to supply monitoring data that
indicated exposure levels nearly meeting the proposed ECEL (Ref. 54).
In this way, these commenters' uses of methylene chloride are
similar to processing methylene chloride as a reactant, industrial and
commercial use of methylene chloride as a processing aid, and
industrial and commercial use of methylene chloride in plastic product
manufacturing. Namely, when the commercial use of methylene chloride as
a solvent that becomes part of a formulation or mixture results in that
formulation or mixture used inside a manufacturing process, the
methylene chloride is used functionally in the manufacturing process,
frequently in a closed system, and is reclaimed, such that it is not
present in the final manufacturing product. Identification of this
narrowly described use of methylene chloride within a condition of use,
together with information provided by commenters on their specific
processes, led EPA to determine that unreasonable risk from methylene
chloride when used as a solvent that becomes part of a formulation or
mixture, where that formulation will be used in a manufacturing process
and the solvent (methylene chloride) will be reclaimed, could be
addressed with a WCPP.
5. Industrial and Commercial Use of Methylene Chloride as a Bonding
Agent for Solvent Welding
In the proposed rule, EPA proposed that industrial and commercial
use of methylene chloride as a bonding agent for acrylic and
polycarbonate in mission-critical military and space vehicle
applications be allowed to continue under the WCPP. EPA included within
this condition of use the use of methylene chloride in the production
of specialty batteries, and identified the WCPP as an appropriate means
for addressing the unreasonable risk after a specialty battery
manufacturer submitted information on its use of methylene chloride in
chemical welding of acrylic and polycarbonate (Ref. 57). This
application of methylene chloride, unlike adhesives used to bind two
distinct substrates together, dissolves plastic surfaces including, but
not limited to, acrylic or polycarbonate and fuses the substrates into
one continuous unit with increased strength, durability, and seal
integrity (Refs. 58, 59). Mission-critical applications potentially
include fabrication of fixtures and enclosures for scientific research;
production of optically clear articles such as space vehicle windows,
space suit helmet components, or elements of extraterrestrial habitats;
or hermetically sealing the plastic cases of specialty batteries.
Following publication of the 2023 proposed rule, EPA received
additional public comments describing other applications of methylene
chloride used in a similar fashion; however, these applications were
not in mission-critical military and space vehicle applications, or in
the production of specialty batteries for such applications (Refs. 58,
60, 61).
Bonding agents used to chemically weld acrylics or polycarbonates
with methylene chloride do not have a technically or economically
feasible safer alternative available. This application is uniquely
different from adhesives which do have technically or economically
feasible safer alternatives available. Commenters that described their
use of methylene chloride indicated that they require low quantities of
methylene chloride for its effect and stated that they are currently in
compliance with the OSHA methylene chloride standard at 29 CFR
1910.1052 (Refs. 59, 60). Based on the information received, and the
similarities across multiple uses of methylene chloride as a bonding
agent--but not as an adhesive--EPA believes that the WCPP will address
the unreasonable risk for use of methylene chloride as a bonding agent
in general, and is therefore expanding its initial scope of this
allowed use under the WCPP from mission-critical military and space
vehicle applications to general industry.
B. Delayed Compliance Dates for Prohibitions
1. Commercial Use of Methylene Chloride in Refinishing for Wooden
Furniture, Decorative Pieces, and Architectural Fixtures of Artistic,
Cultural or Historic Value
EPA proposed to prohibit the commercial use of methylene chloride
for paint and coating removal, including for all commercial furniture
refinishing. While EPA proposed to exclude commercial furniture
refinishing from the regulation of the use of methylene chloride in
commercial paint and coating removal in 2017, the 2023 proposed rule
did not exclude commercial furniture refinishing from the proposed
prohibition on the use of methylene chloride for commercial paint and
coating removal, because EPA determined that this use contributes to
the unreasonable risk presented by methylene chloride.
EPA's proposed rule included an analysis for an exemption under
TSCA section 6(g) for industrial and commercial use of methylene
chloride as a paint and coating remover in furniture refinishing, and
preliminarily determined that an exemption was not warranted. EPA
solicited comment on its analysis, including information on the
availability of alternatives, the time needed to implement
alternatives, and other information related to this condition of use.
After reviewing comments and conducting additional outreach, EPA found,
as in the proposed rule, that a broad exemption for commercial use of
methylene chloride in paint and coating removal for all types of
furniture refinishing uses under TSCA section 6(g)(1)(A) is not
warranted because the use of methylene chloride for all types of
furniture refinishing is not a critical or essential use for which no
technically and economically feasible safer alternative is available,
taking into consideration hazard and exposure.
However, EPA acknowledges that for particular circumstances, such
as removing coatings from wooden furniture and other items that are of
artistic, historic or cultural significance, there is no technically or
economically feasible safer alternative to methylene chloride currently
available. Therefore,
[[Page 39265]]
to provide a reasonable and appropriate transition period in the final
rule (consistent with TSCA sections 6(c)(2)(C) and 6(d)(1)(E)), EPA is
delaying compliance with the prohibition for commercial users engaged
in those activities, with certain interim requirements to reduce worker
exposures.
As discussed in this unit, while in some cases alternatives are
available for commercial use of methylene chloride in refinishing
wooden furniture, decorative pieces, and architectural fixtures, this
is not the case for wooden pieces that are of artistic, cultural or
historic value. These pieces tend to have increased value because of
their age; their association to significant cultural figures,
buildings, or events; or due to a combination of these factors.
Additionally, they may contain complex geometries, such as hand-carved,
ornate embellishments and grooves or other intricate patterns. The
aesthetic and structural integrity of these pieces contributes to their
value, function, or both, and therefore must be preserved during the
refinishing process. In other words, to the extent that alternative
methods or formulations may be able to remove a coating, if they affect
the underlying substrate's appearance, structural integrity, or
functionality, those are not feasible alternatives for wooden pieces
that are of artistic, cultural, or historic value. In the absence of
such viable alternatives, cultural items such as religious articles of
virtu, musical instruments, and ceremonial utensils would be degraded
or rendered non-functional. In some cases, these wood pieces may be
original, priceless, or irreplaceable and cannot be remade by simply
commissioning an artisan to craft a replacement. Examples of these
types of artistic, cultural, or historic pieces include but are not
limited to: Library furniture and architectural woodwork at Harvard
University (Ref. 62); the Reredos at St. Paul's School (Ref. 62); the
John F. Kennedy (JFK) Podium at the JFK Library (Ref. 62); and the
Arlington Cemetery Old Guard Caisson (Ref. 63).
Based on information provided to EPA, these types of wooden pieces
would be aesthetically or structurally compromised by alternative
refinishing techniques or chemicals other than methylene chloride (Ref.
64). Alternatives, both chemical and mechanical, can damage the
underlying substrate; present flammability hazards; and take much
longer to work such that they are prohibitively expensive. This section
provides additional details from commenters and other sources on each
of these three qualities, which led EPA to determine there are no
technically or economically feasible, safer alternatives for use of
methylene chloride to refinish wooden pieces of artistic, cultural, or
historic value.
At the time of proposal, EPA identified many alternative products
to methylene chloride for paint and coating removal, and noted that
some may require adjustments to equipment and processes for furniture
refinishing or longer periods of time, or may not be appropriate
alternatives for use on wood substrates (88 FR 28313). In public
comments, commenters emphasized that these alternatives present their
own risks, and that they are more likely to be used in paint and
coating removal where the integrity and aesthetics of the substrate may
be less critical to the refinished product. Commenters emphasized that
for the highly complex geometries which may be common in wooden
furniture, decorative pieces, and architectural fixtures of artistic,
cultural, or historic value, methylene chloride-containing paint and
coating removers are the only products that can remove coatings without
damaging the underlying wood (Refs. 62, 65, 66). Similar issues arise
when utilizing mechanical or thermal methods, because--while they may
be useful for some types of paint and coating removal--they may damage
the underlying structure, take so long to work that they are
prohibitively expensive, and cannot reach into the grooves of complex
geometries (i.e., sanding, media blasting, or heat guns) (Refs. 20, 66,
67, 68, 69).
There are significant challenges to replacing methylene-chloride
based paint and coating removers in furniture refinishing; these
challenges are exacerbated with wood compositions of artistic,
cultural, or historic value, since the integrity or character of the
piece would be compromised by alternatives to methylene chloride.
Methylene chloride-based formulations are the paint removers of choice
for furniture refinishers in part because they are not flammable (Ref.
20). Based on the public comments received, EPA also understands that
an abrupt prohibition on use of methylene chloride in this sector could
push furniture refinishers to adopt less safe alternatives, notably
substances that are flammable. Currently, based on information
available to EPA and provided in public comments, some alternative
paint and coating removal formulations are flammable (Ref. 3). EPA's
alternatives analysis identified 47 chemicals in paint and coating
remover formulations with reasonably available hazard information; of
those, 33 are flammable to varying degrees (Ref. 13). EPA notes concern
from commenters about the strong likelihood of regrettable
substitutions in instances where combustible materials and flammable
liquids may be used in tandem and result in a combined Class-A and
Class-B fire, as defined by OSHA in 29 CFR 1910.155 (Refs. 62, 66, 70,
71), in workshops where environmental conditions are likely to contain
fine, combustible particulates in larger quantities such as saw dust or
wood shavings.
Additionally, based on information provided by commenters,
currently available alternative paint and coating removers used in
furniture refinishing can take significantly longer for the desired
effect and may require multiple applications and scraping to carefully
remove the coating, adding additional time and labor to the process
(Refs. 66, 70). Multiple applications and manual removal of coatings
from artistic, cultural, or historic pieces--particularly those with
irregular or intricate shapes--increases the likelihood of damaging the
underlying wood substrate and presents increasing labor and cost
challenges for this practice. Additionally, an abrupt prohibition of
methylene chloride use resulting in additional time and labor would
result in a price increase in this sector; as EPA noted in the proposed
rule, this may result in significant financial challenges in a sector
where profit margins are already narrow at about 3.8% of sales (Ref.
67). Due to the added time, labor, and cost that an alternative would
pose, commenters contend that the likelihood of this sector remaining
viable would be minimal and, as commenters describe, may result in
immediate furniture disposal to landfills that would have otherwise
been recycled through refinishing (Refs. 64, 66). As discussed earlier
in this unit, commenters have noted that that while alternative
chemicals or substitute methods could be used where the integrity and
aesthetics of the substrate may be less critical to the refinished
product, they also emphasized that methylene chloride is uniquely
suitable for removing coatings and refinishing complex pieces made of
wood that cannot be replaced if damaged, due to its artistic, cultural,
or historic value.
While EPA believes that in many instances, furniture refinishing
can be successfully accomplished with alternatives to methylene
chloride, in consideration of public comments, EPA has determined that
there is no technically or economically feasible alternative that
benefits health for
[[Page 39266]]
commercial use of methylene chloride in paint and coating removal for
the refinishing of wooden compositions of artistic, cultural, or
historic value, since the integrity or character of the piece would be
compromised by alternatives to methylene chloride. Therefore, to
provide a reasonable and appropriate transition period, EPA's final
rule will delay, until five years after the publication of this final
rule, compliance with prohibitions for commercial use of methylene
chloride for refinishing wooden pieces which are of artistic, cultural,
or historic value, with interim requirements for exposure controls,
based on best practices described by furniture refinishers.
Commenters provided information on engineering and exposure
controls, allowing EPA to identify how risks could be reduced before
prohibitions went into effect, even if the unreasonable risk could not
be completely addressed. Based on information received, entities
engaged in the use of methylene chloride for commercial furniture
refinishing have a number of options for engineering and administrative
controls to reduce exposure; some commenters noted that exposures may
currently be under the OSHA action level of 12.5 ppm (Ref. 72). Types
of controls that facilitate low levels of exposure include engineering
controls with linear airflow, such as some spray booths typically used
for painting, but which can also be used for paint and coating removal
(Ref. 73). Other examples include custom engineering controls where
fans bring in fresh exterior air, while an additional ventilation
system pulls methylene chloride vapors down and away from the user's
personal breathing zone (Refs. 64, 72). Because methylene chloride
vapors are heavier than air and naturally flow downward, the intake
that removes methylene chloride vapors is intentionally positioned
below the working station, and in some instances incorporated into the
refinishing equipment, such as at the base of a flow-over tray, to draw
the volatilized methylene chloride vapors down and away from the user
quickly (Ref. 72). Additionally, as commenters noted, it is common
practice for refinishing shops to conduct their refinishing activities
in batches, so that, for example, methylene chloride is only present in
the workplace once a week or month, rather than every day (Refs. 64,
66).
EPA recognizes the challenges of developing and transitioning to
technologically and economically feasible alternative paint and coating
removers for some applications. However, while some furniture
refinishing businesses have successfully implemented custom engineering
controls for their operations, EPA remains concerned about the
feasibility of long-term WCPP compliance for many businesses in this
sector. Custom ventilation systems, as well as equipment and training
for the use of supplied-air respiratory protection are burdensome to
procure and implement, but would be necessary to ensure protection of
human health from this use. Because of the magnitude of exposure for
this application, which is primarily conducted in flow over trays and
dip tanks, air supplied respirators--and associated monitoring--would
likely be a key part of reaching an ECEL of 2 ppm, adding additional
expense. While EPA expects a majority of commercial users of methylene
chloride to be familiar with the OSHA standard, and therefore familiar
with many of the requirements of a successful WCPP, in the furniture
refinishing sector many workshops are run by self-employed artisans,
who would not be subject to OSHA regulations. EPA has encountered
furniture refinishers who were using cartridge respirators, despite the
fact that, as specified in the OSHA methylene chloride standard at 29
CFR 1910.1052, only supplied air respirators are effective against
methylene chloride, since cartridges are quickly eroded by methylene
chloride vapors. Since 1985, at least seven deaths have been attributed
to use of methylene chloride for paint stripping in the Reupholstery
and Furniture Repair Sector (Ref. 11). While EPA acknowledges the
commitment of furniture refinishers that aim to protect workers while
providing a high-quality service, EPA remains concerned that WCPP
implementation could present significant and widespread difficulties in
this sector, resulting in high non-compliance rates that would
undermine the health-protectiveness of the rule and leave unreasonable
risks of injury to health unmitigated. In the preamble to the proposed
rule, EPA sought public comments regarding the commercial use of
methylene chloride in furniture refinishing, as well as detailed
information as part of any comments requesting that EPA consider a
regulatory alternative that would subject more conditions of use to the
WCPP, instead of prohibition. EPA requested that these comments provide
``monitoring data and detailed descriptions of methylene chloride
involving activities for these conditions of use to determine whether
these additional conditions of use could comply with the WCPP such that
risks are no longer unreasonable'' (88 FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL-
8155-02-OCSPP). For commercial use of methylene chloride in furniture
refinishing, EPA did not receive this information and the information
provided by commenters did not provide EPA with adequate information to
establish that furniture refinishers could successfully comply with the
WCPP, or that could serve as roadmap for how furniture refinishers
might adapt their processes to reduce exposures such that the risks
were no longer unreasonable (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0228, -0233, -0285).
For example, commenters did not provide monitoring data for this
condition of use, or detailed estimates of the quantity of methylene
chloride used. Information that would have helped EPA to evaluate
whether commercial use of methylene chloride in furniture refinishing
could continue under the WCPP would have included: monitoring
information indicating compliance with the OSHA Permissible Exposure
Limit (PEL) or a lower threshold such as the EPA ECEL, potential
process changes that could mitigate exposure to methylene chloride,
typical administrative and engineering controls, and other
occupational, environmental, safety, or health practices that are
currently implemented. EPA notes that other industries, such as those
engaged in the industrial and commercial use of methylene chloride as a
processing aid and industrial and commercial use of methylene chloride
in plastic product manufacturing, were able to provide such data during
the comment period. Additionally, while commenters did emphasize the
importance of methylene chloride in furniture refinishing, they did not
provide specific information regarding EPA's solicitation on comments
``on how costs and economic impacts from firm closure may be reduced
with longer compliance timeframes.''
As described in the proposed rule (88 FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL-
8155-02-OCSPP), EPA identified the commercial use of methylene chloride
in furniture refinishing as contributing to the unreasonable risk and,
despite extensive stakeholder engagement (described in Units III.B.1.
and V.A.4. of the proposed rule) (88 FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL-8155-
02-OCSPP), could not conclude that work practices could be modified to
such an extent that exposures could be reduced sufficiently to address
the unreasonable risk. Based on stakeholder interest in continuing this
use of methylene chloride, EPA solicited comments in the proposed rule
[[Page 39267]]
specifically to increase the information available to EPA to inform for
this final rule, whether the use could move to the WCPP rather than
prohibition. While EPA appreciates the public comments provided, they
did not supply the information necessary.
However, in recognition of the challenging and particular
circumstances faced by furniture refinishers engaged in restoring and
removing coatings from wooden pieces of artistic, cultural, or historic
value, and to address the unreasonable risk from methylene chloride
contributed by this condition of use, EPA is finalizing a delayed
compliance date of five years for the use of methylene chloride in a
subset of furniture refinishing for these specialty wood pieces where
workshops can meet a minimum standard of exposure control.
In order to participate in the delayed compliance with the
prohibition, owners/operators must meet a minimum standard of exposure
control. That includes: (1) use of a regulated area; (2) use of local
exhaust ventilation, both bringing air in from outside of the workspace
where methylene chloride is being used and pulling methylene chloride
vapors away from the potentially exposed persons; and (3) use of any
NIOSH Approved[supreg] Supplied-Air Respirator (SAR) or airline
respirator in a demand mode equipped with a full facepiece (Assigned
Protection Factor (APF) 50) or any NIOSH Approved[supreg] Self-
Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) in demand-mode equipped with a
full facepiece or helmet/hood (APF 50) or the appropriate respirator
based on initial monitoring as outlined in Unit IV.B.4.b. or 40 CFR
751.109(d) of the regulatory text. EPA expects that within five years,
either new alternatives to methylene chloride for paint and coating
removal for refinishing wooden pieces of artistic, cultural, or
historic value will be identified and put into use, similar to how
alternatives to methylene chloride for consumer paint and coating
removal were developed and marketed quickly in advance of EPA's 2019
prohibitions, or facilities will be able to refine processes and
workshop equipment to incorporate alternative methods for chemical
paint and coating removal. EPA emphasizes that the Agency would also
continue to be willing to review data on exposures to methylene
chloride in furniture refinishing, and in particular any data
indicating that furniture refinishers could meet the ECEL of 2 ppm over
an 8-hr TWA, the EPA STEL of 16 ppm as a 15-minute TWA, or otherwise
consistently comply with the WCPP, and could revise this final rule
accordingly if such data were provided.
2. Industrial and Commercial Use of Methylene Chloride in Adhesives and
Sealants
EPA proposed to prohibit the industrial and commercial use of
methylene chloride in adhesives, sealants, and caulks; paints and
coatings; paints and coating removers for non-corrosion sensitive
parts; and lubricants. TSCA section 6(d) requires EPA to specify
mandatory compliance dates for all requirements of a TSCA section 6(a)
rule. The mandatory compliance dates must be ``as soon as practicable''
and ``provide for a reasonable transition period.'' Except for full
implementation of a ban or phase-out of a chemical substance, the
mandatory compliance date for a requirement in a TSCA section 6(a)
rule, including the start of ban or phase-out requirements, must be no
later than five years after the date of promulgation of the final rule.
EPA proposed that the prohibitions on commercial use of methylene
chloride--in adhesives, sealants, and caulks as well as nearly all
other commercial uses--take effect 450 days after publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register. In public comments, regulated
entities in the aerospace sector described anticipated challenges with
the proposed timeframe for the prohibitions, and requested a 10-year
delayed compliance date for their uses of methylene chloride within
these conditions of use (Refs. 49, 51, 52). While EPA partially agrees
with some aspects of the rationale provided by commenters, EPA
maintains that technically and economically feasible alternatives to
methylene chloride are currently available for a majority of these
applications, and formulations containing methylene chloride are not
uniquely specified to industry or military standards for paints and
coatings; paints and coating removers for non-corrosion sensitive
parts; and lubricants. Therefore, the prohibition timeframes in this
final rule, which take full effect after two years as described in Unit
III.E., should be sufficient for regulated entities to identify and
implement alternatives for paints and coatings; paints and coating
removers for non-corrosion sensitive parts; and lubricants.
Two additional commenters requested that EPA consider delayed
compliance for use of methylene chloride in adhesives and sealants in
the aerospace and defense sectors; one commenter provided rationale in
support of a delayed compliance date of five years (Refs. 50, 61). The
commenter described how certain methylene chloride adhesives and
sealants used in turbine engines and aircraft systems do not currently
have methylene chloride-free alternatives identified, including
applications such as: use in bonding critical turbine engine hardware,
use as a jointing compound in engine parts, adhesive to bond
capacitors, transformers, components, military printed circuit (PC)
boards and subassemblies, and gasket sealant in aerospace systems (Ref.
50). The commenter estimated that properly qualifying these products
may take as long as five years and requested delayed compliance (Ref.
50). EPA agrees that five years is a reasonable compliance timeframe
for the identification and qualification of methylene chloride-free
alternatives to both industry and Federal standards for these uses, and
is therefore finalizing delayed compliance of five years before
prohibition for industrial and commercial use of methylene chloride in
adhesives and sealants when that adhesive or sealant is used in
aircraft, space vehicle, or turbine applications for structural and
safety critical non-structural applications.
In contrast to the delayed compliance with the prohibition for a
subset of furniture refinishers as described in Unit III.B.1., EPA is
not requiring interim controls during the period of delayed compliance
for this subset of adhesive and sealant users. This is because for
industrial and commercial use of methylene chloride in adhesives and
sealants when that adhesive or sealant is used in aircraft, space
vehicles, or turbine applications for structural and safety critical
non-structural applications, EPA does not have the same concerns for
magnitude of risk that could result in occupational fatalities from
acute exposures as EPA has for furniture refinishing. In other words,
while unreasonable risk as a result of either acute or chronic
exposures exists for industrial and commercial use of methylene
chloride in adhesives and sealants when that adhesive or sealant is
used in aircraft, space vehicles, or turbine applications for
structural and safety critical non-structural applications, the
magnitude of those risks in comparison to the benchmark, as well as
information about existing controls in this sector, did not lead EPA to
determine that prescribing minimum interim controls for the duration of
the phaseout was necessary for this use. This is in contrast to
commercial use of methylene chloride in furniture refinishing, for
which EPA has concerns for fatalities due to acute
[[Page 39268]]
exposures, as a result of the magnitude of risk for that condition of
use. For these adhesive and sealant applications, the volume of
adhesive used, the percent formulation of methylene chloride, as well
as the proportion of industrial (as opposed to commercial) workspaces,
is much less compared to the furniture refinishing sector, which is
reflected by the risk characterization driving the unreasonable risk
determination for both furniture refinishing and adhesive and sealant
conditions of use (Ref. 1). While interim exposure controls are not
required by EPA during the delayed prohibition for this use, EPA
expects that owners or operators will continue to comply with OSHA's
methylene chloride standard under 29 CFR 1910.1052 until either a
successful transition to an alternative has been achieved, or the
delayed prohibition timeframe has been exhausted, whichever is sooner.
C. De Minimis Threshold
In the proposed rule, EPA requested comment on whether the Agency
should consider a de minimis threshold of methylene chloride in
formulations when finalizing prohibitions, and, if so, what threshold
should be considered de minimis. EPA received numerous comments in
support of the inclusion of a de minimis threshold (Refs. 30, 37, 49,
51, 52, 55, 56, 65, 74, 75, 76, 77, 787, 79). Of those, a majority of
commenters agreed with the EPA suggestion of using 0.1% by weight as
the de minimis threshold for the applicability of prohibitions and
restrictions on methylene chloride; in some cases, commenters noted
that this threshold would be consistent with the requirements under the
OSHA Hazard communication standard at 29 CFR 1910.1200 (Refs. 30, 31,
37, 38, 49, 51, 53, 55, 65, 74, 75, 78, 79, 80).
The OSHA Hazard communication standard at 29 CFR 1910.1200 defines
``health hazard,'' and provides criteria for determining whether a
chemical is classified as a health hazard in Appendix A to 29 CFR
1910.1200--Health Hazard Criteria. Appendix A of 29 CFR 1910.1200
indicates that a substance is considered a health hazard if it includes
greater than 0.1% of a substance that, like methylene chloride, is
classified as a carcinogen (Ref. 81). Other EPA programs, such as the
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program, have adopted a de minimis
threshold of 0.1% for chemicals which are defined as carcinogens or as
a potential carcinogen under the National Toxicology Program,
International Agency for Research on Cancer, or OSHA (see 40 CFR
372.38(a)).
Some commenters, rather than suggesting a particular de minimis
threshold, suggested EPA identify a de minimis that is risk protective
(Refs. 82, 83). For methylene chloride, due to the type and quantity of
reasonably available information, EPA conducted an analysis using input
parameters and exposure scenarios from the 2020 Risk Evaluation for
Methylene Chloride to confirm that methylene chloride, when present at
a threshold of 0.1% by weight, does not contribute to unreasonable risk
under the conditions of use (Ref. 84). EPA's final rule includes a de
minimis threshold of 0.1%. The adoption of a de minimis threshold in
this final rule means that products in which methylene chloride is
present below 0.1% by weight are not subject to the restrictions
outlined in this rulemaking.
D. Changes to Timeframes
1. Changes to the WCPP Timeframe
For the conditions of use for which EPA proposed the WCPP, EPA
proposed several compliance timeframes, including requirements that
initial exposure monitoring be conducted within 180 days of publication
of the final rule in the Federal Register, that each owner or operator
ensure that the airborne concentration of methylene chloride does not
exceed the ECEL or EPA STEL for all potentially exposed persons within
270 days of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, and
that owners and operators implement an exposure control plan within 360
days of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. In the
primary alternative regulatory action described in the proposed rule,
EPA described longer timeframes: initial exposure monitoring under the
WCPP within 360 days; that each owner or operator ensure that the
airborne concentration of methylene chloride does not exceed the ECEL
or EPA STEL for all potentially exposed persons within 450 days of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, and that owners
and operators implement an exposure control plan within 540 days of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
After considering comments regarding timeframes needed for
implementing the WCPP, EPA has determined that the timeframes in the
alternative regulatory action would ensure that the regulated community
has adequate time to assess, formulate, procure, and implement the
required chemical safety program for methylene chloride.
EPA's proposed rule included an analysis of the alternative
regulatory action and preliminarily determined that the proposed
timeframes for compliance with the WCPP were appropriate. For the
proposed regulatory action compliance timeframe, EPA adopted timeframes
similar to those previously promulgated by OSHA in the 1997 update to
the methylene chloride standard at 29 CFR 1910.1052. However, public
comments indicated that OSHA's compliance timeframes are not
universally appropriate, especially when considering that the proposed
ECEL and EPA STEL are an order of magnitude lower than the current OSHA
PEL and would require additional time to execute properly, in some
instances requiring the adoption of new methods (see section 5.1.2 in
the Response to Comments document (Ref. 7) for a full discussion of
methylene chloride monitoring methods and the PEL). Commenters also
stated an additional concern that the proposed timeframes would be
insufficient to document the novel efforts required under the WCPP to
document the use of the hierarchy of controls (Ref. 55, 70).
Other commenters highlighted additional challenges with the
proposed timeframes. For example, one commenter anticipated an
increasing need for professional services from industrial hygienists,
engineers, or others in order to implement and maintain the WCPP as
proposed (Ref. 19). To this end, a commenter stated that the proposed
regulation could put an unintended strain on the safety industry and
laboratories required to analyze monitoring samples due to the sudden
increase in demand for such services (Ref. 85). The commenter expressed
concern that the increased demand for safety professional services may
result in lowered standards and practices (Ref. 85). Other commenters
added that facilities would need to determine if a corporate exposure
assessment strategy would need to be reassessed for the proposed ECEL
and EPA STEL (Refs. 55, 70). Moreover, because the current OSHA
standard contains criteria for the discontinuation of air monitoring
for methylene chloride, it is likely that some entities have not
monitored for inhalation exposures for an extended period of time. For
situations such as this, a corporate exposure assessment strategy or
similar mechanism would necessitate the procurement of professional
services, adding logistical demand for these specialized services.
In consideration of the challenges of initiating the WCPP, even for
facilities with industrial hygiene programs in place, and given the
difference in the occupational exposure limits between
[[Page 39269]]
the OSHA PEL and the EPA ECEL that may spur an increase in the need for
monitoring or other exposure control assessment infrastructure, EPA
determined that a longer compliance deadline of 12 months, as provided
in the primary alternative regulatory action described in the proposal,
would be an appropriate timeframe to conduct initial monitoring, which
likely would require regulated entities to contract new services or
realign current industrial hygiene professionals toward WCPP
compliance. Adopting this timeframe from the alternative approach
(providing 12 months for initial monitoring) is intended to (1) prevent
professional safety service sectors from being overwhelmed by new EPA
requirements; (2) provide time to procure the necessary services while
ensuring the preservation of safety quality, standards, and practices;
and (3) provide additional time for a comprehensive exposure
evaluation, increasing the likelihood of successful implementation of
the WCPP.
As noted by commenters, the proposed 180-day compliance timeframe
would not provide a sufficient amount of time to identify similar
exposure groups and facilitate effective initial exposure monitoring,
and as a result, this raised concern regarding the successful
implementation of the WCPP for regulated entities. When EPA initially
proposed compliance timeframes for the WCPP, beginning with initial
monitoring at 180 days and requiring full implementation of the WCPP
for methylene chloride by 360 days, EPA pursued similar approaches to
OSHA's 1997 revision of the methylene chloride standard in an effort to
swiftly address unreasonable risk to workers. While EPA expected some
processes to be streamlined given the familiarity of its proposed
regulatory structure, information submitted to EPA stated that delayed
compliance is necessary to identify staffing needs, to properly
evaluate facilities for exposures using the ECEL and EPA STEL, and to
fully implement the WCPP (Refs. 55, 70). Furthermore, in addition to
the possible service professionals identified by EPA in the IRFA (Ref.
19), commenters noted that an expanded scope of individuals would be
required to implement a WCPP, including operations managers, process
engineers, and process safety management engineers (Refs. 19, 55, 70).
Information was also provided to EPA during the comment period
detailing evaluation steps that would be required to assess a facility
and fully implement a WCPP, specifically to perform appropriate initial
monitoring. The steps noted by commenters included development of an
exposure assessment strategy (which requires the identification of
stakeholders), the development of methods to gather information, the
use of similar exposure groups, the determination of analytical
methods, and the training for proper execution of monitoring, including
the assessment strategy and exposure characterization (Refs. 55, 70).
Another commenter provided information on its process for establishing
monitoring to the EPA exposure level, which substantiated the steps
identified by the trade associations. This stakeholder was already in
the process of refining its monitoring approach for its unique
exposures. The stakeholder claimed that additional time is warranted
for targeted exposure evaluations that would be most representative of
tasks performed in its facilities (Ref. 48). Given the precedent of
existing OSHA methylene chloride standards, EPA recognizes that much of
the infrastructure and methods needed for monitoring may already be in
place; however, EPA also acknowledges concerns expressed by commenters
that adequate time would be needed to monitor to EPA's lower exposure
levels (Refs. 55, 70). After consideration of comments and outreach
conducted following publication of the 2023 proposed rule, due to the
increased scope of exposure evaluation processes and required
personnel, EPA determined that a delayed compliance date of 360 days to
conduct initial monitoring and 540 days to fully implement the WCPP as
described in the proposed primary alternative regulatory action is
necessary, and is finalizing such a timeframe in this rule.
Although stakeholders commented that a minimum of 720 days to 1,080
days would be necessary to fully implement the WCPP (Refs. 55, 58, 70),
EPA considers that suggested change to the proposed timeframe to be
excessively lengthy for methylene chloride and would not be in
compliance with the TSCA section 6(d) requirement that implementation
dates be as soon as practicable (Refs. 55, 58, 70). EPA recognizes that
certain provisions in the Final Rule are new and diverge from existing
OSHA regulatory requirements for methylene chloride, and that
additional time is warranted to fulfill those requirements. This could
include, but is not limited to, the need to formulate an exposure
sampling strategy, consult with specialized service providers, contract
with specialty service providers or sampling laboratories, purchase PPE
and respirators, procure capital for facility retrofitting, train
workers on new types of PPE and administrative procedures, calibrate
equipment, or design and install new engineering controls (Refs. 35,
55, 70). Based on comments, outreach, reasonably available information,
and long-established OSHA standards for methylene chloride, EPA
maintains that the majority of the exposure reduction and worker safety
infrastructure needed for compliance is currently in place, but
recognizes the fundamental challenge of monitoring to new, lower EPA
exposure thresholds. Therefore, EPA determined that, as outlined in the
proposed primary alternative regulatory action, providing additional
time for the initial monitoring step with staggered requirements
following in three-month increments will be sufficient for much of the
regulated community and provide significant benefit towards the
successful implementation of the WCPP. Specifically, for the private
sector, EPA is finalizing the proposed primary alternative regulatory
timeframes for WCPP implementation, including 360 days for initial
monitoring, 450 days to ensure that no person is exposed to an airborne
concentration of methylene chloride that exceeds the ECEL or EPA STEL,
and 540 days to implement an exposure control plan.
However, EPA remains concerned about the ability of certain
departments and agencies of the Federal Government, as well as Federal
contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal Government, to
comply with these timeframes. The importance of methylene chloride to
mission-critical Department of Defense and National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) operations and overall military readiness
is discussed in Units III.A.5. and III.B.1., as well as throughout the
proposed rule. While, for example, 29 CFR part 1960 sets forth
procedures and guidelines for ensuring that Federal workers are
protected in comparable ways to their private sector counterparts, EPA
believes that compliance with this final rule will require increased
and different preparations on the part of Federal agencies. For
example, Federal agencies must follow procurement requirements which
will likely result in increased compliance timelines. In addition,
these requirements will require support in the Federal budget, which,
for some agencies, is a multi-year process. Therefore, EPA is providing
an additional year for agencies of the Federal Government and their
contractors, when acting for or on behalf
[[Page 39270]]
of the Federal Government, to comply with the WCPP, including 915 days
for initial monitoring, 1,005 days to ensure that no person is exposed
to an airborne concentration of methylene chloride that exceeds the
ECEL or EPA STEL, and 1,095 days to implement an exposure control plan.
2. Changes to Prohibition Timeframes
For occupational conditions of use subject to a prohibition, EPA
proposed that prohibitions would become effective in a staggered
schedule for each stage of the supply chain and would come into effect
in 90 days for manufacturers, 180 days for processors, 270 days for
distributors to retailers, 360 days for all other distributors and
retailers, and 450 days for industrial and commercial uses after the
publication date of the final rule in the Federal Register. For
consumer uses, EPA proposed that the prohibitions of manufacturing,
processing, and distribution in commerce of methylene chloride for
consumer use would occur in 90 days for manufacturers, 180 days for
processers, 270 days for distributing to retailers, and 360 days for
all other distributors and retailers after the publication date of the
final rule in the Federal Register. The EPA proposed primary
alternative regulatory action included longer timeframes, which begin
at 360 days for manufacturing, 450 days for processors, 630 days for
all other distributors and retailers, and 720 days for industrial and
commercial users.
Several commenters raised concerns on the timeframe for complying
with prohibitions from the proposed regulatory action, stating that it
does not allow sufficient time to identify, research, test, qualify,
and implement alternative substances or processes (Refs. 75, 83, 86,
87). A commenter also noted that adopting use of alternatives would
involve making engineering changes to allow for the manufacturing,
processing, and use of alternatives (Ref. 87). Another commenter
highlighted the general challenges in implementing shifts to
alternative chemicals or formulations for industries with multi-tiered
supply chains (Ref. 83). EPA acknowledges and agrees that there likely
will be circumstances in which chemical alternatives may not be an
exact, drop-in replacement for conditions of use, or in which new,
additional, or modifications to existing engineering equipment could be
required, and that coordination with suppliers or customers across the
supply chain (including with certifying entities in circumstances where
a formulation change may require recertifying a product to meet
performance standards, for example) may require a transitioning
process. This point was expanded upon by a commenter who stated that
the identification, testing, and implementation of alternatives would
not only affect the commercial users of methylene chloride, but would
also impact their distributors and customers downstream (Ref. 86). Due
to these and other concerns, some commenters supported the proposed
alternative timeframe for prohibition, which would provide additional
time that commenters described as necessary for seeking alternatives,
successfully implementing their use, and mitigating supply chain
impacts (Refs. 50, 60, 70, 83). After reviewing all of the comments,
EPA is modifying the proposed prohibition compliance timeframe for
industrial and commercial uses to lengthen it in this final rule, to
allow for successful implementation of the prohibitions, as outlined in
the proposed alternative regulatory action. This extension will also
provide additional time for industry to consult with their upstream
suppliers and downstream customers and to make necessary adjustments,
thereby mitigating immediate concerns for operational continuity for
conditions of use identified in Unit IV.C.
Regarding consumer use of methylene chloride, while many commenters
that provided input emphasized the need for a longer prohibition
compliance timeframe for manufacturers, formulators, or distributors of
these products, other commenters believed EPA should maintain or
expedite the timeline for prohibitions related to consumer use (Refs.
88, 89). Commenters emphasized the severity of the hazards posed by
methylene chloride (including to consumer users and bystanders to
consumer use), particularly the acute hazards which can include death.
Commenters cited the available alternatives for consumer uses, which
EPA also noted in the proposed rule (Ref. 13). EPA has not found that
transitions to alternatives to methylene chloride for consumer use
involve the same considerations or the need for extended timeframes as
for commercial use. Therefore, EPA is finalizing the prohibition
implementation timeframe from the proposed regulatory action for
retailer restrictions to expeditiously restrict access by consumers,
while allowing additional transition time for the commercial sector.
EPA is finalizing this with the proposed alternative action timeframes
for manufacture, processing, use, and all other distribution (i.e.,
non-retailer) for industrial and commercial use, while finalizing the
proposed timeframes for distribution to and by retailers for consumers.
As described in the proposal, and in Unit IV.C., a retailer is any
person or business entity that distributes or makes available products
to consumers, including through e-commerce internet sales or
distribution.
EPA acknowledges that the final approach potentially allows for
manufacturing and processing of methylene chloride and methylene
chloride-containing products for three to six months beyond when they
could be distributed to or by retailers. EPA took this approach to
expeditiously remove methylene chloride-containing products from the
consumer market. While EPA acknowledges that, in some cases, upstream
manufacturers and processors may lack awareness of the downstream uses
of their products, in the case of methylene chloride, manufacturers and
processers should be aware of restrictions downstream (distributing to
and by retailers) that would make them unable to distribute products
that end up on the consumer market, as a result of the 2019 rulemaking
prohibiting methylene chloride in paint and coating removers for
consumer use because that regulation required manufacturers of
methylene chloride, regardless of downstream uses, to revise their SDS
effective August 26, 2019 (84 FR 11420, March 27, 2019) (FRL-9989-29).
EPA intends to conduct outreach with the regulated community and
particularly manufacturers of methylene chloride, who have been
actively engaged throughout the rulemaking and risk evaluation process,
to address this issue.
With a combination of proposed timeframes and primary alternative
timeframes presented in the proposed rule, the prohibitions under this
finalized regulatory action will take effect in 270 days for
distributing to retailers, 360 days for retailers distributing more
broadly, 360 days for manufacturers, 450 days for processors, 630 days
for all other distributors and 720 days for industrial and commercial
users following this publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register. EPA is also finalizing downstream notification requirements
in accordance with these changes; details of these changes are outlined
in Unit IV.D.2.
E. Changes to WCPP Requirements: Exposure Monitoring Requirements
As part of the WCPP, EPA proposed to require that owners or
operators meet certain documentation requirements for
[[Page 39271]]
each instance of monitoring of methylene chloride, including compliance
with the Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) Standards in accordance with 40
CFR part 792.
Numerous commenters expressed concern regarding the requirement
that the WCPP include compliance with the GLP Standards at 40 CFR part
792. Commenters stated that it is atypical, for industrial hygiene
purposes, to use this standard for air sampling of methylene chloride
(Refs. 65, 70, 75, 78). According to the commenters, it is common
practice within the industrial hygiene community to have analyses
performed by American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) accredited
labs (Refs. 65, 78). A commenter further reasoned that because labs in
the United States are usually certified by ISO/IEC 17025 Testing and
Calibration Laboratories, a standard that differs from the proposed
GLP, they recommended that provisions of monitoring results and
recordkeeping in the final rule be allowed from any accredited
laboratory, without regard to a specific type (Ref. 65).
EPA agrees with the commenter that the WCPP for methylene chloride
is incompletely served by solely relying on the GLP standard initially
put forth in the 2023 proposed rule. Given the concern from commenters
regarding potential increases in demand for professional safety
services and sampling laboratories having a negative impact due to
anticipated industry strain and sampling limitations (Refs. 70, 85),
EPA is inclined to broaden the scope of laboratory accreditation
accordingly. EPA has considered this laboratory capacity issue, in
addition to other revisions for finalization in this rule, so that the
additional infrastructure is in place for the regulated community to
successfully implement the WCPP. Therefore, EPA is finalizing a
provision that expands monitoring results and associated recordkeeping
requirements to any accredited lab including GLP, AIHA (AIHA Laboratory
Accreditation Programs (LAP), LLC Policy Module 2A/B/E of Revision
17.3), or other analogous industry-recognized program.
Another commenter noted that EPA omitted a provision from the OSHA
methylene chloride standard that they stated is important for air
monitoring and protections to potentially exposed persons. More
specifically, the commenter referred to 29 CFR 1910.1052(b) where OSHA
defines employee exposure to mean that airborne concentration of
methylene chloride that either occurs, or would occur, in the absence
of respiratory protection (Ref. 90). EPA agrees with the commenter that
exposure monitoring should be conducted without regard to respiratory
protection to inform engineering control options and respiratory
protection considerations. Therefore, EPA is finalizing this rule to
explicitly state that air sampling is required to measure ambient
concentrations for methylene chloride without taking respiratory
protections into account when being performed. This will ensure the
highest degree of protection to potentially exposed persons by logging
accurate ambient air concentrations of methylene chloride, thus
empowering owners or operators to appropriately consider the hierarchy
of controls.
F. Other Changes
EPA is also adding a definition of ``article'' and a definition of
``product'' to the definitions that EPA proposed to add to 40 CFR part
751, subpart A. In order to provide additional clarity on the de
minimis provision in this final rule, as well as the provisions
relating to the refinishing of wooden furniture, decorative pieces, and
architectural fixtures of artistic, cultural, or historic value, EPA is
incorporating into subpart A the definitions of ``article'' and
``product'' that already exist in 40 CFR part 751, subpart E. The
article definition is consistent with other article definitions in
regulations under TSCA. The product definition makes it clear that when
EPA uses the term ``product'' in this regulation, EPA is not referring
to articles. These definitions are consistent with the usage of these
terms in previously promulgated TSCA regulations, including the 2021
regulation on 2,4,6-tris(tert-butyl)phenol (86 FR 866, January 6, 2021
(FRL-10018-90), which incorporated the same definitions into 40 CFR
part 751, subpart B, and the 2019 regulation prohibiting the
manufacture, processing, and distribution of methylene chloride for use
in consumer paint and coating removers (84 FR 11420, March 27, 2019)
(FRL-9989-29), which does not refer to articles, but uses the term
``product'' to refer to methylene chloride and mixtures containing
methylene chloride. EPA is also promulgating the proposed definitions
of ``ECEL'' and ``EPA STEL'' in 40 CFR 751.103 rather than in subpart A
to allow EPA the flexibility to tailor the definitions to address
unique circumstances with future chemicals. Lastly, EPA has revised its
proposed description of industrial and commercial use as a laboratory
chemical condition of use to provide additional clarity as suggested by
a commenter (Ref. 77). The revised description appears in Unit
IV.B.1.c.iv.
IV. Provisions of the Final Rule
EPA intends that each provision of this rulemaking be severable. In
the event of litigation staying, remanding, or invalidating EPA's risk
management approach for one or more conditions of use in this rule, EPA
intends to preserve the risk management approaches in the rule for all
other conditions of use to the fullest extent possible. The Agency
evaluated the risk management options in TSCA section 6(a)(1) through
(7) for each condition of use and generally EPA's regulation of one
condition of use to address its contribution to the unreasonable risk
from methylene chloride functions independently from EPA's regulation
of other conditions of use, which may have different characteristics
leading to EPA's risk management decisions. Further, the Agency crafted
this rule so that different risk management approaches are reflected in
different provisions or elements of the rule that are capable of
operating independently. Accordingly, the Agency has organized the rule
so that if any provision or element of this rule is determined by
judicial review or operation of law to be invalid, that partial
invalidation will not render the remainder of this rule invalid.
There are many permutations of this. For example, as discussed in
Unit IV.C., this final rule prohibits commercial use of paint and
coating removal products that contain methylene chloride and are used
in furniture refinishing (though a subset of this use has a delayed
compliance date, as described in Unit III.B.1.), and also adhesives and
sealants that contain methylene chloride (also with a subset of this
use having a delayed compliance date as described in Unit III.B.2.). To
the extent that a court were to find that EPA lacked substantial
evidence to support its prohibition of paint and coating removal
products used in furniture refinishing or otherwise found legal issues
with EPA's approach to that condition of use, it would have no bearing
on other similarly situated conditions of use such as adhesives and
sealants unless the specific issue also applies to the particular facts
associated with adhesives and sealants. This is reflected in the
structure of the rule, which describes the specific prohibitions
separately by compliance date.
As another example, for commercial use of methylene chloride in
paint and coating removal products used in furniture refinishing and
industrial and commercial use of methylene chloride as a laboratory
chemical, EPA took
[[Page 39272]]
different risk management approaches--prohibition for paint and coating
removal products used in furniture refinishing (though a subset of this
use has a delayed compliance date, as described in Unit III.B.1.) and
application of the WCPP for the industrial and commercial use of
methylene chloride as a laboratory chemical. To the extent that a court
were to find a legal issue with EPA's approach to the WCPP, impacting
industrial and commercial use of methylene chloride as a laboratory
chemical, it would have no bearing on EPA's decision to prohibit paint
and coating removal products used in furniture refinishing, and vice
versa. This is reflected in the structure of the rule, which organizes
the prohibitions and the WCPP into different sections of the
regulation.
In some circumstances, EPA also intends certain portions of the
WCPP to be severable from the rest of the WCPP. For example, EPA
intends the methods of compliance with the ECEL and EPA STEL described
in paragraph (e)(1) to function somewhat independently. The provisions
in paragraph (e)(1)(i) through (iii) are generally applicable to all
impacted owners or operators. However, paragraph (e)(1)(iv) is
specifically applicable to a scenario where the Department of Defense,
based on ongoing or planned military construction that requires
Congressional authorization and appropriation prior to start of
construction, may need additional time to comply with the requirements
of paragraph (e)(1)(i). Since the Department of Defense is also covered
by the more general provision in paragraph (e)(1)(i), if a court were
to find a legal issue with EPA's decision to provide the independently
functioning paragraph (e)(1)(iv) to provide the Department of Defense
with additional time in a particular circumstance, it would not have
any bearing on EPA's broader regulatory approach reflected in paragraph
(e)(1)(i) through (iii) to strike that provision.
EPA also intends all TSCA section 6(a) risk management elements in
this rule to be severable from each TSCA section 6(g) exemption. EPA
has the authority to promulgate TSCA section 6(g) exemptions ``as part
of a rule promulgated under [TSCA section 6(a)].'' However, EPA's risk
management decisions under TSCA sections 6(a) and 6(c) are independent
from EPA's consideration of whether it is appropriate, based on the
factors in TSCA section 6(g), to exempt specific conditions of use from
the requirements of the TSCA section 6(a) risk management elements in
the rule. In other words, EPA first decides whether and how to regulate
each condition of use, per TSCA sections 6(a) through (c), and only
then determines whether an exemption under TSCA section 6(g) is
appropriate. Accordingly, the underlying TSCA section 6(a) risk
management elements would not be impacted if a TSCA section 6(g)
exemption is determined by judicial review or operation of law to be
invalid. Rather, the exempted condition of use would become subject to
the underlying TSCA section 6(a) risk management element(s).
To that end, EPA acknowledges that after the issuance of this rule,
Federal agencies, their contractors, and other related entities may
become aware of important information which indicates a particular use,
that would otherwise be prohibited, could meet the criteria of section
6(g) or the requirements of a WCPP. EPA also notes that there are
multiple avenues to ask EPA to revisit issues in this TSCA section 6(a)
rulemaking, both before and after the mandatory compliance dates are
set consistent with TSCA section 6(d). EPA has the authority under TSCA
section 6(g) to consider whether a time limited exemption is
appropriate and, consistent with TSCA section 6(g)(1), could
expeditiously promulgate such exemptions independently from this
rulemaking, including consideration of emergency or interim rulemaking.
EPA will initiate a notice of proposed rulemaking for public comment on
this topic and will add this to the Spring 2024 Regulatory Agenda.
Additionally, any person could petition EPA to request that EPA issue
or amend a rule under TSCA section 6.
A. Applicability
This final rule sets prohibitions and restrictions on the
manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce,
commercial use, and disposal of methylene chloride to prevent
unreasonable risk of injury to health in accordance with TSCA section
6(a), 15 U.S.C. 2605(a).
Additionally, pursuant to TSCA section 12(a)(2), this rule applies
to methylene chloride even if being manufactured, processed, or
distributed in commerce solely for export from the United States
because EPA has determined that methylene chloride presents an
unreasonable risk to health within the United States. A commenter
expressed concern that distribution for export would be prohibited
under the proposed rule if the intended use in the destination country
is prohibited in the United States, even if it is permissible under
other risk mitigation rules in the destination country (Ref. 91).
Because distribution in commerce did not contribute to EPA's
unreasonable risk determination for methylene chloride, and because
this final rule permits manufacturing and processing for various uses
under the WCPP, EPA intends this final rule to permit manufacturing and
processing in compliance with the WCPP for export, as well as
distribution in commerce for export, without regard for the intended
use in the destination country. EPA has clarified the regulatory text
accordingly.
As discussed in Unit III.C., EPA's final rule is adopting a de
minimis threshold of 0.1% to account for impurities and the unintended
presence of methylene chloride. In other words, the provisions of this
rulemaking only apply when methylene chloride is present in a
formulation at 0.1% or greater. Additionally, the provisions of this
final rule only apply to chemical substances as defined under TSCA
section 3. Notably, TSCA section 3(2) excludes from the definition of
chemical substance ``any food, food additive, drug, cosmetic, or device
(as such terms are defined in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 321]) when manufactured, processed, or
distributed in commerce for use as a food, food additive, drug,
cosmetic, or device'' and ``any pesticide (as defined in the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act [7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.])
when manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce for use as a
pesticide.'' Additional details regarding TSCA statutory authorities
can be found in section 2 of the Response to Comments document (Ref.
7).
B. Workplace Chemical Protection Program (WCPP)
1. Applicability
EPA is finalizing the WCPP for the conditions of use for which it
was proposed, as well as for additional conditions of use for which
either prohibition was proposed, or for which the WCPP was proposed
only for a sub-set of uses within the condition of use. EPA has not
removed from the WCPP any conditions of use proposed to be included.
EPA's descriptions of changes from the proposed rule are in Unit III.
and EPA's rationale for why the WCPP addresses the unreasonable risk
for certain conditions of use is in Unit V. of the proposed rule (88 FR
28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL-8155-02-OCSPP). EPA is additionally requiring
that uses receiving an exemption under TSCA section 6(g), as outlined
in Unit IV.E., comply with the WCPP.
[[Page 39273]]
EPA is finalizing the WCPP for the following conditions of use:
domestic manufacturing; import; processing as a reactant; processing
for incorporation into a formulation, mixture, or reaction product;
processing in repackaging; processing in recycling; industrial and
commercial use as a laboratory chemical; industrial and commercial use
as a paint and coating remover from safety critical, corrosion-
sensitive components of aircraft and spacecraft; industrial or
commercial use as a bonding agent for solvent welding; industrial and
commercial use as a processing aid; industrial and commercial use for
plastic and rubber products manufacturing; industrial and commercial
use as a solvent that becomes part of a formulation or mixture, where
that formulation or mixture will be used inside a manufacturing
process, and the solvent (methylene chloride) will be reclaimed; and
disposal. This unit provides a description of the uses subject to the
WCPP in order to assist with compliance.
a. Manufacturing (Includes Import)
i. Domestic Manufacturing
This condition of use refers to manufacturing, or producing, a
chemical substance within the United States (including manufacturing
for export). Manufacture includes the extraction of a component
chemical substance from a previously existing chemical substance or
complex combination of chemical substances.
ii. Import
This condition of use refers to the act of causing a chemical
substance or mixture to arrive within the customs territory of the
United States.
b. Processing
i. Processing as a Reactant
This condition of use refers to processing methylene chloride in
chemical reactions for the manufacturing of another chemical substance
or product, e.g., difluoromethane, also known as HFC-32, which is used
in fluorocarbon blends for refrigerants, and bis-2,2-dinitropropyl-
acetal/formal.
ii. Processing: Incorporation Into a Formulation, Mixture, or Reaction
Product
This condition of use refers to when methylene chloride is added to
a product (or product mixture) prior to further distribution of the
product.
iii. Processing: Repackaging
This condition of use refers to the preparation of methylene
chloride for distribution in commerce in a different form, state, or
quantity. This includes transferring the chemical from a bulk container
into smaller containers.
iv. Processing: Recycling
This condition of use refers to the process of treating generated
waste streams(i.e., which would otherwise be disposed of as waste) that
are collected, either on-site or transported to a third-party site, for
commercial purpose. Waste solvents can be restored to a condition that
permits reuse via solvent reclamation/recycling. The recovery process
may involve an initial vapor recovery or mechanical separation step
followed by distillation, purification, and final packaging.
c. Industrial and Commercial Uses
i. Industrial and Commercial Use as a Solvent That Becomes Part of a
Formulation or Mixture, Where That Formulation or Mixture Will Be Used
Inside a Manufacturing Process, and the Solvent (Methylene Chloride)
Will Be Reclaimed
This condition of use refers to industrial or commercial use of
methylene chloride added to a product (or product mixture) in an
industrial or commercial setting for use inside a closed-loop
manufacturing process, where the solvent will be reclaimed and reused.
ii. Industrial and Commercial Use as a Processing Aid
This condition of use refers to the industrial or commercial use of
methylene chloride to improve the processing characteristics or the
operation of process equipment or to alter or buffer the pH of the
substance or mixture, when added to a process or to a substance or
mixture to be processed. Processing agents do not become a part of the
reaction product and are not intended to affect the function of a
substance or article created. For methylene chloride, the use as a
processing aid condition of use also encompasses use of methylene
chloride as a heat transfer fluid, and use in the manufacture of
battery separators. Use of methylene chloride as a processing aid also
refers to use of methylene chloride in blending powder for flashtube
and ignition booster pellets and as a de-sensitizer for nitroglycerine
shipment. Additionally, the use of methylene chloride in a closed-loop
chiller system that supports performance of FAA-required aviation fuel
testing, these are considered under the condition of use industrial and
commercial use as a processing aid. The analogous use of methylene
chloride in a chiller system in the Department of Defense McKinley
Climatic Laboratory would likewise be considered industrial and
commercial use as a processing aid. (EPA notes that these chiller uses
were identified under ``Industrial and commercial use as a laboratory
chemical'' under the proposed rule. However, EPA has determined they
are more accurately categorized under the condition of use ``industrial
and commercial use as a processing aid,'' as with other heat transfer
fluid uses).
iii. Industrial and Commercial Use as a Laboratory Chemical
This condition of use refers to the industrial or commercial use of
methylene chloride in a laboratory process or in specialized laboratory
equipment for instrument calibration/maintenance chemical analysis,
chemical synthesis, extracting and purifying other chemicals,
dissolving other substances, executing research, development, test and
evaluation methods, and similar activities, such as use as a solvent,
reagent, analytical standard, or other experimental use. For the
purposes of this rulemaking, EPA emphasizes that industrial and
commercial use of methylene chloride as a laboratory chemical applies
to research, government, and academic institutions, as well as to
industrial and commercial laboratories. Laboratory use of methylene
chloride includes Department of Defense sampling, examining, and
testing of solid propellants, detail specifications of nitrocellulose,
and laboratory analysis for TNT conformity with TNT acidity
requirements.
iv. Industrial and Commercial Use for Plastic and Rubber Products
Manufacturing
This condition of use refers to the industrial or commercial use of
methylene chloride in the manufacture and processing of plastic and
rubber products, including in interfacial polymerization for
polycarbonate plastic manufacturing.
v. Industrial and Commercial Use as a Paint and Coating Remover From
Safety Critical, Corrosion-Sensitive Components of Aircraft and
Spacecraft
This condition of use refers to the industrial or commercial use of
methylene chloride or methylene chloride-containing products applied to
corrosion-sensitive surfaces to remove paint, coatings, and other
finishes and
[[Page 39274]]
to clean the underlying surface in safety critical components of
aircraft and spacecraft.
vi. Industrial or Commercial Use as a Bonding Agent for Solvent Welding
This condition of use refers to the industrial or commercial use of
methylene chloride or a solvent blend including methylene chloride to
chemically bond polymer substrates including, but not limited to,
acrylic or polycarbonate, creating an airtight, waterproof, and in some
cases seamless joint.
d. Disposal
This condition of use refers to the process of disposing generated
waste streams of methylene chloride that are collected either on-site
or transported to a third-party site for disposal.
2. Overview
A WCPP encompasses inhalation exposure thresholds, includes
monitoring and recordkeeping requirements to verify that those
thresholds are not exceeded, and may include other components, such as
dermal protection, to ensure that the chemical substance no longer
presents unreasonable risk. Under a WCPP, owners or operators have some
flexibility, within the parameters outlined in this unit, regarding how
they prevent exceedances of the identified EPA exposure limit
thresholds. In the case of methylene chloride, meeting the EPA exposure
limit thresholds for certain occupational conditions of use would
address the unreasonable risk to potentially exposed persons from
inhalation exposure.
EPA is finalizing these requirements to begin taking effect on May
5, 2025 for the private sector and on November 9, 2026 for Federal
agencies and Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal
Government, at which point entities would be required to conduct
initial monitoring (as described in Unit IV.B.4.b.). Additionally, EPA
requires that each owner or operator ensure that the airborne
concentration of methylene chloride does not exceed the ECEL or EPA
STEL for all potentially exposed persons no later than August 1, 2025
for the private sector, or no later than February 8, 2027 for Federal
agencies and Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal
Government. Implementation of any needed exposure controls based on
initial monitoring and development of an exposure control plan would be
required no later than October 30, 2025, for the private sector, or May
10, 2027 for Federal agencies and Federal contractors acting for or on
behalf of the Federal Government (as described in Unit III.D.1.).
EPA uses the term ``potentially exposed person'' in this unit and
in the regulatory text to include workers, occupational non-users,
employees, independent contractors, employers, and all other persons in
the work area where methylene chloride is present and who may be
exposed to methylene chloride under the conditions of use for which a
WCPP would apply. One important reason to define a potentially exposed
person for the purposes of a WCPP as any person who may be exposed in
the workplace is to emphasize the broad scope of exposures which must
be categorized when implementing a WCPP. EPA notes that this definition
is intended to apply only in the context of risk management, and
specifically in the context of a WCPP (e.g., workers directly using the
chemical, workers in the vicinity of the use, students in a laboratory
setting). The term is not intended as a replacement for the term
Potentially Exposed or Susceptible Subpopulation as defined by TSCA
section 3(12). EPA additionally recognizes that other individuals or
communities may be exposed to methylene chloride as consumers, members
of fenceline communities, or members of the general population, which
is separate and apart from those potentially exposed for the purposes
of the regulatory requirements of the WCPP. In those instances, where
regulatory requirements address exposures unrelated to a WCPP EPA would
use distinct terminology to refer to those other populations. EPA
requires a comprehensive WCPP to address the unreasonable risk from
methylene chloride to workers directly handling the chemical or in the
area where the chemical is being used. Similarly, the 2020 Risk
Evaluation for Methylene Chloride (Ref. 1) did not distinguish between
employers, contractors, or other legal entities or businesses that
manufacture, process, distribute in commerce, use, or dispose of
methylene chloride. For this reason, EPA uses the term ``owner or
operator'' to describe the entity responsible for implementing the WCPP
in any workplace where an applicable condition of use identified in the
following paragraph and subject to the WCPP is occurring. The term
includes any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises
such a workplace. While owners or operators remain responsible for
ensuring compliance with the WCPP requirements in the workplace, they
may contract with others to provide training or implement a respiratory
protection program, for example.
EPA emphasizes that this approach is essential for addressing the
unreasonable risk presented by methylene chloride, including to
individuals who may not be covered by OSHA requirements, such as
university students, volunteers, self-employed persons, and state and
local government workers who are not covered by a state plan. EPA uses
the term ``owner or operator'' in TSCA programs because the term is
used in other EPA programs to describe persons with responsibilities
for implementing statutory and regulatory requirements at particular
locations. See, for example, section 113 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42
U.S.C. 7412, which defines ``owner or operator'' as a person who owns,
leases, operates, controls, or supervises a stationary source. There is
a similar definition in section 306 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33
U.S.C. 1316. EPA understands that the use of this term may result in
multiple persons bearing responsibility for complying with provisions
of this final rule, including the WCPP. However, this is also the case
for workplaces regulated by OSHA, including those regulated under
OSHA's general industry standards at 29 CFR part 1910. OSHA's 1999
Multi-Employer Citation Policy explains which employers should be cited
for a hazard that violates an OSHA standard (Ref. 92). The Policy
describes four different roles that employers may fill at a workplace
and describes who should be cited for a violation based on factors such
as whether the employer created the hazard, had the ability to prevent
or correct the hazard, and knew or should have known about the hazard.
More than one employer may be cited for the same hazard. This final
rule will have similar results, in that more than one owner or operator
may be responsible for compliance.
The OSHA multi-employer citation policy is an example of a guidance
governing situations where more than one regulated entity is present.
EPA has received several requests for clarification of the
applicability of the term ``owner or operator'' to sites where more
than one entity owns, leases, or controls a workplace where a methylene
chloride condition of use is ongoing and where implementation of the
WCPP is required. EPA understands that there are a wide variety of
situations where these questions could arise, and plans to issue
guidance consistent with TSCA authorities that explains how EPA will
approach the issue of responsibility for implementation of, and
compliance
[[Page 39275]]
with, the WCPP requirements in practice.
EPA's implementation of the ECEL as part of a WCPP aligns with, to
the extent possible, certain elements of the existing OSHA standard for
regulating methylene chloride under 29 CFR 1910.1052. However, EPA is
finalizing new, lower exposure thresholds, derived from the TSCA 2020
Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride, while aligning with existing
requirements wherever possible (Refs. 1, 93). For methylene chloride,
this final rule will eliminate the unreasonable risk from methylene
chloride contributed to by the conditions of use subject to the WCPP,
enable continued industry use where appropriate, and provide the
familiarity of a pre-existing framework for the regulated community.
EPA's requirements include specific exposure limits and ancillary
requirements necessary for successful implementation of an ECEL as part
of a WCPP. Taken together, these WCPP requirements apply to the extent
necessary so that the unreasonable risk from methylene chloride under
the conditions of use listed earlier in this unit would no longer be
presented.
This unit includes a summary of the WCPP, including a description
of the finalized exposure limits including an ECEL, ECEL action level,
and EPA STEL; implementation requirements including monitoring
requirements; a description of potential exposure controls, including
engineering controls, administrative controls, and PPE as it relates to
dermal protections and respirator selection; and additional finalized
requirements for recordkeeping, workplace participation, and
notification in accordance with the hierarchy of controls. This unit
also describes compliance timeframes revised from the proposed rule,
changes by EPA to certain provisions of the WCPP based on public
comments, and addition of new provisions in the WCPP based on public
comments used to inform this final rule.
3. Existing Chemical Exposure Limit (ECEL), EPA Action Level, Short-
Term Exposure Limit (STEL)
EPA is finalizing as proposed an ECEL under TSCA section 6(a) of 2
ppm (8 mg/m\3\) as an 8-hour TWA based on the chronic non-cancer human
equivalent concentration for liver toxicity. EPA has determined that
ensuring exposures remain at or below the 8-hour TWA ECEL of 2 ppm will
eliminate the unreasonable risk of injury to health resulting from
acute and chronic inhalation exposures for certain occupational
conditions of use of methylene chloride (Ref. 93).
If ambient exposures are kept at or below the 8-hour TWA ECEL of 2
ppm and at or below the 15-minute TWA EPA STEL of 16 ppm also finalized
in this unit, a potentially exposed person will be protected against
the effects described in this unit, including effects resulting from
acute exposure (central nervous system depression), chronic non-cancer
effects (liver toxicity), and cancer. Using the TWA concept, as long as
the 8-hr TWA or 15-min EPA STEL are not exceeded, airborne
concentrations could temporarily exceed the ECEL.
EPA is finalizing as proposed an ECEL action level at half of the
8-hour ECEL, or 1 ppm (4 mg/m\3\) as an 8-hour TWA. Below the ECEL
action level, certain compliance activities, such as periodic
monitoring, would be required once every five years as described
further in this unit. In this way, EPA's WCPP for methylene chloride
aligns with the familiar framework that is in place in 29 CFR 1910.1052
and many other occupational settings where the action level is half the
relevant occupational exposure level. OSHA explained that its decision
to set the action level at one-half the PEL was based on its successful
experience using this fraction as the action level in many standards
(e.g., arsenic, ethylene oxide, vinyl chloride and benzene); for most
workplaces, the agency found that variability in employee exposures is
normally such that an action level set at one-half the TWA PEL is
appropriate (Ref. 94).
In addition to the 8-hour TWA ECEL, EPA is finalizing as proposed a
STEL of 16 ppm (57 mg/m3) as a 15-minute TWA. This STEL is based on the
non-cancer endpoint of central nervous system depression resulting from
acute exposures. EPA has also determined that ensuring exposures remain
at or below the EPA STEL will eliminate the unreasonable risk of injury
to health from methylene chloride due to acute inhalation exposures in
an occupational setting. EPA is finalizing the EPA STEL as a 15-minute
TWA for the protection of potentially exposed persons to methylene
chloride for shorter durations and at higher concentrations that fall
outside the parameters of the ECEL 8-hour TWA.
In summary, EPA is finalizing as proposed that owners or operators
must ensure the airborne concentration of methylene chloride within the
personal breathing zone of potentially exposed persons remains at or
below 2 ppm as an 8-hour TWA ECEL, with an action level finalized as 1
ppm as an 8-hour TWA. OSHA defines the personal breathing zone as a
hemispheric area forward of the shoulders within a six-to-nine-inch
radius of a worker's nose and mouth and requires that exposure
monitoring air samples be collected from within this space (Ref. 95).
EPA is finalizing as proposed that owners or operators must also ensure
the airborne concentration of methylene chloride within the personal
breathing zone of potentially exposed persons remains at or below a 15-
minute TWA, or EPA STEL, of 16 ppm. EPA is finalizing the ECEL and EPA
STEL for certain occupational conditions of use to ensure that no
person is exposed to inhalation of methylene chloride in excess of
these concentrations resulting from those conditions of use. For the
identified conditions of use for which the concentration thresholds are
being finalized, EPA recognizes that the regulated community has the
ability to detect the values for the ECEL, ECEL action level, and EPA
STEL because of viable detection limits and analytical methods of
methylene chloride for monitoring devices that are widely available in
commerce, currently in use, and approved by OSHA and NIOSH, which
generally range from 0.2 to 0.4 ppm (Ref. 93). EPA also recognizes that
analytical methods for monitoring are available from OSHA and NIOSH
that are capable of detecting the exposure limits with a higher degree
of accuracy (Refs. 96, 97).
4. Monitoring Requirements
a. In General
Initial monitoring for methylene chloride is critical for
establishing a baseline of exposure for potentially exposed persons;
similarly, periodic exposure monitoring assures continued compliance
over time so that potentially exposed persons are not exposed to levels
that would result in an unreasonable risk of injury to health. Exposure
monitoring could be suspended if certain conditions described in this
unit are met. Also, in some cases, a change in workplace conditions
with the potential to impact exposure levels would warrant additional
monitoring, which is also described.
EPA is finalizing as proposed its requirement that owners or
operators determine each potentially exposed person's exposure by
taking a personal breathing zone air sample, or by taking personal
breathing zone air samples that are representative of each potentially
exposed person's exposure. Owners or operators will be permitted to
consider personal breathing zone air samples to be representative of
each potentially
[[Page 39276]]
exposed person's exposure when one or more samples are taken for at
least one potentially exposed person in each job classification in a
work area during every work shift, and the person sampled is expected
to have the highest methylene chloride exposure; or when one or more
samples are taken which indicate the highest likely 15-minute exposures
during such operations for at least one potentially exposed person in
each job classification in the work area during every work shift, and
the person sampled is expected to have the highest methylene chloride
exposure. Personal breathing zone air samples taken during one work
shift may be used to represent potentially exposed person exposures on
other work shifts where the owner or operator can document that the
tasks performed and conditions in the workplace are similar across
shifts. Additionally, air sampling is required to measure ambient
concentrations for methylene chloride without taking respiratory
protections into account as sampling is being performed. These final
requirements align with the approach taken for characterization of
employee exposure in the 1997 OSHA standard for methylene chloride (see
29 CFR 1910.1052(b), (d)(1)(i) and (ii)). EPA is also finalizing
requirements that the owner or operator ensure, for initial and
periodic monitoring, that their exposure monitoring methods are
accurate to a confidence level of 95% and are within (plus or minus)
25% of airborne concentrations of methylene chloride above the 8-hour
TWA ECEL or the 15-minute TWA EPA STEL, or within (plus or minus) 35%
for airborne concentrations of methylene chloride at or above the ECEL
action level but at or below the 8-hour TWA ECEL. These requirements,
including the 35%, would align with the approach taken in the 1997 OSHA
standard for methylene chloride (see 29 CFR 1910.1052(d)(1)(iii)).
Though EPA is finalizing the accuracy range as proposed, EPA recognizes
that more recent monitoring methods and technologies currently exist
and allow for greater accuracy, and thus a narrower accuracy range for
monitoring results such as the NIOSH 3900 method and the OSHA 1025
method (Refs. 96, 97). To ensure compliance for monitoring activities,
EPA is finalizing recordkeeping requirements and will require that
owners or operators document their choice of monitoring method outlined
in this unit.
b. Initial Exposure Monitoring
Under the final regulation, each owner or operator of a facility in
the private sector that is engaged in one or more of the conditions of
use listed earlier in Unit IV.B.1. will be required to perform initial
exposure monitoring within 360 days after publication of the final rule
to determine the extent of exposure of potentially exposed persons to
methylene chloride. In consideration of public comments, EPA has
changed the timeframe for completion of initial monitoring from 180
days after publication of the final rule to 360 days after publication
of the final rule in the Federal Register. As discussed in Unit
III.D.1., EPA is providing additional time for Federal agencies and
Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal Government
to comply with the provisions of the WCPP, so they will be required to
conduct initial monitoring within 915 days after publication. Initial
monitoring will notify owners and operators of the magnitude of
possible exposures to potentially exposed persons with respect to their
work conditions and environments. Based on the magnitude of possible
exposures in the initial exposure monitoring, the owner or operator may
need to increase or decrease the frequency of future periodic
monitoring, adopt new exposure controls (such as engineering controls,
administrative controls, and/or a respiratory protection program), or
to continue or discontinue certain compliance activities such as
periodic monitoring. In addition, the initial monitoring will be
required when and where the operating conditions are best
representative of each potentially exposed person's work-shift
exposures. If the owner or operator chooses to use a sample that is
representative of potentially exposed persons' full shift exposures
(rather than monitor every individual), such sampling should be
representative of the most highly exposed persons in the workplace.
Additionally, EPA expects that owners and operators will conduct
initial exposure monitoring representative to determine the extent of
methylene chloride exposure for potentially exposed persons. EPA
understands that certain tasks may occur less frequently or may reflect
upset conditions (for example, due to malfunction).
EPA also recognizes that the values for the ECEL action level and
EPA STEL may mean that some owners or operators currently in compliance
with the OSHA standard would have to establish a new monitoring
baseline for EPA's Final Rule for methylene chloride. Aligning with the
existing OSHA standard (29 CFR 1910.1052(d)(2)) to the extent possible,
EPA is finalizing as proposed that an owner or operator may temporarily
forgo initial exposure monitoring if:
(i) An owner or operator could provide EPA with objective data
generated during the last five years demonstrating that methylene
chloride cannot be released in the workplace in airborne concentrations
at or above the ECEL action level (1-ppm 8-hour TWA) and above the EPA
STEL (16 ppm 15-minute TWA), and that the data represent the highest
methylene chloride exposures likely to occur under reasonably
foreseeable conditions of manufacturing, processing, use, or disposal,
as applicable, including handling of methylene chloride during those
activities. Owners or operators who rely on objective data must
maintain records including the use of methylene chloride evaluated, the
source of the objective data, the measurement methods, measurement
results, and measurement analysis of the use of methylene chloride, and
any other data relevant to the operations, processes, or person's
exposure. The oldest objective data used to demonstrate that exposures
are below the ECEL action level and EPA STEL will indicate the
beginning of the five-year cycles of recurring exposure monitoring as
described in Unit IV.B.4.b.;
(ii) Where potentially exposed persons are exposed to methylene
chloride for fewer than 30 days per year and the owner or operator has
measurements by direct-metering devices that give immediate results and
provide sufficient information regarding potentially exposed persons'
exposures to determine and implement the control measures that are
necessary to reduce exposures to below the ECEL action level and EPA
STEL.
As described in more detail later in this unit, the owner or
operator must conduct periodic monitoring at least once every five
years since its last monitoring. This periodic monitoring must be
representative of all the potentially exposed persons in the workplace
and the tasks that they are expected to do. Additionally, if a facility
were to commence one or more conditions of use listed in Unit IV.B.1.
after May 5, 2025, the owner or operator must perform an initial
exposure monitoring within 30 days of commencing the condition(s) of
use and would be required to conduct periodic monitoring in accordance
with table 1 in Unit IV.B.4.c. For facilities that commence one or more
conditions of use listed in Unit IV.B.1. after May 5, 2025, the owner
or operator must ensure that the airborne concentration of methylene
chloride does not exceed the
[[Page 39277]]
ECEL or EPA STEL for all potentially exposed persons within 90 days of
the initial exposure monitoring.
c. Periodic Exposure Monitoring
EPA's final rule is aligned with elements of the existing OSHA
standard (29 CFR 1910.1052(d)(3)) to the extent possible. Based on the
results from the initial exposure monitoring, EPA is finalizing as
proposed the following periodic monitoring for owners or operators.
These finalized requirements are also outlined in table 1.
If the initial exposure monitoring is below the ECEL
action level (1 ppm 8-hour TWA) and at or below the EPA STEL (16 ppm
15-minute TWA), the ECEL and EPA STEL periodic monitoring would be
required once every five years, except when additional exposure
monitoring (Unit IV.B.4.e.) measurements require it.
If the initial exposure monitoring concentration is below
the ECEL action level (1 ppm 8-hour TWA) and above the EPA STEL (16 ppm
15-minute TWA), the ECEL periodic monitoring would be required once
every five years or when additional monitoring (Unit IV.B.4.e.)
measurements require it, but EPA STEL periodic monitoring would be
required every three months.
If the initial exposure monitoring concentration is at or
above the ECEL action level (1 ppm 8-hour TWA) and at or below the ECEL
(2 ppm 8-hour TWA), and at or below the EPA STEL (16 ppm 15-minute
TWA), the ECEL periodic monitoring would be required every six months.
If the initial exposure monitoring concentration is at or
above the ECEL action level (1 ppm 8-hour TWA) and at or below the ECEL
(2 ppm 8-hour TWA), and above the EPA STEL, the ECEL periodic
monitoring would be required every six months and EPA STEL periodic
monitoring would be required every three months.
If the initial exposure monitoring concentration is: Above
the ECEL (2 ppm 8-hour TWA) and below, at, or above the EPA STEL (16
ppm 15-minute TWA), the ECEL and EPA STEL periodic monitoring would be
required every three months.
The owner or operator would be permitted to transition the
ECEL periodic exposure monitoring frequency from every three months to
every six months if two consecutive monitoring events taken at least
seven days apart indicate that the potential exposure has decreased to
or below the ECEL, but at or above the ECEL action level.
The owner or operator would be permitted to transition
from the ECEL periodic exposure monitoring frequency from every six
months to once every five years if two consecutive monitoring events
taken at least seven days apart indicate that the potential exposure
has decreased below the ECEL action level and at or below the EPA STEL.
The second consecutive monitoring event would delineate the new date
from which the next five-year periodic exposure monitoring must occur.
In addition to the periodic monitoring standards described earlier,
EPA is finalizing two additional provisions:
Based on its monitoring results, if the owner or operator
would be required to monitor either the ECEL or EPA STEL in a three-
month interval but does not engage in any of the conditions of use
listed in Unit IV.B.1. for which the WCPP is finalized over the
entirety of those three months, the owner or operator would be
permitted to forgo the upcoming periodic monitoring event. However,
documentation of cessation of use of methylene chloride would be
required, and initial monitoring would be required when the owner or
operator resumes or starts any of the conditions of use listed in Unit
IV.B.1. for which the WCPP is finalized.
Based on its monitoring results, if the owner or operator
would be required to monitor the ECEL in a six-month interval but does
not engage in any of the conditions of use listed in Unit IV.B.1. for
which the WCPP is finalized over the entirety of those six months, the
owner or operator would be permitted to forgo the upcoming periodic
monitoring event. However, documentation of cessation of use of
methylene chloride would be required, and initial monitoring would be
required when the owner or operator resumes or starts any of the
conditions of use listed in Unit IV.B.1. for which the WCPP is
finalized.
Periodic monitoring would be required to occur at least
once every five years if methylene chloride is present.
Table 1--Periodic Monitoring Requirements Based on Initial Exposure
Monitoring Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air concentration condition Periodic monitoring requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the initial exposure monitoring ECEL and EPA STEL periodic
concentration is below the ECEL action monitoring at least once every
level and at or below the EPA STEL. 5 years.
If the initial exposure monitoring ECEL periodic monitoring at
concentration is below the ECEL action least once every 5 years, and
level and above the EPA STEL. EPA STEL periodic monitoring
required every 3 months.
If the initial exposure monitoring ECEL periodic monitoring every
concentration is at or above the ECEL 6 months.
action level and at or below the ECEL;
and at or below the EPA STEL.
If the initial exposure monitoring ECEL periodic monitoring every
concentration is at or above the ECEL 6 months and EPA STEL periodic
action level and at or below the ECEL; monitoring every 3 months.
and above the EPA STEL.
If the initial exposure monitoring ECEL periodic monitoring every
concentration is above the ECEL and 3 months and EPA STEL periodic
below, at, or above the EPA STEL. monitoring every 3 months.
If 2 consecutive monitoring events have Transition from ECEL periodic
taken place at least 7 days apart that monitoring frequency from
indicate that potential exposure has every 3 months to every 6
decreased from above the ECEL to at or months.
below the ECEL, but at or above the
ECEL action level.
If 2 consecutive monitoring events have Transition from ECEL periodic
taken place at least 7 days apart that monitoring frequency every 6
indicate that potential exposure has months to once every 5 years.
decreased to below the ECEL action The second consecutive
level and at or below the EPA STEL. monitoring event will
delineate the new date from
which the next 5-year periodic
exposure monitoring must
occur.
If the owner or operator engages in any The owner or operator may forgo
of the conditions of use for which the upcoming periodic
WCPP is finalized and is required to monitoring event. However,
monitor either the ECEL or EPA STEL in documentation of cessation of
a 3-month interval, but does not manufacture, processing, use,
engage in any of those conditions of or disposal of methylene
use for the entirety of the 3-month chloride must be maintained,
interval. and initial monitoring would
be required when the owner or
operator resumes or starts any
of the conditions of use for
which the WCPP is finalized.
[[Page 39278]]
If the owner or operator engages in any The owner or operator may forgo
of the conditions of use for which the upcoming periodic
WCPP is finalized and is required to monitoring event. However,
monitor the ECEL in a 6-month documentation of cessation of
interval, but does not engage in any manufacture, processing, use,
of those conditions of use for the or disposal of methylene
entirety of the 6-month interval. chloride must be maintained,
and initial monitoring would
be required when the owner or
operator resumes or starts any
of the conditions of use for
which the WCPP is finalized.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Additional scenarios in which monitoring may be required are
discussed in Unit IV.B.4.e.
d. Minimum Frequency of Exposure Monitoring
EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement that a monitoring event
be conducted at a minimum frequency of every five years by owners or
operators using methylene chloride for any condition of use subject to
the WCPP. To better reflect the periodic nature of such monitoring, the
final rule describes it as a periodic monitoring requirement, rather
than a requirement to re-conduct initial exposure monitoring every five
years, as it was described in the proposed rule. EPA emphasizes that
this monitoring must represent all potentially exposed persons in the
workplace. Moreover, EPA is finalizing that monitoring requirements can
only be made less frequent based on the results of the initial exposure
monitoring or the periodic exposure monitoring outlined under Units
IV.B.4.b. and IV.B.4.c., respectively.
e. Additional Exposure Monitoring
EPA is finalizing the requirement that the owner or operator
complying with the WCPP must carry out an additional exposure
monitoring after any change that may reasonably be expected to
introduce additional sources of exposure, or result in a change in
exposure levels, to methylene chloride. Examples include changes in the
production, production volume, use rate, process, control equipment, or
work practices that may reasonably be anticipated to cause additional
sources of exposure or result in increased exposure levels to methylene
chloride; and start-up, shutdown, or malfunction of the facility or
facility equipment that may reasonably be anticipated to cause
additional sources of exposure or result in increased exposure levels
to methylene chloride. This additional exposure monitoring event may
result in increased frequency of periodic monitoring. The required
additional exposure monitoring should not delay implementation of any
necessary cleanup or other remedial action to reduce the exposures to
potentially exposed persons.
5. Exposure Control Plan
EPA is finalizing its requirement that entities implementing the
WCPP use elimination and substitution, followed by the use of
engineering controls, administrative controls, and work practices prior
to requiring the use of PPE (i.e., respirators) as a means of
controlling inhalation exposures below EPA's ECEL or STEL, in
accordance with the hierarchy of controls (Ref. 98). If an owner or
operator chooses to replace methylene chloride with a substitute, EPA
recommends careful review of the available hazard and exposure
information on the potential substitutes to avoid a substitute chemical
that might later be found to present unreasonable risks or be subject
to regulation (sometimes referred to as a ``regrettable
substitution''). EPA expects that, for conditions of use for which EPA
is finalizing a WCPP, compliance at most workplaces would be part of an
established industrial hygiene program that aligns with the hierarchy
of controls.
EPA is finalizing its requirement that the owner or operator
demarcate any area where airborne concentrations of methylene chloride
are reasonably expected to exceed the ECEL or the EPA STEL. In response
to comments requesting more clarity regarding how regulated areas must
be demarcated, EPA has incorporated the language from the analogous
OSHA requirement into this final rule. Owners and operators must
demarcate regulated areas from the rest of the workplace in any manner
that adequately establishes and alerts potentially exposed persons to
the boundaries of the area and minimizes the number of authorized
persons exposed to methylene chloride within the regulated area. This
can be accomplished using administrative controls, e.g., highly visible
signifiers, in multiple languages as appropriate (e.g., when
potentially exposed persons who are primarily Spanish-speaking are
present, owners and operators should post additional highly visible
signifiers in Spanish), placed in conspicuous areas. The owner or
operator is required to restrict access to the regulated area from any
potentially exposed person that lacks proper training or is otherwise
unauthorized to enter.
EPA is finalizing the requirement that regulated entities use the
hierarchy of controls, instituting one or a combination of controls to
the extent feasible, and supplement such protections using PPE, where
necessary, including respirators for potentially exposed persons at
risk of inhalation exposure above the ECEL or EPA STEL. If efforts of
elimination, substitution, engineering controls, and administrative
controls are not sufficient to reduce exposures to or below the ECEL or
EPA STEL for all potentially exposed persons in the workplace, EPA
requires that the owner or operator use feasible controls to reduce
methylene chloride concentrations in the workplace to the lowest levels
achievable and supplement these controls with respiratory protection
and PPE as needed to achieve the ECEL before potentially exposed
persons enter a regulated area. In such cases, EPA requires that the
owner or operator provide potentially exposed persons reasonably likely
to be exposed to methylene chloride by inhalation to concentrations
above the ECEL or EPA STEL with respirators affording sufficient
protection against inhalation risk and appropriate training on the
proper use of such respirators, to ensure that their exposures do not
exceed the ECEL or EPA STEL, as described in this unit. As part of the
training requirement, the owner or operator is required to provide
information and comprehensive training in an understandable manner
(i.e., plain language), considering factors such as the skills required
to perform the work activity and the existing skill level of the staff
performing the work, and in multiple languages as appropriate (e.g.,
based on languages spoken by potentially exposed persons) to
potentially exposed persons. This training must be provided prior to or
at the time of initial assignment to a job involving potential exposure
to methylene chloride. Furthermore, EPA also requires that the owner or
operator
[[Page 39279]]
document their efforts in using elimination, substitution, engineering
controls, and administrative controls to reduce exposure to or below
the ECEL or EPA STEL in an exposure control plan.
EPA is finalizing its requirement that the owner or operator
include and document in the exposure control plan or through any
existing documentation of the facility's safety and health program
developed as part of meeting OSHA requirements or other safety and
health standards, the following:
Identification in the exposure control plan of available
exposure controls and rationale for using or not using available
exposure controls in the following sequence (i.e., elimination and
substitution, then engineering controls and administrative controls) to
reduce exposures in the workplace to either at or below the ECEL or to
the lowest level achievable, and the exposure controls selected based
on feasibility, effectiveness, and other relevant considerations;
For the exposure controls not selected, document the
efforts identifying why these are not feasible, not effective, or
otherwise not implemented;
A description of actions the owner or operator must take
to implement exposure controls selected, including proper installation,
regular inspections, maintenance, training, or other steps taken;
A description of regulated areas, how they are demarcated,
and persons authorized to enter the regulated areas;
A description of activities conducted by the owner or
operator to review and update the exposure control plan to ensure
effectiveness of the exposure controls, identify any necessary updates
to the exposure controls, and confirm that all persons are properly
implementing the exposure controls; and
An explanation of the procedures for responding to any
change that may reasonably be expected to introduce additional sources
of exposure to methylene chloride, or otherwise result in increased
exposure to methylene chloride, including procedures for implementing
corrective actions to mitigate exposure to methylene chloride.
Under this final rule, owners or operators are prohibited from
using rotating work schedules to comply with the ECEL 8-hour TWA.
Owners or operators must maintain the effectiveness of any engineering
controls, administrative controls, or work practices instituted as part
of the exposure control plan. They must also review and update the
exposure control plan as necessary, but at least every five years, to
reflect any significant changes in the status of the owner or
operator's approach to compliance with the exposure control
requirements. EPA intends that the exposure control plan identify the
available exposure controls and, for the exposure controls not
selected, document the efforts identifying why these are not feasible,
not effective, or otherwise not implemented. For entities for which
significant amounts of time are needed to verify suitability of
alternatives or procure funds or authorization for additional
engineering controls, for example, EPA expects that as those controls
become available the exposure control plan would be updated
accordingly. EPA requires that the exposure control plan be revisited
under certain conditions (and at least every five years) and encourages
updates as more sophisticated controls are available.
This final rule requires owners or operators to make the exposure
control plan and associated records available to potentially exposed
persons, at a reasonable time, place, and manner, within 15 working
days of receiving a request. Owners or operators must also provide
notice of the availability of the plan and associated records to
potentially exposed persons.
6. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
Where elimination, substitution, engineering, and administrative
controls are not feasible or sufficiently protective to reduce the air
concentration to or below the ECEL, or if inhalation exposure above the
ECEL is still reasonably likely, EPA is finalizing its minimum
respiratory PPE requirements based on an owner or operator's measured
air concentration for one or more potentially exposed persons and the
level of PPE needed to reduce exposure to or below the ECEL. In those
circumstances, EPA is finalizing its requirement that the owner or
operator also comply with OSHA's General Requirements for PPE standard
at 29 CFR 1910.132 for application of a PPE program. EPA is also
requiring that the owner or operator comply with 29 CFR 1910.134 for
proper use, maintenance, fit-testing, and training of respirators.
a. Required Dermal Protection
EPA is finalizing the provision and use of chemically resistant
gloves in combination with specific activity training (e.g., glove
selection (type, material), expected duration of glove effectiveness,
actions to take when glove integrity is compromised, storage
requirements, procedure for glove removal and disposal, chemical
hazards) for tasks where dermal exposure can be expected to occur.
Additionally, EPA is requiring that owners and operators comply with
relevant sections of the methylene chloride OSHA standard to minimize
and protect potentially exposed persons from dermal exposure, including
29 CFR 1910.1052(h) and (i). Additional information related to choosing
appropriate gloves can be found in the NIOSH Hazard Alert (Ref. 99) and
in appendix F of the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride (Ref.
1).
b. Required Respiratory Protection
EPA is finalizing the following requirements for respiratory
protection, based on the exposure monitoring concentrations measured as
an 8-hour TWA that exceeds the ECEL (2 ppm) or 15-minute TWA that
exceeds the EPA STEL (16 ppm); see also the following table (table 2).
These requirements apply after all other feasible controls are
exhausted or proven ineffective to control inhalation exposure
(including elimination, substitution, engineering controls, and
administrative controls in accordance with the hierarchy of controls).
EPA is finalizing its minimum respiratory protection requirements, such
that any respirator affording the same or a higher degree of protection
than the following proposed requirements may be used. Under this final
regulatory action, air-purifying respirators (in contrast to air-
supplied respirators) are not permitted as a means of mitigating
methylene chloride exposure, as they do not provide adequate
respiratory protection against this chemical (Ref. 100). Additionally,
EPA acknowledges that there may be respirator limitations dependent
upon the nature of the activity in which methylene chloride is used
(e.g., a decreased range of motion or access to a small space could
hinder PPE use). Nevertheless, owners and operators must provide
respirators that are protective of the measured exposure concentration
after all other feasible controls are considered.
If the measured exposure concentration is at or below the
ECEL (2 ppm 8-hour TWA) and EPA STEL (16 ppm 15-minute TWA):
Respiratory protection is not required.
If the measured exposure concentration is above 2 ppm and
less than or equal to 50 ppm (25 times the ECEL): The required
respirator protection is any NIOSH Approved[supreg] SAR or airline
respirator in a continuous-flow mode equipped with a
[[Page 39280]]
loose-fitting facepiece or helmet/hood (APF 25).
If the measured exposure concentration is above 50 ppm and
less than or equal to 100 ppm (50 times the ECEL): The required
respirator protection is: (i) Any NIOSH Approved[supreg] SAR or airline
respirator in a demand mode equipped with a full facepiece (APF 50); or
(ii) Any NIOSH Approved[supreg] SCBA in demand-mode equipped with a
full facepiece or helmet/hood (APF 50).
If the measured exposure concentration is unknown or at
any value above 100 ppm and up to 2,000 ppm (1,000 times the ECEL): The
required respirator protection is: (i) Any NIOSH Approved[supreg] SAR
or Airline Respirator in a continuous-flow mode equipped with a full
facepiece or certified helmet/hood (APF 1,000)); or (ii) Any NIOSH
Approved[supreg] SAR or Airline Respirator in pressure-demand or other
positive-pressure mode equipped with a full facepiece and an auxiliary
self-contained air supply (APF 1,000)); or (iii) Any NIOSH
Approved[supreg] SCBA in a pressure-demand or other positive-pressure
mode equipped with a full facepiece or certified helmet/hood (APF
1,000+).
Table 2--Respiratory Protection Conditions and Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum required respirator
Concentration condition protection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
At or below the ECEL and EPA STEL...... No respirator required.
Above ECEL (2 ppm) and less than or Any NIOSH Approved[supreg]
equal to 50 ppm (25 times the ECEL). supplied-air respirator (SAR)
or airline respirator in a
continuous-flow mode equipped
with a loose-fitting facepiece
or helmet/hood (APF 25).
Above 50 ppm and less than or equal to Either (i) any NIOSH
100 ppm (50 times the ECEL). Approved[supreg] Supplied-Air
Respirator (SAR) or airline
respirator in a demand mode
equipped with a full facepiece
(APF 50); or (ii) any NIOSH
Approved[supreg] Self-
Contained Breathing Apparatus
(SCBA) in demand-mode equipped
with a full facepiece or
helmet/hood (APF 50).
Unknown concentration or at any value One of (i) any NIOSH
above 100 ppm and up to 2,000 ppm Approved[supreg] Supplied-Air
(1,000 times the ECEL). Respirator (SAR) or Airline
Respirator in a continuous-
flow mode equipped with a full
facepiece or certified helmet/
hood (APF 1,000); or (ii) any
NIOSH Approved[supreg]
Supplied-Air Respirator (SAR)
or Airline Respirator in
pressure-demand or other
positive-pressure mode
equipped with a full facepiece
and an auxiliary self-
contained air supply (APF
1,000); or (iii) any NIOSH
Approved[supreg] Self-
Contained Breathing Apparatus
(SCBA) in a pressure-demand or
other positive-pressure mode
equipped with a full facepiece
or certified helmet/hood (APF
10,000).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Additional Finalized Requirements
a. Workplace Participation
EPA encourages owners and operators to consult with potentially
exposed persons and on the development and implementation of exposure
control plans and PPE/respirator programs. EPA is finalizing its
requirement that owners and operators provide potentially exposed
persons regular access to the exposure control plans, exposure
monitoring records, PPE program implementation, and respirator program
implementation (such as fit-testing and other requirements) described
in 29 CFR 1910.134(l). To ensure compliance with workplace
participation, EPA is finalizing its requirement that the owner or
operator document the notice to and ability of any potentially exposed
person that may reasonably be affected by methylene chloride inhalation
exposure to readily access the exposure control plans, facility
exposure monitoring records, PPE program implementation, or any other
information relevant to methylene chloride inhalation exposure in the
workplace.
b. Notification of Monitoring Results
EPA is finalizing the requirement that when a potentially exposed
person's exposure to methylene chloride exceeds the ECEL action level
within a regulated area, the owner or operator will be required to
inform each potentially exposed person of the quantity, location,
manner of use, release, and storage of methylene chloride and the
specific operations in the workplace that could result in exposure to
methylene chloride, particularly noting where exposures may be above
the ECEL or EPA STEL. EPA further requires that the owner or operator
must, within 15 working days after receipt of the results of any
exposure monitoring, notify each potentially exposed person whose
exposure is represented by that monitoring in writing, either
individually to each potentially exposed person or by posting the
information in an appropriate and accessible location, such as public
spaces or common areas, for potentially exposed persons outside of the
regulated area. The notice would be required to identify the ECEL, ECEL
action level, and EPA STEL and what they mean in plain language, the
exposure monitoring results, and any corresponding respiratory
protection required. If the ECEL or STEL is exceeded, the notice would
also be required to include a description of the actions taken by the
owner or operator to reduce inhalation exposures to or below the ECEL
or EPA STEL which states the actions to be taken to reduce exposures.
The notice must be posted in multiple languages if necessary (e.g.,
notice must be in a language that the potentially exposed person
understands, including a non-English language version representing the
language of the largest group of workers who cannot readily comprehend
or read English).
c. Recordkeeping
For each monitoring event of methylene chloride, EPA is requiring
that the owner or operator record, similar to OSHA under 29 CFR
1910.1052(m), information including but not limited to, dates;
operations involving exposure; sampling and analytical methods; the
number of samples; durations, and results of each sample taken; the
type of respirator and PPE worn (if any); the potentially exposed
persons' names, work shifts, and job classifications; and exposure of
all the potentially exposed persons represented by monitoring,
indicating which potentially exposed persons were actually monitored.
EPA further requires documentation of the following whenever monitoring
for the WCPP is required under TSCA section 6(a):
(i) All measurements that may be necessary to determine the
conditions
[[Page 39281]]
(e.g., work site temperatures, humidity, ventilation rates, monitoring
equipment type and calibration dates) that may affect the monitoring
results;
(ii) All other potentially exposed persons whose exposure was not
measured but whose exposure is intended to be represented by the area
or representative sampling monitoring;
(iii) Use of established analytical methods such as those outlined
in appendix A of the ECEL memo (Ref. 93) with a limit of detection
below the ECEL action level and accuracy of monitoring within 25% for
the ECEL and 35% for the EPA STEL, as discussed in Unit IV.B.4.a., so
that the owner or operator may identify when the implementation of
additional exposure controls is necessary, determine the monitoring
frequency according to the requirements described in this unit, and
properly identify and provide persons exposed to methylene chloride
with the required respiratory equipment and PPE in this unit;
(iv) Compliance with the GLP Standards at 40 CFR part 792 or any
accredited lab including AIHA (e.g., AIHA LAP, LLC Policy Module 2A/B/E
of Revision 17.3), or other analogous industry-recognized program;
(v) Information regarding air monitoring equipment, including:
Type, maintenance, calibrations, performance tests, limits of
detection, and any malfunctions.
For owners and operators to demonstrate compliance with the WCPP
provisions, EPA is requiring that owners and operators must retain
compliance records for five years (although this requirement does not
supplant any longer recordkeeping retention time periods such as those
required under 29 CFR 1910.1020, or other applicable regulations). EPA
is requiring the owner or operator to retain records of:
Exposure control plan;
Regulated areas and authorized personnel;
Facility exposure monitoring records;
Notifications of exposure monitoring results;
PPE and respiratory protection used and program
implementation; and
Information and training required under 29 CFR
1910.1052(l) and appendix A, provided by the owner or operator to each
potentially exposed person prior to or at the time of initial
assignment to a job involving potential exposure to methylene chloride.
EPA emphasizes that all records required to be maintained can be
kept in the most administratively convenient form; electronic record
form or paper form. The owner or operator is required to document
training or re-training of any potentially exposed person as necessary
to ensure that, in the event of monitoring results that indicate
exposure or possible exposures above the ECEL action level or the EPA
STEL, the potentially exposed person has demonstrated understanding of
how to safely use and handle methylene chloride and how to
appropriately use required PPE. In addition, the owner or operator is
required to update the training and requisite documentation when there
is reasonable expectation that exposure may exceed the ECEL action
level due to change in tasks or procedures.
8. Compliance Timeframes
With regard to the compliance timeframe for those occupational
conditions of use which are subject to the WCPP, EPA is not finalizing
the timeframes proposed. Rather, as discussed in Unit III.D.1., based
on consideration of public comments, EPA is finalizing the timeframes
considered in the primary alternative action for the private sector and
is providing Federal agencies and Federal contractors acting for or on
behalf of the Federal Government additional time to comply with each of
the provisions of the WCPP. Specifically, EPA is finalizing its
requirement that owners and operators in the private sector establish
initial exposure monitoring according to the process outlined in this
unit within 360 days after date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register, while Federal agencies and Federal contractors acting
for or on behalf of the Federal Government must conduct initial
exposure monitoring within 915 days after the date of publication. EPA
is also finalizing its requirement that each owner or operator in the
private sector ensure that the airborne concentration of methylene
chloride does not exceed the ECEL or EPA STEL for all potentially
exposed persons within 450 days after the date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register, while Federal agencies and Federal
contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal Government must
comply with the ECEL and the EPA STEL within 1,005 days after the date
of publication. If applicable, each owner or operator must provide
respiratory protection sufficient to reduce inhalation exposures to
below the ECEL or EPA STEL to all potentially exposed persons in the
regulated area within three months after receipt of the results of any
exposure monitoring. For the private sector, this will be within 15
months after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register. For Federal agencies and Federal contractors acting for or on
behalf of the Federal Government, this will be within 33 months after
the date of publication. For any new facilities, or any facility
commencing one or more conditions of use listed in Unit IV.B.1. after
May 5, 2025, the timeframe for the requirement for initial exposure
monitoring is described earlier in Unit IV.B.4.b.; following that, the
requirements and timeframes for periodic monitoring in Unit IV.B.4.c.
would apply and owners and operators must ensure that no person is
exposed to an airborne concentration of methylene chloride that exceeds
the ECEL or EPA STEL within 90 days following the initial exposure
monitoring). EPA is also finalizing the requirement that owners and
operators demarcate a regulated area within three months after receipt
of any exposure monitoring that indicates exposures exceeding the ECEL
or EPA STEL. Owners and operators in the private sector shall proceed
accordingly to implement an exposure control plan, including
institution of feasible exposure controls other than PPE, within 540
days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register, while Federal agencies and Federal contractors acting for or
on behalf of the Federal Government must implement an exposure control
plan within 1095 days after the date of publication.
C. Prohibition of Manufacture, Processing, Distribution, and Commercial
Use of Methylene Chloride
In general, EPA is finalizing the prohibitions as proposed, with
some modifications, including for compliance timeframes to provide for
reasonable transitions, based on consideration of the public comments,
as described in Unit III. The rule prohibits manufacture, processing,
distribution, and all industrial and commercial use of methylene
chloride and methylene chloride containing products, except for those
uses which will continue under the WCPP, as identified in Unit IV.B.1.
After consideration of public comments, EPA is finalizing timeframes
longer than proposed for prohibition of manufacture, processing,
distribution, and commercial use of methylene chloride broadly, as well
as for particular uses such as commercial use of methylene chloride in
adhesives and sealants in aircraft, space vehicles, and turbine
applications; and commercial use of methylene chloride in paint and
coating removal for the refinishing of wooden pieces of artistic,
cultural, or historic value. The rationale for these changes from the
proposed rule is in Unit III.B. and Unit III.D.2.
[[Page 39282]]
As discussed in Unit IV.A. and in the Response to Comments, the
prohibitions do not apply to any substance that is excluded from the
definition of ``chemical substance'' under TSCA section 3(2)(B)(ii)
through (vi) (Ref. 7).
The final regulation will impose prohibitions in a staggered
timeframe, beginning at the top of the supply chain, as proposed. As
discussed in Unit III.D.2., in response to comments received, EPA is
finalizing longer timeframes than proposed for prohibition of
manufacturing, processing, distributing, or commercial use of methylene
chloride, but finalizing as proposed for distribution to and by
retailers, in order to expeditiously remove exposures to consumers. EPA
is finalizing timeframes for prohibitions according to the following
staggered timeframe:
Within 270 days of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register for prohibitions on distributing to retailers;
Within 360 days of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register for prohibitions on distribution by retailers;
Within 360 days of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register for prohibitions on manufacturing;
Within 450 days of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register for prohibitions on processors;
Within 630 days of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register for prohibitions on all distributors other than
retailers; and
Within 720 days of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register for prohibitions on most industrial and commercial use
after the publication date of the final rule in the Federal Register.
(Timeframes for prohibitions on distribution of methylene chloride
and methylene-chloride containing products to retailers are provided in
Unit IV.D., in relation to consumer use).
Additionally, for two conditions of use, EPA is finalizing
prohibitions that would take effect in five years. Those two conditions
of use are commercial use of methylene chloride in adhesives and
sealants in aircraft, space vehicle, and turbine applications for
structural and safety critical non-structural applications, and for
commercial use of methylene chloride in refinishing wood pieces of
artistic, cultural, or historic value (which also includes interim
requirements for minimum exposure controls). While EPA had proposed
that these prohibitions begin to be implemented within 90 days for
manufacturers, 180 days for processors, 270 days for distributors to
retailers, 360 days for all other distributors and retailers, and 450
days for industrial and commercial uses after the publication date of
the final rule, EPA is modifying the timeframes proposed based on the
information received in public comment.
EPA is delaying compliance with the prohibition for a subset of the
industrial and commercial use of methylene chloride in adhesives and
sealants, namely when that adhesive or sealant is used in aircraft,
space vehicle, or turbine applications for structural and safety
critical non-structural applications. As described in Unit III.B.2.,
this use of methylene chloride includes applications such as use in
bonding critical turbine engine hardware, use as a joining compound in
engine parts, and adhesive to bond capacitors, transformers,
components, military PC boards and subassemblies, and gasket sealants
in aerospace systems. Based on information received in public comments,
EPA is finalizing delayed compliance of five years before prohibition
for industrial or commercial use of methylene chloride for adhesives
and sealants in aircraft, space vehicle, and turbine applications for
structural and safety critical non-structural applications.
Regarding commercial use of methylene chloride for paint and
coating removal for wood furniture, decorative pieces, and
architectural fixtures of artistic, cultural, or historic value, as
discussed in Unit III.B.1., EPA is modifying the compliance dates
proposed for prohibitions and is finalizing a compliance date of five
years before prohibitions only for the narrowly described commercial
use of methylene chloride in this unit: For refinishing wood pieces of
artistic, cultural, or historic value, as discussed in Unit III.B.1.
During the interim period before prohibition, owners or operators
must not only restrict refinishing using methylene chloride only to
wooden furniture, decorative pieces, and architectural fixtures of
artistic, cultural or historic value, but also must meet a minimum
standard of exposure control. That includes: (1) Use of a regulated
area; (2) use of local exhaust ventilation, both bringing air in from
outside of the workspace where methylene chloride is being used and
pulling methylene chloride vapors away from the potentially exposed
person; and (3) use of any NIOSH Approved[supreg] SAR or airline
respirator in a demand mode equipped with a full facepiece (APF 50) or
any NIOSH Approved[supreg] SCBA in demand-mode equipped with a full
facepiece or helmet/hood (APF 50) or the appropriate respirator based
on initial monitoring as outlined in Unit IV.B.4.b. and in the
regulatory text under 40 CFR 751.109(d).
The owner or operator shall document each instance of refinishing
wooden furniture, decorative pieces, and architectural fixtures of
artistic, cultural or historic value. The documentation shall make
record of the date of the refinishing activity, a description of the
piece that was refinished and an explanation of its artistic, cultural,
or historic value, the owner of the refinished piece, and the methylene
chloride product used. EPA generally expects this information to be
part of normal business records.
D. Prohibition of Manufacture, Processing, and Distribution in Commerce
for Consumer Use of Methylene Chloride
The final rule prohibits the manufacture, processing, and
distribution in commerce of methylene chloride and methylene chloride
containing products for all consumer use. EPA is finalizing as proposed
the prohibition on retailers from distributing in commerce methylene
chloride and all methylene chloride-containing products, in order to
prevent products intended for industrial and commercial use under the
WCPP from being purchased by consumers. EPA is finalizing that the
prohibition on distribution in commerce of methylene chloride within
270 days for distributing to retailers, and 360 days for retailers
distributing in commerce after the publication date of the final rule
in the Federal Register.
A retailer is any person or business entity that distributes or
makes available products to consumers, including through e-commerce
internet sales or distribution. If a person or business entity
distributes or makes available any product to at least one consumer,
then it is considered a retailer (40 CFR 751.103). For a distributor
not to be considered a retailer, the distributor must distribute or
make available products solely to commercial or industrial end-users or
businesses. Prohibiting manufacturers (including importers),
processors, and distributors from distributing methylene chloride, or
any products containing methylene chloride, to retailers prevents
retailers from making these products available to consumers, which
addresses that part of the unreasonable risk from methylene chloride
contributed by consumer use. EPA first promulgated this definition,
with this rationale, in the earlier rule to regulate methylene chloride
in consumer paint and coating removers (84 FR 11420, March 27, 2019)
(FRL-
[[Page 39283]]
9989-29) and is finalizing as proposed for this regulation as well.
E. Other Requirements
1. Recordkeeping
For conditions of use that are not otherwise prohibited under this
final rule, EPA is finalizing as proposed the requirement that
manufacturers, processors, and distributors maintain ordinary business
records, such as invoices and bills-of-lading, that demonstrate
compliance with restrictions and other provisions of this final
regulation; and that they maintain such records for a period of five
years from the date the record is generated. This requirement begins at
the effective date of the rule (60 days following publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register). Recordkeeping requirements ensure
that owners or operators can demonstrate compliance with the proposed
regulations if necessary. Note that this requirement expands those
recordkeeping requirements promulgated in 2019 at 40 CFR 751.109
affecting manufacturers, processors, and distributors of methylene
chloride.
2. Downstream Notification
For conditions of use that are not otherwise prohibited under this
final regulation, EPA is finalizing as proposed the requirements that
manufacturers (including importers), processors, and distributors,
excluding retailers, of methylene chloride and methylene chloride-
containing products provide downstream notification of certain
prohibitions through Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) by adding to sections
1(c) and 15 of the SDS the following language:
After February 3, 2025, this chemical substance (as defined in
TSCA section 3(2))/product cannot be distributed in commerce to
retailers. After January 28, 2026, this chemical substance (as
defined in TSCA section 3(2))/product is and can only be distributed
in commerce or processed with a concentration of methylene chloride
equal to or greater than 0.1% by weight for the following purposes:
(1) Processing as a reactant; (2) Processing for incorporation into
a formulation, mixture, or reaction product; (3) Processing for
repackaging; (4) Processing for recycling; (5) Industrial or
commercial use as a laboratory chemical; (6) Industrial or
commercial use as a bonding agent for solvent welding; (7)
Industrial and commercial use as a paint and coating remover from
safety critical, corrosion-sensitive components of aircraft and
spacecraft; (8) Industrial and commercial use as a processing aid;
(9) Industrial and commercial use for plastic and rubber products
manufacturing; (10) Industrial and commercial use as a solvent that
becomes part of a formulation or mixture, where that formulation or
mixture will be used inside a manufacturing process, and the solvent
(methylene chloride) will be reclaimed; (11) Industrial and
commercial use in the refinishing for wooden furniture, decorative
pieces, and architectural fixtures of artistic, cultural or historic
value until May 8, 2029; (12) Industrial and commercial use in
adhesives and sealants in aircraft, space vehicle, and turbine
applications for structural and safety critical non-structural
applications until May 8, 2029; (13) Disposal; and (14) Export.
To provide adequate time to update the SDS and ensure that all
products in the supply chain include the revised SDS, EPA's final rule
requires manufacturers revise their SDS within 150 days of publication
and processors and distributors revise their SDS within 210 days of
publication of the final rule.
The intention of downstream notification is to spread awareness
throughout the supply chain of the restrictions on methylene chloride
under TSCA and to provide information to commercial end-users about
allowable uses of methylene chloride. Note that this requirement would
amend and add to the downstream notification requirements promulgated
in 2019 at 40 CFR 751.107 for paint and coating removers for consumer
use and additionally redesignate that section as 40 CFR 751.111. As
they become effective, the new amended requirements will supersede
those notification requirements promulgated in 2019.
F. TSCA Section 6(g) Exemptions
EPA is finalizing as proposed a 10-year exemption for emergency use
of methylene chloride in furtherance of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA)'s mission for the following specific
conditions of use: Industrial and commercial use as a solvent for cold
cleaning; Industrial and commercial use as a solvent for aerosol spray
degreaser/cleaner; Industrial and commercial use in adhesives, sealants
and caulks; Industrial and commercial use in adhesive and caulk
removers; Industrial and commercial use in metal non-aerosol
degreasers; Industrial and commercial use in non-aerosol degreasers and
cleaners; and Industrial and commercial use as a solvent that becomes
part of a formulation or mixture. The exemption includes additional
requirements, pursuant to TSCA section 6(g)(4), including required
notification and controls for exposure, to the extent feasible: (1)
NASA and its contractors must provide notice to the EPA Assistant
Administrators of both the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance and the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention of
each instance of emergency use within 15 working days and; (2) NASA and
its contractors would have to comply with the WCPP described in Unit
IV.B. to the extent feasible.
Specifically, this regulation requires NASA and its contractors to
notify the EPA Assistant Administrators of both the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and the Office of Chemical Safety
and Pollution Prevention within 15 days of the emergency use. The
notification must include a description of the specific use of
methylene chloride in the context of one of the conditions of use for
which this exemption is being finalized, an explanation of why the use
described qualifies as an emergency, and an explanation with regard to
the lack of availability of technically and economically feasible
alternatives.
EPA expects NASA and its contractors have the ability to implement
a WCPP as described in Unit IV.B. for the identified uses in the
context of an emergency, to some extent even if not to the full extent
of WCPP implementation. Therefore, NASA and its contractors must comply
with the WCPP to the extent technically feasible in light of the
particular emergency.
NASA and its contractors would still be subject to the general
recordkeeping requirements discussed in Unit IV.B.7.c.
V. TSCA Section 6(c)(2) Considerations
A. Health Effects of Methylene Chloride and the Magnitude of Human
Exposure to Methylene Chloride
EPA's analysis of the health effects of methylene chloride is in
the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride (Ref. 1). A summary is
presented here.
The 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride identified six non-
cancer adverse health effects: Effects from acute/short-term exposure,
liver effects, immune system effects, nervous system effects,
reproductive/developmental effects, and irritation/burns (Ref. 1). The
2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride also identified cancer
hazards from carcinogenicity as well as genotoxicity, particularly for
liver and lung tumors (Ref. 1).
Among the non-cancer adverse health effects, the 2020 Risk
Evaluation for Methylene Chloride identified neurotoxicity indicative
of central nervous system depression as a primary effect of methylene
chloride in humans following acute inhalation exposures (Ref. 1).
Identified central nervous system depressive symptoms include
drowsiness, confusion, headache,
[[Page 39284]]
dizziness, and neurobehavioral deficits when performing various tasks.
Central nervous system depressant effects can result in loss of
consciousness and respiratory depression, possibly resulting in
irreversible coma, hypoxia, and eventual death (Ref. 1).
Additionally, the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride
identified the liver as a sensitive target organ for inhalation
exposure (Ref. 1). For human health risks to workers and consumers, EPA
identified cancer and non-cancer human health risks. Risks from acute
exposures include central nervous system risks such as central nervous
system depression and a decrease in peripheral vision, each of which
can lead to workplace accidents and are precursors to more severe
central nervous system effects such as incapacitation, loss of
consciousness, coma, and death. For chronic exposures, EPA identified
risks of non-cancer liver effects as well as liver and lung tumors
(Ref. 1).
The 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride also identified
several irritation hazards from methylene chloride exposure. Following
exposures to methylene chloride vapors, irritation has been observed in
the respiratory tract and eyes. Direct contact with liquid methylene
chloride on the skin has caused chemical burns in workers and
gastrointestinal irritation in individuals who accidentally ingested
methylene chloride (Ref. 1).
Regarding the magnitude of human exposure, one factor EPA considers
for the conditions of use that contribute to the unreasonable risk is
the size of the exposed population, which, for methylene chloride, EPA
estimates is 785,000 workers, 135,000 occupational non-users, and 15
million consumers (Ref. 1).
In addition to these estimates of numbers of workers, occupational
non-users, consumers, and bystanders to consumer use directly exposed
to methylene chloride, EPA recognizes there is exposure to the general
population from air and water pathways for methylene chloride. (While
bystanders are individuals in proximity to a consumer use of methylene
chloride, fenceline communities are a subset of the general population
who may be living in proximity to a facility where methylene chloride
is being used in an occupational setting). EPA separately conducted a
screening approach to assess whether there may be risks to the general
population from these exposure pathways. This analysis is summarized in
full in the proposed rule, which includes information on the SACC peer
review (88 FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL-8155-02-OCSPP). This unit
addresses those areas where some risk was indicated at the fenceline,
and the use will be continuing under the rule.
EPA's analysis was presented to the SACC peer review panel in March
2022, and EPA is including SACC recommendations, as appropriate, in
assessing general population exposures in upcoming risk evaluations.
EPA's fenceline analysis for the water pathway for methylene
chloride, based on methods presented to the SACC, did not find risks
from incidental oral and dermal exposure to surface water, and while
EPA found one facility which indicated acute risk from drinking water,
additional assessment of this location identified that there are no
source drinking water intakes for public drinking water systems in
proximity to the facility estimated to have risk, thereby making risks
to the general population through the drinking water pathway unlikely.
Although the initial analysis presented to SACC and the multi-year
analysis conducted in response to SACC feedback for methylene chloride
indicated exposure and associated risks to select populations within
the general population living or working near particular facilities
from the ambient air pathway, EPA is unable to formally determine with
this screening methodology whether those risks contribute to the
unreasonable risk, because the screening methodology was not developed
for that purpose. However, EPA believes that the prohibitions being
finalized for manufacturing (including importing), processing, and
distribution in commerce for all consumer use and most commercial use
would address the majority of exposures to the general population,
including fenceline communities. Of the 14 facilities which indicated
some risk for methylene chloride, under the final regulation, only six
will continue to use methylene chloride (three facilities for
processing: Incorporation into formulation, mixture, or reaction
product, two facilities for plastic and rubber product manufacturing,
and one facility for paint and coating remover), and thus exposures at
the fenceline at the remainder of those facilities would be addressed.
Of those six facilities, the multi-year analysis indicated
potential risk at 100 meters for only three facilities representing two
conditions of use--two for plastic and rubber product manufacturing and
one for processing: Incorporation into a formulation, mixture, or
reaction process. Anticipated use trends for these three conditions of
use are discussed in this unit.
EPA anticipates processing into a formulation, mixture, or reaction
product to decline because, while processing into a formulation,
mixture, or reaction product will continue under a WCPP, all downstream
distribution and use of formulations, mixtures, or reaction products
will be prohibited except those handful of uses which will continue
under the WCPP, a majority of which require the application of neat
methylene chloride, rather than a formulated product. Additionally, the
facility with identified risk at the fenceline for processing:
Incorporation into formulation, mixture, or reaction product does not
appear to have communities currently located at the fenceline based on
land use analysis (Ref. 101). For use of methylene chloride in plastic
and rubber product manufacturing, EPA does not have reason to believe
the use of methylene chloride will increase, nor that there will be
significant increase in fenceline exposures in this sector, which is
heavily regulated by the CAA (Ref. 102).
For both processing: Incorporation into a formulation, mixture, or
reaction product and plastic and rubber product manufacturing, the
final rule would require exposure controls via implementation of a WCPP
as described in Unit IV.B. While it is plausible that efforts to reduce
exposures in the workplace to levels below the ECEL and EPA STEL could
lead to adoption of engineering controls that ventilate more methylene
chloride outside, EPA determined this outcome is unlikely, particularly
for plastic and rubber product manufacturing. This is because, as
discussed in Unit III.A.2., monitoring data submitted during the
comment period indicates current exposure levels are already very near
or below the ECEL so the addition of engineering controls that could,
in theory, ventilate more methylene chloride outside is not expected to
occur. Additionally, in a scenario where venting methylene chloride out
of the work area and into the outside air, this potential exposure
would be required to be limited as a result of the numerous existing
NESHAPs for methylene chloride for these conditions of use under the
CAA (applicable NESHAPs: 40 CFR part 63, subparts F, G, H, and I; 40
CFR part 63, subpart DD; 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY (79 FR 60898,
October 8 2014); 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVV; and 40 CFR part 63
subpart VVVVVV, and any exceedances would be an enforcement issue.
Thus, prohibition of manufacture, processing, and distribution in
commerce of methylene chloride for all
[[Page 39285]]
consumer use and most industrial and commercial use, and prohibition of
most industrial and commercial use of methylene chloride, is expected
to largely address the risks identified in the screening analysis to
any general population or fenceline communities close to facilities
engaging in methylene chloride use. EPA therefore does not intend to
revisit the air pathway for methylene chloride as part of a
supplemental risk evaluation.
B. Environmental Effects of Methylene Chloride and the Magnitude of
Environmental Exposure to Methylene Chloride
EPA's analysis of the environmental effects of and the magnitude of
exposure of the environment to methylene chloride is in the 2020 Risk
Evaluation for Methylene Chloride (Ref. 1). The unreasonable risk
determination for methylene chloride is based solely on risks to human
health; based on the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride, EPA
determined that exposures to the environment did not contribute to the
unreasonable risk.
For all conditions of use, exposures via water for acute and
chronic exposures to methylene chloride for amphibians, fish, and
aquatic invertebrates do not contribute to the unreasonable risk. To
characterize aquatic organisms' exposure to methylene chloride, modeled
data were used to represent surface water concentrations near
facilities actively releasing methylene chloride to surface water, and
monitored concentrations were used to represent ambient water
concentrations of methylene chloride. EPA considered the biological
relevance of the species to determine the concentrations of concern for
the location of surface water concentration data to produce risk
quotients, as well as frequency and duration of the exposure. While
some site-specific risk quotients, calculated from modeled release data
from facilities conducting recycling, disposal, and wastewater
treatment plant activities, exceeded risk benchmarks, uncertainties in
the analysis were considered. These uncertainties include limitations
in data, since monitoring data were not available near facilities where
methylene chloride is released, and data incorporated from the Toxics
Release Inventory, which does not include release data for facilities
with fewer than ten employees. As an additional uncertainty, the model
does not consider chemical fate or hydrologic transport properties and
may not consider dilution in static water bodies. Additional analysis
indicated that model outputs, rather than monitoring estimates, may
best represent concentrations found at the point of discharge from the
facilities (Ref. 1).
The toxicity of methylene chloride to sediment-dwelling
invertebrates is similar to its toxicity to aquatic invertebrates.
Methylene chloride is most likely present in the pore waters and not
absorbed to the sediment organic matter because methylene chloride has
low partitioning to organic matter. The concentrations in sediment pore
water are similar to or less than the concentrations in the overlying
water, and concentrations in the deeper part of sediment are lower than
the concentrations in the overlying water. Therefore, the risk
estimates, based on the highest ambient surface water concentration, do
not support an unreasonable risk determination to sediment-dwelling
organisms from acute or chronic exposures. There is uncertainty due to
the lack of ecotoxicity studies specifically for sediment-dwelling
organisms and limited sediment monitoring data (Ref. 1).
Based on its physical-chemical properties, methylene chloride does
not partition to or accumulate in soil. Therefore, the physical
chemical properties of methylene chloride do not support an
unreasonable risk determination to terrestrial organisms.
C. Benefits of Methylene Chloride for Various Uses
As described in the proposed rule, methylene chloride is a solvent
used in a variety of industrial, commercial, and consumer use
applications, including adhesives, pharmaceuticals, metal cleaning,
chemical processing, and feedstock in the production of refrigerant
HFC-32 (82 FR 7467). Specifically, methylene chloride use in commercial
paint and coating removal provides benefits for some users because it
is readily available and works quickly and effectively on nearly all
coatings without damaging most substrates. For a variety of additional
uses (e.g., adhesives, adhesive removers, cold pipe insulation, welding
anti-spatter spray) methylene chloride is relatively inexpensive,
highly effective, evaporates quickly, and is not flammable, making it a
popular and effective solvent for many years. As of 2016, the leading
applications for methylene chloride are as a solvent in the production
of pharmaceuticals and polymers and paint removers, although recent
regulations and voluntary industry actions are expected to decrease the
chemical's use in the paint remover sector (40 CFR part 751, subpart
B). The total aggregate production volume ranged from 100 to 500
million pounds between 2016 and 2019 according to CDR (Ref. 6).
D. Reasonably Ascertainable Economic Consequences of the Final Rule
1. Likely Effect of the Rule on the National Economy, Small Business,
Technological Innovation, the Environment, and Public Health
The reasonably ascertainable economic consequences of this final
rule include several components, all of which are described in the
Economic Analysis (Ref. 3). With respect to the anticipated effects of
this final rule on the national economy, EPA considered the number of
businesses and workers that would be affected and the costs and
benefits to those businesses and workers and did not find that there
would be an impact on the national economy (Ref. 3). The economic
impact of a regulation on the national economy becomes measurable only
if the economic impact of the regulation reaches 0.25% to 0.5% of Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) (Ref. 103). Given the current GDP, this is
equivalent to a cost of $40 billion to $80 billion. Therefore, because
EPA has estimated that the non-closure-related cost of the proposed
rule would range from $37.0 million annualized over 20 years at a 3%
discount rate and $39.5 million annualized over 20 years at a 7%
discount rate, EPA has concluded that this rule is highly unlikely to
have any measurable effect on the national economy (Ref. 3). In
response to the updated Circular A-4 published in November 2023, the
incremental, non-closure related costs of this rule at a 2% discount
rate ($36.4 million annualized over 20 years) is provided in appendix D
of the Economic Analysis (Ref. 3). In addition, EPA considered the
employment impacts of this final rule, and found that the direction of
change in employment is uncertain, but EPA expects the short-term and
longer-term employment effects to be small.
Of the small businesses potentially impacted by this final rule,
99% (229,635 firms) are expected to have impacts of less than 1% to
their firm revenues (rounded metric), 1% (1,668 firms) are expected to
have impacts between 1 and 3% to their firm revenues (rounded metric),
and 0.5% (1,148 firms) are expected to have impacts greater than 3% to
their firm revenues (rounded metric). Excluding end-users, total
estimated impacts on small businesses are $9.3 million (annualized
using a 7 percent discount rate). End users with economic and
technologically feasible alternatives
[[Page 39286]]
available do not have economic impacts that are estimated beyond rule
familiarization costs ($1.8 million in total costs, annualized using a
7 percent discount rate).
With respect to this rule's effect on technological innovation, EPA
expects this rule to spur more innovation than it will hinder. A
prohibition or significant restriction on the manufacture, processing,
and distribution in commerce of methylene chloride for uses covered in
this final rule may increase demand for existing, as well as
development of additional, safer chemical substitutes. In specifying
delayed compliance with a restriction, EPA must specify a date as soon
as practicable, and that period may be necessary to develop and
implement alternatives to a restricted chemical. For example, the 5-
year delayed compliance with the prohibition for certain furniture
refinishers allows extra time for the continued development and
implementation of alternative paint and coating removers to be
developed and tested in the marketplace. Outreach with processors
indicated some were working on paint and coating removers to fill the
void from methylene chloride products in the event of a prohibition in
commercial industries (e.g. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0181). This rule is
not likely to have significant effects on the environment because, as
discussed in Unit II.C.3., methylene chloride does not present an
unreasonable risk to the environment, though this rule does present the
potential for small reductions in air emissions and soil contamination
associated with improper disposal of products containing methylene
chloride. The effects of this rule on public health are estimated to be
positive, due to the potential prevention of deaths from acute exposure
and reduced risk of cancer from chronic exposure to methylene chloride,
as well as other reduced risks from other effects which, while tangible
and significant, cannot be monetized, as described in Unit V.D.2.
2. Costs and Benefits of the Regulatory Action and of the One or More
Primary Alternative Regulatory Actions Considered by the Administrator
The costs and benefits that can be monetized for this rulemaking
are described at length in in the Economic Analysis (Ref. 3). The non-
closure-related costs for this final rule are estimated to be $37.0
million annualized over 20 years at a 3% discount rate and $39.5
million annualized over 20 years at a 7% discount rate. The monetized
benefits are estimated to be $24.8 to $25.1 million annualized over 20
years at a 3% discount rate and $19.8 to $20.0 million annualized over
20 years at a 7% discount rate. In response to the updated Circular A-4
published in November 2023, the incremental, non-closure related costs
of this rule at a 2% discount rate ($36.4 million annualized over 20
years) and benefits ($27.1 to $27.5 million annualized over 20 years)
are provided in appendix D of the Economic Analysis (Ref. 3).
Due to unique circumstances in furniture refinishing, and, in
particular, commercial use of methylene chloride in refinishing for
wooden furniture, decorative pieces, and architectural fixtures of
artistic, cultural or historic value (as discussed in detail in Unit
III.B.1.), a prohibition of methylene chloride in this industry may
result in firm closures for the sector as a whole. It is possible to
estimate that profits for the 4,899 furniture refinishing firms that
use methylene chloride are approximately $63 million using the average
estimated revenues per firm for NAICS 811420, Reupholstery and
Furniture Repair ($338,525 is average revenue) and an IRS (2013)
estimate for profit in this sector of 3.8% of sales. Profit is related
to, but not the same as producer surplus. Producer surplus is generally
larger than profit since producer surplus is the difference between
total revenue and marginal cost and profit is the difference between
total revenue and total cost. Total revenue for the 4,899 furniture
refinishing firms that use methylene chloride is estimated to be $1.7
billion. Total revenue provides a measure of overall economic activity
for these firms, but does not directly relate to the potential loss of
producer and consumer surplus (i.e., social cost) from potential
closures or price increases in the furniture refinishing industry (Ref.
3). In addition, due to the uncertainty of the number and type of
closures, EPA is unable to include these potential impacts in the
monetized cost estimates for this action.
EPA considered the estimated costs to regulated entities as well as
the cost to administer and enforce alternative regulatory actions.
Estimated costs for regulatory alternatives can be found in the
Economic Analysis for this final rule (Ref. 3).
This final rule is expected to achieve health benefits for the
American public, some of which can be monetized and others that, while
tangible and significant, cannot be monetized due to lack of dose-
response data, as discussed in Unit I.E. At a discount rate of 2
percent over 20 years the monetized net benefits range from ($9.3M) to
($9.0) million (Ref. 3). EPA believes that the balance of costs and
benefits of this final rule cannot be fairly described without
considering the additional, non-monetized benefits of mitigating the
non-cancer adverse effects. The multitude of adverse effects from
methylene chloride exposure can profoundly impact an individual's
quality of life, as discussed in the proposed rule in Units II.A.
(overview), III.B.2. (description of the unreasonable risk), V.A.
(discussion of the health effects), and in the Risk Evaluation (85 FR
37942). Some of the adverse effects can be immediately experienced and
can result in sudden death; others can have impacts that are
experienced for a shorter portion of life but are nevertheless
significant in nature. The incremental improvements in health outcomes
achieved by given reductions in exposure cannot be quantified for non-
cancer health effects associated with methylene chloride exposure, and
therefore cannot be converted into monetized benefits. The qualitative
discussion throughout this rulemaking and in the Economic Analysis
highlights the importance of these non-cancer effects, which are not
able to be monetized in the way that EPA is able to for cancer and
death. These effects include not only cost of illness but also personal
costs such as emotional and mental stress that are hard to measure
appropriately. Considering only monetized benefits significantly
underestimates the impacts of methylene chloride adverse outcomes and
underestimates the benefits of this final rule.
The 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride identified two non-
cancer health effects in reviewed scientific literature relevant to
children, namely reproductive and developmental hazards (Ref. 1). The
2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride summarizes human health
hazards identified in the review of scientific literature, including
studies investigating methylene chloride exposure and reproductive and
developmental effects as well as developmental neurotoxicity. Some
epidemiological studies identified effects that include reduced
fertility, spontaneous abortions, oral cleft defects, heart defects,
and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). For ASD, due to methodological
reasons including confounding by other chemicals and lack of temporal
specificity, the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride did not
advance this hazard to a dose response calculation. Additionally, EPA
did not carry reproductive/developmental effects forward for dose-
[[Page 39287]]
response, because epidemiological studies lacked controls for co-
exposures and animal studies observed effects mostly at higher
methylene chloride concentrations. EPA also did not identify relevant
mechanistic information, which informed this decision (Ref. 1).
Nonetheless, additional health benefits may be achieved by reducing the
incidence of reproductive effects for workers in commercial facilities
or companies that use methylene chloride for the commercial uses
proposed to be regulated (Ref. 3).
EPA was unable to estimate either the precise reduction in
individual risk of these reproductive and developmental effects from
reducing exposure to methylene chloride or the total number of cases
avoided can be estimated due to a lack of necessary data. Nevertheless,
reproductive hazards such as reduced fertility are important
considerations. These health effects are serious and can have impacts
throughout a lifetime; for example, infertility and fertility treatment
can have deleterious social and psychological consequences such as
mental distress (Ref. 104).
The potential impacts of these effects include monetary impacts
from associated healthcare costs such as fertility treatments, as well
as complications from fertility treatments (e.g., higher multiple birth
rates), mental stress and emotional suffering, which cannot be
quantified or monetized but should not be ignored.
3. Cost Effectiveness of the Regulatory Action and of One or More
Primary Alternative Regulatory Actions Considered by the Administrator
Cost effectiveness is a method of comparing certain actions in
terms of the expense per item of interest or goal. A goal of this
regulatory action is to prevent user deaths resulting from exposure to
methylene chloride. While preventing potential deaths due to methylene
chloride exposure is not the only benefit of this regulatory action, it
was the goal selected to use for the cost effectiveness calculations.
The final rule regulatory option costs $27 million per potential
prevented death while the alternative option costs $151 million per
potential prevented death (using the 3 percent discount rate),
indicating that the final rule option is more cost effective compared
to the alternative option (Ref. 3). The primary difference between the
final and alternative option is that the alternative includes
prohibitions on some uses which fall under WCPP in the final rule, most
notably the use of methylene chloride as a processing aid. EPA received
multiple public comments providing detailed cost information on the
impacts of a prohibition of methylene chloride for this condition of
use. This information was incorporated into the cost estimates for the
alternative option (Ref. 3).
VI. TSCA Section 9 Analysis and Section 14 and 26 Considerations
A. TSCA Section 9(a) Analysis
TSCA section 9(a) provides that, if the Administrator determines,
in the Administrator's discretion, that an unreasonable risk may be
prevented or reduced to a sufficient extent by an action taken under a
Federal law not administered by EPA, the Administrator must submit a
report to the agency administering that other law that describes the
risk and the activities that present such risk. TSCA section 9(a)
describes additional procedures and requirements to be followed by EPA
and the other Federal agency after submission of the report. As
discussed in this Unit, the Administrator does not determine that
unreasonable risk from methylene chloride under the conditions of use
may be prevented or reduced to a sufficient extent by an action taken
under a Federal law not administered by EPA. EPA's section 9(a)
analysis can be found in full in Unit VII.A. of the proposed rule, and
responses to comments on that 9(a) analysis can be found in the
Response to Comments, section 8.5.1 (Ref. 7).
TSCA section 9(d) instructs the Administrator to consult and
coordinate TSCA activities with other Federal agencies for the purpose
of achieving the maximum enforcement of TSCA while imposing the least
burden of duplicative requirements. For this rulemaking, EPA has
coordinated with appropriate Federal executive departments and agencies
including but not limited to OSHA, CPSC, and NIOSH to, among other
things, identify their respective authorities, jurisdictions, and
existing laws with regard to the risk evaluation and risk management of
methylene chloride.
As discussed in more detail in the proposed rule, OSHA requires
that employers provide safe and healthful working conditions by setting
and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education,
and assistance. OSHA has established health standards for methylene
chloride covering employers in General Industry, Shipyards, and
Construction (29 CFR 1910.1052(a)). Gaps exist between OSHA's authority
to set workplace standards under the OSH Act and EPA's obligations
under TSCA section 6 to eliminate unreasonable risk presented by
chemical substances under the conditions of use. OSHA lacks direct
jurisdiction over state and local government workers, and does not
cover self-employed workers, military personnel, and uniquely military
equipment, systems, and operations, and workers whose occupational
safety and health hazards are regulated by another Federal agency (for
example, the Mine Safety and Health Administration, the Department of
Energy, or the Coast Guard) (Ref. 105). The U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC), under authority provided to it by Congress in
the CPSA, protects the public from unreasonable risk of injury or death
associated with consumer products. Under the CPSA, CPSC has the
authority to regulate methylene chloride in consumer products, but not
in other sectors such as automobiles, some industrial and commercial
products, or aircraft, for example.
Therefore, EPA maintains that TSCA is the only vehicle to deliver
broad protections to consumers who may use formulations that contain
methylene chloride and whose use contributes to the unreasonable risk
of injury to health from methylene chloride. An action under TSCA is
also able to address occupational unreasonable risk and would reach
entities that are not subject to OSHA. The timeframe and any exposure
reduction as a result of updating OSHA or CPSC regulations for
methylene chloride cannot be estimated, while TSCA imposes a much more
accelerated two-year statutory timeframe for proposing and finalizing
requirements to address unreasonable risk. Regulating methylene
chloride's unreasonable risk utilizing TSCA authority will also avoid
the situation where a patchwork of regulations amongst several Agencies
using multiple laws and differing legal standards would occur and is
therefore a more efficient and effective means of addressing the
unreasonable risk of methylene chloride. Finally, as discussed in
greater detail in the proposed rule, the 2016 amendments to TSCA
altered both the manner of identifying unreasonable risk and EPA's
authority to address unreasonable risk, such that risk management is
increasingly distinct from provisions of the CPSA, FHSA, or OSH Act.
EPA therefore concludes that TSCA is the only regulatory authority
able to prevent or reduce unreasonable risk of methylene chloride to a
sufficient extent across the range of conditions of use, exposures, and
populations of concern. For this reason, in the Administrator's
discretion, the Administrator has
[[Page 39288]]
analyzed this issue and does not determine that unreasonable risk from
methylene chloride may be prevented or reduced to a sufficient extent
by an action taken under a Federal law not administered by EPA.
B. TSCA Section 9(b) Analysis
If EPA determines that actions under other Federal laws
administered in whole or in part by EPA could eliminate or sufficiently
reduce a risk to health or the environment, TSCA section 9(b) instructs
EPA to use these other authorities to protect against that risk
``unless the Administrator determines, in the Administrator's
discretion, that it is in the public interest to protect against such
risk'' under TSCA. In making such a public interest finding, TSCA
section 9(b)(2) states ``the Administrator shall consider, based on
information reasonably available to the Administrator, all relevant
aspects of the risk . . . and a comparison of the estimated costs and
efficiencies of the action to be taken under this title and an action
to be taken under such other law to protect against such risk.''
Although several EPA statutes have been used to limit methylene
chloride exposure (Refs. 3,5), regulations under those EPA statutes
largely regulate releases to the environment, rather than occupational
or consumer exposures. While these limits on releases to the
environment are protective in the context of their respective statutory
authorities, regulation under TSCA is also appropriate for occupational
and consumer exposures and in some cases can provide upstream
protections that would prevent the need for release restrictions
required by other EPA statutes (e.g., Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), CAA, CWA). Updating regulations under other EPA
statutes would not be sufficient to address the unreasonable risks from
methylene chloride to workers, occupational non-users, consumers, and
bystanders who are exposed under its conditions of use. EPA's section
9(b) analysis can be found in full in Unit VII.B. of the proposed rule,
and responses to comments on that 9(b) analysis can be found in the
Response to Comments, section 8.5.2 (Ref. 7).
For these reasons, the Administrator does not determine that
unreasonable risk from methylene chloride under its conditions of use,
as evaluated in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride (Ref.
1), could be eliminated or reduced to a sufficient extent by actions
taken under other Federal laws administered in whole or in part by EPA.
C. TSCA Section 14 Requirements
EPA is also providing notice to manufacturers, processors, and
other interested parties about potential impacts to CBI. Under TSCA
sections 14(a) and 14(b)(4), if EPA promulgates a rule pursuant to TSCA
section 6(a) that establishes a ban or phase-out of a chemical
substance, the protection from disclosure of any CBI regarding that
chemical substance and submitted pursuant to TSCA will be ``presumed to
no longer apply,'' subject to the limitations identified in TSCA
section 14(b)(4)(B)(i) through (iii). Pursuant to TSCA section
14(b)(4)(B)(iii), the presumption against protection from disclosure
will apply only to information about the specific conditions of use
that this rule prohibits or phases out. Per TSCA section
14(b)(4)(B)(i), the presumption against protection will not apply to
information about certain emergency uses that this rule exempts from a
ban or phase-out pursuant to TSCA section 6(g). Manufacturers or
processors seeking to protect such information may submit a request for
nondisclosure as provided by TSCA sections 14(b)(4)(C) and 14(g)(1)(E).
Any request for nondisclosure must be submitted within 30 days after
receipt of notice from EPA under TSCA section 14(g)(2)(A) stating EPA
will not protect the information from disclosure. EPA anticipates
providing such notice via the Central Data Exchange (CDX).
D. TSCA Section 26 Considerations
As explained in the proposed rule, EPA fulfilled TSCA section 26(h)
by using scientific information, technical procedures, measures,
methods, protocols, methodologies, and models consistent with the best
available science. Comments received on the proposed rule about whether
EPA adequately assessed reasonably available information under TSCA
section 26 on the risk evaluation, and responses to those comments, can
be found in section 8.5.3 of the Response to Comments document (Ref.
7).
VII. References
The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even
if the referenced document is not itself physically located in the
docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please
consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
1. EPA. Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride (MC). EPA Document
#740-R1-8010. June 2022. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0437-0107.
2. EPA. Final Revised Unreasonable Risk Determination for Methylene
Chloride, Section 5. 2022. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0742-0120.
3. EPA. Economic Analysis of the Final Regulation of Methylene
Chloride Under TSCA Section 6(a) (RIN 2070-AK70). April 2024.
4. President Joseph R. Biden. The White House. The President and
First Lady's Cancer Moonshot: Ending Cancer As We Know It. Accessed
February 26, 2024. https://www.whitehouse.gov/cancermoonshot/.
5. EPA. Regulatory Actions Pertaining to Methylene Chloride.
February 2023. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0115.
6. EPA. Access CDR Data: 2016 CDR Data. Last Updated on May 2020.
https://www.epa.gov/chemical-data-reporting/access-cdr-data#2016.
7. EPA. Methylene Chloride; Methylene Chloride; Regulation Under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Response to Public Comments.
RIN 2070-AK70. April 2024.
8. Executive Order 13985. Advancing Racial Equity and Support for
Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government. Federal
Register. 86 FR 7009, January 25, 2021.
9. 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.
10. Executive Order 14008. Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and
Abroad. Federal Register. 86 FR 7619, February 1, 2021.
11. Hoang, Ahn, Fagan, Kathleen, Cannon, Dawn L., et al. Assessment
of Methylene Chloride-Related Fatalities in the United States, 1980-
2018. JAMA Internal Medicine. American Medical Association. Chicago,
Illinois. 181(6): 797-805. April 19, 2021.
12. OSHA. Accident Search Results. Keyword: Methylene Chloride.
Accessed February 28, 2024.
13. EPA. An Alternatives Assessment for Use of Methylene Chloride.
November 2022. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0082.
14. EPA. Notes from Federalism Consultation on Forthcoming Proposed
Rulemakings for Methylene Chloride and 1-Bromopropane under TSCA
Section 6(a). Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. October
2020. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0094.
15. EPA. Notes from Tribal Consultations on Forthcoming Proposed
Rulemakings for Methylene Chloride and 1-Bromopropane under TSCA
Section 6(a). Office of Pollution Prevention and
[[Page 39289]]
Toxics. October 2020. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0123.
16. Liz Hitchcock; Safer Chemicals Healthy Families. 11/20
Environmental Justice Consultations for 1-Bromopropane and Methylene
Chloride. November 20, 2020. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0088.
17. California Communities Against Toxics et al. Comment letter re
TSCA environmental justice consultations. November 13, 2020. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0088.
18. Swati Rayasam; Program on Reproductive Health and the
Environment (PRHE). PRHE follow up documents from EJ consultation
meeting. November 30, 2020. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0088.
19. EPA. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Methylene
Chloride; Regulation of Methylene Chloride under TSCA Section 6(a)
Proposed Rule; RIN 2070-AK70. November 22, 2022.
20. EPA. Final Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on
EPA's Planned Proposed Rule Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Section 6(a) Methylene Chloride. RIN 2070-AK70. October 28, 2021.
21. EPA. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for Methylene
Chloride; Regulation of Methylene Chloride under TSCA Section 6(a)
Proposed Rule. RIN 2070-AK70. April 2024.
22. EPA. Methylene Chloride: Risk Evaluation and Risk Management
under TSCA Section 6. SBA Small Business Roundtable. September 11,
2020. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0471-0010.
23. EPA. Public Webinar on Methylene Chloride; Risk Evaluation and
Risk Management under TSCA Section 6. 2020.
24. EPA. Stakeholder Meeting List for Proposed Rulemaking for
Methylene Chloride under TSCA Section 6(a).
25. EPA. 2021 Policy on Children's Health. October 5, 2021.
26. Chris Banach. VanDeMark Chemical Inc. Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-
0465-0193. June 30, 2023.
27. Stephanie N Daigle. Celanese Corporation Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2020-0465-0217. June 30, 2023.
28. Leigh Bausinger. Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP Comment EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0218. June 30, 2023.
29. Karen Ethier. ThermoFisher Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0213.
July 6, 2023.
30. Lee French. DuPont de Nemours, Inc. Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-
0465-0224. June 30, 2023.
31. Danielle Jones. Chemours Company Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-
0242. July 3, 2023.
32. Wanda Copeland Smith. Halocarbon Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-
0252. July 3, 2023.
33. EMD Electronics. EMD Electronics Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-
0269. July 3, 2023.
34. Michael Boucher. LANXESS Corporation Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-
0465-0278. July 3, 2023.
35. SABIC Innovative Plastics. SABIC Innovative Plastics US LLC
Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0367. July 3, 2023.
36. Haakan Jonsson. Covestro LLC Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0377.
June 29, 2023.
37. Genevieve Strand. Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates
(SOCMA) Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0250. July 3, 2023.
38. Major L. Clark, III. Small Business Administration Comment EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0235. July 3, 2023.
39. EPA. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Regulation of
Trichloroethylene. October 2023. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0642-0178.
40. Kim Medford. ENTEK Manufacturing Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0642-
0230. July 14, 2021.
41. John Reeves. Microporous LLC (``Microporous''), Request for
Section 6(g) Exemption. August 10, 2022.
42. SKIET. Sk ie Technology Co. Ltd. (SKIET) Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2020-0465-0226. June 30, 2023.
43. Ohio EPA. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Comment EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2020-0465-0261. July 3, 2023.
44. Yonhjik Kim. SK On Co. Ltd. Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0223.
July 6, 2023.
45. Chad Schumann. Polypore International, LP Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2020-0465-0251. June 30, 2023.
46. Dong Woo Kim. W-Scope Chungju Plant Co. Ltd (WCP) Comment EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0275. July 4, 2023.
47. Federal Consortium for Advanced Batteries (FCAB). National
Blueprint for Lithium Batteries 2021-2030. June 2021.
48. EPA. Covestro LLC Meeting Memo. August 22, 2023.
49. Remy Nathan. Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) Comment EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0168. June 30, 2023.
50. Andy Barsala. GE Aerospace Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0234.
July 3, 2023.
51. Steve Shestag. The Boeing Company Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-
0253. July 3, 2023.
52. Judah Prero. Chemical Users Coalition (CUC) Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2020-0465-0241. July 3, 2023.
53. Carrie McMichael. Solvay Specialty Polymers USA, LLC Comment
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0215. June 30, 2023.
54. Information Technology Industry. Information Technology Industry
Council (ITI) Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0254. July 3, 2023.
55. Paul DeLeo. American Chemistry Council (ACC) Comment EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2020-0465-0281. July 3, 2023.
56. Giorgio Zanchi. 3V Sigma USA Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0225.
June 30, 2023.
57. Aaron Rice; EaglePicher Technologies, LLC. Re: TSCA Section 6(g)
Exemption Request for Use of N-methylpyrrolidone and Methylene
Chloride in Production of Specialized Batteries. June 3, 2022.
58. James Lee. Ohio Manufacturers' Association (OMA) Comment EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2020-0465-0185. May 30, 2023.
59. EaglePicher. EaglePicher Technologies, LLC Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2020-0465-0214. June 30, 2023.
60. A. Richard Szembrot. Eastman Kodak Company Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2020-0465-0236. July 3, 2023.
61. Michael G. Anderson. Lockheed Martin Corporation Comment EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2020-0465-0244. July 3, 2023.
62. Master Finishing and Restoration. Master Finishing and
Restoration Inc. Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0233. July 6, 2023.
63. Restorations Unlimited. Restorations Unlimited. Accessed 11/13/
2023. https://restorationsunlimited.com/gallery.
64. EPA. Restorations Unlimited Meeting Memo. July 27, 2023.
65. Steve Bennett. Household & Commercial Products Association
(HCPA) Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0257. July 3, 2023.
66. Benco Sales. Benco Sales Inc. Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-
0228. July 6, 2023.
67. EPA. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Regulation of Methylene
Chloride. RIN 2070-AK70. August 2022.
68. EPA. Public Workshop on Use of Methylene Chloride in Furniture
Refinishing in collaboration with the Small Business Administration
Office of Advocacy. September 12, 2017. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0139-0006.
69. Charles Paint Research. Charles Paint Research Inc. Comment EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0194. June 30, 2023.
70. Halogenated Solvent Industry Alliance. Halogenated Solvent
Industry Alliance, Inc. (HSIA) Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0285.
May 3, 2023.
71. OSHA. OSHA 1910.155. Access 10/27/23. https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.155.
72. EPA. Master Finishing and Restoration, Inc. Meeting Memo. August
8, 2023.
73. EPA. Benco Sales, Inc. Meeting Memo. August 3, 2023.
74. Michael Kennedy. American Petroleum Institute (API) Comment EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0198. June 29, 2023.
75. LeaAnne Forest. American Chemistry Council Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2020-0465-0268. July 3, 2023.
76. Martin J. Durbin. U.S. Chamber of Commerce Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2020-0465-0279. July 3, 2023.
77. Melanie Barrett. Millipore Sigma Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-
0212. June 30, 2023.
78. 3M. 3M Company Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0222. June 30,
2023.
79. Mike LaFore. Dow Chemical Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0245.
July 3, 2023.
80. Jennifer C. Gibson. National Association of Chemical
Distributors (NACD) Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0188. June 21,
2023.
[[Page 39290]]
81. OSHA. 29 CFR 1910.1200--Appendix A. Accessed 10/27/2023. https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.1200AppA.
82. Mark Ames. American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA)
Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0187. June 20, 2023.
83. Catherine Palin. Alliance for Automotive Innovation Comment EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0248. July 3, 2023.
84. EPA. Additional Worker and Consumer Risk Analyses in Support of
the 2023 Proposed Regulation of Methylene Chloride under TSCA
Section 6(a). August 14, 2023.
85. Kenji Saito. American College of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine (ACOEM) Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0237. July 3, 2023.
86. James Lee. Hach Company Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0200. June
29, 2023.
87. William E. Allmond, IV. The Adhesives and Sealants Council, Inc.
Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0229. June 30, 2023.
88. Environmental Defense Fund. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0270. July 3, 2023.
89. EarthJustice et al. EarthJustice et al. Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2020-0465-0262. July 3, 2023.
90. AFL-CIO. American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations (AFL-CIO) Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0219. June 30,
2023.
91. Jean Warshaw. Jean Warshaw Comment EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0266.
July 3, 2023.
92. OSHA. OSHA 1999 Multi-Employer Citation Policy. Accessed 10/27/
2023. https://www.osha.gov/enforcement/directives/cpl-02-00-124.
93. EPA. Existing Chemical Exposure Limit (ECEL) for Occupational
Use of Methylene Chloride. December 10, 2020.
94. OSHA. Final Rule. Occupational Exposure to Methylene Chloride.
Federal Register. 62 FR 1494, January 10, 1997.
95. OSHA. OSHA Technical Manual (OTM) Section II: Chapter 1.
Personal Sampling for Air Contaminants. Last updated on September
14, 2023. https://www.osha.gov/otm/section-2-health-hazards/chapter-1.
96. OSHA. OSHA Method 1025, Methylene Chloride. January 5, 2024.
97. NIOSH. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), Fifth Edition.
Volatile Organic Compounds, C1 to C10, Canister Method: METHOD 3900,
Issue 1. August 30, 2018.
98. NIOSH. Hierarchy of Controls. Accessed October 6, 2022. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/hierarchy/.
99. OSHA; NIOSH. Hazard Alert: Methylene Chloride Hazards for
Bathtub Refinishers. January 2013. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/methylene_chloride_hazard_alert.pdf.
100. OSHA. 1910.1052 App A--Substance Safety Data Sheet and
Technical Guidelines for Methylene Chloride. Accessed October 6,
2022. https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.1052AppA.
101. EPA. Methylene Chloride: TRI Release Data Sensitivity Analysis.
September 1, 2022.
102. Texas Commission of Environmental Quality. Covestro LLC Comment
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465-0377 Attachment 4: NSR (State) Permit. May 24,
2022.
103. OMB. Guidance for Implementing Title II of [UMRA]. March 31,
1995.
104. Cousineau, Tara M., Domar, Alice, D. Psychological Impact of
Infertility. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics &
Gynaecology. Harvard Medical School. Waltham, Massachusetts. 21(2):
293-308. April 2007.
105. U.S. Department of Labor--Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA). Letter to James J. Jones from David Michaels,
Ph.D., MPH. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0231-0153. March 31, 2016.
106. EPA. Supporting Statement for an Information Collection Request
(ICR) Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA): Regulation of
Methylene Chloride under TSCA Section 6(a) (RIN 2070-AK70). OMB
Control No. 2070-0229. April 2024.
107. OSHA. Industry Profile for an OSHA Standard Results:
Establishment Size: All Sizes: Standard: 19101052 Methylene
Chloride. Accessed February 22, 2024.
108. OSHA. Accident Report Detail. Accident Summary Nr: 157996.015--
Employee Is Killed By Overexposure to Methylene Chloride. Accessed
February 22, 2024.
109. Ashley, Kevin. Harmonization of NIOSH Sampling and Analytical
Methods with Related International Voluntary Consensus Standards.
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. Taylor and Fracis
Group. London, England. 12(7): 107-15. 2015.
110. EPA. Notes from Environmental Justice Consultations on
Forthcoming Proposed Rulemakings for Methylene Chloride and 1-
Bromopropane under TSCA Section 6(a). Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
This action is a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined under
section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993), as amended by Executive Order 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11,
2023). Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for Executive Order 12866 review.
Documentation of any changes made in response to Executive Order 12866
review is available in the docket. EPA prepared an analysis of the
potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis
(Ref. 3), is available in the docket and summarized in Unit I.E.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this final rule have been
submitted to OMB for approval under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR) document that EPA prepared has
been assigned EPA ICR No. 2735.02 and OMB Control No. 2070-0229 (Ref.
106). You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and
it is briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements
are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
There are three primary provisions of the final rule that are
expected to increase burden under the PRA.
The first is downstream notification, which will be carried out by
updates to the relevant SDS and which is required for manufacturers,
processors, and distributors in commerce of methylene chloride, who
will provide notice to companies downstream upon shipment of methylene
chloride about the prohibitions. The information submitted to
downstream companies through the SDS will provide knowledge and
awareness of the restrictions to these companies.
The second primary provision of the rule that is expected to
increase burden under the PRA is WCPP-related information generation,
recordkeeping, and notification requirements (including development of
exposure control plans; exposure level monitoring and related
recordkeeping; development of documentation for a PPE program and
related recordkeeping; development of documentation for a respiratory
protection program and related recordkeeping; development and
notification to potentially exposed persons (employees and others in
the workplace) about how they can access the exposure control plans,
exposure monitoring records, PPE program implementation documentation,
and respirator program documentation; and related recordkeeping).
The third primary provision of the rule that is expected to
increase burden under the PRA is recordkeeping for interim requirements
for commercial use of methylene chloride for refinishing wood pieces of
artistic, historic or cultural significance (including documentation of
details related to the refinishing activity and records demonstrating
compliance with the exposure reduction controls).
[[Page 39291]]
Respondents/affected entities: Persons that manufacture, process,
use, distribute in commerce, or dispose of methylene chloride or
products containing methylene chloride. See also Unit I.A.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (TSCA section 6(a)
and 40 CFR part 751).
Estimated number of respondents: 237,969.
Frequency of response: On occasion.
Total estimated burden: 149,090 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $16,563,299 (per year), includes $4,451,405
annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves
this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal
Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display
the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
Pursuant to sections 603 and 609(b) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq., EPA prepared an IRFA for the proposed rule and convened a SBAR
Panel to obtain advice and recommendations from SER that potentially
would be subject to the rule's requirements. Summaries of the IRFA and
Panel recommendations are presented in the proposed rule (88 FR 28284,
May 3, 2023) (FRL-8155-02-OCSPP).
As required by section 604 of the RFA, EPA prepared a FRFA for this
action (Ref.21). The FRFA addresses the issues raised by public
comments on the IRFA for the proposed rule. The complete FRFA is
available for review in the docket and is summarized here.
1. Statement of Need and Rule Objectives
Under section 6(a) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2605(a)), if EPA determines
after a TSCA section 6(b) risk evaluation that a chemical substance
presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment,
without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an
unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation
identified as relevant to the risk evaluation, under the conditions of
use, EPA must by rule apply one or more requirements listed in TSCA
section 6(a) to the extent necessary so that the chemical substance or
mixture no longer presents such risk. Methylene chloride was the
subject of a risk evaluation under TSCA section 6(b)(4)(A) that was
issued in June 2020. In addition, in November 2022, EPA issued a
revised unreasonable risk determination that methylene chloride as a
whole chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to
health under the conditions of use. As a result, EPA is taking action
to the extent necessary so that methylene chloride no longer presents
such risk.
EPA developed this final rule after considering EPA's unreasonable
risk determination for methylene chloride, information provided in
public comments on the proposed rule, findings from and comments on the
SBAR panel, other required consultations, and additional public
outreach. For more information on the proposed rule, SBAR panel, and
outreach efforts for this action, see the docket for this rulemaking
(Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465).
To address the identified unreasonable risk, this rule: (1)
Prohibits the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of
methylene chloride for consumer use; (2) prohibits most industrial and
commercial uses of methylene chloride using the alternative timeframes
from the proposed rule; (3) delays prohibition timeframes for two
conditions of use of methylene chloride (including as a paint remover
in furniture refinishing) to allow for reasonable transitions to
alternatives; (4) requires a WCPP to be implemented within the
alternative timeframes from the proposed rule for several occupational
conditions of use, including three conditions of use for which the WCPP
was not proposed; (5) removes the proposed distinction between Federal
and commercial use of methylene chloride for two conditions of use
under the WCPP; (6) allows for a de minimis threshold of methylene
chloride in for products to account for impurities and non-intentional
presence; (7) requires recordkeeping and downstream notification
requirements for several conditions of use of methylene chloride; and
(8) provides certain time-limited exemptions from requirements for uses
of methylene chloride which are critical that have no technically
feasible, safer alternative available.
2. Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in Response to the
IRFA and EPA Response
An industry trade organization commented that the proposed rule
``discriminates'' against small businesses by providing them no
opportunity to use methylene chloride under the proposed WCPP. The
commenter also stated that the proposed rule contravenes the RFA by
failing to discuss comments provided by small businesses. The commenter
also faulted EPA for not discussing feedback received from small
businesses regarding substitution costs prior to the proposed rule.
EPA Response: EPA's primary responsibility under TSCA is to address
unreasonable risks presented by the chemical substance under the
conditions of use, irrespective of the size of the business. Entities
of any size under the conditions of use for which EPA is finalizing the
WCPP, phaseouts, or time-limited exemptions may continue to process or
use methylene chloride under the restrictions and requirements of the
rule; EPA is not prohibiting or limiting participation due to firm
size. Regarding the RFA, as required by the RFA, EPA convened a SBAR
Panel, solicited input from SERs, used that feedback to generate Panel
recommendations, incorporated those recommendations into the proposed
rule, and published an IRFA and FRFA. EPA also identified the impacts
of this rulemaking on small businesses (Ref. 19) and sought to identify
flexibilities that could be provided. For the Economic Analysis, to the
extent possible, EPA included specific and detailed substitution costs;
however, most information the Agency received was not detailed enough
to be incorporated.
3. SBA Office of Advocacy Comments and EPA Response
SBA Office of Advocacy provided comments on the proposed rule (EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2020-0465). The comments below reflect a portion of the
comments received by the SBA Office of Advocacy during the comment
period. For the full list of comments and responses, see section 3 of
the FRFA (Ref. 21).
Comment: SBA Office of Advocacy requested that EPA accept
additional data after the close of the public comment period.
EPA Response: The Agency is working to finalize rules consistent
with statutory timeframes under TSCA section 6(c)(1), which are to
propose a risk management rulemaking within one year of a final risk
evaluation for the
[[Page 39292]]
chemical substance, and to finalize the rulemaking within two years of
the final risk evaluation. Should a late submission contain data that
could be used to inform a future rulemaking, EPA may consider such
information at that time.
Comment: SBA Office of Advocacy stated that, while EPA refers to
uncertainty as to capacity for ECEL compliance as justification for
proposed bans of methylene chloride, TSCA does not specify any level of
certainty or compliance capability. TSCA simply requires that the
unreasonable risk be addressed only to the extent necessary. SBA Office
of Advocacy further stated that, by issuing the ECEL, EPA has
identified the threshold at which the unreasonable risk is considered
addressed, so if a user can comply with the ECEL, as proposed by EPA,
there should be no unreasonable risk present. In the commenter's view,
speculating about compliance capability goes beyond the scope of the
statute.
EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the interpretation that TSCA
requires EPA to ignore available information related to the ability of
workplaces to successfully implement the WCPP for methylene chloride.
The fact that there continue to be occupational deaths and nonfatal
incidents related to methylene chloride exposure, as well as ongoing
non-trivial levels of noncompliance with the OSHA Methylene Chloride
Standard (Ref. 11), indicate that compliance with regulatory controls
on workplace exposures to methylene chloride, including the WCPP,
cannot be assumed. Moreover, if EPA were to regulate all workplaces via
implementation of the WCPP, EPA believes that it would present
significant and widespread implementation difficulties across multiple
industry sectors, leading to high non-compliance rates that would
undermine the health-protectiveness of the rule. EPA is aware that
there remain ongoing non-trivial levels of noncompliance with the
existing OSHA Methylene Chloride Standard. For example, between October
2022 through September 2023, OSHA issued 44 citations and conducted 14
inspections on their methylene chloride standard, spanning 11
industries including furniture manufacturing and automotive repair. In
addition, OSHA has documented a fatality from methylene chloride as
recently as July 2023 (Ref. 11, 12, 107, 108). Given this background,
EPA does not believe it is reasonable to assume that entities with
ongoing difficulty implementing the WCPP will cease use of methylene
chloride because they are unable to comply with the WCPP. Rather, EPA
expects that those entities would instead continue attempting (albeit
unsuccessfully) to implement such protections, leaving the unreasonable
risk unmitigated. Accordingly, EPA's rule would fail to ensure that
methylene chloride no longer presents an unreasonable risk to health,
as required by TSCA section 6(a). Conversely, where EPA has information
demonstrating that companies can meet the WCPP reliably, there is a
record basis upon which EPA can determine that the condition of use can
continue under the WCPP without contributing to the unreasonable risk
posed by methylene chloride. EPA notes that all industry sectors had
numerous opportunities to provide the agency with monitoring or other
data to indicate the ability for effective exposure reduction for their
uses, but, in some cases, none were provided.
Comment: SBA Office of Advocacy asserted that EPA's proposal
exceeds the statutory directive because it would prohibit the use of
methylene chloride as a processing aid even for a business that
provided data indicating that worker inhalation exposures were
frequently below the ECEL or even the level of detection. SBA Office of
Advocacy also argued that EPA's consideration in the alternative
regulatory action of allowing the WCPP-controlled use of methylene
chloride as a processing aid and for other uses indicates that such an
option would address unreasonable risks.
EPA Response: In the proposed rule, EPA signaled its willingness to
reconsider the proposed prohibition on the commercial use of methylene
chloride as a processing aid should EPA receive adequate supporting
information during the public comment period. As a result of the
information provided by the business referenced by SBA Office of
Advocacy, and additional information received during the comment
period, the final rule permits the commercial use of methylene chloride
as a processing aid to continue under the WCPP.
Comment: SBA Office of Advocacy stated that the proposed ECEL
Action Level is too low and cannot be measured in real time on-site.
SBA Office of Advocacy stated that the ECEL Action Level should be
adjusted to account for the practical limitations faced by small
businesses and ensure the ECEL Action Level is both feasible and
accurately measurable in real-time.
EPA Response: EPA notes that while real-time monitoring is not
required for rule compliance, EPA understands the practical benefits of
real-time occupational exposure monitoring. EPA notes that in the
response to comments, multiple stakeholders acknowledged the viability
of real-time detection for methylene chloride at 1 ppm. EPA
acknowledges that some portable monitoring devices may not be able to
reliably detect the action level in real-time. In conditions that may
ideally benefit real-time monitoring measurements or expedited results,
stationary monitoring devices such as mass spectrometers, as noted by
another commenter, may be helpful. EPA may not always set the action
level for a given chemical at one half the assigned ECEL value. In some
situations, EPA may adjust the action level in a risk management rule
as part of the WCPP.
4. Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Final Rule
Applies
This final rule potentially affects small manufacturers (including
importers), processors, distributors, retailers, users of methylene
chloride or of products containing methylene chloride, and entities
engaging in disposal. EPA estimates that the final rule would affect
approximately 237,969 firms using methylene chloride, of which 232,451
small entities (based on SBA definitions published in March 2023) have
estimated impacts. End users with economic and technologically feasible
alternatives available do not have estimated cost impacts beyond rule
familiarization costs except for vapor degreasing and furniture
refinishing. For a full description of the estimated number of small
entities affected by this rule, see the FRFA (Ref. 21).
5. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements
of the Final Rule
a. Compliance Requirements
EPA is prohibiting most conditions of use of methylene chloride. As
described in the final rule, EPA is prohibiting all manufacturing
(including import), processing, and distribution in commerce of
methylene chloride for consumer use. After the publication date of the
final rule in the Federal Register, prohibitions on manufacturing,
processing, and distribution in commerce of methylene chloride for
consumer use will occur in 360 days for manufacturers, 450 days for
processers, 270 days for distributing to retailers, and 360 days for
all other distributors and retailers.
EPA is also prohibiting manufacturing (including import),
processing, distribution in commerce of methylene chloride for
commercial use, and all commercial use of methylene chloride
[[Page 39293]]
other than those conditions of use for which EPA is finalizing a WCPP
or providing a time-limited exemption under TSCA section 6(g). The
prohibitions for these commercial uses would become effective following
prohibitions relevant to these uses in stages of the supply chain
before the industrial and commercial use (e.g., manufacturing and
processing). The restrictions follow a staggered schedule for each
stage of the supply chain. Prohibitions come into effect in 360 days
for manufacturers, 450 days for processors, 270 days for distributing
to retailers, 630 days for all other distributors and retailers, and
720 days for industrial and commercial uses after the publication date
of the final rule.
EPA is finalizing a prohibition compliance date delayed by five
years after the publication date of the final rule for commercial use
of methylene chloride in furniture refinishing for wood pieces of
artistic, cultural, or historic value where workshops can meet a
minimum standard of exposure control. Additionally, EPA is finalizing a
delayed prohibition compliance date of five years for industrial and
commercial use in adhesives and sealants in aircraft, space vehicle,
and turbine applications for structural and safety critical non-
structural applications after the publication date of the final rule.
For other conditions of use that contribute to the unreasonable
risk from methylene chloride, EPA is finalizing a WCPP to address the
unreasonable risk as outlined in Unit IV.
A WCPP encompasses inhalation exposure thresholds, includes
monitoring and recordkeeping requirements to verify that those
thresholds are not exceeded, and other components, such as dermal
protection, to ensure that the chemical substance no longer presents
unreasonable risk. In the case of methylene chloride, meeting the
exposure thresholds finalized by EPA for certain occupational
conditions of use would address unreasonable risk driven by inhalation
exposure from those conditions of use for potentially exposed persons.
b. Classes of Small Entities Subject to the Compliance Requirements
The small entities that would be potentially directly regulated by
this rule are small businesses that manufacture (including import),
process, distribute in commerce, use, or dispose of methylene chloride,
including retailers of methylene chloride for end-consumer uses.
c. Professional Skills Needed To Comply
Entities subject to this rule that manufacture (including import),
process, or distribute methylene chloride in commerce for consumer use
would be required to cease such activity. The entity would be required
to modify their Safety Data Sheet to inform their customers of the
prohibition on manufacture, processing, and distribution of methylene
chloride for consumer use. They would also be required to keep records
of how much methylene chloride they sold, and to whom, and maintain a
copy of the method they use for notifying their customers. None of
these activities require any special skills.
Entities that use methylene chloride in any of the industrial and
commercial conditions of use that are prohibited would be required to
cease those activities. Restriction or prohibition of these uses will
likely require the implementation of an alternative chemical or the
cessation of use of methylene chloride in a process or equipment that
may require persons with specialized skills, such as engineers or other
technical experts. Instead of developing an alternative method
themselves, commercial users of methylene chloride may choose to
contract with another entity to do so.
Entities that are permitted to continue to manufacture, process,
distribute in commerce, use, or dispose of methylene chloride are
required to implement a WCPP and would have to meet the provisions of
the program for continued use of methylene chloride. Adaption to a WCPP
may require persons with specialized skills such as an engineer,
chemist, health and safety professional, or laboratory technicians to
process monitoring samples. Instead of implementing the WCPP
themselves, entities that use methylene chloride may choose to contract
with another entity to do so. Records would have to be maintained for
compliance with a WCPP. While this recording activity itself may not
require a special skill, the airborne concentrations to be measured and
recorded may require persons with specialized skills such as an
industrial hygienist or laboratory technician. Additionally,
potentially exposed persons reasonably likely to be exposed to
methylene chloride by inhalation to concentrations above the ECEL or
EPA STEL are required to be trained for the proper use of respirators.
While this does not necessarily entail a specialized skill, it does
require specialized training for those handling methylene chloride
within regulated areas and includes activity-specific training for
proper PPE use such as gloves. EPA's respirator provision, in alignment
with OSHA under 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(ii), also requires medical
qualification to employ the use of respirators. While this is also not
a specialized skill, it is a specialized pre-qualifier for use of
respirators.
Refinishers of wood pieces of artistic, cultural, or historic value
using methylene chloride may need to exercise use of additional
exposure controls such as engineering, administrative, and PPE/
respirators. Establishing adequate controls for this use may require
knowledgeable persons with specialized skills or equipment such as an
engineer or a health and safety professional. Instead of developing the
required exposure mitigation methods themselves to demonstrate
compliance, commercial users of methylene chloride for this use may
choose to contract with another entity to do so.
6. Steps Taken To Minimize Economic Impact to Small Entities
a. SBAR Panel
As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), EPA conducted
outreach to small entities and convened a SBAR Panel on November 4,
2020, to obtain advice and recommendations of representatives of the
small entities that potentially would be subject to the rule's
requirements. The Panel solicited input on all aspects of these
proposed regulations. Thirteen potentially impacted small entities
served as small-entity representatives (SERs) to the Panel,
representing a broad range of small entities from diverse geographic
locations. The Panel Report was signed on October 28, 2021.
Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated
the assembled materials and small-entity comments on issues related to
elements of the regulatory flexibility analysis. It is important to
note that the Panel's findings and discussion were based on the
information available at the time the final report was prepared. For
the full list of Panel recommendations, see section 8.A. of the FRFA
(Ref.21).
EPA detailed the SBAR Panel's request for comment on these specific
topics in the IRFA and proposed rule (88 FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL-
8155-02-OCSPP) and solicited comment from the public. During the
comment period, the public provided comment on some of these areas.
Those comments and others received on the proposed rule and EPA's
responses are in the
[[Page 39294]]
Response to Comments document in the docket (Ref. 7).
b. Alternatives Considered
To identify the regulatory approach that would address the
unreasonable risk from methylene chloride, EPA analyzed alternative
regulatory approaches to identify which would be feasible, reduce
burden to small businesses, and achieve the objective of the statute
(i.e., applying one or more requirements list in TSCA section 6(a) to
the extent necessary so that the chemical substance or mixture no
longer presents an unreasonable risk). As described in more detail in
Unit V. of the proposed rule (88 FR 28284, May 3, 2023) (FRL-8155-02-
OCSPP), and Unit II.D. of the final rule, EPA considered several
factors, in addition to identified unreasonable risk, when selecting
among possible TSCA section 6(a) requirements. To the extent
practicable, EPA factored into its decisions: the effects of methylene
chloride on health and the environment, the magnitude of exposure to
methylene chloride of human beings and the environment, the benefits of
methylene chloride for various uses, and the reasonably ascertainable
economic consequences of the rule. As part of this analysis, EPA
considered a wide variety of control measures to address the
unreasonable risk from methylene chloride such as weight fractions,
prescriptive controls, and a certification and limited access program.
EPA's consideration of these alternative control measures is described
in detail in the IRFA for the proposed rule, and throughout Unit V.A.4.
of the proposed rule.
Based on consideration of public comments received on the proposed
rule, EPA has made some changes from the proposed rule to the final
rule. These changes include the finalization of additional conditions
of use under the WCPP, rather than prohibition, and changes to
timeframes for compliance for the WCPP and for prohibitions. Additional
changes to the rule based on consideration of public comments are
detailed in Unit III of the final rule and include identification of a
de minimis threshold of methylene chloride in formulations, and
modifications to provisions of the WCPP (including to exposure
monitoring requirements). For additional information and rationale
towards alternative actions, see Unit III.D. of this final rule and
section 8.B. of the FRFA (Ref. 21).
In addition, EPA is preparing a Small Entity Compliance Guide to
help small entities comply with this rule. EPA expects that this guide
will be made available on the EPA website prior to the effective date
of this final rule.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action will
affect entities that use methylene chloride. It is not expected to
affect State, local, or Tribal governments because the use of use of
methylene chloride by government entities is minimal. This action is
not expected to result in expenditures by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more (when adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year.
Accordingly, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections
202, 203, or 205 of UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
EPA has concluded that this action has federalism implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
because regulation under TSCA section 6(a) may preempt state law. EPA
provides the following federalism summary impact statement. The Agency
consulted with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed action to permit them to have meaningful and
timely input into its development. This included a consultation meeting
on October 22, 2020, and a background presentation on September 9,
2020. EPA invited the following national organizations representing
State and local elected officials to these meetings: Association of
State Drinking Water Administrators, National Association of Clean
Water Agencies, Western States Water Council, National Water Resources
Association, American Water Works Association, Association of
Metropolitan Water Agencies, Association of Clean Water Administrators,
Environmental Council of the States, National Association of Counties,
National League of Cities, County Executives of America, U.S.
Conference of Mayors, and National Association of Attorneys General. A
summary of the meeting with these organizations, including the views
that they expressed, is available in the docket (Ref. 14). As discussed
in Unit VIII.E. and in the proposed rule, during Federalism
consultation meetings EPA provided information on TSCA section 6
regulations and participants discussed preemption as well as the
relationship between TSCA and existing statutes such as the CWA and
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (Ref. 14). EPA provided an opportunity
for these organizations to provide follow-up comments in writing but
did not receive any such comments.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) because it will
not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian Tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes. Methylene chloride is not manufactured,
processed, or distributed in commerce by Tribes and, therefore, this
rulemaking would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on
Tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.
Notwithstanding the lack of Tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175, EPA consulted with Tribal officials during the
development of this action, consistent with the EPA Policy on
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, which EPA applies
more broadly than Executive Order 13175.
The Agency held a Tribal consultation from October 7, 2020, to
January 8, 2021, with meetings on November 12 and 13, 2020. Tribal
officials were given the opportunity to meaningfully interact with EPA
concerning the current status of risk management. During the
consultation, EPA discussed risk management under TSCA section 6(a),
findings from the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride, types of
information to inform risk management, principles for transparency
during risk management, and types of information EPA sought from Tribal
officials (Ref. 15). EPA briefed Tribal officials on the Agency's risk
management considerations and Tribal officials raised no related issues
or concerns to EPA during or in follow-up to those meetings (Ref. 15).
EPA received no written comments as part of this consultation.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) directs Federal
agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of
the planned regulation on children in Federal health and safety
standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to
[[Page 39295]]
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action
is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because EPA does not believe
the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action
present a disproportionate risk to children as reflected by the
conclusions of the methylene chloride risk evaluation (Ref. 1). EPA did
not find that the adverse health impacts for children and for men and
women of reproductive age was disproportionate in comparison to other
populations. While there is some evidence of an association between
methylene chloride and developmental neurological effects, the
literature contains methodological limitations in human studies and
concentration limitations in animal studies, and thus reproductive/
development effects were not carried forward to dose-response. However,
EPA's Policy on Children's health applies to this action. Information
on how the Policy was applied is available under ``Children's
Environmental Health'' in Unit II.D.2.c.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of
energy and has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Pursuant to the NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272, the Agency has
determined that this rulemaking involves environmental monitoring or
measurement, specifically for occupational inhalation exposures to
methylene chloride. Consistent with the Agency's Performance Based
Measurement System (PBMS), EPA has decided not require the use of
specific, prescribed analytic methods. Rather, the Agency will allow
the use of any method that meets the prescribed performance criteria.
The PBMS approach is intended to be more flexible and cost-effective
for the regulated community; it is also intended to encourage
innovation in analytical technology and improved data quality. EPA is
not precluding the use of any method, whether it constitutes a
voluntary consensus standard or not, as long as it meets the
performance criteria specified.
For this rulemaking, the key consideration for the PBMS approach is
the ability to accurately detect and measure airborne concentrations of
methylene chloride at the ECEL, the ECEL action level, and the EPA
STEL. Some examples of methods which meet the criteria are included in
appendix A of the ECEL memo (Ref. 93). EPA recognizes that there may be
voluntary consensus standards that meet the criteria (Ref. 109).
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All
EPA believes that the human health and environmental conditions
that exist prior to this action do not result in or have the potential
to result in disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental
effects on communities with environmental justice concerns in
accordance with Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994)
and Executive Order 14096 (88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023). As described
more fully in the Economic Analysis for this rulemaking (Ref. 3), EPA
conducted an analysis to characterize the baseline conditions faced by
communities and workers affected by the regulation to identify the
potential for disproportionate impacts on communities with EJ concerns
using information about the facilities, workforce, and communities
potentially affected by the regulatory options under current
conditions, before the regulation would go into effect. The analysis
drew on publicly available data provided by EPA, U.S. Census Bureau,
and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), including data
from TRI, EPA Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO),
National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA), the American Community Survey,
and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. The baseline
characterization suggests that workers in affected industries and
regions, as well as residents of nearby communities, are not more
likely to be people of color than the general population in affected
states, although this varied by use assessed.
Based on reasonably available information, EPA believes that there
are not potential EJ concerns in communities surrounding facilities
subject to this regulation (Ref. 3). Therefore, EPA believes that this
action is likely to not result in new disproportionate and adverse
effects on communities with EJ concerns. This regulatory action would
apply requirements to the extent necessary so that methylene chloride
no longer presents an unreasonable risk. While this regulatory action
will address unreasonable risks from methylene chloride under the
conditions of use as required by TSCA section 6(a), EPA is not able to
quantify the distribution of the change in risk for affected
populations due to data limitations that prevented EPA from conducting
a more comprehensive analysis of such a change.
EPA additionally identified and addressed potential EJ concerns by
conducting outreach to advocates of communities that might be subject
to disproportionate exposure to methylene chloride.
On November 16 and 19, 2020, EPA held public meetings as part of
this consultation. (Ref. 110). See also Unit II.D. These meetings were
held pursuant to Executive Order 12898 and Executive Order 14008,
Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad (86 FR 7619, February 1,
2021). EPA received three written comments following the EJ meetings,
in addition to oral comments provided during the consultations (Refs.
16, 17, 18). In general, commenters supported strong regulation of
methylene chloride to protect lower-income communities and workers.
Commenters supported strong outreach to affected communities,
encouraged EPA to follow the hierarchy of controls, favored
prohibitions, and noted the uncertainty of use--and in some cases
inadequacy--of PPE.
The information supporting this Executive order review is contained
in Unit II.D., as well as in the Economic Analysis (Refs. 3, 110).
EPA's presentations, a summary of EPA's presentation and public
comments made, and fact sheets for the EJ consultations related to this
rulemaking are available at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/environmental-justice-consultations-methylene-chloride. These materials are also available in the public docket for
this rulemaking.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action meets the
criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 751
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Export notification, Hazardous
[[Page 39296]]
substances, Import certification, Reporting and recordkeeping.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR chapter I
is amended to read as follows:
PART 751--REGULATION OF CERTAIN CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES AND MIXTURES
UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT
0
1. The authority citation for part 751 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 15 U.S.C. 2625(l)(4).
0
2. Amend Sec. 751.5 by adding in alphabetical order the definitions
for ``Article'', ``Authorized person'', ``Owner or operator'',
``Potentially exposed person'', ``Product'', ``Regulated area'', and
``Retailer'' to read as follows:
Sec. 751.5 Definitions.
* * * * *
Article means a manufactured item:
(1) Which is formed to a specific shape or design during
manufacture;
(2) Which has end use function(s) dependent in whole or in part
upon its shape or design during end use; and
(3) Which has either no change of chemical composition during its
end use or only those changes of composition which have no commercial
purpose separate from that of the article, and that result from a
chemical reaction that occurs upon end use of other chemical
substances, mixtures, or articles; except that fluids and particles are
not considered articles regardless of shape or design.
Authorized person means any person specifically authorized by the
owner or operator to enter, and whose duties require the person to
enter, a regulated area.
* * * * *
Owner or operator means any person who owns, leases, operates,
controls, or supervises a workplace covered by this part.
* * * * *
Potentially exposed person means any person who may be exposed to a
chemical substance or mixture in a workplace as a result of a condition
of use of that chemical substance or mixture.
Product means the chemical substance, a mixture containing the
chemical substance, or any object that contains the chemical substance
or mixture containing the chemical substance that is not an article.
Regulated area means an area established by the regulated entity to
demarcate areas where airborne concentrations of a specific chemical
substance exceed, or there is a reasonable possibility they may exceed,
the applicable Existing Chemical Exposure Limit (ECEL) or the EPA Short
Term Exposure Limit (EPA STEL).
Retailer means a person who distributes in commerce or makes
available a chemical substance or mixture to consumer end users,
including e-commerce internet sales or distribution. Any distributor
with at least one consumer end user customer is considered a retailer.
A person who distributes in commerce or makes available a chemical
substance or mixture solely to commercial or industrial end users or
solely to commercial or industrial businesses is not considered a
retailer.
0
3. Revise Sec. 751.101 to read as follows:
Sec. 751.101 General.
(a) Applicability. This subpart sets certain restrictions on the
manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce,
use, and disposal of methylene chloride (CASRN 75-09-2) to prevent
unreasonable risks of injury to health.
(b) De minimis threshold. Unless otherwise specified in this
subpart, the prohibitions and restrictions of this subpart do not apply
to products containing methylene chloride at thresholds less than 0.1
percent by weight. This provision does not apply to Sec. 751.105.
0
4. Amend Sec. 751.103 by:
0
a. Revising the definition of ``Distribution in commerce''; and
0
b. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``ECEL'', ``ECEL action
level'', and ``EPA STEL''.
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 751.103 Definitions.
* * * * *
Distribution in commerce has the same meaning as in section 3 of
the Act, except that the term does not include retailers for purposes
of Sec. Sec. 751.111 and 751.113.
ECEL is an Existing Chemical Exposure Limit, and means an airborne
concentration calculated as an eight (8)-hour time-weighted average
(TWA).
ECEL action level means a concentration of airborne methylene
chloride of 1 part per million (1 ppm) calculated as an 8-hour time
weighted average (TWA).
EPA STEL is a Short Term Exposure Limit, which is an EPA regulatory
limit on workplace exposure to an airborne concentration of a chemical
substance, based on an exposure of less than eight hours.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 751.105 by revising the section heading to read as
follows:
Sec. 751.105 Prohibition of manufacturing (including import),
processing, and distribution in commerce related to consumer paint and
coating removal.
Sec. 751.107 [Redesignated as Sec. 751.111]
0
6. Redesignate Sec. 751.107 as Sec. 751.111.
0
7. Add new Sec. 751.107 to read as follows:
Sec. 751.107 Other prohibitions of manufacturing (including import),
processing, distribution in commerce, and use.
(a) Applicability. (1) This section applies to all manufacturing
(including import), processing, and distribution in commerce of
methylene chloride for consumer use other than for the paint and
coating removal use addressed under Sec. 751.105.
(2) This section applies to:
(i) All manufacturing (including import), processing, and
distribution in commerce of methylene chloride for industrial or
commercial use, other than for the conditions of use addressed under
Sec. 751.109(a); and
(ii) All commercial or industrial use of methylene chloride, other
than the conditions of use addressed under Sec. 751.109(a).
(3) This section does not apply to manufacturing, processing, or
distribution in commerce of methylene chloride solely for export that
meets the conditions described in TSCA section 12(a)(1)(A) and (B).
(b) Prohibitions. (1) After February 3, 2025, all persons are
prohibited from distributing in commerce (including making available)
methylene chloride, including any methylene chloride-containing
products, to retailers for any use.
(2) After May 5, 2025, all retailers are prohibited from
distributing in commerce (including making available) methylene
chloride, including any methylene chloride-containing products, for any
use.
(3) After May 5, 2025, all persons are prohibited from
manufacturing (including import) methylene chloride, for the uses
listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section except for those
uses specified in paragraphs (b)(7) through (9) of this section.
(4) After August 1, 2025, all persons are prohibited from
processing methylene chloride, including any methylene chloride-
containing products, for the uses listed in
[[Page 39297]]
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section except for those uses
specified in paragraphs (b)(7) through (9) of this section.
(5) After January 28, 2026, all persons are prohibited from
distributing in commerce (including making available) methylene
chloride, including any methylene chloride-containing products, for any
use described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section except for
those uses specified in paragraphs (b)(7) through (9) of this section.
(6) After April 28, 2026, all persons are prohibited from
industrial or commercial use of methylene chloride, including any
methylene chloride containing products, for the uses listed in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section except for those uses specified in
paragraphs (b)(7) through (9) of this section.
(7) After May 8, 2034, all persons are prohibited from
manufacturing (including import), processing, distribution in commerce,
or use of methylene chloride, including any methylene chloride
containing products, for industrial or commercial use in an emergency
by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or its contractors
as described in Sec. 751.115(b).
(8) After May 8, 2029, all persons are prohibited from
manufacturing (including import), processing, distribution in commerce,
or use of methylene chloride, including any methylene chloride
containing products, for industrial or commercial use for paint and
coating removal for refinishing of wooden furniture, decorative pieces
and architectural fixtures of artistic, cultural, or historic
significance, with interim requirements as described in Sec. 751.117.
(9) After May 8, 2029, all persons are prohibited from
manufacturing (including import), processing, distribution in commerce,
or use of methylene chloride, including any methylene chloride-
containing products, for industrial or commercial use for adhesives and
sealants in aircraft, space vehicle, and turbine applications for
structural and safety critical non-structural applications.
Sec. 751.109 [Redesignated as Sec. 751.113]
0
8. Redesignate Sec. 751.109 as Sec. 751.113.
0
9. Add new Sec. 751.109 to read as follows:
Sec. 751.109 Workplace Chemical Protection Program.
(a) Applicability. The provisions of this section apply to the
following conditions of use of methylene chloride, including
manufacturing and processing for export, except to the extent the
conditions of use are prohibited by Sec. Sec. 751.105 and 751.107:
(1) Manufacturing (domestic manufacture);
(2) Manufacturing (import);
(3) Processing: as a reactant;
(4) Processing: incorporation into a formulation, mixture, or
reaction product;
(5) Processing: repackaging;
(6) Processing: recycling;
(7) Industrial and commercial use as a laboratory chemical;
(8) Industrial or commercial use for paint and coating removal from
safety-critical, corrosion-sensitive components of aircraft and
spacecraft;
(9) Industrial or commercial use as a bonding agent for solvent
welding;
(10) Industrial and commercial use as a processing aid;
(11) Industrial and commercial use for plastic and rubber products
manufacturing;
(12) Industrial and commercial use as a solvent that becomes part
of a formulation or mixture, where that formulation or mixture will be
used inside a manufacturing process, and the solvent (methylene
chloride) will be reclaimed; and
(13) Disposal.
(b) Relationship to other regulations. For purposes of this
section:
(1) Any provisions applying to ``employee'' in 29 CFR 1910.132,
1910.134, and 1910.1052 also apply equally to potentially exposed
persons; and
(2) Any provisions applying to ``employer'' in 29 CFR 1910.132,
1910.134, and 1910.1052 also apply equally to any owner or operator for
the regulated area.
(c) Exposure limits--(1) ECEL. The owner or operator must ensure
that no person is exposed to an airborne concentration of methylene
chloride in excess of 2 parts of methylene chloride per million parts
of air (2 ppm) as an 8-hour TWA after February 8, 2027 for Federal
agencies and Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal
Government, August 1, 2025 for other owners and operators, or beginning
4 months after introduction of methylene chloride into the workplace if
methylene chloride use commences after May 5, 2025, consistent with
paragraphs (d) through (f) of this section.
(2) EPA STEL. The owner or operator must ensure that no person is
exposed to an airborne concentration of methylene chloride in excess of
16 parts of methylene chloride per million parts of air (16 ppm) as
determined over a sampling period of 15 minutes after February 8, 2027
for Federal agencies and Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of
the Federal Government, August 1, 2025 for other owners and operators,
or beginning 4 months after introduction of methylene chloride into the
workplace if methylene chloride use commences after May 5, 2025,
consistent with paragraphs (d) through (f) of this section.
(3) Regulated areas. The owner or operator must:
(i) Establish and maintain regulated areas in accordance with 29
CFR 1910.1052(e)(2) and (4) through (7) by February 8, 2027 for Federal
agencies and Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal
Government, August 1, 2025 for other owners and operators, or within 3
months after receipt of the results of any monitoring data consistent
with paragraph (d) of this section.
(ii) Establish a regulated area wherever a potentially exposed
person's exposure to airborne concentrations of methylene chloride
exceeds or can reasonably be expected to exceed either the ECEL or EPA
STEL.
(iii) Demarcate regulated areas from the rest of the workplace in
any manner that adequately establishes and alerts potentially exposed
persons to the boundaries of the area and minimizes the number of
authorized persons exposed to methylene chloride within the regulated
area.
(iv) Restrict access to the regulated area by any potentially
exposed person who lacks proper training, personal protective
equipment, or is otherwise unauthorized to enter.
(d) Exposure monitoring--(1) In general--(i) Characterization of
exposures. Owners or operators must determine each potentially exposed
person's exposure, without regard to respiratory protection, by either:
(A) Taking a personal breathing zone air sample of each potentially
exposed person's exposure; or
(B) Taking personal breathing zone air samples that are
representative of each potentially exposed person's exposure.
(ii) Representative samples. Owners or operators are permitted to
consider personal breathing zone air samples to be representative of
each potentially exposed person's exposure, without regard to
respiratory protection, when they are taken as follows:
(A) ECEL. The owner or operator has taken one or more personal
breathing zone air samples for at least one potentially exposed person
in each job classification in a work area during every work shift, and
the person sampled is expected to have the highest methylene chloride
exposure.
[[Page 39298]]
(B) EPA STEL. The owner or operator has taken one or more personal
breathing zone air samples which indicate the highest likely 15-minute
exposures during such operations for at least one potentially exposed
person in each job classification in the work area during every work
shift, and the person sampled is expected to have the highest methylene
chloride exposure.
(C) Exception. Personal breathing zone air samples taken during one
work shift may be used to represent potentially exposed person
exposures on other work shifts where the owner or operator can document
that the tasks performed and conditions in the workplace are similar
across shifts.
(iii) Accuracy of monitoring. Owners or operators must ensure that
the methods used to perform exposure monitoring produce results that
are accurate to a confidence level of 95%, and are:
(A) Within plus or minus 25% for airborne concentrations of
methylene chloride above the ECEL or the EPA STEL; or
(B) Within plus or minus 35% for airborne concentrations of
methylene chloride at or above the ECEL action level but at or below
the ECEL.
(iv) Currency of monitoring data. Owners or operators are not
permitted to rely on monitoring data that is more than 5 years old to
demonstrate compliance with initial or periodic monitoring requirements
for either the ECEL or the EPA STEL.
(2) Initial monitoring. By November 9, 2026 for Federal agencies
and Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal
Government, by May 5, 2025 for other owners and operators, or within 30
days of introduction of methylene chloride into the workplace,
whichever is later, each owner or operator covered by this section must
perform an initial exposure monitoring to determine each potentially
exposed person's exposure, unless:
(i) An owner or operator has objective data generated within the
last 5 years prior to May 8, 2024 that demonstrates to EPA that
methylene chloride cannot be released in the workplace in airborne
concentrations at or above the ECEL action level (1-ppm 8-hour TWA) or
above the EPA STEL (16 ppm 15-minute TWA) and that the data represents
the highest methylene chloride exposures likely to occur under
conditions of use described in paragraph (a) of this section; or
(ii) Where potentially exposed persons are exposed to methylene
chloride for fewer than 30 days per year, and the owner or operator has
measurements by direct-metering devices which give immediate results
and which provide sufficient information regarding exposures to
determine and implement the control measures that are necessary to
reduce exposures to below the ECEL action level and EPA STEL.
(3) Periodic monitoring. The owner or operator must establish an
exposure monitoring program for periodic monitoring of exposure to
methylene chloride in accordance with table 1.
Table 1 to Paragraph (d)(3)--Periodic Monitoring Requirements Based on
Initial Exposure Monitoring Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air concentration condition observed
during initial exposure monitoring Periodic monitoring requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the initial exposure monitoring ECEL and EPA STEL periodic
concentration is below the ECEL action monitoring at least once in
level and at or below the EPA STEL. every 5 years.
If the initial exposure monitoring ECEL periodic required at least
concentration is below the ECEL action once every 5 years, and EPA
level and above the EPA STEL. STEL periodic monitoring
required every 3 months.
If the initial exposure monitoring ECEL periodic monitoring every
concentration is at or above the ECEL 6 months.
action level and at or below the ECEL;
and at or below the EPA STEL.
If the initial exposure monitoring ECEL periodic monitoring every
concentration is at or above the ECEL 6 months and EPA STEL periodic
action level and at or below the ECEL; monitoring every 3 months.
and above the EPA STEL.
If the initial exposure monitoring ECEL periodic monitoring every
concentration is above the ECEL and 3 months and EPA STEL periodic
below, at, or above the EPA STEL. monitoring every 3 months.
If 2 consecutive monitoring events have Transition from ECEL periodic
taken place at least 7 days apart that monitoring frequency from
indicate that potential exposure has every 3 months to every 6
decreased from above the ECEL to at or months.
below the ECEL, but at or above the
ECEL action level.
If 2 consecutive monitoring events have Transition from ECEL periodic
taken place at least 7 days apart that monitoring frequency from
indicate that potential exposure has every 6 months to once every 5
decreased to below the ECEL action years. The second consecutive
level and at or below the EPA STEL. monitoring event will
delineate the new date from
which the next 5-year periodic
exposure monitoring must
occur.
If the owner or operator engages in any The owner or operator may forgo
conditions of use described in the upcoming periodic
paragraph (a) of this section and is monitoring event. However,
required to monitor either the ECEL or documentation of cessation of
EPA STEL in a 3-month interval, but use of methylene chloride must
does not engage in any of those uses be maintained, and initial
for the entirety of the 3-month monitoring is required when
interval. the owner or operator resumes
or starts any of the
conditions of use described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
Owner or operator engages in any The owner or operator may forgo
conditions of use described in the upcoming periodic
paragraph (a) of this section and is monitoring event. However,
required to monitor the ECEL in a 6- documentation of cessation of
month interval, but does not engage in the condition(s) of use must
any of those uses for the entirety of be maintained until periodic
the 6-month interval. monitoring resumes, and
initial monitoring is required
when the owner or operator
resumes or starts any of the
conditions of use described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Additional monitoring. The owner or operator must conduct the
exposure monitoring required by paragraph (d)(2) of this section within
30 days after any change that may reasonably be expected to introduce
additional sources of exposure to methylene chloride, or otherwise
result in increased exposure to methylene chloride compared to the most
recent monitoring event. Examples of situations that may require
additional monitoring include changes in
[[Page 39299]]
production, process, control equipment, or work practices, or a leak,
rupture, or other breakdown.
(5) Notification of monitoring results. (i) The owner or operator
must inform potentially exposed persons of monitoring results within 15
working days.
(ii) This notification must include the following:
(A) Exposure monitoring results;
(B) Identification and explanation of the ECEL, ECEL Action Level,
and EPA STEL;
(C) Whether the airborne concentration of methylene chloride
exceeds the ECEL action level, ECEL or the EPA STEL;
(D) If the ECEL or EPA STEL is exceeded, descriptions of actions
taken by the owner or operator to reduce exposure in accordance with
paragraph (e)(1)((i) of this section;
(E) Explanation of any required respiratory protection provided in
accordance with as paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) and (f) of this section;
(F) Quantity of methylene chloride in use at the time of
monitoring;
(G) Location of methylene chloride use at the time of monitoring;
(H) Manner of methylene chloride use at the time of monitoring; and
(I) Identified releases of methylene chloride.
(iii) Notice must be provided in plain language writing, in a
language that the person understands, to each potentially exposed
person or posted in an appropriate and accessible location outside the
regulated area with an English-language version and a non-English
language version representing the language of the largest group of
workers who do not read English.
(6) Observation of monitoring. (i) The owner or operator must
provide affected potentially exposed persons an opportunity to observe
exposure monitoring conducted in accordance with this paragraph (d)
that is representative of the potentially exposed person's exposure.
(ii) The owner or operator must ensure that potentially exposed
persons are provided with personal protective equipment appropriate for
the observation of monitoring.
(e) ECEL control procedures and plan--(1) Methods of compliance.
(i) By May 10, 2027 for Federal agencies and Federal contractors acting
for or on behalf of the Federal Government, or by October 30, 2025 for
other owners and operators, the owner or operator must institute one or
a combination of elimination, substitution, engineering controls, work
practices, or administrative controls to reduce exposure to or below
the ECEL and EPA STEL except to the extent that the owner or operator
can demonstrate that such controls are not feasible.
(ii) If the feasible controls, required by paragraph (e)(1)(i) of
this section that can be instituted do not reduce exposures for
potentially exposed persons to or below the ECEL or EPA STEL, then the
owner or operator must use such controls to reduce exposure to the
lowest levels achievable by these controls and must supplement those
controls with the use of respiratory protection that complies with the
requirements of paragraph (f) of this section to reduce exposures to or
below the ECEL or EPA STEL.
(iii) Where an owner or operator cannot demonstrate exposure below
the ECEL, including through the use of all feasible engineering
controls, work practices, or administrative controls as described in
paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section, and, has not demonstrated that it
has appropriately supplemented with respiratory protection that
complies with the requirements of paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) and (f) of this
section, this will constitute a failure to comply with the ECEL.
(iv) For the Department of Defense and Federal contractors acting
for or on behalf of the Department of Defense, in the event that
ongoing or planned construction is necessary to implement the feasible
controls required by paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section such that no
one is exposed above the ECEL or EPA STEL, the deadlines in paragraph
(e)(1)(i) of this section are extended to May 7, 2029. Ongoing or
planned construction efforts to address exposures above the ECEL and
EPA STEL must be documented in the exposure control plan required by
paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
(2) Exposure control plan. By May 10, 2027 for Federal agencies and
Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal Government,
or by October 30, 2025 for other owners and operators, the owner or
operator must develop and implement an exposure control plan.
(i) Exposure control plan contents. The exposure control plan must
include documentation of the following:
(A) Identification of exposure controls that were considered,
including those that were used or not used to meet the requirements of
paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section, in the following sequence--
elimination, substitution, engineering controls, and work practices and
administrative controls;
(B) For each exposure control considered, a rationale for why the
exposure control was selected or not selected based on feasibility,
effectiveness, and other relevant considerations;
(C) A description of actions the owner or operator must take to
implement the exposure controls selected, including proper
installation, regular inspections, maintenance, training, or other
actions;
(D) A description of regulated areas, how they are demarcated, and
persons authorized to enter the regulated areas;
(E) A description of activities conducted by the owner or operator
to review and update the exposure control plan to ensure effectiveness
of the exposure controls, identify any necessary updates to the
exposure controls, and confirm that all persons are properly
implementing the exposure controls; and
(F) An explanation of the procedures for responding to any change
that may reasonably be expected to introduce additional sources of
exposure to methylene chloride, or otherwise result in increased
exposure to methylene chloride, including procedures for implementing
corrective actions to mitigate exposure to methylene chloride.
(ii) Exposure control plan requirements. (A) The owner or operator
must not implement a schedule of personnel rotation as a means of
compliance with the ECEL.
(B) The owner or operator must maintain the effectiveness of any
controls, instituted under paragraph (e) of this section.
(C) The exposure control plan must be reviewed and updated as
necessary, but at least every 5 years, to reflect any significant
changes in the status of the owner or operator's approach to compliance
with paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section.
(iii) Availability of exposure control plan. (A) Owners or
operators must make the exposure control plan and associated records,
including exposure monitoring, respiratory protection program
implementation, and dermal protection program implementation records,
available to potentially exposed persons.
(B) Owners or operators must notify potentially exposed persons of
the availability of the plan and associated records within 30 days of
the date that the exposure control plan is completed and at least
annually thereafter. The notification must be provided in accordance
with the requirements of paragraph (d)(5)(iii) of this section.
(C) Upon request by the potentially exposed person, the owner or
operator must provide the specified records at a reasonable time,
place, and manner. If the owner or operator is unable to provide the
requested records within 15
[[Page 39300]]
days, the owner or operator must, within those 15 days, inform the
potentially exposed person requesting the record(s) of the reason for
the delay and the earliest date when the record can be made available.
(3) Respirator requirements. The owner or operator must supply a
respirator, selected in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section,
to each potentially exposed person who enters a regulated area and must
ensure each potentially exposed person uses that respirator whenever
methylene chloride exposures may exceed the ECEL or EPA STEL.
(f) Respiratory protection--(1) Respirator conditions. After
February 8, 2027 for Federal agencies and Federal contractors acting
for or on behalf of the Federal Government, after August 1, 2025 for
other owners and operators, or within 3 months after receipt of the
results of any exposure monitoring as described in paragraph (d) of
this section, owners or operators must provide respiratory protection
to all potentially exposed persons in the regulated area as outlined in
paragraph (c)(3) of this section, and according to the provisions
outlined in 29 CFR 1910.134(a) through (l) (except 29 CFR
1910.134(d)(1)(iii)) and as specified in this paragraph (f) for
potentially exposed persons exposed to methylene chloride in
concentrations above the ECEL or the EPA STEL. For the purpose of this
paragraph (f), the maximum use concentration (MUC) as used in 29 CFR
1910.134 must be calculated by multiplying the assigned protection
factor (APF) specified for a respirator by the ECEL or EPA STEL.
(2) Respirator selection criteria. The type of respiratory
protection that regulated entities must select and provide to
potentially exposed persons in accordance with 29 CFR
1910.1052(g)(3)(i), is directly related to the monitoring results, as
follows:
(i) If the measured exposure concentration is at or below the ECEL
or EPA STEL: no respiratory protection is required.
(ii) If the measured exposure concentration is above 2 ppm and less
than or equal to 50 ppm: the respirator protection required is any
NIOSH Approved[supreg] supplied-air respirator (SAR) or airline
respirator in a continuous-flow mode equipped with a loose-fitting
facepiece or helmet/hood (APF 25).
(iii) If the measured exposure concentration is above 50 ppm and
less than or equal to 100 ppm the respirator protection required is:
(A) Any NIOSH Approved[supreg] Supplied-Air Respirator (SAR) or
airline respirator in a demand mode equipped with a full facepiece (APF
50); or
(B) Any NIOSH Approved[supreg] Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus
(SCBA) in demand-mode equipped with a full facepiece or helmet/hood
(APF 50).
(iv) If the measured exposure concentration is unknown or at any
value above 100 ppm and up to 2,000 ppm the respirator protection
required is:
(A) Any NIOSH Approved[supreg] Supplied-Air Respirator (SAR) or
airline respirator in a continuous-flow mode equipped with a full
facepiece or certified helmet/hood that has been tested to demonstrate
performance at a level of a protection of APF 1,000 or greater. (APF
1,000); or
(B) Any NIOSH Approved[supreg] Supplied-Air Respirator (SAR) or
airline respirator in pressure-demand or other positive-pressure mode
equipped with a full facepiece and an auxiliary self-contained air
supply (APF 1,000); or
(C) Any NIOSH Approved[supreg] Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus
(SCBA) in a pressure-demand or other positive-pressure mode equipped
with a full facepiece or certified helmet/hood (APF 10,000).
(3) Minimal respiratory protection. Requirements outlined in
paragraph (e)(2) of this section represent the minimum respiratory
protection requirements, such that any respirator affording a higher
degree of protection than the required respirator may be used.
(g) Dermal protection. (1) After February 8, 2027 for Federal
agencies and Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal
Government, or after August 1, 2025 for other owners and operators,
owners or operators must require the donning of gloves that are
chemically resistant to methylene chloride with activity-specific
training where dermal contact with methylene chloride is possible,
after application of the requirements in paragraph (e) of this section,
in accordance with the NIOSH hierarchy of controls.
(2) Owners or operators must minimize and protect potentially
exposed persons from dermal exposure in accordance with 29 CFR
1910.1052(h) and (i).
(h) Training. Owners or operators must provide training in
accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1052(l)(1) through (6) to potentially
exposed persons prior to or at the time of initial assignment to a job
involving potential exposure to methylene chloride. In addition, if
respiratory protection or PPE must be worn within a regulated area,
owners or operators must provide training in accordance with 29 CFR
1910.132(f) to potentially exposed persons within that regulated area.
0
10. Revise newly redesignated Sec. 751.111 to read as follows:
Sec. 751.111 Downstream notification.
(a) After August 26, 2019, and before October 7, 2024, each person
who manufactures (including imports), and before December 4, 2024
processes or distributes in commerce methylene chloride for any use
must, prior to or concurrent with the shipment, notify companies to
whom methylene chloride is shipped, in writing, of the restrictions
described in Sec. 751.105. Notification must occur by inserting the
following text in section 1(c) and section 15 of the SDS provided with
the methylene chloride or with any methylene chloride-containing
product:
This chemical/product is not and cannot be distributed in
commerce (as defined in TSCA section 3(5)) or processed (as defined
in TSCA section 3(13)) for consumer paint or coating removal.
(b) Beginning on October 7, 2024, each person who manufactures
(including import) methylene chloride for any use must, prior to or
concurrent with the shipment, notify companies to whom methylene
chloride is shipped, in writing, of the restrictions described in this
subpart in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.
(c) Beginning on December 4, 2024, each person who processes or
distributes in commerce methylene chloride or methylene chloride-
containing products for any use must, prior to or concurrent with the
shipment, notify companies to whom methylene chloride is shipped, in
writing, of the restrictions described in this subpart in accordance
with paragraph (d) of this section.
(d) The notification required under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section must occur by inserting the following text in section 1(c) and
section 15 of the SDS provided with the methylene chloride or with any
methylene chloride-containing product:
After February 3, 2025, this chemical substance (as defined in
TSCA section 3(2))/product cannot be distributed in commerce to
retailers. After January 28, 2026, this chemical substance (as
defined in TSCA section 3(2))/product is and can only be distributed
in commerce or processed with a concentration of methylene chloride
equal to or greater than 0.1% by weight for the following purposes:
(1) Processing as a reactant; (2) Processing for incorporation into
a formulation, mixture, or reaction product; (3) Processing for
repackaging; (4) Processing for recycling; (5) Industrial or
commercial use as a laboratory chemical; (6) Industrial or
commercial use as a bonding agent for solvent welding; (7)
Industrial and
[[Page 39301]]
commercial use as a paint and coating remover from safety critical,
corrosion-sensitive components of aircraft and spacecraft; (8)
Industrial and commercial use as a processing aid; (9) Industrial
and commercial use for plastic and rubber products manufacturing;
(10) Industrial and commercial use as a solvent that becomes part of
a formulation or mixture, where that formulation or mixture will be
used inside a manufacturing process, and the solvent (methylene
chloride) will be reclaimed; (11) Industrial and commercial use in
the refinishing for wooden furniture, decorative pieces, and
architectural fixtures of artistic, cultural or historic value until
May 8, 2029; (12) Industrial and commercial use in adhesives and
sealants in aircraft, space vehicle, and turbine applications for
structural and safety critical non-structural applications until May
8, 2029; (13) Disposal; and (14) Export.
0
11. Revise newly redesignated Sec. 751.113 to read as follows:
Sec. 751.113 Recordkeeping requirements.
(a) General records. Each person who manufactures (including
imports), processes, or distributes in commerce any methylene chloride
after August 26, 2019, must retain in one location at the headquarters
of the company, or at the facility for which the records were generated
beginning July 8, 2024, documentation showing:
(1) The name, address, contact, and telephone number of companies
to whom methylene chloride was shipped;
(2) A copy of the notification provided under Sec. 751.111; and
(3) The amount of methylene chloride shipped.
(b) Exposure control records. Owners or operators must retain
records of:
(1) The exposure control plan as described in Sec. 751.109(e)(2);
(2) Implementation of the exposure control plan described in Sec.
751.109(e)(2), including:
(i) Any regular inspections, evaluations, and updating of the
exposure controls to maintain effectiveness; and
(ii) Confirmation that all persons are properly implementing the
exposure controls.
(3) Personal protective equipment (PPE) and respiratory protection
used by potentially exposed persons and program implementation,
including fit-testing, pursuant to Sec. 751.109(f) and (g);
(4) Information and training provided pursuant to Sec. 751.109(h);
and
(5) Occurrence and duration of any start-up, shutdown, or
malfunction of exposure controls or of facility equipment that causes
air concentrations to be above the ECEL or EPA STEL and subsequent
corrective actions taken during start-up, shutdown, or malfunctions to
mitigate exposures to methylene chloride.
(c) Objective data. Objective data generated during the previous 5
years, when used to forgo the initial exposure monitoring, must
include:
(1) The use of methylene chloride being evaluated;
(2) The source of objective data;
(3) The measurement methods, measurement results, and measurement
analysis of the use of methylene chloride; and
(4) Any other relevant data to the operations, processes, or
person's exposure.
(d) Exposure monitoring records. (1) Owners or operators are
required to retain monitoring records that include, at minimum, the
information described at 29 CFR 1910.1052(m)(2)(ii)(A) through (F). For
the purposes of this paragraph (d)(1), cross-referenced provisions in
29 CFR 1910.1052(m)(2)(ii) applying to an ``employee'' apply equally to
potentially exposed persons and cross-referenced provisions applying to
an ``employer'' also apply equally to owners or operators.
(2) For each monitoring event of methylene chloride required under
this subpart, owners or operators must also document the following:
(i) All measurements that may be necessary to determine the
conditions that may affect the monitoring results;
(ii) The identity of all other potentially exposed persons whose
exposure was not measured and whose exposure is intended to be
represented by the area or representative sampling monitoring;
(iii) Use of established analytical methods;
(iv) Compliance with the Good Laboratory Practice Standards in
accordance with 40 CFR part 792 or use of a laboratory accredited by
the AIHA or another industry-recognized program; and
(v) Information regarding air monitoring equipment including: Type,
maintenance, calibrations, performance tests, limits of detection, and
any malfunctions.
(3) Owners or operators must maintain copies of exposure monitoring
notifications provided pursuant to Sec. 751.109(d)(5).
(e) Availability of exposure control plans. Owners or operators
must document the notice to and ability of any potentially exposed
persons to access the exposure control plan and other associated
records in accordance with Sec. 751.109(e)(2)(iii).
(f) Records related to exemptions. To maintain eligibility for an
exemption described in Sec. 751.115, the records maintained by the
owners or operators must demonstrate compliance with the specific
conditions of the exemption.
(g) Records related to the refinishing of wooden furniture,
decorative pieces, and architectural fixtures. (1) Owners and operators
of workplaces engaged in the industrial or commercial use of methylene
chloride for the refinishing of wooden furniture, decorative pieces,
and architectural fixtures of artistic, cultural, or historic value
must document each instance of refinishing such pieces.
(2) The documentation required by paragraph (g)(1) of this section
must include:
(i) The date of the refinishing activity;
(ii) A description of the wooden piece that was refinished and an
explanation of its artistic, cultural, or historic value;
(iii) The name of the owner of the refinished wooden piece;
(iv) The name of the individual(s) that refinished the wooden
piece;
(v) A description of the methylene chloride product used and the
quantity of the product used to perform the refinishing; and
(vi) Records demonstrating compliance with the requirements of
Sec. 751.117.
(h) Minimum record retention period. The records required under
this section must be retained for at least 5 years from the date that
such records were generated.
0
12. Add Sec. 751.115 to read as follows:
Sec. 751.115 Exemptions.
(a) In general. (1) Time-limited exemptions described in this
section are established in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 2605(g)(1).
(2) To be eligible for the exemptions established in this section,
regulated parties must comply with all conditions promulgated in this
section for such exemptions in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 2605(g)(4).
(b) Exemption for emergency use by the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration. Under 15 U.S.C. 2605(g)(1)(A), the use of
methylene chloride or methylene chloride-containing products in an
emergency by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and its
contractors operating within the scope of their contracted work for the
conditions of use identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section is
exempt from the requirements of Sec. 751.107(b)(3) through (6) until
May 8, 2034.
(1) Applicability. This exemption shall apply to the following
specific conditions of use:
(i) Industrial and commercial use as solvent for cold cleaning;
[[Page 39302]]
(ii) Industrial and commercial use as a solvent for aerosol spray
degreaser/cleaner;
(iii) Industrial and commercial use in adhesives, sealants, and
caulks;
(iv) Industrial and commercial use in adhesive and caulk removers;
(v) Industrial and commercial use in metal non-aerosol degreasers;
(vi) Industrial and commercial use in non-aerosol degreasers and
cleaners; and
(vii) Industrial and commercial use as solvent that becomes part of
a formulation or mixture.
(2) Emergency use. (i) In general. An emergency is a serious and
sudden situation requiring immediate action, within 15 days or less,
necessary to protect:
(A) Safety of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's
or their contractors' personnel;
(B) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's missions;
(C) Human health, safety, or property, including that of adjacent
communities; or
(D) The environment.
(ii) Duration. Each emergency is a separate situation; if use of
methylene chloride exceeds 15 days, then justification must be
documented.
(3) Eligibility. To be eligible for the exemption, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration and its contractors must:
(i) Select methylene chloride because there are no technically and
economically feasible safer alternatives available during the
emergency.
(ii) Perform the emergency use of methylene chloride at locations
controlled by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or its
contractors.
(iii) Comply with the following conditions:
(A) Notification. Within 15 working days of the emergency use by
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or its contractors,
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and its contractors
must provide notice to the EPA Assistant Administrators of both the
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and the Office of
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention that includes the following:
(1) Identification of the condition of use detailed in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section to which the emergency use applies;
(2) An explanation for why the emergency use met the definition of
emergency in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section; and
(3) An explanation of why methylene chloride was selected,
including why there were no technically and economically feasible safer
alternatives available in the particular emergency.
(B) Exposure. The owner or operator must comply with and document
such compliance efforts under the Workplace Chemical Protection Program
provisions in Sec. 751.109, to the extent technically feasible in
light of the particular emergency.
(C) Recordkeeping. The owner or operator of the location where the
use takes place must comply with the recordkeeping requirements in
Sec. 751.113.
0
13. Add Sec. 751.117 to read as follows:
Sec. 751.117 Interim requirements for paint and coating removal for
the refinishing of wooden furniture, decorative pieces, and
architectural fixtures of artistic, cultural, or historic value.
Beginning July 8, 2024, and notwithstanding the timeframes
identified in Sec. 751.109, all persons using methylene chloride,
including any methylene chloride containing products, for industrial
and commercial use for the refinishing of wooden furniture, decorative
pieces and architectural fixtures of artistic, cultural, or historic
value must:
(a) Establish a regulated area in accordance with Sec.
751.109(c)(3);
(b) Use local exhaust ventilation, both bringing air in from
outside and pulling methylene chloride vapors away from the potentially
exposed person; and
(c) Provide minimum respiratory protection:
(1) Use any NIOSH Approved[supreg] Supplied-Air Respirator (SAR) or
airline respirator in a demand mode equipped with a full facepiece (APF
50) or any NIOSH Approved[supreg] Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus
(SCBA) in demand-mode equipped with a full facepiece or helmet/hood
(APF 50); or
(2) Use the appropriate respirator based on initial monitoring as
identified in Sec. 751.109(f)(2).
(d) Comply with the recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 751.113(g).
[FR Doc. 2024-09606 Filed 5-7-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
