103560 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 751 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0720; FRL–8329–01– 

OCSPP] 

RIN 2070–AK84 

Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation 

Under the Toxic Substances Control 

Act (TSCA) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or Agency) is finalizing a 

rule to address the unreasonable risk of 

injury to health presented by 

perchloroethylene (PCE) 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 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 the industrial and 

commercial use of the chemical is being 

prohibited, providing a time-limited 

exemption for a critical or essential use 

of PCE for which no technically and 

economically feasible safer alternative is 

available, and protecting workers from 

the unreasonable risk of PCE while on 

the job. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

January 17, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0720, is 

available online at https://

www.regulations.gov. Additional 

information about dockets generally, 

along with instructions for visiting the 

docket in-person, is available at https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

For technical information: Kelly 

Summers, 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) 

564–2201; email address: pce.tsca@

epa.gov. 

For general information: The TSCAHotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South 

Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620– 

1103; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

1. General Applicability 

You may be affected by this rule if 

you manufacture, process, distribute in 

commerce, use, or dispose of PCE or 

products containing PCE. 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 PCE are subject to 

provisions regulating manufacture of 

PCE. 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 might apply to them. 

Potentially affected entities include: 

• Crude Petroleum Extraction (NAICS 

code 211120). 

• Support Activities for Oil and Gas 

Operations (NAICS code 213112). 

• Nonwoven Fabric Mills (NAICS code 

313230). 

• Wood Window and Door 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 321911). 

• Paper Bag and Coated and Treated 

Paper Manufacturing (NAICS code 

322220). 

• Commercial Screen Printing (NAICS 

code 323113). 

• Petroleum Refineries (NAICS code 

324110). 

• Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 324191). 

• Petrochemical Manufacturing (NAICS 

code 325110). 

• Industrial Gas Manufacturing (NAICS 

code 325120). 

• Other Basic Inorganic Chemical 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 325180). 

• All Other Basic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 325199). 

• Plastics Material and Resin 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 325211). 

• Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing 

(NAICS code 325212). 

• Paint and Coating Manufacturing 

(NAICS code 325510). 

• Adhesive Manufacturing (NAICS code 

325520). 

• Soap and Other Detergent 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 325611). 

• Polish and Other Sanitation Good 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 325612). 

• All Other Miscellaneous Chemical 

Product and Preparation 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 325998). 

• Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet 

(except Packaging) Manufacturing 

(NAICS code 326113). 

• All Other Plastics Product 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 326199). 

• Rubber and Plastics Hoses and Belting 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 326220). 

• Rubber Product Manufacturing for 

Mechanical Use (NAICS code 

326291). 

• All Other Rubber Product 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 326299). 

• Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing 

Fixture Manufacturing (NAICS code 

327110). 

• Glass Container Manufacturing 

(NAICS code 327213). 

• Cement Manufacturing (NAICS code 

327310). 

• Secondary Smelting, Refining, and 

Alloying of Nonferrous Metal (except 

Copper and Aluminum) (NAICS code 

331492). 

• Metal Crown, Closure, and Other 

Metal Stamping (except Automotive) 

(NAICS code 332119). 

• Metal Kitchen Cookware, Utensil, 

Cutlery, and Flatware (except 

Precious) Manufacturing (NAICS code 

332215). 

• Saw Blade and Handtool 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 332216). 

• Other Fabricated Wire Product 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 332618). 

• Metal Heat Treating (NAICS code 

332811). 

• Metal Coating, Engraving (except 

Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied 

Services to Manufacturers (NAICS 

code 332812). 

• Electroplating, Plating, Polishing, 

Anodizing, and Coloring (NAICS code 

332813). 

• Industrial Valve Manufacturing 

(NAICS code 332911). 

• Fluid Power Valve and Hose Fitting 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 332912). 

• Plumbing Fixture Fitting and Trim 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 332913). 

• Other Metal Valve and Pipe Fitting 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 332919). 

• Ball and Roller Bearing 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 332991). 

• Small Arms Ammunition 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 332992). 

• Ammunition (except Small Arms) 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 332993). 

• Small Arms, Ordnance, and Ordnance 

Accessories Manufacturing (NAICS 

code 332994). 

• Fabricated Pipe and Pipe Fitting 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 332996). 

• All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated 

Metal Product Manufacturing (NAICS 

code 332999). 

• Other Industrial Machinery 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 333249). 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103561 

• Air-Conditioning and Warm Air 

Heating Equipment and Commercial 

and Industrial Refrigeration 

Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 

code 333415). 

• Machine Tool Manufacturing (NAICS 

code 333517). 

• Measuring, Dispensing, and Other 

Pumping Equipment Manufacturing 

(NAICS code 333914). 

• Welding and Soldering Equipment 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 333992). 

• Packaging Machinery Manufacturing 

(NAICS code 333993). 

• Industrial Process Furnace and Oven 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 333994). 

• Fluid Power Cylinder and Actuator 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 333995). 

• Fluid Power Pump and Motor 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 333996). 

• All Other Miscellaneous General 

Purpose Machinery Manufacturing 

(NAICS code 333999). 

• Instruments and Related Products 

Manufacturing for Measuring, 

Displaying, and Controlling Industrial 

Process Variables (NAICS code 

334513). 

• Analytical Laboratory Instrument 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 334516). 

• Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing 

(NAICS code 336211). 

• Travel Trailer and Camper 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 336214). 

• Other Motor Vehicle Parts 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 336390). 

• Aircraft Manufacturing (NAICS code 

336411). 

• Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 336412). 

• Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary 

Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 

code 336413). 

• Guided Missile and Space Vehicle 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 336414). 

• Guided Missile and Space Vehicle 

Propulsion Unit and Propulsion Unit 

Parts Manufacturing (NAICS code 

336415). 

• Other Guided Missile and Space 

Vehicle Parts and Auxiliary 

Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 

code 336419). 

• Ship Building and Repairing (NAICS 

code 336611). 

• Surgical and Medical Instrument 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 339112). 

• Jewelry and Silverware 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 339910). 

• Sporting and Athletic Goods 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 339920). 

• Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing 

(NAICS code 339930). 

• Office Supplies (except Paper) 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 339940). 

• Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 339991). 

• Musical Instrument Manufacturing 

(NAICS code 339992). 

• Fastener, Button, Needle, and Pin 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 339993). 

• Broom, Brush, and Mop 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 339994). 

• Burial Casket Manufacturing (NAICS 

code 339995). 

• All Other Miscellaneous 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 339999). 

• Motor Vehicle Supplies and New 

Parts Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS 

code 423120). 

• Home Furnishing Merchant 

Wholesalers (NAICS code 423220). 

• Industrial Supplies Merchant 

Wholesalers (NAICS code 423840). 

• Service Establishment Equipment and 

Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 

(NAICS code 423850). 

• Other Miscellaneous Durable Goods 

Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS code 

423990). 

• Grain and Field Bean Merchant 

Wholesalers (NAICS code 424510). 

• Other Chemical and Allied Products 

Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS code 

424690). 

• Petroleum Bulk Stations and 

Terminals (NAICS code 424710). 

• Petroleum and Petroleum Products 

Merchant Wholesalers (except Bulk 

Stations and Terminals) (NAICS code 

424720). 

• New Car Dealers (NAICS code 

441110). 

• Used Car Dealers (NAICS code 

441120). 

• Other Gasoline Stations (NAICS code 

447190). 

• Sporting Goods Stores (NAICS code 

451110). 

• All Other Miscellaneous Store 

Retailers (except Tobacco Stores) 

(NAICS code 453998). 

• Scheduled Passenger Air 

Transportation (NAICS code 481111). 

• Scheduled Freight Air Transportation 

(NAICS code 481112). 

• Pipeline Transportation of Natural 

Gas (NAICS code 486210). 

• Teleproduction and Other 

Postproduction Services (NAICS code 

512191). 

• Other Motion Picture and Video 

Industries (NAICS code 512199). 

• Miscellaneous Intermediation (NAICS 

code 523910). 

• Other Financial Vehicles (NAICS code 

525990). 

• Lessors of Other Real Estate Property 

(NAICS code 531190). 

• Offices of Real Estate Agents and 

Brokers (NAICS code 531210). 

• Testing Laboratories (NAICS code 

541380). 

• Research and Development in the 

Physical, Engineering, and Life 

Sciences (except Nanotechnology and 

Biotechnology) (NAICS code 541715). 

• Marketing Research and Public 

Opinion Polling (NAICS code 

541910). 

• All Other Professional, Scientific, and 

Technical Services (NAICS code 

541990). 

• Offices of Other Holding Companies 

(NAICS code 551112). 

• Hazardous Waste Treatment and 

Disposal (NAICS code 562211). 

• Solid Waste Landfill (NAICS code 

562212). 

• Solid Waste Combustors and 

Incinerators (NAICS code 562213). 

• Other Nonhazardous Waste Treatment 

and Disposal (NAICS code 562219). 

• Remediation Services (NAICS code 

562910). 

• Materials Recovery Facilities (NAICS 

code 562920). 

• All Other Miscellaneous Waste 

Management Services (NAICS code 

562998). 

• General Automotive Repair (NAICS 

code 811111). 

• Automotive Exhaust System Repair 

(NAICS code 811112). 

• Automotive Transmission Repair 

(NAICS code 811113). 

• Other Automotive Mechanical and 

Electrical Repair and Maintenance 

(NAICS code 811118). 

• Automotive Body, Paint, and Interior 

Repair and Maintenance (NAICS code 

811121). 

• Automotive Glass Replacement Shops 

(NAICS code 811122). 

• Automotive Oil Change and 

Lubrication Shops (NAICS code 

811191). 

• All Other Automotive Repair and 

Maintenance (NAICS code 811198). 

• Consumer Electronics Repair and 

Maintenance (NAICS code 811211). 

• Computer and Office Machine Repair 

and Maintenance (NAICS code 

811212). 

• Communication Equipment Repair 

and Maintenance (NAICS code 

811213). 

• Other Electronic and Precision 

Equipment Repair and Maintenance 

(NAICS code 811219). 

• Commercial and Industrial Machinery 

and Equipment (except Automotive 

and Electronic) Repair and 

Maintenance (NAICS code 811310). 

• Home and Garden Equipment Repair 

and Maintenance (NAICS code 

811411). 

• Other Personal and Household Goods 

Repair and Maintenance (NAICS code 

811490). 

• Drycleaning and Laundry Services 

(except Coin-Operated) (NAICS code 

812320). 

• Industrial Launderers (NAICS code 

812332). 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
103562 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

2. Applicability to Importers and 

Exporters. 

This action may also affect certain 

entities subject to import certification 

and export notification requirements 

under TSCA (https://www.epa.gov/tscaimport-export-requirements). 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 

subject to TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 

2612) import certification requirements 

and the corresponding regulations at 19 

CFR 12.118 through 12.127 (see also 19 

CFR 127.28(i)). Those persons must 

certify that the shipment of the chemical 

substance complies with all applicable 

rules and orders under TSCA (see 19 

CFR 12.121). 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 PCE 

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 the Agency 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 PCE presents an 

unreasonable risk of injury to health, 

without consideration of costs or other 

nonrisk factors, including an 

unreasonable risk to potentially exposed 

or susceptible subpopulations (PESS) 

identified as relevant to the 2020 Risk 

Evaluation for PCE by EPA, under the 

conditions of use (Refs. 1 and 2). A 

description of the conditions of use that 

contribute to EPA’s determination that 

PCE presents an unreasonable risk is in 

Unit III.B.1. of the 2023 PCE proposed 

rule, with a summary in Unit II.C.4. of 

this final rule. Accordingly, to address 

the unreasonable risk, EPA is finalizing 

a rule under TSCA section 6(a) to: 

(i) Prohibit most industrial and 

commercial uses and the manufacture 

(including import), processing, and 

distribution in commerce of PCE for 

those uses, outlined in Unit IV.D.1.; 

(ii) Prohibit the manufacture 

(including import), processing, and 

distribution in commerce of PCE for all 

consumer use, outlined in Unit IV.D.2.; 

(iii) Prohibit the manufacture 

(including import), processing, 

distribution in commerce, and 

commercial use of PCE in dry cleaning 

and spot cleaning through a 10-year 

phaseout, outlined in Unit IV.D.3.; 

(iv) Require a Workplace Chemical 

Protection Program (WCPP), including 

an inhalation exposure concentration 

limit, direct dermal contact controls, 

and related workplace exposure 

controls, for many occupational 

conditions of use of PCE not prohibited, 

outlined in Unit IV.B.; 

(v) Require prescriptive workplace 

controls for use of PCE in laboratories 

and energized electrical cleaners, 

outlined in Unit IV.C.; 

(vi) Establish recordkeeping and 

downstream notification requirements, 

outlined in Unit IV.E.; 

(vii) Provide a 10-year time limited 

exemption under TSCA section 6(g) for 

certain emergency uses of PCE in 

furtherance of National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration’s (NASA) 

mission, for specific conditions of use 

which are critical or essential and for 

which no technically and economically 

feasible safer alternative is available, 

outlined in Unit IV.F.; and 

(viii) Identify a regulatory threshold 

for products containing PCE for the 

prohibitions and restrictions on PCE, as 

outlined in Unit IV.A. 

EPA notes that all TSCA conditions of 

use of PCE are subject to this final rule. 

‘‘Conditions 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 provision of 40 CFR part 751, 

subpart A, to define ‘‘Designated 

representative,’’ ‘‘Direct dermal 

contact,’’ ‘‘ECEL,’’ and ‘‘Exposure 

group’’ 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 or mixture no longer presents 

such risk.’’ PCE was the subject of a risk 

evaluation under TSCA section 

6(b)(4)(A) that was issued in December 

2020 (2020 Risk Evaluation for PCE) 

(Ref. 1). In addition, EPA issued a 

revised unreasonable risk determination 

in December 2022 (Ref. 2), determining 

that PCE, as a whole chemical 

substance, presents an unreasonable risk 

of injury to health under the conditions 

of use. On June 16, 2023, EPA issued a 

proposed rule (88 FR 39652) (FRL– 

8329–02–OCSPP)) under TSCA section 

6(a) to regulate PCE, so that it no longer 

presents unreasonable risk (hereinafter 

‘‘2023 PCE proposed rule’’). The Agency 

received public comment on the 

proposal. With this action, EPA is 

finalizing with modifications the 2023 

PCE proposed rule as described in this 

final rule. The conditions of use that 

contribute to the unreasonable risk from 

PCE are described in Unit III.B.1. of the 

2023 PCE proposed rule. 

PCE’s hazards are well established. 

EPA’s 2020 Risk Evaluation for PCE 

considered the hazards associated with 

exposure to PCE and determined that 

PCE presents an unreasonable risk of 

injury to health due to the significant 

adverse health effects associated with 

exposure to PCE. While some of the 

risks of adverse effects from PCE 

exposure are associated with acute 

single exposures, other risks are 

associated with long-term repeated 

exposures. The most sensitive health 

effect driving the unreasonable risk of 

PCE and selected as the basis for this 

rule is neurotoxicity from chronic 

exposure. It was selected based on the 

best available science and weight of 

scientific evidence and in consideration 

of the severity of the hazards, magnitude 

of exposure, population exposed, and 

uncertainties in the December 2020 Risk 

Evaluation for PCE and December 2022 

revised risk determination for PCE. For 

PCE, impaired visual and cognitive 

function and diminished color 

discrimination following chronic 

exposures represent the most sensitive 

endpoint indicating neurotoxicity, 

based on epidemiological data reported 

in two studies that identified lowest 

observed adverse effect levels for color 

confusion and impaired pattern 

recognition and reaction time in pattern 

memory. Other significant adverse 

outcomes include kidney and liver 

effects, immune system toxicity, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103563 

reproductive toxicity, developmental 

toxicity, and cancer. For this action, 

EPA has determined that protecting 

against the most sensitive endpoint 

would also address the risk for other 

acute, chronic non-cancer, and cancer 

endpoints. This final rule will eliminate 

the unreasonable risk to human health 

from the TSCA conditions of use of PCE, 

as identified in the 2020 Risk Evaluation 

for PCE and the revised unreasonable 

risk determination for PCE in December 

2022. 

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 PCE. The Agency has 

considered the benefits of PCE for 

various uses as required under TSCA 

section 6(c)(2)(A) and (B) and recognizes 

that continued use of PCE for some 

TSCA conditions of use may provide 

benefits that complement the Agency’s 

efforts to address climate-damaging 

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) under the 

American Innovation and 

Manufacturing Act of 2020 (AIM Act) 

(42 U.S.C. 7675), supporting human 

health and environmental protection 

under these programs, and that for these 

uses, strict workplace controls to 

address the unreasonable risk can be 

implemented. Therefore, this final rule 

allows PCE’s continued use in tandem 

with strict workplace controls for the 

generation of HFC–125 and HFC–134a, 

two of the regulated substances that are 

subject to a 15-year phasedown under 

the AIM Act. HFCs–134a and –125 can 

be mixed with other substances to make 

lower global warming potential blends 

that are likely to be used to facilitate the 

transition away from HFC blends with 

higher global warming potentials in 

certain applications. 

Additionally, the Agency recognizes 

that some conditions of use may be 

important for national security 

applications or for other critical needs. 

For example, PCE is a critical diluent (to 

modify the consistency or other 

properties in a formulation) for maskant 

applied to military and commercial 

aircraft skin panels that prevents 

chemical milling or industrial etching of 

certain areas. It is also used in 

petrochemical manufacturing as a 

processing aid in catalyst regeneration 

for reformate and isomerate (these are 

gasoline blending stocks) that make up 

an estimated 45% of the United States 

gasoline pool. Therefore, this final rule 

allows certain continued uses of PCE 

provided that sufficient worker 

protections are in place to address the 

unreasonable risk for certain 

occupational conditions of use. For the 

conditions of use for which EPA is 

finalizing workplace controls under a 

WCPP, EPA expects that many 

workplaces already have stringent 

controls in place that reduce exposures 

to PCE; for some workplaces, EPA 

understands that these existing controls 

may already reduce exposures enough 

to meet the inhalation exposure 

concentration limit (called the existing 

chemical exposure limit (ECEL)) in this 

rulemaking or to prevent direct dermal 

contact with PCE. 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, 

the Small Business Advocacy Review 

(SBAR) Panel process, the comment 

period following publication of the 2023 

PCE proposed rule, or stakeholder 

outreach, and are available in the 

corresponding public dockets (Docket 

ID Nos. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0720; 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2019–0502; EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2016–0732). 

Accordingly, EPA is finalizing 

workplace controls to address the 

unreasonable risk and allow continued 

manufacture (including import), 

processing for conditions of use that are 

not prohibited, repackaging, recycling, 

and disposal of PCE as well as 

continued use of PCE for processing as 

a reactant/intermediate, certain uses in 

vapor degreasing and cold cleaning, use 

as a maskant for chemical milling, use 

in adhesives and sealants, use as a 

processing aid, use as energized 

electrical cleaner, and use as a 

laboratory chemical, which comprise 

more than an estimated 80% of the 

current production volume of PCE. EPA 

is finalizing a prohibition or phaseout 

for most conditions of use of PCE, 

including use in dry cleaning and spot 

cleaning, general aerosol degreasing, 

paints and coatings, aerosol lubricants, 

and wipe cleaning, comprising less than 

an estimated 20% of the current 

production volume of PCE. Of the 

conditions of use that are not 

prohibited, EPA generally expects the 

production volume for those conditions 

of use to decline over time. For 

example, EPA expects the industrial and 

commercial use of PCE as a reactant in 

the generation of HFC–134a and HFC– 

125 to decline over time, in light of the 

AIM Act requirements to phase down 

production and consumption of listed 

HFCs by 85% over the next 15 years. 

The rationale for the final regulatory 

action, including the TSCA section 6 

requirements considered in developing 

the regulatory action, is described in 

Units II.D. and III. 

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) 

and in Units V.D. and VIII.C., EPA was 

unable to quantify all incremental costs 

of this final rule. The quantifiable cost 

of the final rule is estimated to be 

$43.43 million annualized over 20 years 

at a 2% discount rate. These costs take 

compliance with implementation of a 

WCPP into consideration, which would 

include meeting an ECEL of 0.14 ppm 

(0.98 mg/m3) for inhalation exposures as 

an 8-hour time-weighted average 

(TWA), dermal controls to prevent 

direct dermal contact, applicable 

personal protective equipment (PPE) 

requirements, and reformulation costs of 

numerous products. 

The Economic Analysis notes various 

unquantified costs and uncertainty in 

the cost estimates (Sec. 7.14). The 

condition of use with the most 

expensive and uncertain compliance 

costs is the commercial use of PCE in 

energized electrical cleaning, which 

EPA estimates would result in about $20 

million out of $43 million of estimated 

compliance costs. These estimates are 

based on assumptions regarding how 

much PCE is used for energized 

electrical cleaning and the types of 

locations of that use. Almost all of these 

compliance cost estimates are from 

respirator requirements for the use of 

PCE in energized electrical cleaning in 

confined spaces, which would require 

expensive respirators. Because there is 

no consensus industry estimate for what 

fraction of PCE use in energized 

electrical cleaning is in confined spaces, 

as described in Unit III.A.2.e., EPA 

estimated 5% of energized electrical 

cleaning use of PCE was in confined 

spaces. 

In addition, EPA estimates that 6,000 

dry cleaners still use PCE, a majority of 

which are small businesses. Overall, 

EPA expects few closures because EPA 

estimates that only about 60 PCE 

machines are expected to be in use at 

the end of the phaseout period given the 

age of the machines and the declining 

trend of use; this is detailed in section 

7.7 of the Economic Analysis. Table 7– 

11 in that section details the age of the 

PCE dry cleaning machines in New York 

State, for which EPA has data. EPA 

believes that the data are generalizable 

to other states; industry has informed 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
103564 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

the Agency that very few PCE machines 

have been purchased in recent years. 

See sections 7.7 and 11 of the Economic 

Analysis for additional detail on EPA’s 

analysis, including uncertainties 

associated with estimating the economic 

impact. 

In alignment with the goals of 

President Biden’s Cancer Moonshot, the 

rule will protect people from cancer and 

other adverse health effects of PCE by 

prohibiting most uses of PCE 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. The monetized 

benefits of this rule are approximately 

$32.6 million to $84.6 million 

annualized over 20 years at a 2% 

discount rate. The monetized benefits 

include potential reductions in risk of 

liver, kidney, brain, and testicular 

cancer. Non-monetized benefits include 

risk reduction of neurotoxicity, kidney 

toxicity, liver effects, immune/ 

hematological effects, reproductive 

effects, and developmental effects (Ref. 

3). Neurotoxic effects associated with 

PCE exposure in human studies include 

visual deficits, impaired cognition, and 

neurodevelopmental outcomes from 

prenatal and early childhood exposure 

to PCE such as increased affinity of 

engaging in drug, alcohol, and tobacco 

use as a teen or adult (Ref. 1). 

Reductions in PCE exposure therefore 

may also be associated with additional 

important, but currently unmonetized, 

benefits. 

Additionally, the Agency expects that 

the dry cleaning phaseout will decrease 

significant adverse health risks for 

affected populations that may own, 

operate, or work at dry cleaning 

facilities, as well as children of workers 

present at dry cleaners. As described in 

more detail in the Economic Analysis, 

the Agency analyzed the demographic 

characteristics of several populations 

that would be impacted by this 

rulemaking, including for dry cleaning 

(Ref. 3). For the public’s understanding, 

this document notes that based on 

reasonably available information, a 

significant number of members of 

minority populations may own or work 

at dry cleaning facilities. 

II. Background 

A. Overview of Perchloroethylene (PCE) 

As described in more detail in the 

2023 PCE proposed rule, PCE is a 

neurotoxicant and considered ‘‘likely to 

be carcinogenic in humans’’. This final 

rule applies to PCE (CASRN 127–18–4) 

and is specifically intended to address 

the unreasonable risk of injury to health 

EPA has identified in the 2020 Risk 

Evaluation for PCE and the 2022 revised 

unreasonable risk determination, as 

described in Unit II.C. PCE is a colorless 

volatile liquid with a mildly sweet odor 

that is produced in and imported into 

the United States. PCE is manufactured, 

processed, distributed, used, and 

disposed of as part of many industrial, 

commercial, and consumer conditions 

of use. 

As outlined in Unit II.C.4., PCE is 

used for the production of fluorinated 

compounds, as a solvent for dry 

cleaning and vapor degreasing; in 

catalyst regeneration in petrochemical 

manufacturing; and in a variety of 

commercial and consumer applications 

such as adhesives, paints and coatings, 

aerosol degreasers, brake cleaners, 

aerosol lubricants, sealants, stone 

polish, stainless steel polish and wipe 

cleaners. According to data submitted 

for the EPA’s 2016 Chemical Data 

Reporting rule (CDR), the total aggregate 

annual production volume of PCE in the 

United States decreased from 388 

million pounds to around 324 million 

pounds between 2012 and 2015 (Ref. 5). 

The total aggregate annual production 

volume ranged from 250 to 500 million 

pounds between 2016 and 2019 

according to CDR (Ref. 6). 

B. Regulatory Actions Pertaining to PCE 

Because of its adverse health effects, 

PCE is subject to numerous Federal laws 

and regulations in the United States and 

is also subject to regulation by some 

States and other countries. A summary 

of EPA regulations pertaining to PCE, as 

well as other Federal, State, and 

international regulations, is in the 

docket (Refs. 1, 7). 

As described in more detail in Unit 

II.C. of 2023 PCE proposed rule, and the 

Response to Public Comments 

document (Ref. 8), EPA considered the 

adequacy of the current occupational 

safety and health standards from the 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) (29 CFR part 

1910) 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 protectionrelated regulations 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. 

TSCA risk evaluations are subject to 

statutory science standards, an explicit 

requirement to consider risks to 

potentially exposed or susceptible 

subpopulations, and a prohibition on 

considering costs and other non-risk 

factors when determining whether a 

chemical presents an unreasonable risk 

that warrants regulatory actions—all 

requirements that do not apply to 

development of OSHA regulations. As 

such, EPA may find unreasonable risk 

for purposes of TSCA notwithstanding 

OSHA requirements. In addition, health 

standards issued under section 6(b)(5) of 

the OSH Act must reduce significant 

risk only to the extent that it is 

technologically and economically 

feasible. OSHA’s legal requirement to 

demonstrate that its section 6(b)(5) 

standards are technologically and 

economically feasible at the time they 

are promulgated often precludes OSHA 

from imposing exposure control 

requirements sufficient to ensure that 

the chemical substance no longer 

presents a significant risk to workers. 

While it is possible in some cases that 

the OSHA standards for some chemicals 

reviewed under TSCA will eliminate 

unreasonable risk, based on EPA’s 

experience thus far in conducting 

occupational risk assessments under 

TSCA, EPA believes that OSHA 

chemical standards would in general be 

unlikely to address unreasonable risk to 

workers within the meaning of TSCA, 

since TSCA section 6(b) unreasonable 

risk determinations may account for 

unreasonable risk to more sensitive 

endpoints and working populations 

than OSHA’s risk evaluations typically 

contemplate and EPA is obligated to 

apply TSCA section 6(a) risk 

management requirements to the extent 

necessary so that the unreasonable risk 

is no longer presented. Because the 

requirements and application of TSCA 

and OSHA regulatory analyses differ, it 

is necessary for EPA to conduct risk 

evaluations and, where it finds 

unreasonable risk to workers, develop 

risk management requirements for 

chemical substances that OSHA also 

regulates, and it is expected that EPA’s 

findings and requirements may 

sometimes diverge from OSHA’s. 

Additional considerations of OSHA 

standards in the revised unreasonable 

risk determination are discussed further 

in the 2022 Revised Unreasonable Risk 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103565 

Determination for PCE, published in the 

Federal Register of December 14, 2022 

(87 FR 76481 (FRL–9942–02–OCSPP)). 

EPA intends for this regulation to be 

as consistent as possible with OSHA 

regulations for toxic and hazardous 

substances, with additional 

requirements as necessary to address the 

unreasonable risk identified under 

TSCA. 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 PCE 

EPA published the scope of the PCE 

risk evaluation in July 2017 (82 FR 

31592 (FRL–9963–57)), and, after 

receiving public comments, published 

the problem formulation on June 11, 

2018 (83 FR 26998 (FRL–9978–40)). In 

May 2020, EPA published a draft risk 

evaluation (85 FR 26464, May 4, 2020 

(FRL–10008–63)), and, after public 

comment and peer review by the 

Science Advisory Committee on 

Chemicals (SACC), EPA issued the 2020 

Risk Evaluation for PCE in December 

2020 in accordance with TSCA section 

6(b) (85 FR 82474, December 18, 2020 

(FRL–10017–44)). EPA subsequently 

issued a draft revised TSCA 

unreasonable risk determination for PCE 

(87 FR 39085, June 30, 2022 (FRL–9942– 

01–OCSPP)), and after public notice and 

receipt of comments, published a 

Revised Risk Determination for PCE in 

December 2022 (87 FR 76481, December 

14, 2022 (FRL–9942–01–OCSPP)). The 

2020 Risk Evaluation for PCE and 

supplemental materials are in Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2019–0502, and 

the December 2022 revised 

unreasonable risk determination and 

additional materials supporting the risk 

evaluation process in Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2016–0732. 

1. 2020 Risk Evaluation 

In the 2020 Risk Evaluation for PCE, 

EPA evaluated risks associated with 61 

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 2023 PCE 

proposed rule. The 2020 Risk 

Evaluation for PCE identified significant 

adverse health effects associated with 

short- and long-term exposure to PCE. A 

further discussion of the hazards of PCE 

is in Unit III.B.2. of the 2023 PCE 

proposed rule. 

2. 2022 Revised Unreasonable Risk 

Determination 

As described in more detail in the 

2023 PCE proposed rule, EPA revised 

the original unreasonable risk 

determination based on the 2020 Risk 

Evaluation for PCE and issued a final 

revised unreasonable risk determination 

in December 2022 (Ref. 2). EPA revised 

the risk determination for the 2020 Risk 

Evaluation for PCE pursuant to TSCA 

section 6(b) and consistent with 

Executive Order 13990 (titled 

‘‘Protecting Public Health and the 

Environment and Restoring Science to 

Tackle the Climate Crisis’’) and other 

Administration priorities (Refs. 9, 10, 

and 11). The revisions consisted of 

making the risk determination based on 

the whole-chemical substance instead of 

making the risk determination 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 PCE presents an 

unreasonable risk of injury to health, 

and EPA did not identify risks of injury 

to the environment that contribute to 

the unreasonable risk determination for 

PCE. The PCE conditions of use that 

contribute to 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.1. of the 

2023 PCE 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 PCE 

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 the 2023 

PCE proposed rule and as described in 

the TSCA section 6(b) 2020 Risk 

Evaluation for PCE, EPA identified noncancer effects from both acute and 

chronic inhalation and dermal 

exposures to PCE, and cancer from 

chronic inhalation and dermal 

exposures to PCE (Ref. 1). EPA 

identified neurotoxicity as the most 

robust and sensitive endpoint for noncancer adverse effects from acute 

inhalation and dermal exposures and as 

the most robust and sensitive endpoint 

for non-cancer adverse effects from 

chronic inhalation and dermal 

exposures for all conditions of use (Ref. 

1). Other adverse effects associated with 

exposure to PCE include kidney and 

liver effects, immune system toxicity, 

and developmental toxicity. By targeting 

the sensitive chronic neurotoxicity 

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 inhalation and dermal 

exposure to PCE. 

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 PCE (Ref. 1) and were considered in 

the determination of unreasonable risk 

for PCE. 

4. Conditions of Use Subject to This 

Regulatory Action 

As noted in Unit I.C. ‘‘conditions of 

use’’ is defined in TSCA section 3(4). 

Condition of use descriptions for PCE 

are provided in Unit III.B.1. of the 2023 

PCE proposed rule and were obtained 

from EPA sources such as CDR codes, 

the 2020 Risk Evaluation for PCE and 

related documents, as well as the 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation 

and Development (OECD) harmonized 

use codes, and stakeholder 

engagements. EPA received public 

comments requesting minor 

clarifications of the descriptions for 

some industrial and commercial uses, 

and EPA has clarified those descriptions 

in Unit IV. A description of the minor 

changes can be found in the response to 

comments document and in Unit III.D. 

(Ref. 8). To assist with the 

implementation and compliance with 

the final rule, in Unit IV., EPA has 

provided a description of the conditions 

of use subject to the WCPP and to 

prescriptive controls. 

As in the 2023 PCE 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 

2023 PCE proposed rule. Although EPA 

identified both industrial and 

commercial uses in the 2020 Risk 

Evaluation for PCE (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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
103566 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

manner or method of commercial use’’ 

under TSCA section 6(a)(5) to reach 

both industrial and commercial uses. 

Additionally, as described in the 2023 

PCE proposed rule, in the 2020 Risk 

Evaluation for PCE (Ref. 1), EPA 

identified and assessed all known, 

intended, and reasonably foreseen 

industrial, commercial, and consumer 

uses of PCE. EPA determined that all 

industrial, commercial, and consumer 

uses of PCE evaluated in the 2020 Risk 

Evaluation for PCE 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 PCE consumer uses. 

Likewise, for the purpose of this risk 

management rule, ‘‘industrial and 

commercial use’’ refers to all known, 

intended, or reasonably foreseen PCE 

industrial and commercial uses. 

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)(ii) 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 PCE 

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 in or 

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 PCE proposed rule under 

TSCA section 6(a), EPA analyzed how 

the TSCA section 6(a) requirements 

could be applied to address the 

unreasonable risk from PCE so that it no 

longer presents such risk. Unit II.D.1. of 

this final rule summarizes the TSCA 

section 6 considerations for issuing 

regulations under TSCA section 6(a). 

Unit V. of the 2023 PCE proposed rule 

outlines how EPA applied these 

considerations specifically to managing 

the unreasonable risk from PCE. 

As required, EPA developed a 

proposed regulatory action and 

alternative regulatory actions, which are 

described in Units IV.A. and IV.B., 

respectively, of the 2023 PCE proposed 

rule. 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 PCE at different levels in 

the supply chain to eliminate exposures 

or restrict the availability of PCE and 

PCE-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 the identified unreasonable 

risk, when selecting among possible 

TSCA section 6(a) regulatory 

requirements for the 2023 PCE proposed 

rule. EPA’s considerations regarding 

TSCA section 6(c)(2)(A) for PCE are 

discussed in full in Unit VI. of the 2023 

PCE proposed rule, including the 

statement of effects with respect to these 

considerations. After review of public 

comments received, EPA has revised its 

statement of effects considerations in 

Unit V. of this final rule. 

Additionally, as described in more 

detail in the 2023 PCE proposed rule, 

EPA considered the availability of 

alternatives when finalizing a 

prohibition or a substantial restriction 

(TSCA section 6(c)(2)(C)) (Ref. 12), and 

in setting final compliance dates in 

accordance with the requirements in 

TSCA section 6(d)(1). 

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 2023 PCE 

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 PCE (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 alternative actions described 

in Unit II.D.3. Additional details related 

to how the requirements described in 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103567 

this Unit II.D.1. were incorporated into 

development of the 2023 PCE proposed 

rule and alternative actions are in Unit 

V. of the 2023 PCE proposed rule. 

2. Consultations and Other Engagement 

a. Consultations 

EPA conducted consultations and 

outreach as part of the development of 

the 2023 PCE proposed rule. The 

Agency held a federalism consultation 

from July 22, 2021, to October 22, 2021, 

as part of the rulemaking process and 

pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (Ref. 

13). 

EPA also consulted with Tribal 

officials during the development of the 

2023 PCE proposed rule (Ref. 14). The 

Agency held a Tribal consultation from 

May 17, 2021, to August 20, 2021, with 

meetings on June 15 and July 8, 2021 

(Ref. 14). EPA received no written 

comments as part of this consultation. 

EPA’s Environmental Justice (EJ) 

consultation occurred from June 3, 

2021, to August 20, 2021. On June 16, 

2021, and July 6, 2021, EPA held public 

meetings as part of this consultation. 

These meetings were held pursuant to 

Executive Orders 12898 and 14008. EPA 

received five written comments 

following the EJ meetings, in addition to 

oral comments provided during the 

consultation (Refs. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19). 

The 2023 PCE proposed rule presents a 

brief summary of the comments in Unit 

III.A.1. of the 2023 PCE proposed rule. 

As required by section 609(b) of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), EPA 

convened a Small Business Advocacy 

Review (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 

September 26, 2022, and November 10, 

2022. Panel recommendations were 

addressed in Unit X.C. of the 2023 PCE 

proposed rule and in the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

(Ref. 20); the Panel report is in the 

docket (Ref. 21). EPA has also prepared 

a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(FRFA) (Ref. 22). 

The Agency presents more 

information regarding the consultations 

in Units X.C., X.E., X.F., and X.J. of the 

2023 PCE proposed rule. 

b. Other Stakeholder Consultations 

For development of the 2023 PCE 

proposed rule, in addition to the formal 

consultations described in Unit X. of the 

2023 PCE proposed rule, EPA held a 

webinar on January 14, 2021, providing 

an overview of the TSCA risk 

management process and the risk 

evaluation findings for PCE (Ref. 23). 

EPA also presented on the TSCA risk 

management process and the findings in 

the 2020 Risk Evaluation for PCE (Ref. 

24) at a Small Business Administration 

(SBA) Office of Advocacy 

Environmental Roundtable on January 

15, 2021. Attendees of these meetings 

were given an opportunity to voice their 

concerns regarding the risk evaluation 

and risk management. 

Furthermore, during development of 

the 2023 PCE proposed rule, EPA 

engaged in discussions with 

representatives from different 

industries, non-governmental 

organizations, organized labor, technical 

experts, and users of PCE. A list of 

external meetings held during the 

development of the 2023 PCE proposed 

rule is available in the docket (Ref. 25); 

meeting materials and summaries are 

also available in the docket. A summary 

of the topics discussed during these 

meetings is in Unit III.A.2. of the 2023 

PCE proposed rule. 

c. Children’s Environmental Health 

The Agency’s 2021 Policy on 

Children’s Health (Ref. 26) requires EPA 

to protect children from environmental 

exposures by consistently and explicitly 

considering early life exposures (from 

conception, infancy, 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 under TSCA section 6(a) 

so that PCE no longer presents an 

unreasonable risk (which includes 

unreasonable risk to any relevant 

potentially exposed or susceptible 

subpopulations). Information on how 

the 2021 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 Unit III.A.3. 

of the 2023 PCE proposed rule, the 2020 

Risk Evaluation for PCE (Ref. 1), and the 

Economic Analysis (Ref. 3). 

3. Proposed Regulatory Action 

EPA’s 2023 PCE proposed rule under 

TSCA section 6(a) to address the 

unreasonable risk presented by PCE 

under its conditions of use included the 

following: 

• Prohibition of most industrial and 

commercial uses and the manufacture 

(including import), processing, and 

distribution in commerce, of PCE for 

those uses; 

• Prohibition of the manufacture 

(including import), processing, and 

distribution in commerce of PCE for all 

consumer use; 

• Prohibition of the manufacture 

(including import), processing, 

distribution in commerce, and 

commercial use of PCE in dry cleaning 

and spot cleaning through a 10-year 

phaseout; 

• Requirements for strict workplace 

controls, including a PCE WCPP, which 

would include requirements to meet an 

inhalation exposure concentration limit 

and prevent direct dermal contact with 

PCE, for the 16 occupational conditions 

of use not prohibited; 

• Requirements for prescriptive 

workplace controls for laboratory use; 

• Establishments of recordkeeping 

and downstream notification 

requirements; and 

• A 10-year time-limited exemption 

under TSCA section 6(g) for certain 

emergency uses of PCE in furtherance of 

NASA’s mission, for specific conditions 

of use which are critical or essential and 

for which no technically and 

economically feasible safer alternative is 

available. 

EPA notes that all TSCA conditions of 

use of PCE were subject to the 2023 PCE 

proposed rule and are subject to this 

final rule. 

The 2023 PCE proposed rule included 

proposed timeframes for 

implementation. The prohibitions EPA 

proposed for most conditions of use 

would take effect in phases, beginning 

at the top of the supply chain, and 

coming into full effect after 24 months, 

as described in Units IV.A.1.a. and 

IV.A.1.b. of the 2023 PCE proposed rule. 

The phaseout period for dry cleaning 

that EPA proposed would take full effect 

after 10 years, as described in Unit 

IV.A.1.c. of the 2023 PCE proposed rule. 

Likewise, for the WCPP, EPA proposed 

timeframes for phases of compliance, 

beginning with monitoring at six 

months and full implementation after 12 

months, as described in Unit IV.A.2. of 

the 2023 PCE proposed rule. EPA also 

proposed a compliance timeframe of 12 

months for prescriptive controls for 

laboratory use. 

Under TSCA section 6(c)(2)(A)(iv)(II) 

through (III), EPA is mandated to 

consider one or more alternative 

regulatory actions. These were included 

in the 2023 PCE proposed rule in Unit 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
103568 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

IV.B. Similar to the proposed regulatory 

action, both the primary and second 

alternative regulatory actions combined 

prohibitions, requirements for a WCPP, 

and prescriptive controls to address the 

unreasonable risk from PCE under its 

conditions of use. 

The primary alternative regulatory 

action combined prohibitions, a WCPP, 

and prescriptive controls to address the 

unreasonable risk from PCE driven by 

its conditions of use. At the time of 

publication of the 2023 PCE proposed 

rule, uncertainties regarding the 

feasibility of implementing workplace 

safety control measures in open systems 

or when worker activities require 

manual application or removal of PCE 

or PCE-containing products, availability 

of alternatives, or whether the use is 

ongoing or phased out for most of these 

conditions of use led EPA to propose 

prohibition. At the time of proposal, 

EPA did not have reasonably available 

information to confidently conclude 

that these conditions of use could meet 

requirements of a WCPP. The alternative 

regulatory action also considered and 

included WCPP for laboratory use to 

seek input on requiring the nonprescriptive WCPP instead of the 

prescriptive workplace controls 

included in the proposed regulatory 

action. The primary alternative 

regulatory action also considered 

prescriptive workplace controls where 

existing engineering controls, 

administrative controls, and PPE may 

already address the unreasonable risk 

for some conditions of use that would 

be subject to a WCPP under the 

proposed regulatory action. 

Additionally, the primary alternative 

regulatory action included requirements 

for a concentration limit for PCE in 

industrial and commercial use in 

solvent-based adhesives and sealants. 

The primary alternative regulatory 

action also included longer timeframes 

for prohibitions and implementation of 

WCPP and prescriptive controls. Those 

timeframes were described in Unit IV.B. 

of the 2023 PCE proposed rule. 

The second alternative regulatory 

action combined prohibitions, 

requirements for a WCPP, prescriptive 

controls, and two time-limited 

exemptions to address the unreasonable 

risk from PCE driven by its conditions 

of use. This second alternative 

regulatory action included prohibitions 

on some conditions of use that would 

have requirements for a WCPP under 

the proposed regulatory action. 

The second alternative regulatory 

action also included shorter compliance 

timeframes for prohibition and a WCPP. 

Additionally, this second alternative 

regulatory action did not include 

staggered prohibition compliance dates 

for manufacturers, processors, and 

distributors. The secondary alternative 

regulatory action compliance 

timeframes are described in Unit IV.B. 

of the 2023 PCE proposed rule. 

For a comprehensive overview of the 

alternative regulatory actions, refer to 

Unit IV.B. of the 2023 PCE proposed 

rule, with the rationale for the 

alternative regulatory actions provided 

in Unit V.A.2. of the 2023 PCE proposed 

rule. 

4. Public Comments Received 

EPA requested comment on all 

aspects of the 2023 PCE proposed rule, 

and during the public comment period, 

EPA held a webinar on July 19, 2023, 

providing an overview of the 2023 PCE 

proposed rule and TSCA section 6; 

during the webinar, members of the 

public had the opportunity to share 

their perspectives (Ref. 27). The 

comment period closed on August 15, 

2023. EPA received 749 public 

comments, with a majority received 

from individuals participating in mass 

mailer campaigns organized by nongovernmental organizations. The public 

comments also include approximately 

89 unique comments from industry 

stakeholders, trade associations, 

environmental groups, unions, 

academic institutions, a State 

government agency, a Federal 

Government agency, 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. 8). 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 2023 PCE 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 PCE. 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 (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0720) (Ref. 28). 

After review of the public comments 

received on the 2023 PCE proposed rule, 

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 or prescriptive controls 

(Ref. 8). 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 

Based on Public Comment 

Unit III. summarizes the main changes 

from the 2023 PCE proposed rule to this 

final rule, based on the consideration of 

the public comments. 

A. Changes to the Risk Management 

Approach for Certain Conditions of Use 

As described in Units III.A.1. and 2., 

when compared to the 2023 PCE 

proposed rule, EPA’s final rule prohibits 

two additional conditions of use (Unit 

III.A.1.), allows three additional 

conditions of use under the WCPP 

(Units III.A.2.a. through c.), broadens 

the types of prescriptive controls 

required for one condition of use (Unit 

III.A.2.d.), and allows one additional 

condition of use to continue under 

specific prescriptive controls or the 

WCPP (Unit III.A.2.e.). 

The rationale for these changes is 

described in this unit. EPA emphasizes 

that implementation of the WCPP or 

prescriptive controls can fully address 

the unreasonable risk from PCE for the 

conditions of use allowed to continue, 

and that these changes do not 

significantly impact the production 

volume of PCE expected to remain in 

commerce when compared to the 

proposed regulatory action. Taken 

together, the conditions of use described 

in Unit III.A.1. and 2. account for less 

than an estimated 5% of the total 

production volume of PCE. 

1. Additional Conditions of Use Subject 

to Prohibition: Industrial and 

Commercial Uses of PCE as a Solvent for 

In-Line Vapor Degreasing 

EPA is finalizing a prohibition for the 

industrial and commercial use of PCE as 

a solvent for in-line conveyorized vapor 

degreasing and for in-line web cleaner 

vapor degreasing, which were 

considered for prohibition in the second 

alternative regulatory action of the 2023 

PCE proposed rule. As described in 

section 6 of the Economic Analysis for 

the 2023 PCE proposed rule (Ref. 29), 

EPA estimated that approximately two 

conveyorized vapor degreasers and no 

web vapor degreasers use PCE. One 

public commenter, a critical cleaning 

consultant, stated they no longer 

encounter in-line conveyorized or inline web vapor degreasers using PCE 

(Ref. 30). Additionally, commenters 

identified alternative types of degreaser 

technologies, such as open-top batch 

vapor degreasers, closed-loop batch 

vapor degreasers, and airless batch 

vapor degreasers, that clean effectively 

and for which monitoring data and 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103569 

detailed process descriptions of PCE 

activities for these types of degreasers 

confirm that compliance with an ECEL 

of 0.14 ppm as an 8-hr TWA is possible 

(Refs. 30, 31). As described in Unit 

V.A.1. of the 2023 PCE proposed rule, 

prohibition is the preferred risk 

management option for occupational 

conditions of use where reasonably 

available information suggest minimal 

ongoing use or when feasible safer 

alternatives are reasonably available. 

Based on information provided by 

commenters and other information 

reasonably available to the Agency 

indicating that the use of PCE in in-line 

conveyorized and in-line web vapor 

degreasing is no longer ongoing, and 

availability of technologically feasible 

alternative vapor degreasing technology, 

EPA has determined that the 

unreasonable risk from PCE when used 

in both types of in-line vapor degreasers 

is best addressed with a prohibition. 

2. Additional Conditions of Use Subject 

to Restrictions: WCPP and Prescriptive 

Controls 

a. Processing PCE Into Formulation, 

Mixture, or Reaction Product in Other 

Chemical Products and Preparations 

EPA is finalizing a WCPP for 

processing PCE into formulation, 

mixture, or reaction product in other 

chemical products and preparations, as 

included in the primary alternative 

regulatory action of EPA’s proposal (88 

FR 39652, June 16, 2023)(FRL–8329–02– 

OCSPP)). While EPA proposed to 

prohibit processing PCE into 

formulation, mixture or reaction 

product in other chemical products and 

preparations, this was because EPA 

proposed to prohibit the downstream 

industrial, commercial, and consumer 

uses associated with other chemical 

products and preparations. EPA 

included this condition of use under the 

WCPP in the primary alternative 

regulatory action. 

EPA received several comments 

regarding processing PCE into 

formulation, mixture, or reaction 

product. One commenter stated that 

there appeared to be a disconnect 

between the proposed prohibitions on 

processing PCE versus prohibitions on 

distribution and/or use of PCE and 

requested that EPA clarify the 

prohibitions throughout all steps in the 

supply chain for each particular 

condition of use (Ref. 32). For example, 

the commenter stated that EPA 

proposed that PCE may be processed 

into a formulation, mixture, or reaction 

product in paint and coating mixtures 

but also proposed to prohibit the 

manufacturing, processing, distribution 

in commerce, and use of PCE in solventbased paints and coatings. The 

commenter also stated that EPA 

proposed that PCE could be used for 

industrial and commercial use in 

maskants for chemical milling but did 

not explicitly permit the manufacturing 

or processing of PCE for use in 

maskants. Another commenter 

expressed opposition to EPA’s proposed 

prohibition on processing of PCE for 

other chemical products and 

preparations, and stated that the 

proposed prohibition appeared to be 

based on an overly broad assumption 

that exposures to PCE in this condition 

of use correspond to aerosol packing 

(Ref. 33). 

In Unit III.B.1.b.iv. of the 2023 PCE 

proposed rule, EPA described how the 

condition of use of processing PCE into 

formulation, mixture, or reaction 

products in paint and coating products 

refers to when PCE is added to a paint 

or coating product for further 

distribution, including when PCE is 

incorporated into coating products such 

as maskant (88 FR 39652, June 16, 

2023)(FRL–8329–02–OCSPP)). However, 

to avoid confusion regarding which 

processing into formulation, mixture, or 

reaction product condition of use of PCE 

is associated with each downstream 

industrial and commercial condition of 

use of PCE, and, in particular, confusion 

regarding which products may fall 

under the category of ‘‘other chemical 

products and preparations,’’ EPA is 

finalizing WCPP for all PCE processing 

into formulation, mixture, or reaction 

products, including in other chemical 

products and preparations, to make 

clear that all processing of PCE into 

formulation, mixture, or reaction 

product conditions of use, including in 

cleaning and degreasing products, in 

adhesive and sealant products, and in 

paint and coating products that are not 

prohibited by virtue of the downstream 

use being prohibited, are subject to the 

WCPP. As in the 2023 PCE proposed 

rule, all manufacturing, processing, and 

distribution in commerce of PCE for any 

downstream industrial, commercial, or 

consumer condition of use that is 

prohibited under the final rule would 

also be prohibited. In response to a 

comment requesting clarity regarding 

prohibitions throughout all steps of the 

value chain for each condition of use, 

EPA clarifies that the final rule includes 

prohibitions (staggered by lifecycle 

stage) for the manufacture, processing, 

distribution in commerce, and for all 

consumer, industrial and commercial 

use of PCE and PCE-containing 

products, except for those industrial and 

commercial uses which will continue 

under the WCPP or prescriptive 

controls, or are otherwise not 

prohibited. Therefore, in this final rule, 

WCPP applies to processing PCE for 

uses that are not prohibited. 

b. Industrial and Commercial Use of 

PCE as a Processing Aid 

EPA is finalizing a WCPP for 

industrial and commercial use of PCE as 

a processing aid in pesticide, fertilizer, 

and other agricultural manufacturing, as 

included in the primary alternative 

regulatory action of the 2023 PCE 

proposal rule. While EPA proposed to 

prohibit the industrial and commercial 

use of PCE as a processing aid in 

pesticide, fertilizer, and other 

agricultural 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 PCE activities for 

this use to confirm that compliance with 

an ECEL of 0.14 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. 

EPA received a few comments 

regarding the industrial and commercial 

use as a processing aid in pesticide, 

fertilizer, and other agricultural 

manufacturing. Two commenters 

disagreed with EPA’s proposal to 

prohibit PCE use as a processing aid in 

the manufacture of agricultural 

chemicals and stated that it is unclear 

what information EPA relied on to 

conclude that this use could not meet 

the WCPP requirements (Refs. 33, 34). 

One commenter stated that this use of 

PCE is critical to the manufacture of 

certain agricultural products and 

described how they limit PCE exposure 

and manage production risks through 

strong product stewardship and 

industrial hygiene practices. Following 

a meeting to receive clarifying 

information on their comment, one 

commenter submitted information on 

worker activities and safety measures in 

place that provide worker protection for 

this use (Ref. 35). As described in the 

submitted information, activities 

associated with potential exposure to 

PCE include transfer, sample, and 

maintenance, where control measures 

such as purging lines/vessels prior to 

opening, closed sampling box, and PPE 

reduce exposures. Based on the 

information received, EPA believes such 

control measures that indicate the 

ability to comply with the WCPP 

requirements may be implementable for 

all those using PCE as a processing aid 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
103570 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

in pesticide, fertilizer, and other 

agricultural chemical manufacturing. 

Additionally, information submitted 

to EPA indicates that PCE may be used 

as a processing aid in industrial sectors 

other than petrochemical manufacturing 

and pesticide, fertilizer, and other 

agricultural chemical manufacturing 

(Refs. 33, 36). The 2020 Risk Evaluation 

assessed occupational exposures for 

‘‘processing aids, specific to petroleum 

production—catalyst regeneration in 

petrochemical manufacturing’’ and 

‘‘processing aids, not otherwise listed— 

pesticide, fertilizer and other 

agricultural chemical manufacturing’’ 

under the industrial processing aid 

Occupational Exposure Scenario (Ref. 

1). While other specific processing aid 

uses of PCE were not identified in the 

2020 Risk Evaluation, EPA expects the 

exposure assessment, including the 

worker activities, to be consistent across 

all processing aid type uses. For 

example, as assessed in the risk 

evaluation, worker activities that may 

result in exposure for use as a 

processing aid include unloading PCE 

into process equipment and 

maintenance. Similar to control 

measures that reduce the potential for 

exposure and indicate the ability to 

comply with the WCPP for use as a 

processing aid in the pesticide, 

fertilizer, and other agricultural 

chemical manufacturing sector, EPA has 

determined that control measures such 

as use occuring in a highly specialized 

closed system with minimal exposure to 

PCE during infrequent worker activity 

limit the potential for exposure and 

indicate the ability to comply with the 

WCPP for use as a processing aid in 

other industrial sectors. Therefore, EPA 

believes the WCPP requirements are 

practicable and implementable for all 

processing aid uses which occur at 

sophisticated industrial sites. EPA’s 

determination is based on reasonably 

available information included in 

submissions to EPA related to process 

descriptions, worker activities, and 

exposure mitigation practices for use of 

PCE as an industrial processing aid in 

sectors other than petrochemical 

manufacturing and pesticide, fertilizer, 

and agricultural chemical 

manufacturing (Refs. 1, 36). 

The information submitted to EPA as 

part of the comment period regarding 

the industrial and commercial use of 

PCE as a processing aid in sectors other 

than petrochemical manufacturing 

(including industrial and commercial 

use as a processing aid in pesticide, 

fertilizer and agricultural chemical 

manufacturing) and supported by 

subsequent discussions, demonstrated 

the users’ ability to comply with the 

WCPP. For this reason, EPA has 

determined that the unreasonable risk 

from PCE when used as a processing 

aid, even in sectors other than 

petrochemical manufacturing and 

pesticide, fertilizer, and agricultural 

chemical manufacturing, could be 

addressed with a WCPP. Therefore, in 

this final rule, EPA is finalizing a WCPP 

for all industrial and commercial use of 

PCE as a processing aid in sectors other 

than petrochemical manufacturing and a 

WCPP for industrial and commercial 

use of PCE as a processing aid in 

catalyst regeneration in petrochemical 

manufacturing. 

c. Industrial and Commercial Use of 

PCE as Solvent for Cold Cleaning of 

Tanker Vessels 

EPA is finalizing a WCPP for 

industrial and commercial use of PCE as 

solvent for cold cleaning of tanker 

vessels, which is a sub-use of the 

industrial and commercial use of PCE as 

solvent for cold cleaning, which EPA 

proposed to prohibit in the proposal (88 

FR 39652, June 16, 2023) (FRL–8329– 

02–OCSPP)). While EPA proposed to 

prohibit industrial and commercial use 

of PCE as solvent for cold cleaning, this 

was due to insufficient information at 

the time of proposal to determine that 

compliance with the WCPP would be 

possible and EPA believed alternatives 

were reasonably available. EPA 

requested comment on whether to 

consider a regulatory alternative that 

would subject more conditions of use of 

PCE to a WCPP, instead of a prohibition, 

than those contemplated in the primary 

alternative regulatory action. EPA also 

requested monitoring data and detailed 

descriptions of PCE-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. 

EPA received one comment regarding 

the industrial and commercial use of 

PCE in cold cleaning of tanker vessels. 

The commenter requested that EPA not 

prohibit this use because entities utilize 

PCE and other solvents, such as 

methylene chloride, orthodichlorobenzene, monochlorobenzene, 

and toluene, to clean tanks safely and 

effectively, when water and detergents 

are not compatible with the cargo 

material (Ref. 37). The commenter 

suggested that EPA establish the WCPP 

to maintain this use. Following a 

September 26, 2023, meeting with an 

industry user to receive clarifying 

information on their comment, the 

commenter submitted information on 

worker activities and safety measures in 

place that provide worker protection for 

this use (Ref. 38). As described in the 

submitted information, tank cleaning 

with a solvent is typically infrequent 

(about every two years) and worker 

exposure occurs during sampling and 

connecting or disconnecting of hoses to 

or from the ship manifold or waste 

truck, activities during which control 

measures are in place. Based on the 

information submitted regarding this 

condition of use, and supported by 

subsequent discussions, EPA believes 

such controls and safety measures may 

be implementable industry wide. 

EPA received two comments 

regarding industrial and commercial use 

of PCE in cold cleaning generally. One 

commenter stated that the empirical and 

modeled exposure data for cold cleaning 

in the risk evaluation are very similar to 

that for degreasing, but EPA proposed to 

allow continued use of PCE under the 

WCPP in vapor degreasing and not cold 

cleaning (Ref. 33). Another commenter 

associated with the aerospace and 

defense sector urged EPA to permit 

ongoing use under the WCPP for PCE as 

a cold, immersion cleaner (Ref. 32). 

However, for all cold cleaning other 

than cold cleaning of tanker vessels, 

EPA does not have any reasonably 

available information, including 

monitoring or detailed process 

description, that supports the ability to 

comply with a WCPP such that the risks 

are no longer unreasonable. EPA does 

not have any reasonably available 

information that indicates the exposure 

frequency, worker activities, and safety 

measures associated with cold cleaning 

of tanker vessels, as described by the 

commenter, are applicable to other cold 

cleaning operations, which may vary in 

equipment design or worker activities 

(Ref. 37, 38). 

The information submitted to EPA 

during the comment period regarding 

the industrial and commercial use of 

PCE as a solvent for cold cleaning of 

tanker vessels, supported by subsequent 

discussions, demonstrated the users’ 

ability to comply with the WCPP. For 

this reason, EPA has determined that 

the unreasonable risk from PCE when 

used in cold cleaning of tanker vessels 

could be addressed with a WCPP. EPA 

is finalizing a prohibition for all other 

cold cleaning applications of PCE. 

d. Industrial and Commercial Use of 

PCE as a Laboratory Chemical 

In general, EPA is finalizing the 

prescriptive control requirements for the 

industrial and commercial use of PCE as 

a laboratory chemical as proposed, with 

some modifications, based on 

consideration of public comments. As 

described in the 2023 PCE proposed 

rule, to address the unreasonable risk of 

injury to health resulting from dermal 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103571 

exposures to PCE for the industrial and 

commercial use as a laboratory 

chemical, EPA proposed to require 

dermal PPE in combination with 

comprehensive training for tasks related 

to the use of PCE in a laboratory setting 

for each potentially exposed person in 

direct dermal contact with PCE. EPA 

also proposed to require the use of fume 

hoods to codify the assumption of 

existing good laboratory practices that 

EPA relied upon as a key basis for its 

evaluation of risk from this condition of 

use (Ref. 1). EPA requested comment 

relative to the ability of owners and 

operators to implement laboratory 

chemical fume hood and dermal PPErelated requirements within 12 months 

of publication of the final rule. Under 

the primary alternative regulatory 

action, EPA included the WCPP for 

laboratory use of PCE and solicited 

comment on non-prescriptive 

requirements to meet an ECEL and 

Direct Dermal Contact Control (DDCC) 

as compared to the prescriptive 

workplace controls of using a fume 

hood and dermal PPE. 

EPA received several comments 

regarding the industrial and commercial 

use of PCE as a laboratory chemical. 

Several commenters stated that the 

proposed regulation would result in 

confusion and duplication with the 

OSHA standard for occupational 

exposure to hazardous chemicals in 

laboratories under 29 CFR 1910.1450 

that is already in effect (Refs. 39, 40, 41). 

The commenters urged EPA to more 

closely align its requirements for 

laboratory use of PCE with OSHA’s 

laboratory standard to reduce the 

compliance burden. Some commenters 

expressed support for the use of fume 

hoods and other engineering controls 

over the WCPP and suggested that EPA 

include flexibility for engineering 

controls beyond a fume hood for 

consistency with the OSHA laboratory 

standard (Refs. 40, 42). The commenters 

stated that while fume hoods are 

considered best practice and are 

commonly used to reduce exposure in 

laboratories, some experiment designs 

utilizing PCE may not be able to be 

accommodated within a fume hood. 

Commenters described other alternative 

controls that can be designed and 

implemented to reduce exposure, such 

as glove boxes, exhausted enclosures, 

air-free solvent purification systems, 

and fume extractors. One commenter 

described other laboratory standards, 

including the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI)/American 

Society of Safety Professionals (ASSP) 

Z9.5 Laboratory Ventilation standard 

and the ANSI/American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 62.1 

Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air 

Quality standard, that laboratories 

adhere to in addition to OSHA’s 

laboratory standard that they state meet 

or exceed the worker protections under 

EPA’s proposed WCPP and prescriptive 

controls (Refs. 41, 43, 44). 

Based on information provided by 

commenters related to exposure 

mitigation controls to comply with the 

OSHA laboratory standard and best 

management practices available to 

laboratories, EPA has determined that 

requiring laboratory ventilation devices 

such as fume hoods or glove boxes 

would better align with the OSHA 

laboratory standard and existing good 

laboratory practices. As described in 

Unit V.A.1. of the 2023 PCE proposed 

rule, EPA proposed to require fume 

hoods in laboratory settings to codify 

assumptions made in the 2020 Risk 

Evaluation for PCE, where EPA’s risk 

estimates and determination that 

inhalation exposures from the industrial 

and commercial use of PCE as a 

laboratory chemical did not contribute 

to the unreasonable risk were predicated 

on its findings that expected safety 

practices of using PCE in small amounts 

under a fume hood reduce the potential 

for inhalation exposures. For the 

industrial and commercial use of PCE as 

a laboratory chemical, EPA concurs 

with the commenters that indicated 

EPA’s requirements should align more 

closely with the OSHA laboratory 

standard wherever possible to prevent 

confusion. The requirement in this final 

rule that laboratory ventilation devices, 

such as fume hoods or glove boxes, are 

in use and functioning properly and that 

specific measures are taken to ensure 

proper and adequate performance of 

such equipment to minimize exposures 

to persons in the area when PCE is used 

in a laboratory setting aligns with 

existing requirements from 29 CFR 

1910.1450(e)(3)(iii). 

As detailed in Unit IV.C. of this final 

rule, EPA is finalizing as proposed the 

requirements for dermal PPE in 

combination with comprehensive 

training for tasks related to the use of 

PCE in a laboratory setting. EPA 

believes these requirements align with 

OSHA’s laboratory standard and 

OSHA’s General Requirements for 

Personal Protective Equipment at 29 

CFR 1910.132 to the extent possible 

while still addressing the unreasonable 

risk of injury to health resulting from 

dermal exposures to PCE identified for 

the industrial and commercial use as a 

laboratory chemical. 

e. Industrial and Commercial Use of 

PCE as Energized Electrical Cleaner 

EPA is finalizing requirements to 

comply with either specific prescriptive 

controls or the WCPP for the industrial 

and commercial use of PCE as energized 

electrical cleaner, which is a sub-use of 

the industrial and commercial use of 

PCE as solvent for aerosol spray 

degreaser/cleaner, as described in Unit 

III.B.1.c.vi. of the 2023 PCE proposed 

rule. In the proposal, EPA proposed to 

prohibit the industrial and commercial 

use of PCE as solvent for aerosol spray 

degreaser/cleaner because the Agency 

was not able to identify reasonably 

available information such as 

monitoring data or detailed activity 

descriptions to indicate with certainty 

that relevant regulated entities could 

mitigate the identified unreasonable risk 

through a WCPP. EPA considered 

requiring a WCPP for this condition of 

use under the primary alternative 

regulatory action because of 

uncertainties regarding the availability 

of alternatives for all aerosol spray 

degreasing/cleaning applications, 

including for energized electrical 

cleaning. EPA requested comment on 

the ways PCE may be used, including 

the likelihood of successful compliance 

with the WCPP for this condition of use. 

EPA also requested comment on 

prescribing specific engineering or 

administrative controls that would 

reduce inhalation and dermal exposures 

enough to address the unreasonable risk 

across all workplaces engaged in a 

condition of use. Additionally, EPA 

requested comment on whether to 

include a self-certification requirement 

for purchasing PCE or PCE-containing 

products. 

EPA received several comments 

expressing concern over the proposed 

prohibition on energized electrical 

cleaning (Refs. 45, 46, 33, 47, 48, 49). 

Several commenters stated that safer 

alternatives are not available because 

alternative products not containing PCE 

likely present a flammability safety 

issue (Refs. 45, 48, 47, 50). A commenter 

also stated that some cleaning in the 

electrical utility industry is conducted 

underground in confined spaces where 

respiratory protection is used and a nonflammable product, such as those 

containing PCE, is needed to control a 

potential fire hazard (Ref. 45). In 

addition to describing the need for PCE 

in energized electrical cleaning, 

commenters described the work 

practices and context that support the 

potential for exposure reduction to PCE 

through workplace controls, rather than 

prohibition. As an example, one 

commenter described work practices 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
103572 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

and controls for energized electrical 

cleaning, stating that facilities that 

require cleaning of energized equipment 

rely on skilled technicians or other 

professional users who typically have 

education and training that may include 

two years at lineman school, time as an 

apprentice, licensing or certifications, 

and continuing education (Ref. 45). 

Additionally, the commenter stated 

that OSHA General Industry and 

Construction standards include 

requirements specific to electrical work 

under 29 CFR part 1926, subparts E, K, 

and V. Commenters also described 

State-level regulations that exclude 

energized electrical cleaners from 

prohibitions on the manufacture and 

sale of PCE-containing general purpose 

degreasing products, electrical cleaners, 

and electronic cleaners (Refs. 45, 49). 

Another commenter stated that EPA 

should not prohibit energized electrical 

cleaning because petroleum refineries 

safely use energized electrical cleaners 

on a regular basis (Ref. 48). 

While many commenters advocated 

for continued use of PCE for this 

condition of use, they differed in 

whether the WCPP or other workplace 

controls would be most suitable. Some 

commenters stated that the WCPP 

would be impractical for energized 

electrical cleaning because trained 

technicians often travel to different 

facilities to conduct work, including 

facilities that may not otherwise use 

PCE, and suggested that instead of a 

WCPP, a training and certification 

program would be sufficient to address 

the unreasonable risk (Refs. 45). Other 

commenters suggested PCE use for 

cleaning of energized electrical 

equipment should be exempt from the 

rule under a TSCA section 6(g) 

exemption (Refs. 45, 46, 33, 47). 

Based on the information submitted to 

EPA as part of the comment period 

regarding this condition of use, 

supported by subsequent discussions, 

and in consideration of existing best 

practices and regulations for work in 

electrical spaces as well as the lack of 

reasonably available technically and 

economically feasible alternatives to 

PCE that also do not present a potential 

flammability concern for energized 

electrical cleaning, EPA has determined 

that the unreasonable risk from PCE 

when used as energized electrical 

cleaner could be addressed with a 

combination of labeling, selfcertification, and either the WCPP or 

specific prescriptive controls, including 

dermal PPE and respiratory protection. 

EPA notes the importance of existing 

OSHA regulations designed to protect 

workers exposed to dangers such as 

electric shock, electrocution, fires, and 

explosions. Specifically, in addition to 

the requirements for electrical work 

under OSHA General Industry and 

Construction standards at 29 CFR part 

1926, subparts E, K, and V that one 

commenter mentioned in their public 

comment, OSHA regulates electrical 

work under Occupational Safety and 

Health standards at 29 CFR part 1910. 

For example, OSHA requires safetyrelated work practices on electrical 

equipment under the Electrical 

Standard at 29 CFR part 1910, subpart 

S (29 CFR 1910.301 to 1910.399), which 

was significantly updated in 2007. 

OSHA also sets forth requirements for 

the operation and maintenance of 

electrical power generation, control, 

transformation, transmission, and 

distribution lines and equipment under 

the Electric Power Generation, 

Transmission, and Distribution 

Standard at 29 CFR part 1910, subpart 

R (29 CFR 1910.269), last amended in 

2015. Additionally, OSHA regulates 

electrical protective equipment under 

the Electrical Protective Equipment 

Standard at 29 CFR part 1910, subpart 

I (29 CFR 1910.137), which was 

significantly updated in 2014. Other 

standards and best practices apply to 

electrical safety in the workplace, for 

example the National Fire Protection 

Association 70E Standard for Electrical 

Safety in the Workplace (Ref. 51). 

Under the Electrical Standard at 29 

CFR 1910.333 and the Electric Power 

Generation, Transmission, and 

Distribution Standard at 29 CFR 

1910.269, OSHA requires employers to 

establish minimum approach distances 

from exposed energized parts, 

depending on the voltage, that persons 

must maintain unless they are a 

qualified employee that meets certain 

requirements under 29 CFR 

1910.269(l)(3)(iii)(A) through (C) or 29 

CFR 1910.333(c)(3)(ii)(A) through (C). In 

instances where persons need to clean 

or degrease energized equipment in an 

area that is not considered a confined 

space, as defined in 29 CFR 1910.146(b), 

or an enclosed space (such as a manhole 

or vault) as described in 29 CFR 

1910.269(e), for example housekeeping 

overhead lines, but are not permitted to 

approach or take conductive objects 

closer to the exposed energized part 

than the employer’s established 

minimum approach distance, persons 

may be able to use tools, such as a 

hotstick with an aerosol spray can 

holder adapter or other live-line tools to 

clean the energized equipment (Ref. 52). 

In such instances where persons are 

maintaining the established minimum 

approach distance while conducting 

energized electrical cleaning in an area 

that is not confined or enclosed, EPA 

believes the potential for inhalation 

exposures is minimal. 

As noted earlier, EPA has determined 

that the unreasonable risk from PCE 

when used as energized electrical 

cleaner could be addressed with a 

combination of labeling, selfcertification, and either (i) specific 

prescriptive controls, including dermal 

PPE and respiratory protection, or (ii) 

the WCPP. EPA’s finalized requirements 

for industrial and commercial use of 

PCE as energized electrical cleaner are 

described in Unit IV.C.2. Other 

industrial and commercial use as a 

solvent for aerosol spray degreasers/ 

cleaners is prohibited in the final rule, 

consistent with the proposal for that 

condition of use. EPA’s workplace 

requirements to address the 

unreasonable risk for PCE as an 

energized electrical cleaner are 

consistent to the extent possible with 

existing regulations and best practices 

for work in electrical spaces such as 

OSHA’s Electrical Standard at 29 CFR 

part 1910, subpart S and the Electric 

Power Generation, Transmission, and 

Distribution Standard at 29 CFR part 

1910, subpart R. 

In this final rule, EPA is also adding 

a definition of ‘‘energized electrical 

cleaner’’ to 40 CFR 751.603, consistent 

with the definition promulgated in 

States such as California (Title 17, 

California Code of Regulations, Article 

2, section 94508), New York (6 CRR–NY 

III A 235), Maine (06 ME Code Rules 

§ 096–152), Rhode Island (250–RICR– 

120–05–31), Connecticut (section 22a– 

174–40), Delaware (7 Del. Admin. Code 

§ 1141–1.0), Washington, DC (20 DCMR, 

Chapter 7, section 718), Maryland 

(COMAR 26.11.32), New Jersey (New 

Jersey Administrative Code 5:23–6.1), 

Indiana (Standards for Consumer and 

Commercial Products (CCP)—VOC Rule 

326 IAC 8–15), Illinois (Administrative 

Cod Title 35, § 223.265), and 

Massachusetts (310 CMR 7.25). 

B. 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 the following requirements: 

• Initial exposure monitoring must be 

conducted within six months of 

publication of the final rule or within 30 

days of introduction of PCE into the 

workplace if PCE use commences at 

least six months after the date of 

publication; 

• Each owner or operator ensure that 

exposure to PCE does not exceed the 

ECEL as an 8-hour TWA for all 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103573 

potentially exposed persons within nine 

months of publication of the final rule; 

and 

• Owners and operators implement 

an exposure control plan within 12 

months of publication of the final rule. 

In the primary alternative regulatory 

action described in the 2023 PCE 

proposed rule, EPA described slightly 

longer timeframes that included the 

following: 

• Initial exposure monitoring be 

conducted within 12 months of 

publication of the final rule; 

• Each owner or operator ensures that 

the exposure to PCE does not exceed the 

ECEL as an 8-hour TWA for all 

potentially exposed persons within 15 

months of publication of the final rule; 

and 

• Owners and operators implement 

an exposure control plan within 18 

months of publication of the final rule. 

EPA requested comment regarding the 

ability of owners or operators to comply 

with the various provisions of the 

WCPP, including initial exposure 

monitoring, within the compliance 

timelines included in the proposal, and 

anticipated timelines for any procedural 

adjustments needed to comply with the 

establishment of a respiratory protection 

program and development of an 

exposure control plan. EPA further 

requested comment on any advantages 

or drawbacks associated with the longer 

timeframes outlined in the primary 

alternative regulatory action, and noted 

that the Agency may finalize 

significantly shorter or longer 

compliance timeframes based on 

consideration of public comments. EPA 

also requested comment regarding 

issues around the viability of current 

analytical methods and detection limits 

for occupational PCE sampling and/or 

monitoring methods. 

Public comments highlighted 

challenges with the proposed 

timeframes and suggested longer 

timeframes for initial exposure 

monitoring. For example, some 

commenters stated that the proposed 6- 

month timeframe within which to 

conduct initial exposure monitoring 

may not be possible because PCE use 

may be infrequent and occur only 

periodically or annually, such as in 

maintenance exercises or in batch 

manufacturing operations (Refs. 53, 54, 

32). One commenter expressed concern 

that requirements to comply with a new 

exposure limit would stress industrial 

hygiene consultants and laboratories 

that analyze the samples, and urged 

EPA to ensure that there would be 

adequate time for consultant firms and 

laboratories to establish sufficient 

capacity (Ref. 55). Some commenters 

described how entities need more time 

than what was proposed to assess 

exposures to various products and 

processes and noted that the complexity 

of the WCPP provisions would require 

taking multiple measurements for the 

presence of PCE in various operations 

across multiple facilities, which will be 

challenging to layer on top of the 

employer’s OSHA compliance practices 

(Refs. 32, 47, 54). Other commenters 

stated the proposed 6-month timeframe 

for initial monitoring would be 

untenable and suggested that the 

deadline be extended to 12 months 

(Refs. 31, 33, 56, 49). Two commenters 

reasoned that at least 12 months would 

be necessary to revalidate methods and 

determine whether revision to corporate 

exposure assessment strategy would be 

necessary to address the new ECEL 

(Refs. 33, 49). Commenters stated that a 

corporate exposure assessment strategy 

or similar mechanism would necessitate 

the procurement of professional 

services, adding logistical demand for 

these specialized services. The 

commenters also noted that monitoring 

at the proposed ECEL and action level 

would likely require laboratory analysis 

(rather than direct measurement) that 

will delay the availability of results and 

make meeting a 6-month timeframe 

challenging. 

In consideration of public comments 

and the challenges of initiating the 

WCPP, even for facilities with industrial 

hygiene programs in place, and the 

difference in the occupational exposure 

limits between the OSHA permissible 

exposure limit (PEL) and the EPA ECEL 

and the challenges associated with 

monitoring to new, lower EPA exposure 

thresholds that may spur an increase in 

the need for monitoring or other 

exposure control assessment 

infrastructure, EPA has determined that 

a longer compliance deadline of 360 

days, as provided in the primary 

alternative regulatory action described 

in the proposal, is as soon as practicable 

to conduct initial monitoring for PCE, 

which likely would require regulated 

entities to contract new services or 

realign current industrial hygiene 

professionals towards WCPP 

compliance. Adopting this timeframe 

from the primary alternative approach 

(providing 360 days 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 sufficient time for a 

comprehensive exposure evaluation, 

increasing the likelihood of successful 

implementation of the WCPP. Following 

initial monitoring, EPA is finalizing the 

requirement that each owner or operator 

supply a respirator to each person who 

enters a regulated area within three 

months after the receipt of any exposure 

monitoring that indicates exposures 

exceeding the ECEL. Therefore, the 

requirements for each owner or operator 

to ensure that exposures to PCE do not 

exceed the ECEL as an 8-hour TWA for 

all potentially exposed persons, 

including by providing respiratory 

protection, take effect 450 days after 

publication of the final rule. Given the 

full WCPP requirements (including the 

exposure control plan) are required after 

owners or operators are required to 

ensure that no person is exposed to an 

airborne concentration that exceeds the 

TWA ECEL, EPA acknowledges that 

compliance with the ECEL may include 

temporary PPE use (e.g., respiratory 

protection) until comprehensive 

engineering and administrative controls 

are fully implemented. As described in 

the 2023 PCE proposed rule, EPA 

believes that three months after receipt 

of exposure monitoring results is as 

soon as practicable, while also 

providing a reasonable transition period 

for entities to evaluate exposure 

monitoring results, acquire the correct 

respiratory protection, and establish the 

PPE program, including training, fittesting, and medical evaluation. 

Additionally, for clarity in regulatory 

requirements and reduced burden in 

implementation, EPA is finalizing a 

compliance date for preventing direct 

dermal contact, including by use of 

dermal PPE, that is 450 days after 

publication of the final rule, so that this 

compliance timeframe is consistent with 

timeframe to ensure inhalation 

exposures do not exceed the ECEL. EPA 

believes that 450 days is as soon as 

practicable and provides a reasonable 

transition period for regulated entities to 

evaluate potential for direct dermal 

contact with PCE, establish a PPE 

program, acquire the appropriate dermal 

PPE, and conduct the required training. 

EPA also received public comment 

regarding the compliance timeframe for 

full implementation of the WCPP, 

including detailing the evaluation steps 

that would be required to assess a 

facility and develop, document, and 

implement an exposure control plan. To 

allow time for orderly transitions and 

training to comply with an ECEL (0.14 

ppm (8-hr TWA)) that is significantly 

lower than the OSHA PEL of 100 ppm 

(8-hr TWA) and the American 

Conference of Governmental Industrial 

Hygienists (ACGIH) threshold limit 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
103574 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

value (TLV) of 25 ppm (8-hr TWA) for 

PCE, some commenters suggested that 

EPA adopt a graduated implementation 

approach for ECEL implementation by 

first requiring entities that already meet 

the OSHA PEL to comply with the 

ACGIH TLV within two years from the 

effective date of the final rule and then 

permitting those facilities meeting the 

ACGIH standard two years to transition 

to the ECEL (Refs. 57, 54). Two 

commenters expressed concern that the 

proposed timeframes would be 

insufficient for owners or operators to 

document their efforts to implement the 

hierarchy of controls as required under 

the WCPP, and recommended that the 

time required to develop the exposure 

control plan be extended to two years 

from completion of initial monitoring, 

for a total of 24 to 36 months from the 

effective date of the final rule, to 

provide adequate time for entities to 

evaluate and implement appropriate 

compliance approaches that are the least 

burdensome and most effective for 

workers (Refs. 49, 33). 

Based on comments, outreach, 

reasonably available information, 

existing OSHA standards, and industry 

best practices, 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 

building a new exposure control 

strategy around the new, lower EPA 

exposure limit. Additionally, based on 

consideration of public comment and 

given that OSHA has not promulgated a 

detailed standard specific to PCE, EPA 

has determined that a longer 

compliance timeframe of 900 days for 

development and implementation of an 

exposure control plan is as soon as 

practicable to ensure that the regulated 

community has adequate time to 

evaluate monitoring data, assess and 

develop an exposure strategy, procure 

appropriate control technology and PPE, 

and implement the required chemical 

safety program for PCE. 

Therefore, EPA is finalizing the 

compliance timeframes for the WCPP 

provisions as follows: (1) The 

requirements for each owner or operator 

to conduct initial baseline monitoring 

must be met within 360 days of the 

publication date for this final rule or 

within 30 days of introduction of PCE 

into the workplace, whichever is later; 

(2) The requirements for each owner or 

operator to ensure that exposure to PCE 

does not exceed the ECEL as an 8-hour 

TWA for all potentially exposed 

persons, including by providing 

respiratory protection to all potentially 

exposed persons in the regulated area 

must be met within 450 days of the 

publication date for this final rule or 

within three months after receipt of the 

results of any exposure monitoring that 

indicates an exceedance of the ECEL; (3) 

The requirements that each owner or 

operator ensure all persons are 

separated, distanced, physically 

removed, or isolated from direct dermal 

contact with PCE, including by 

providing dermal PPE, must be met 

within 450 days of the publication date 

of this final rule; and (4) The 

requirements for development and 

implementation of an exposure control 

plan must be met within 900 days of the 

publication date of this final rule. EPA 

is also finalizing as proposed, with a 

slight modification, the requirement that 

owners and operators institute a training 

and information program for potentially 

exposed persons and assure their 

participation in the training and 

information program, and that this 

requirement be met within 450 days of 

the publication date of this final rule 

(see Unit IV.B.7.a.). 

However, EPA understands that 

understands that certain departments 

and agencies of the Federal government, 

as well as Federal contractors acting for 

or on behalf of the Federal government, 

need additional time to comply with 

these timeframes. For example, 

complying with these timeframes could 

impact the ability of the Department of 

Defense to continue to engage in vapor 

degreasing. While, for example, 29 CFR 

part 1960 sets forth procedures and 

guidelines for ensuring that Federal 

workers are protected in comparable 

ways to their non-Federal 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 multiyear process. Therefore, EPA is 

providing additional time for agencies 

of the Federal government and their 

contractors, when acting for or on behalf 

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 PCE that exceeds the 

ECEL, and 1,095 days to implement an 

exposure control plan. 

2. Changes to Prohibition Timeframes 

For most occupational conditions of 

use that EPA proposed to prohibit, EPA 

proposed that prohibitions would 

become effective in a staggered schedule 

for each stage of the supply chain and 

would come into effect after the 

publication of this final rule: In 12 

months for manufacturers, 15 months 

for processors, 18 months for 

distributors to retailers, 21 months for 

all other distributors (including 

retailers), and 24 months for industrial 

and commercial users. For consumer 

uses, EPA proposed that the 

prohibitions of manufacturing, 

processing, and distribution in 

commerce of PCE for consumer use 

would take effect after the publication of 

this final rule: In 12 months for 

manufacturers, 15 months for 

processors, 18 months for distributing to 

retailers, and 21 months for all other 

distributors and retailers. EPA’s primary 

alternative regulatory action, discussed 

in the 2023 PCE proposed rule, included 

slightly longer timeframes, which begin 

after the publication of this final rule: In 

18 months for manufacturers, 21 months 

for processors, 24 months for 

distributing to retailers, 27 months for 

all other distributors (including 

retailers), and 30 months for industrial 

and commercial uses. EPA requested 

comment regarding the proposed and 

alternative compliance dates for 

prohibitions and whether additional 

time is needed. 

Several commenters raised concerns 

about the timeframe for complying with 

prohibitions from the proposed 

regulatory action, stating that EPA 

should consider longer timeframes for 

prohibition to avoid disruptions to the 

supply chain for continuing uses, help 

minimize disposal of products left on 

retail shelves, and provide sufficient 

time to identify, research, test, qualify, 

and implement cost-effective alternative 

substances or processes (Refs. 32, 50, 

33). One commenter expressed concern 

that the proposed compliance 

timeframes would cause certain 

products containing PCE to leave the 

market, potentially cutting off PCE 

supply for continuing critical uses and 

creating a risk of obsolescence for 

essential equipment that is reliant on 

PCE. 

Some commenters expressed that 

there may be circumstances in which a 

chemical alternative is not an exact, 

drop-in replacement for certain 

conditions of use, or in which new, 

additional, or modifications to existing 

engineering equipment could be 

necessary (Refs. 33, 50, 45). These 

commenters further expressed concerns 

regarding 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) that may require a 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103575 

transitioning process. Due to these and 

other concerns, some commenters 

supported longer timeframes for 

prohibition than what was proposed, 

which would provide additional time 

that commenters described as necessary 

for seeking alternatives, successfully 

implementing their use, and mitigating 

supply chain impacts (Refs. 33, 50, 45). 

One commenter stated that the proposed 

24-month prohibition is significantly 

shorter than for other EPA programs, 

such as EPA’s National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) which typically provide 36 

months for compliance, and suggested 

that EPA extend the deadlines to 12 

months for manufacturing, 21 months 

for processing, 24 months for 

distribution to retailers, and 30 months 

for retail distribution (Ref. 50). Other 

commenters recommended that EPA 

double the proposed prohibition 

timeframes for manufacturers and 

processors, suggested longer timeframes, 

and suggested that EPA extend the sellthrough period of products already in 

commerce by six months (Refs. 45, 46, 

33). 

After reviewing all of the comments, 

in this final rule EPA is modifying the 

proposed prohibition compliance 

timeframes for most uses to lengthen 

them to the prohibition compliance 

timeframes included in the primary 

alternative regulatory action, which will 

allow for successful implementation of 

the prohibitions in a manner that is as 

soon as practicable while providing for 

a reasonable transition period. This 

extension will also provide additional 

time for regulated entities 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 Units IV.B. and C. The 

timeframes for prohibition EPA is 

finalizing are described in detail in Unit 

IV.D. 

EPA is finalizing as proposed the 

prohibition on the manufacturing, 

processing, distribution in commerce, 

and industrial and commercial use of 

PCE for dry cleaning and spot cleaning 

through a 10-year phaseout, as outlined 

in Unit IV.D.3. 

C. Changes to WCPP Requirements 

1. Exposure Monitoring Requirements 

As part of the WCPP, EPA proposed 

to require owners or operators to meet 

certain documentation requirements for 

each monitoring event of PCE, 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 (Refs. 

46, 54, 53, 56, 48, 55, 49). Commenters 

stated that it is atypical, for industrial 

hygiene purposes, to use this standard 

for air sampling of PCE (Refs. 33, 55, 

49). According to the commenters, it is 

common practice within the industrial 

hygiene community to have analyses 

performed by American Industrial 

Hygiene Association (AIHA) accredited 

laboratories (Ref. 49). Some commenters 

recommended that provisions of 

monitoring results and recordkeeping in 

the final rule be allowed from any 

accredited laboratory, without regard to 

a specific type, or allowing any number 

of approved monitoring methods, 

especially AIHA accredited laboratories 

(Refs. 56, 46). Commenters also 

suggested applying the policy described 

in typical TSCA section 5(e) orders that 

establish a New Chemical Exposure 

Limit under the TSCA New Chemicals 

Program, which state that compliance 

with TSCA GLP Standards is not 

required where exposure monitoring 

samples are analyzed by a laboratory 

accredited by either: (A) the AIHA 

Industrial Hygiene Laboratory 

Accreditation Program; or (B) another 

comparable program approved in 

advance in writing by EPA (Refs. 33, 55, 

49). Another commenter reasoned the 

GLP Standards were not intended for air 

monitoring in a workplace when 

compliance with such standards would 

mean that real-time assessments could 

not be made, as air samples would need 

to be processed and analyzed in a 

laboratory (Ref. 53). 

EPA agrees with the commenter that 

the WCPP is incompletely served by 

solely relying on the GLP Standard 

initially put forth in the 2023 PCE 

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. 33, 55, 49), 

EPA has broadened 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. For 

the final rule, EPA is requiring that 

exposure samples be analyzed using an 

appropriate analytical method, and 

related records retained, by a laboratory 

that complies with the GLP Standards in 

40 CFR part 792 or that otherwise 

maintains a relevant third-party 

laboratory accreditation (e.g., under the 

AIHA Laboratory Accreditation 

Programs, LLC Policy Module 2A/B/E of 

Revision 17.3), or other analogous 

industry-recognized programs. 

Another commenter stated that EPA’s 

proposal did not make clear that 

‘‘personal breathing zone’’ air samples 

to monitor exposures are to be taken 

without regard to respirator use. The 

commenter noted that OSHA requires 

exposure monitoring to be conducted 

without regard to respirator use (citing 

as an example OSHA’s definition of 

‘‘employee exposure’’ at 29 CFR 

1910.1052(b)) and asserted that this 

important element of OSHA’s 

monitoring program was omitted from 

EPA’s proposal (Ref. 58). 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 PCE 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 PCE, thus empowering 

owners or operators to appropriately 

consider the hierarchy of controls. 

As part of the WCPP, EPA also 

proposed to establish an ECEL action 

level of 0.07 ppm as an 8-hour TWA for 

PCE. As described in Unit IV.A.2.b. of 

the 2023 PCE proposed rule, air 

concentrations at or above the action 

level would trigger more frequent 

periodic monitoring of exposures to 

PCE, consistent with the action level 

approach utilized by OSHA in the 

implementation of OSHA standards, 

although the values differ due to 

differing statutory authorities. EPA 

proposed an action level that would be 

half the 8-hour ECEL, which is in 

alignment with the precedented 

approach established under most OSHA 

standards. EPA solicited comment 

regarding an ECEL action level that is 

half the ECEL and any associated 

provisions related to the ECEL action 

level when the ECEL is significantly 

lower than the OSHA PEL. EPA also 

requested comment on viability of 

current analytical methods and 

detection limits for PCE sampling. 

EPA received several comments 

regarding an action level that is half the 

ECEL and the viability of detecting to 

the action level with existing analytical 

methods. One commenter supported the 

establishment of an action level that is 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
103576 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

one-half the ECEL as this stratified 

approach will impose appropriate 

controls based on the particulars of each 

workplace (Ref. 58). Other commenters 

expressed concern regarding the 

proposed ECEL action level, stating that 

the action level should not be included 

in the regulation because of challenges 

to reliably measure to the proposed 

value and suggesting EPA consider best 

practice for industrial hygiene exposure 

assessment published by the AIHA 

(Refs. 33, 57). Commenters warned that 

implementing a monitoring 

methodology for the proposed ECEL 

would not be seamless because existing 

monitoring methods are not adequate. 

As an example, commenters stated that 

the NIOSH 1003 method, as currently 

validated, will not achieve the limit of 

detection required for evaluating to the 

proposed ECEL or action limit (Refs. 33, 

49). Commenters stated that passive 

sampling methods cannot measure to 

below the ECEL, and thus entities 

would need to rely on active sampling 

with a pump with samples sent out to 

laboratories for analysis (Refs. 45, 47). 

Another commenter asserts that the 

proposed ECEL action level of 0.07 ppm 

is not detectable and stated that the best 

way to ensure reliable and comparable 

results is to use a digital measuring 

device, which can currently detect 

concentrations up to 10 ppm and are in 

development to detect concentrations as 

low as 0.1 ppm, which is the lowest on 

the global market (Ref. 59). 

Additionally, other commenters stated 

that NIOSH recommends a detection 

limit of 10% of the occupational 

exposure limit (Refs. 33, 49, 60). 

EPA acknowledges the challenges of 

occupational personal breathing zone 

monitoring to levels consistent with the 

ECEL action level and ECEL. As noted 

earlier, EPA intends for the WCPP to 

align with, to the extent possible, 

certain elements of the existing OSHA 

standards for regulating toxic and 

hazardous substances under 29 CFR part 

1910, subpart Z and is therefore 

finalizing an action level different from 

the proposed 0.07 ppm ECEL action 

level to support a trigger for more 

frequent periodic monitoring. In 

consideration of public comment, 

reasonably available information, and 

outreach, EPA has determined that 

revising the ECEL action level to 0.10 

ppm as an 8-hr TWA for PCE is 

appropriate given the limits of detection 

and limits of quantification for existing 

monitoring methods. EPA notes that 

while real-time monitoring with a 

digital measuring device is not required 

for rule compliance, EPA understands 

the practical benefits of real-time 

occupational exposure monitoring. EPA 

also notes that the reliable limits of 

quantification for available analytical 

methods (e.g., NIOSH 1003 and OSHA 

5000) are below the ECEL action level 

of 0.10 ppm. 

Additionally, as part of the WCPP, 

EPA proposed to require owners and 

operators to re-monitor within 15 

working days after receipt of any 

exposure monitoring if results indicated 

non-detect or air monitoring equipment 

malfunction, unless an Environmental 

Professional as defined at 40 CFR 312.10 

or a Certified Industrial Hygienist 

reviews the monitoring results and 

determines re-monitoring is not 

necessary. EPA received several 

comments disagreeing with the 

proposed requirement to review nondetect air monitoring samples. The 

commenters stated that the requirement 

is inconsistent with OSHA rules, is an 

unnecessary step that adds no value to 

reduce risk to workers, and could be 

costly, especially for smaller companies 

(Refs. 56, 32, 57, 33, 47, 48, 49). One 

commenter suggested that EPA 

incorporate a six-sample rolling average, 

as the statistical evaluation would 

incorporate ongoing validation of 

exposure levels for a particular task and 

thus remove any need for resampling 

based on a non-detect result. 

EPA disagrees with commenters that 

expressed the opinion that re-evaluating 

a non-detect result adds no value and is 

inappropriate. While in some cases a 

non-detect result may accurately 

indicate that the chemical is not present 

and that air concentrations are below 

the ECEL action level, in other cases it 

may not necessarily imply negligible 

occupational exposure to the chemical. 

For example, interference from another 

chemical during sampling may result in 

an incorrect result of non-detect. This 

interference may not be recognized at 

the time of sampling or analysis. 

Owners and/or operators also may not 

be using sampling techniques or 

analytical procedures that are effective 

or appropriate for the particular 

chemical of interest. In each of these 

cases, non-detect results, along with 

supporting documentation about the 

sampling and analytical methods used 

to get those results, is a meaningful part 

of the potentially exposed person’s 

exposure record required under the 

WCPP. The WCPP in the 2023 PCE 

proposed rule and in this final rule does 

not require re-monitoring in all cases. 

Re-monitoring may be necessary based 

on a professional evaluation by an 

Environmental Professional as defined 

at 40 CFR 312.10 or a Certified 

Industrial Hygienist. This flexibility 

allows owners or operators options in 

terms of revisiting occupational 

sampling in the event of a non-detect 

result, or evaluation by a qualified 

professional. 

From an owner/operator’s 

perspective, a non-detect sampling 

result when effective sampling and 

analysis procedures are used is valuable 

in that it suggests effective 

implementation of exposure controls. 

Potentially exposed persons may also 

use these records in discussions with 

owner/operators, in collective 

bargaining situations, or in compliance 

assistance inquiries to EPA or other 

federal agencies. Exposure monitoring 

results may also improve overall 

workplace health and reducing owner/ 

operator liability in the effective 

detection, treatment, and prevention of 

occupational disease or illness. All of 

the above scenarios are valuable for 

owner/operators, potentially exposed 

persons, and for effective mitigation of 

occupational exposures. In 

consideration of these factors, EPA has 

removed the air monitoring equipment 

malfunction from the monitoring 

activities that do not require resampling 

based on professional evaluation by an 

Environmental Professional or Certified 

Industrial Hygienist. While professional 

discretion may be warranted in 

determining whether re-monitoring is 

needed following results that indicate 

non-detect, EPA has determined this is 

not appropriate in the event of air 

monitoring equipment malfunction. 

This is due to the importance of air 

monitoring in ensuring that the 

requirements of the WCPP are met, and 

the importance of the WCPP in reducing 

risks from exposures to PCE in the 

workplace. Monitoring results from 

malfunctioning air monitoring 

equipment are not valid monitoring and 

therefore not sufficient to meet the 

monitoring requirements under the 

WCPP. 

Additionally, while statistical 

methods may be useful in establishing 

and analyzing an occupational 

monitoring program, EPA is not 

persuaded by information commenters 

presented in support of relying on a sixsample rolling average of exposure 

measurements in place of the proposed 

requirement to evaluate re-monitoring. 

See section 5.5.3 of the Response to 

Comments document for a more 

detailed response (Ref. 8). EPA may 

consider developing additional 

guidance regarding occupational 

monitoring in the future. Therefore, 

after consideration of public comment, 

EPA is finalizing the requirement to remonitor within 15 working days after 

receipt of any exposure monitoring if 

results indicated non-detect, unless an 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103577 

Environmental Professional as defined 

at 40 CFR 312.10 or a Certified 

Industrial Hygienist reviews the 

monitoring results and determines remonitoring is not necessary. However, 

EPA agrees with comments that raised 

concern that the 2023 PCE proposed 

rule lacked clarity on what would 

suffice for justification that remonitoring is not necessary, and has 

therefore updated the recordkeeping 

requirements associated with the WCPP 

exposures records required under 40 

CFR 751.615(b)(1) to require 

documentation of the determination by 

the Environmental Professional as 

defined at 40 CFR 312.10 or a Certified 

Industrial Hygienist to be maintained as 

a record. Occupational monitoring (and 

associated recordkeeping) is an area that 

EPA may develop guidance as part of 

final rule implementation efforts. 

In the 2023 PCE proposed rule, EPA 

proposed to require under the WCPP 

that each owner or operator conduct 

additional exposure monitoring 

whenever a change in the production, 

process, control equipment, personnel, 

or work practices may reasonably be 

expected to result in new or additional 

exposures at or above the ECEL action 

level, or when the owner or operator has 

any reason to believe that new or 

additional exposures at or above the 

ECEL action level occurred. In the event 

of start-ups, shutdowns, spills, leaks, 

ruptures or other breakdowns that may 

lead to employee exposure, EPA 

proposed to require that each owner or 

operator conduct additional initial 

exposure monitoring to potentially 

exposed persons (using personal 

breathing zone sampling) after the 

cleanup of the spill or repair of the leak, 

rupture or other breakdown. EPA is 

finalizing the requirement to conduct 

this additional exposure monitoring, 

with a compliance timeframe requiring 

that this monitoring be conducted 

within 30 days after the relevant change 

or conclusion of the event and/or 

cleanup (see Unit IV.B.3.b.iii.), which is 

a clarification of the proposal, in which 

a timeframe was not specified. 

As part of the WCPP exposure 

monitoring, EPA proposed to require 

owners or operators to determine each 

potentially exposed person’s exposure 

by either taking a personal breathing 

zone air sample of each potentially 

exposed person’s exposure or by taking 

personal breathing zone air samples that 

are representative of each potentially 

exposed person’s exposure group, 

which EPA proposed to mean a group 

consisting of every person performing 

the same or substantially similar 

operations in each work shift, in each 

job classification, in each work area 

where exposure to chemical substances 

or mixtures is reasonably likely to 

occur. EPA received a comment that 

suggested EPA revise the proposed 

definition of ‘‘exposure group’’ to more 

closely align with the similar exposure 

group approach used by industrial 

hygienists to refer to a group of workers 

who have common risks and similar 

exposure profiles (Ref. 56). EPA agrees 

that the definition of ‘‘exposure group’’ 

should align with standard practice for 

occupational safety and industrial 

hygiene and is therefore finalizing the 

definition of ‘‘exposure group’’ in 40 

CFR 751.5 to mean a group of 

potentially exposed persons with a 

similar exposure profile to a chemical 

substance or mixture based on the 

substantial similarity of tasks 

performed, the manner in which the 

tasks are performed, and the materials 

and processes with which they work. 

2. Designated Representative and 

Workplace Participation 

As part of the WCPP in Unit 

IV.A.2.e.iii. of the 2023 PCE proposed 

rule, EPA proposed to require that 

owners or operators (i.e., any person 

who owns, leases, operates, controls, or 

supervises a workplace covered by the 

rule) provide potentially exposed 

persons or their designated 

representatives regular access to the 

exposure control plans, exposure 

monitoring records, and PPE program 

implementation and documentation. 

Additionally, EPA proposed to require 

that owners or operators document the 

notice to and ability of any potentially 

exposed person that may reasonably be 

affected by PCE inhalation or dermal 

exposure to readily access the exposure 

controls plans, facility exposure 

monitoring records, PPE program 

implementation, or any other 

information relevant to PCE inhalation 

exposure in the workplace. EPA also 

requested comment on how owners and 

operators could engage with potentially 

exposed persons on the development 

and implementation of an exposure 

control plan and PPE program. 

Additional details of EPA’s worker 

participation proposal can be found in 

Unit IV.A.2.e. of the 2023 PCE proposed 

rule. 

EPA received public comment on the 

role of designated representatives in the 

WCPP. One commenter, a group of labor 

unions, urged EPA to incorporate 

requirements similar to OSHA’s access 

standard at 29 CFR 1910.1020 (titled, 

‘‘Access to employee exposure and 

medical records’’) in EPA’s proposed 

requirements at 40 CFR 751.613 to 

ensure that exposure information is 

promptly and fully shared with both 

potentially exposed persons and their 

designated representatives (Ref. 58). The 

commenter pointed out that while the 

preamble to the 2023 PCE proposed rule 

stated that EPA was proposing to 

provide designated representatives 

regular access to specified information, 

the proposed regulatory text at 40 CFR 

751.613(b)(4) did not do so. The 

commenter also suggested that EPA 

include a requirement that employers 

provide employees or their designated 

representatives an opportunity to 

observe monitoring events. The 

commenter observed that workers and 

their designated representatives have a 

critical role to play in ensuring effective 

control of toxic substances and further 

noted that, often, unions are the 

organizations with expertise in 

understanding occupational exposure 

information. The commenter also urged 

EPA to require that owners and 

operators consult with workers and 

their designated representatives in 

developing and implementing their 

plans. 

Following review of the comments 

received, EPA recognizes the 

importance of having the ability for 

potentially exposed persons and their 

designated representative(s), such as 

labor union representatives, to observe 

exposure monitoring and have prompt 

access to exposure records. EPA 

additionally recognizes that, in some 

instances, individual workers may be 

hesitant to ask owners or operators for 

information relating to their chemical 

exposure or may be less familiar with 

discipline-specific industrial hygiene 

practices. EPA determined that it is 

appropriate in this final rule to revise to 

some extent the requirements regarding 

designated representatives included in 

the proposal, consistent with existing 

OSHA precedent in certain 29 CFR part 

1910, subpart Z regulations, to allow 

designated representatives the ability to 

observe occupational exposure 

monitoring and have access to exposure 

monitoring records. In EPA’s final rule, 

the WCPP includes a requirement that 

owners and operators provide 

potentially exposed persons or their 

designated representatives an 

opportunity to observe any exposure 

monitoring that is designed to 

characterize their exposures and is 

conducted under the WCPP. With 

respect to facilities classified in the 

interest of national security, only 

persons authorized to have access to 

such facilities will be allowed to 

observe exposure monitoring. 

EPA is also finalizing a requirement 

that designated representatives have 

access to relevant exposure records, 

similar to provisions in certain OSHA 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
103578 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

regulations under 29 CFR part 1910, 

subpart Z, such as 29 CFR 1910.1200 

and 29 CFR 1910.1020. EPA is requiring 

owners and operators to notify 

potentially exposed persons and their 

designated representatives of the 

availability of the exposure control plan 

and associated records of exposure 

monitoring and PPE program 

implementation within 30 days of the 

date that the exposure control plan is 

completed and at least annually 

thereafter. EPA is also requiring, 

consistent with the proposed 

requirement for notification of exposure 

monitoring results, that the notice of the 

availability of the exposure control plan 

and associated records be provided in 

plain language writing to each 

potentially exposed person in a 

language that the person understands 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. While 

EPA encourages owners or operators to 

consult with persons that have potential 

for exposure and their designated 

representatives on the development and 

implementation of the exposure control 

plan, EPA has determined that it is not 

necessary to include this as a 

requirement in the final rule because 

OSHA does not typically require 

consultations with designated 

representatives. However, EPA believes 

that the notification of the exposure 

control plan and associated records may 

help facilitate participation from 

potentially exposed persons and their 

designated representatives in the 

implementation and further 

development of that plan. 

In this final rule, EPA is defining 

‘‘designated representative’’ in 40 CFR 

751.5 to mean any individual or 

organization to whom a potentially 

exposed person gives explicit, written 

authorization to exercise a right of 

access. A recognized or certified 

collective bargaining agent must be 

treated automatically as a designated 

representative without regard to written 

authorization. Additionally, with 

respect to federal employees, EPA, like 

OSHA at 29 CFR 1960.2(e), will 

interpret these designated representative 

requirements consistent with the 

Federal Service Labor Management 

Relations Statute (5 U.S.C. 71), or 

collective bargaining or other labormanagement arrangements that cover 

the affected employees. 

Should a request be initiated for such 

records by the potentially exposed 

person or their designated 

representative(s), the owner or operator 

will be required to provide the specified 

records at a reasonable time, place, and 

manner, analogous to provisions 

outlined in OSHA’s 29 CFR 

1910.1020(e)(1)(i). If the owner or 

operator is unable to provide the 

requested records within 15 working 

days, the owner or operator must, 

within those 15 working days, inform 

the potentially exposed person or 

designated representative(s) requesting 

the record of the reason for the delay 

and the earliest date when the record 

can be made available. Additionally, in 

the event that a designated 

representative is observing exposure 

monitoring, the owner or operator must 

ensure that designated representatives 

are provided with PPE appropriate for 

the observation of monitoring. Finally, 

this rule requires owners or operators to 

provide notice to potentially exposed 

persons and their designated 

representatives of exposure monitoring 

results and of the availability of the 

exposure control plan and associated 

records. For purposes of this 

requirement, the owner or operator is 

only required to provide notice to those 

designated representatives that the 

owner or operator is aware of, such as 

representatives designated in writing or 

a recognized collective bargaining agent 

for the owner or operator’s own 

employees. 

3. Other Changes to the WCPP 

As part of the WCPP in the 2023 PCE 

proposed rule, EPA proposed various 

requirements for owners or operators to 

provide PPE, including respiratory 

protection and dermal protection, to 

potentially exposed persons and to 

establish a PPE program. For greater 

clarity in this final rule, EPA has revised 

the PPE requirements with respect to 

the cross-references to the relevant 

OSHA regulations. While the language 

appears different than the requirements 

included in the 2023 PCE proposed rule, 

it remains EPA’s intention that owners 

and operators implement PPE programs 

that are consistent with OSHA 

requirements. The PPE requirements as 

part of the WCPP in this final rule are 

described in Unit IV.B.6. 

D. Other Changes 

EPA is slightly modifying the 

provisions related to the de minimis 

regulatory threshold in the 2023 PCE 

proposed rule, where EPA proposed that 

products containing PCE at 

concentrations less than 0.1% by weight 

are not subject to the prohibitions. EPA 

requested comment on the de minimis 

concentration limit of PCE in products 

or formulations and received numerous 

comments in support of the inclusion of 

a de minimis regulatory threshold (Refs. 

48, 32, 46, 33, 61, 56, 47, 55, 62, 53, 54, 

31, 63). One commenter urged EPA to 

make clear that the proposed de 

minimis exemption applies to all the 

provisions in the 2023 PCE proposed 

rule, and not just the prohibitions (Ref. 

54). Some commenters expressed 

opposition to the de minimis level 

identified because they state EPA has 

not shown that a de minimis 

concentration is protective of workers 

(Refs. 64, 65, 66). EPA’s approach for a 

de minimis concentration of 0.1% for 

PCE is consistent with OSHA’s Hazard 

Communication Standard, as urged by 

several commenters who asserted that 

consistency with the existing hazard 

communication framework is important 

to avoid companies being out of 

compliance with EPA’s regulations 

without their knowledge, or having to 

engage in impractical and burdensome 

changes to hazard communication 

programs that are not necessary to 

protect against unreasonable risk (Ref. 

33, 47, 48, 55). OSHA recently 

reaffirmed its approach of 0.1% 

threshold for carcinogens with its 2024 

modification of its Hazard 

Communication Standard (89 FR 44144, 

May 20, 2024). The OSHA Hazard 

Communication standard, at 29 CFR 

1910.1200, which requires employers to 

communicate to employees and 

downstream employers about the 

hazards of chemicals employees are 

exposed to, including through safety 

data sheets, defines ‘‘health hazard’’ as 

‘‘a chemical which is classified as 

posing one of the following hazardous 

effects: acute toxicity (any route of 

exposure); skin corrosion or irritation; 

serious eye damage or eye irritation; 

respiratory or skin sensitization; germ 

cell mutagenicity; carcinogenicity; 

reproductive toxicity; specific target 

organ toxicity (single or repeated 

exposure); or aspiration hazard’’ (29 

CFR 1910.1200(c)). The criteria for 

determining whether a chemical is 

classified as a health hazard are detailed 

in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.1200— 

Health Hazard Criteria. Section A.6.3.1 

of 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 PCE, 

is classified as a carcinogen. OSHA’s 

Hazard Communication Standard is 

intended to be consistent with the 

United Nations Globally Harmonized 

System of Classification and Labelling 

of Chemicals (29 CFR 1910.1200(a)(1); 

89 FR 44144, May 20, 2024). Other EPA 

programs, such as the Toxics Release 

Inventory (TRI) program, have adopted 

a de minimis threshold of 0.1% for 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103579 

chemicals which are defined as 

carcinogens or as a potential carcinogen 

under the National Toxicology Program, 

International Agency for Research on 

Cancer, or OSHA, with limited 

exceptions not relevant to PCE (see 40 

CFR 372.38(a)). 

In consideration of public comment 

and the implementability of the PCE 

rule, as well as the analysis described in 

Unit V.A. of the 2023 PCE proposed 

rule, EPA is finalizing as proposed a de 

minimis threshold of 0.1%, which EPA 

is referring to in this final rule as a 

regulatory threshold, so that products 

containing PCE at concentrations less 

than 0.1% by weight are not subject to 

the prohibitions of this final rule, and is 

also adding clarification that products 

below the regulatory threshold are not 

subject to other restrictions of this final 

rule. While EPA conducted analysis 

regarding residual amounts of PCE in 

products (described in Unit V.A.1. of 

the 2023 PCE proposed rule), which 

confirmed that the use of the 0.1% value 

for carcinogens was an appropriate cut 

off, consistent with the OSHA’s Hazard 

Communication Standard. EPA 

generally expects to align with the 

OSHA’s Hazard Communication 

Standard approach regarding threshold 

amounts of chemicals going forward, 

with some exceptions as warranted by 

chemical-specific considerations (Ref. 

67). EPA is confident that adopting a 

regulatory threshold of 0.1% for 

chemicals which are defined as 

carcinogens or as a potential carcinogen 

will increase regulatory certainty and 

enhance compliance. The 

manufacturing (including import), 

processing, and distribution in 

commerce of products that contain PCE 

at concentrations equal to or above the 

regulatory threshold of 0.1% are still 

subject to the prohibitions and 

restrictions of this final rule, regardless 

of the concentration of PCE in the end 

product. 

As an additional change, EPA has 

revised its proposed description of 

industrial and commercial use of PCE as 

a laboratory chemical to provide 

additional clarity as suggested by a 

commenter (Ref. 62). The revised 

description for industrial and 

commercial use as a laboratory chemical 

appears in Unit IV.C.1. Similarly, for 

greater clarity and in response to 

comment that suggested EPA include 

terminology for ‘‘airless degreasers’’ in 

the final rule, EPA has revised its 

proposed description of industrial and 

commercial use as solvent for closedloop batch vapor degreasing by 

clarifying that this use includes use of 

airless degreasers (Ref. 30). EPA has also 

revised the proposed description for 

industrial and commercial use of PCE in 

maskant for chemical milling to provide 

additional clarity as recommended by a 

commenter (Ref. 31). Additionally, in 

response to a comment that EPA should 

ensure that uses of PCE required for 

environmental, health, and safety 

permit compliance, such as performance 

testing requirements in the NESHAP for 

hazardous waste combustors (HWCs) 

(40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE), are 

permitted to continue and are not 

inadvertently prohibited, EPA has 

revised its proposed description of 

disposal (Ref. 55). For purposes of this 

final rule, disposal includes the use of 

PCE to comply with requirements for 

HWC facilities under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) and the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act (RCRA) (40 CFR parts 

260 and 270), including use of PCE as 

a representative principal organic 

hazardous constituent (POHC) in 

destruction and removal efficiency 

(DRE) tests required under 40 CFR 

63.1216–63.1221 and for chlorine 

feedrate operating conditions during 

comprehensive and confirmatory 

performance tests required under 40 

CFR 63.1207(g)(1) and 40 CFR 

63.1207(g)(2). The revised descriptions 

for industrial and commercial use as 

solvent for batch vapor degreasing, 

industrial and commercial use in 

maskant for chemical milling, and for 

disposal appear in Unit IV.B.1. 

Additionally, in this final rule, EPA is 

not finalizing as proposed to amend the 

general provision of 40 CFR part 751, 

subpart A, to define ‘‘authorized 

person,’’ ‘‘owner or operator,’’ 

‘‘potentially exposed person,’’ 

‘‘regulated area,’’ and ‘‘retailer,’’ because 

those definitions are finalized in the 

TSCA section 6 final rule for methylene 

chloride (89 FR 39254, May 8, 2024) 

(FRL–8155–01–OCSPP) 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. In response to one commenter 

that suggested EPA describe 

‘‘distribution in commerce’’ in the 

preamble, EPA is finalizing the 

definition for ‘‘distribute in commerce’’ 

in § 751.603 so that it has the same 

meaning as in section 3 of the Act, 

except that the term does not include 

retailers for purposes of §§ 751.613 and 

751.615 (Ref. 33). 

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 PCE 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.D., 

this final rule prohibits the industrial 

and commercial use of PCE in dry 

cleaning and spot cleaning, and also the 

industrial and commercial use of PCE in 

general aerosol degreasing/cleaning 

products that contain PCE (although a 

subset of this use is permitted to 

continue under specific prescriptive 

controls or the WCPP as described in 

Unit III.A.3.b.). For use of PCE in 

general aerosol degreasing/cleaning 

products as well as dry cleaning, EPA’s 

risk management approach is 

prohibition. To the extent that a court 

were to find that EPA lacked substantial 

evidence to support its prohibition of 

general aerosol degreasing/cleaning 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 dry cleaning unless the specific issue 

also applies to the particular facts 

associated with dry cleaning. This is 

reflected in the structure of the rule, 

which describes these specific 

prohibitions separately by compliance 

date. 

As another example, for industrial 

and commercial use of PCE as a 

processing aid in catalyst regeneration 

in petrochemical manufacturing and 

industrial and commercial use of PCE in 

automotive care products (e.g., engine 

degreaser and brake cleaner), EPA took 

different risk management approaches— 

application of the WCPP for the 

industrial and commercial use of PCE as 

a processing aid in catalyst regeneration 

in petrochemical manufacturing and 

prohibition for industrial and 

commercial use in automotive care 

products. To the extent that a court were 

to find a legal issue with EPA’s 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
103580 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

approach to the WCPP, impacting 

industrial and commercial use as a 

processing aid in catalyst regeneration 

in petrochemical manufacturing, it 

would have no bearing on EPA’s 

decision to prohibit the industrial and 

commercial use in automotive care 

products, 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. 

EPA also intends all TSCA section 

6(a) risk management elements in this 

rule to be severable from each regulatory 

exclusion from those requirements, 

including 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). Similarly, to the extent a 

court were to find a legal issue with the 

regulatory threshold established in the 

rule, the underlying risk management 

requirements would not be impacted. 

Rather, the excluded products would 

become subject to the underlying TSCA 

section 6(a) risk management 

requirements applicable to the 

condition of use. EPA further notes that 

the specific examples of severability 

described in this Unit are not intended 

to be exhaustive, but rather illustrative 

of a wide variety of scenarios that reflect 

EPA’s overarching intent that each 

provision of this rulemaking be 

severable. 

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 

has initiated a notice of proposed 

rulemaking for public comment on this 

topic, included in the Spring 2024 

Regulatory Agenda (RIN 2070–AL17). 

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 PCE 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 PCE 

even if being manufactured, processed, 

or distributed in commerce solely for 

export from the United States because 

EPA has determined that PCE presents 

an unreasonable risk to health within 

the United States. Several commenters 

expressed concern that an unclear 

statement in the 2023 PCE proposed 

rule preamble, and a proposed 

regulatory requirement for downstream 

notification of permissible purposes for 

distribution in commerce, appeared to 

indicate that manufacture, processing, 

and distribution for export would be 

prohibited under the 2023 PCE 

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 (Refs. 47, 33, 55, 49, 

68). This was not EPA’s intent. Because 

distribution in commerce did not 

contribute to EPA’s unreasonable risk 

determination for PCE, and because this 

final rule permits manufacturing and 

processing, including recycling, for 

various uses to continue 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.D., EPA is 

finalizing a regulatory threshold of 0.1% 

to account for impurities and the 

unintended presence of PCE (in the 

2023 proposed rule, this was referred to 

as a de minimis threshold). In other 

words, the provisions of this rulemaking 

only apply when PCE 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. 8). 

EPA uses the term ‘‘potentially 

exposed person’’ in Unit IV. and in the 

regulatory text to include workers, 

occupational non-users, employees, 

independent contractors, employers, 

and all other persons in the work area 

where PCE is present and who may be 

exposed to PCE under the conditions of 

use for which a WCPP or specific 

prescriptive controls would apply. (EPA 

notes that this definition is intended to 

apply to occupational workspaces as 

part of implementation of the WCPP and 

other restrictions, and recognizes that 

other individuals or communities may 

be exposed to PCE as consumers, 

members of fenceline communities, or 

members of the general population.) For 

certain conditions of use, EPA requires 

a comprehensive WCPP or specific 

prescriptive controls to address the 

unreasonable risk from PCE to workers 

directly handling the chemical or in the 

area where the chemical is being used. 

Similarly, the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 

PCE (Ref. 1) did not distinguish between 

employers, contractors, or other legal 

entities or businesses that manufacture, 

process, distribute in commerce, use, or 

dispose of PCE. For this reason, EPA 

uses the term ‘‘owner or operator’’ to 

describe the entity responsible for 

implementing the WCPP or specified 

prescriptive controls in any workplace 

where an applicable condition of use is 

identified in Unit IV. and subject to the 

WCPP or prescriptive controls is 

occurring. The term includes any person 

who owns, leases, operates, controls, or 

supervises such a workplace. While 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103581 

owners or operators remain responsible 

for ensuring compliance with the WCPP 

or prescriptive controls requirements in 

the workplace, they may contract with 

others to provide training or implement 

a respiratory protection program, for 

example. EPA is also clarifying its intent 

that for the provisions in this rule, any 

requirement for an owner or operator, or 

an owner and operator, is a requirement 

for any individual that is either an 

owner or an operator. 

EPA emphasizes that this approach is 

essential for addressing the 

unreasonable risk presented by PCE, 

including to individuals who may not 

be covered by OSHA requirements, such 

as 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, CAA section 113, 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. 

69). The OSHA 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 PCE 

condition of use is ongoing and where 

implementation of the WCPP or 

prescriptive controls 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 

with, the WCPP requirements in 

practice. 

B. Workplace Chemical Protection 

Program (WCPP) 

1. Applicability 

EPA is finalizing the WCPP for most 

of the conditions of use for which it was 

proposed, as well as for additional 

conditions of use for which prohibition 

was proposed. EPA has removed from 

the WCPP two conditions of use 

proposed to be included, as described in 

Unit III.A.1. EPA’s descriptions of 

changes from the 2023 PCE 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 2023 PCE 

proposed rule. EPA is additionally 

requiring that uses receiving an 

exemption under TSCA section 6(g), as 

outlined in Unit IV.F., comply with the 

WCPP to the extent feasible. 

EPA is finalizing the WCPP for the 

following conditions of use where 

manufacture and processing are not 

otherwise prohibited: domestic 

manufacturing; import; processing as a 

reactant/intermediate; processing into 

formulation, mixture, or reaction 

product; processing by repackaging; 

recycling; industrial and commercial 

use as solvent for open-top batch vapor 

degreasing; industrial and commercial 

use as solvent for closed-loop batch 

vapor degreasing; industrial and 

commercial use in maskant for chemical 

milling; industrial and commercial use 

in solvent-based adhesives and sealants; 

industrial and commercial use as a 

processing aid in catalyst regeneration 

in petrochemical manufacturing; 

industrial and commercial use as a 

processing aid in sectors other than 

petrochemical manufacturing; industrial 

and commercial use for cold cleaning of 

tanker vessels; and disposal. This Unit 

provides a description of the uses 

subject to the WCPP to assist with 

compliance. 

a. Manufacturing (Includes Import) 

i. Domestic Manufacture 

This condition of use refers to the 

making or producing of a chemical 

substance within the United States 

(including manufacturing for export), or 

the extraction of a component chemical 

substance from a previously existing 

chemical substance or a complex 

combination of substances. For 

purposes of this rule, this description 

does not apply to PCE production as a 

byproduct, including during the 

manufacture of 1,2-dichloroethane, 

which EPA intends to consider in the 

risk evaluation for 1,2-dichloroethane 

(Ref. 70). 

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/Intermediate 

This condition of use refers to 

processing PCE in chemical reactions 

for the manufacturing of another 

chemical substance or product. Through 

processing as a reactant or intermediate, 

PCE serves as a feedstock in the 

production of another chemical product 

via a chemical reaction in which PCE is 

completely consumed. For example, 

PCE is processed as a reactant in the 

production of HFCs, 

hydrochlorofluorocarbons, and 

chlorofluorocarbons. This condition of 

use includes reuse of PCE, including 

PCE originally generated as a byproduct 

or residual PCE, as a reactant. 

ii. Processing Into Formulation, 

Mixture, or Reaction Product 

This condition of use refers to when 

PCE is added or incorporated into a 

product (or product mixture) prior to 

further distribution of the product, 

including in cleaning and degreasing 

products, adhesive and sealant 

products, paint and coating products, 

and other chemical products and 

preparations. 

iii. Processing by Repackaging 

This condition of use refers to the 

preparation of PCE for distribution in 

commerce in a different form, state, or 

quantity. This includes transferring the 

chemical from a bulk container into 

smaller containers. 

iv. 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 onsite 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. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
103582 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

c. Industrial and Commercial Uses 

i. Industrial and Commercial Use as 

Solvent for Open-Top Batch Vapor 

Degreasing 

This condition of use refers to the 

industrial and commercial use of PCE as 

a solvent for cleaning and degreasing 

through the process of heating PCE to its 

volatilization point and using its vapors 

to remove dirt, oils, greases, and other 

surface contaminants from metal and 

other parts using batch open-top vapor 

degreaser systems. 

ii. Industrial and Commercial Use as 

Solvent for Closed-Loop Batch Vapor 

Degreasing 

This condition of use refers to the 

industrial and commercial use of PCE as 

a solvent for cleaning and degreasing 

through the process of heating PCE to its 

volatilization point and using its vapors 

to remove dirt, oils, greases, and other 

surface contaminants from metal and 

other parts using batch closed-loop or 

airless vapor degreasing systems. 

iii. Industrial and Commercial Use in 

Maskant for Chemical Milling 

This condition of use refers to the 

industrial and commercial use of PCE as 

a solvent in maskants or elastomerbased coatings that are used to protect 

a substrate during exposure to a 

chemical process, such as chemical 

milling, plating, and anodizing. This 

condition of use includes use of 

peelable maskant to act as temporary 

protection during transportation. 

iv. Industrial and Commercial Use in 

Solvent-Based Adhesives and Sealants 

This condition of use refers to the 

industrial and commercial use of PCE as 

a solvent in adhesive and sealant 

products to promote bonding between 

other substances, promote adhesion of 

surfaces, or prevent seepage of moisture 

or air. 

v. Industrial and Commercial Use as a 

Processing Aid in Catalyst Regeneration 

in Petrochemical Manufacturing 

This condition of use refers to the 

industrial and commercial use of PCE to 

improve processing characteristics or 

the operation of process equipment 

during the production of oil, gas, and 

other similar products. For example, 

PCE is used in both reforming and 

isomerization processes at refineries. In 

the reforming process, PCE is added 

directly to a regenerator in a Continuous 

Catalytic Regeneration reforming unit, 

and in the isomerization process, PCE is 

added to the hydrocarbon feed. In both 

processes, PCE provides chlorine ions to 

regenerate the catalysts and is 

consumed in the process. 

vi. Industrial and Commercial Use as a 

Processing Aid in Sectors Other Than 

Petrochemical Manufacturing 

This condition of use refers to the 

industrial and commercial use of PCE 

outside of petrochemical manufacturing 

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. 

For example, PCE is used in pesticide, 

fertilizer and other agricultural 

manufacturing during the production of 

non-pesticidal products used to increase 

the productivity and quality of plant, 

animal, and forestry crops produced on 

a commercial scale. Processing aids are 

not intended to remain in or become 

part of the product or product mixture 

or affect the function of a substance or 

article created. 

vii. Industrial and Commercial Use as 

Solvent for Cold Cleaning of Tanker 

Vessels 

This condition of use refers to the 

industrial and commercial use of PCE as 

a non-boiling solvent in cold cleaning to 

remove dirt, oils, greases, and other 

surface contaminants from tanker 

vessels. 

d. Disposal 

This condition of use refers to the 

process of disposing waste streams of 

PCE that are collected either onsite or 

and transported to a third-party site for 

treatment or their final disposition, such 

as waste incineration or landfilling. This 

condition of use includes the use of PCE 

to comply with requirements for HWC 

facilities under the CAA (40 CFR part 

63, subpart EEE) and RCRA (40 CFR 

parts 260 and 270), including as a 

representative POHC in DRE tests 

required under 40 CFR 63.1216–63.1221 

and for chlorine feedrate operating 

conditions during comprehensive and 

confirmatory performance tests required 

under 40 CFR 63.1207(g)(1) and 40 CFR 

63.1207(g)(2). 

2. Overview 

The WCPP for PCE encompasses an 

inhalation exposure limit and action 

level, DDCC, and the associated 

implementation requirements described 

in this unit 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 or prevent direct dermal 

contact. In the case of PCE, meeting the 

EPA exposure limit threshold and 

implementing the DDCC requirements 

for certain occupational conditions of 

use would address the unreasonable risk 

to potentially exposed persons from 

inhalation and dermal exposure. 

EPA is finalizing the WCPP 

requirements to start to take effect by 

December 15, 2025 for non-Federal 

owners or operators, or by June 21, 2027 

for Federal agencies and Federal 

contractors acting for or on behalf of the 

Federal government, or within 30 days 

of introduction of PCE into the 

workplace, whichever is later, at which 

point entities would be required to 

complete initial monitoring (as 

described in Unit IV.B.3.b.). 

Additionally, EPA requires that each 

owner or operator ensure that no person 

is exposed to an airborne concentration 

of PCE that exceeds the ECEL as an 8- 

hour TWA, including by providing 

respirators to potentially exposed 

persons in the regulated area, no later 

than March 13, 2026 for non-Federal 

owners or operators, or no later than 

September 20, 2027 for Federal agencies 

and Federal contractors acting for or on 

behalf of the Federal government, or 

beginning four months after 

introduction of PCE into the workplace, 

whichever is later. EPA also requires 

each owner or operator to ensure all 

persons are separated, distanced, 

physically removed, or isolated from 

direct dermal contact with PCE, 

including by providing dermal PPE, by 

March 13, 2026 for non-Federal owners 

or operators, or no later than September 

20, 2027 for Federal agencies and 

Federal contractors acting for or on 

behalf of the Federal government. EPA 

also requires implementation of any 

needed exposure controls based on 

initial monitoring and development of 

an exposure control plan, which 

requires consideration and documented 

application of the hierarchy of controls, 

no later than June 7, 2027 for nonFederal owners or operators, or 

December 20, 2027 for Federal agencies 

and Federal contractors acting for or on 

behalf of the Federal government (as 

described in Unit IV.B.5). 

EPA’s implementation of the 

requirement to meet an ECEL as part of 

a WCPP aligns with, to the extent 

possible, certain elements of the existing 

OSHA standards for regulating toxic and 

hazardous substances under 29 CFR part 

1910, subpart Z. However, EPA is 

finalizing as proposed a new, lower 

occupational exposure limit, derived 

from the TSCA 2020 Risk Evaluation for 

PCE (Refs. 1, 71). For PCE, this final rule 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103583 

will eliminate the unreasonable risk 

from PCE 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 PCE under the conditions of use 

listed earlier in this Unit would no 

longer be presented. 

Unit IV. includes a summary of the 

WCPP, including a description of the 

finalized exposure limits including an 

ECEL and ECEL action level; 

implementation requirements including 

monitoring requirements; a description 

of potential exposure controls in 

accordance with the hierarchy of 

controls, including engineering controls, 

administrative controls, and PPE as it 

relates to respirator selection; and 

additional finalized requirements for 

recordkeeping and workplace 

participation. Additionally, Unit IV. 

describes DDCC requirements for PCE, 

including potential exposure controls, 

which consider the hierarchy of 

controls; PPE as it relates to dermal 

protection; and additional requirements 

finalized for recordkeeping. Unit IV. 

also describes compliance timeframes 

revised from the 2023 PCE 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) 

To reduce exposures in the workplace 

and address the unreasonable risk of 

injury to health resulting from 

inhalation exposures to PCE identified 

under the occupational conditions of 

use in the TSCA 2020 Risk Evaluation 

for PCE, EPA is requiring an ECEL and 

ancillary requirements for all of the 

conditions of use identified in Unit 

IV.B.1. except recycling and disposal. 

As described in Unit V.A.1.b. of the 

2023 PCE proposed rule, for recycling 

and disposal, EPA did not identify 

human health risk from inhalation 

exposure as contributing to the 

unreasonable risk of PCE and is 

therefore not requiring an ECEL and 

related implementation measures 

identified in Unit IV. for recycling and 

disposal activities. 

a. ECEL and ECEL Action Level (AL) 

EPA is finalizing as proposed an ECEL 

under TSCA section 6(a) of 0.14 ppm 

(0.98 mg/m3) as an 8-hour TWA based 

on the chronic non-cancer human 

equivalent concentration for 

neurotoxicity. EPA has determined that 

ensuring exposures remain at or below 

the 8-hour TWA ECEL of 0.14 ppm will 

eliminate the unreasonable risk of injury 

to health resulting from acute and 

chronic inhalation exposures for certain 

occupational conditions of use of PCE 

(Ref. 71). If ambient exposures are kept 

at or below the 8-hour TWA ECEL of 

0.14 ppm, a potentially exposed person 

will be protected against the effects 

described in Unit IV., including effects 

resulting from acute exposure, chronic 

non-cancer effects, and cancer. EPA is 

finalizing requirements that each owner 

or operator ensure that exposure to PCE 

does not exceed the ECEL as an 8-hour 

TWA for all potentially exposed persons 

within 450 days after publication of the 

final rule or beginning four months after 

introduction of PCE into the workplace, 

whichever is later. 

EPA is finalizing an ECEL action level 

at 0.10 ppm as an 8-hour TWA, which 

is a modification from the ECEL action 

level EPA proposed, as described in 

Unit III.C.1. Below the ECEL action 

level, certain compliance activities, 

such as periodic monitoring, would be 

required less frequently, as described 

further in this Unit. In this way, EPA’s 

WCPP for PCE is consistent with the 

familiar framework that is in place in 

OSHA standards for regulating toxic and 

hazardous substances under 29 CFR part 

1910, subpart Z that establish an action 

level, although the values differ due to 

differing statutory authority. As 

explained by OSHA, the action level 

provides employers and employees with 

greater assurance that their employees 

will not be exposed to concentrations 

above the PELs (Ref. 72). 

In summary, EPA is finalizing with 

slight modification that owners or 

operators must ensure the airborne 

concentration of PCE within the 

personal breathing zone of potentially 

exposed persons remains at or below 

0.14 ppm as an 8-hour TWA ECEL, with 

an action level finalized as 0.10 ppm as 

an 8-hour TWA. For purposes of this 

rulemaking, the personal breathing zone 

is consistent with how OSHA defines it 

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. 73). EPA is finalizing the 

ECEL for certain occupational 

conditions of use to ensure that no 

person is exposed to inhalation of PCE 

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 and ECEL 

action level because of viable detection 

limits and analytical methods of PCE for 

monitoring devices that are available in 

commerce, currently in use, and 

approved by EPA, NIOSH, and OSHA, 

which can range from ≤0.5 parts per 

billion (ppb) to 9 ppm (Ref. 71). Based 

on the ECEL and ECEL action level 

established in this final rule, EPA 

confirmed there are adequate sampling 

methods available for personal 

breathing zone monitoring for PCE 

based on consultation with NIOSH and 

OSHA (Refs. 74, 75). While sampling 

methods may have some limitations, 

EPA notes that new and alternative 

methods may be developed as long as 

they are consistent with the 

performance criteria in the final PCE 

rule (accurate to a confidence level of 

95% and are within (plus or minus) 

25% of airborne concentrations of PCE 

above the 8-hour TWA ECEL). Multiple 

existing methods are available. OSHA, 

NIOSH, and EPA have available 

sampling methods (both active and 

passive) with sufficient limits of 

quantification to support WCPP 

implementation. 

b. Monitoring Requirements 

i. Exposure Sampling 

Initial monitoring for PCE 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 Unit IV. 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 with modifications 

from proposal its requirement that 

owners or operators determine each 

potentially exposed person’s exposure 

by either taking a personal breathing 

zone air sample of each potentially 

exposed person’s exposure or by taking 

personal breathing zone air samples that 

are representative of each potentially 

exposed person with a similar exposure 

profile to a chemical substance or 

mixture based on the substantial 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
103584 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

similarity of tasks performed, the 

manner in which the tasks are 

performed, and the materials and 

processes with which they work 

(hereinafter identified as an ‘‘exposure 

group’’). Personal breathing zone air 

samples are representative of the 8-hour 

TWA of all potentially exposed persons 

in an exposure group if the samples are 

of the full shift-exposure of at least one 

person who represents the highest 

potential PCE exposures in that 

exposure group. 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. 

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 PCE without taking 

respiratory protections into account as 

sampling is being performed. For 

purposes of exposure monitoring 

requirements, owners and operators are 

only required to monitor potentially 

exposed persons that are expected to be 

present in the workplace. 

EPA is also finalizing requirements 

that the owner or operator ensure that 

their exposure monitoring methods are 

accurate to a confidence level of 95% 

and are within (plus or minus) 25% of 

airborne concentrations of PCE above 

the 8-hour TWA ECEL. 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. As described in Unit 

III.C.1., EPA is finalizing the 

requirement that owners or operators 

meet certain documentation 

requirements for each monitoring event 

of PCE, including compliance with GLP 

Standards in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 792 or use of a laboratory 

accredited by the AIHA (e.g., AIHA 

LAP, LLC Policy Module 2A/B/E of 

Revision 17.3), or other analogous 

industry-recognized program. 

Additionally, as described in Unit 

III.C.1., EPA is finalizing the 

requirement that owners or operators 

must re-monitor within 15 working days 

after receipt of any exposure monitoring 

when results indicate non-detect, unless 

an Environmental Professional as 

defined at 40 CFR 312.10 or a Certified 

Industrial Hygienist reviews the 

monitoring results and determines remonitoring is not necessary. 

EPA is also finalizing the requirement 

that each owner or operator maintain 

exposure monitoring records that 

include the following information for 

each monitoring event: 

• Dates, duration, and results of each 

sample taken. 

• The quantity, location(s) and 

manner of PCE use at the time of each 

monitoring event. 

• All measurements that may be 

necessary to determine the conditions 

(e.g., work site temperatures, humidity, 

ventilation rates, monitoring equipment 

type and calibration dates) that may 

affect the monitoring results. 

• Name, workplace address, work 

shift, job classification, work area, and 

type of respiratory protection (if any) of 

each monitored person. 

• Identification of all potentially 

exposed persons that a monitored 

person is intended to represent if using 

a representative sample. 

• Use of appropriate sampling and 

analytical methods. 

• Compliance with GLP Standards in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 792 or use 

of a laboratory accredited by AIHA (e.g., 

AIHA LAP, LLC Policy Module 2A/B/E 

of Revision 17.3), or another analogous 

industry-recognized program. 

• Information regarding air 

monitoring equipment, including: Type, 

maintenance, calibrations, performance 

tests, limits of detection, and any 

malfunctions. 

• Notification of exposure monitoring 

results to each person whose exposures 

are monitored or who is part of a 

monitored exposure group. 

ii. Initial Exposure Monitoring 

Under the final regulation, each nonFederal owner or operator of a facility 

that is engaged in one or more of the 

conditions of use listed in Unit IV.B.1., 

except recycling and disposal, will be 

required to perform initial exposure 

monitoring within 360 days of the 

publication of this final rule or within 

30 days of introduction of PCE into the 

workplace, whichever is later, to 

determine the extent of exposure of 

potentially exposed persons to PCE. As 

discussed in Unit III.B.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 or adopt new 

exposure controls (such as engineering 

controls, administrative controls, and/or 

a respiratory protection program). In 

addition, the initial monitoring will be 

required when and where the operating 

conditions are best representative of 

each potentially exposed person’s workshift 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 (i.e., 

taken from the breathing zone of 

potentially exposed persons and reflect 

duration appropriate exposure) of the 

most highly exposed persons in the 

workplace. Additionally, EPA expects 

that owners and operators will conduct 

initial exposure monitoring 

representative of all tasks that a 

potentially exposed person will be 

expected to do. EPA understands that 

certain tasks may occur less frequently 

or may reflect accidental exposure (for 

example, due to malfunction). 

EPA also recognizes that some entities 

may already have objective exposure 

monitoring data. If the owner or 

operator has monitoring data conducted 

within five years prior to 60 days 

following publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register and the monitoring 

satisfies all other requirements in Unit 

IV., including the requirement that the 

data represents the highest PCE 

exposures likely to occur under 

reasonably foreseeable conditions of use 

the owner or operator may rely on such 

earlier monitoring results for the initial 

baseline monitoring sample. Prior 

monitoring data cannot be used where 

there has been a change in work 

conditions or practices that is expected 

to result in new or additional exposures. 

As described in more detail later in 

Unit IV., 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. 

iii. Periodic 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 samples taken during the initial 

exposure monitoring reveal a 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103585 

concentration below the ECEL action 

level (<0.10 ppm 8-hour TWA), the 

owner or operator must repeat the 

periodic exposure monitoring at least 

once every five years. 

• If the most recent exposure 

monitoring indicates that airborne 

exposure is above the ECEL (>0.14 ppm 

8-hour TWA), the owner or operator 

must repeat the periodic exposure 

monitoring within three months of the 

most recent exposure monitoring. 

• If the most recent exposure 

monitoring indicates that airborne 

exposure is at or above the ECEL action 

level (≥0.10 ppm 8-hour TWA) but at or 

below the ECEL (≤0.14 ppm 8-hour 

TWA), the owner or operator must 

repeat the periodic exposure monitoring 

within six months of the most recent 

exposure monitoring. 

• If the most recent (non-initial) 

exposure monitoring indicates that 

airborne exposure is below the ECEL 

action level, the owners or operators 

must repeat such monitoring within six 

months of the most recent monitoring 

until two consecutive monitoring 

measurements, taken at least seven days 

apart, are below the ECEL action level 

(<0.10 ppm 8-hour TWA), at which time 

the owner or operator must repeat the 

periodic exposure monitoring at least 

once every five years. 

• In instances where an owner or 

operator does not manufacture, process, 

use, or dispose of PCE for a condition 

of use for which the WCPP is required 

over the entirety of time since the last 

required periodic monitoring event, 

EPA is requiring that the owner or 

operator would be permitted to forgo the 

next periodic monitoring event. 

However, documentation of cessation of 

use of PCE would be required and 

periodic monitoring would be required 

to resume when the owner or operator 

restart any of the conditions of use 

listed in Unit IV.B.1., except recycling 

and disposal. 

TABLE 1—PERIODIC MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

Air concentration condition Periodic monitoring requirement 

If initial exposure monitoring is below the ECEL action level (<0.10 

ppm 8-hour TWA).

Periodic exposure monitoring is required at least once every five years. 

If the most recent exposure monitoring indicates that airborne exposure 

is above the ECEL (>0.14 ppm 8-hour TWA).

Periodic exposure monitoring is required within three months of the 

most recent exposure monitoring. 

If the most recent exposure monitoring indicates that airborne exposure 

is at or above the ECEL action level but at or below the ECEL (≥0.10 

ppm 8-hour TWA, ≤0.14 ppm 8-hour TWA).

Periodic exposure monitoring is required within six months of the most 

recent exposure monitoring. 

If the two most recent (non-initial) exposure monitoring measurements, 

taken at least seven days apart within a 6-month period, indicate exposure is below the ECEL action level (<0.10 ppm 8-hour TWA).

Periodic exposure monitoring is required within five years of the most 

recent exposure monitoring. 

If the owner or operator engages in a condition of use for which WCPP 

ECEL is required but does not manufacture, process, use, or dispose 

of PCE in that condition of use over the entirety of time since the last 

required monitoring event.

The owner or operator may forgo the next periodic monitoring event. 

However, documentation of cessation of use of PCE is required and 

periodic monitoring is required when the owner or operator resumes 

the condition of use. 

Table Note: Additional scenarios in which monitoring may be required are discussed in Unit IV.B.3.b.iv. 

iv. Additional Exposure Monitoring 

EPA is finalizing that each owner or 

operator conduct additional exposure 

monitoring within 30 days after there 

has been a change in the production, 

process, control equipment, personnel 

or work practices that may reasonably 

be expected to result in new or 

additional exposures at or above the 

ECEL action level, or when the owner or 

operator has any reason to believe that 

new or additional exposures at or above 

the ECEL action level have occurred, for 

example if an owner or operator 

receives information from potentially 

exposed person(s) suggesting that such 

new or additional exposures may have 

occurred. In the event of start-up or 

shutdown, or spills, leaks, ruptures, or 

other breakdowns or unexpected 

releases that may lead to exposure to 

potentially exposed persons, EPA is 

finalizing that each owner or operator 

must conduct exposure monitoring of 

potentially exposed persons (using 

personal breathing zone sampling) 

within 30 days after the conclusion of 

the start-up or shutdown and/or the 

cleanup of the spill or repair of the leak, 

rupture, or other breakdown. An 

additional exposure monitoring event 

may result in an increased frequency of 

periodic monitoring. For example, if the 

initial monitoring results from a 

workplace are above the ECEL action 

level, but below the ECEL, periodic 

monitoring is required every six 

months. If additional monitoring is 

performed because increased exposures 

are suspected, and the results are above 

the ECEL, subsequent periodic 

monitoring would have to be performed 

every three months. The required 

additional exposure monitoring should 

not delay implementation of any 

necessary cleanup or other remedial 

action to reduce the exposures to 

persons in the workplace. 

c. Regulated Area 

EPA is finalizing its requirement that 

the owner or operator demarcate any 

area where airborne concentrations of 

PCE exceed, or are reasonably expected 

to exceed, the ECEL. To provide more 

clarity regarding how regulated areas 

must be demarcated, EPA has 

incorporated the language analogous to 

OSHA’s regulated area requirements 

under the standards for toxic and 

hazardous substances (29 CFR part 

1910, subpart Z) 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 PCE within the regulated 

area. This can be accomplished using 

administrative controls (e.g., highly 

visible signifiers) in multiple languages 

as appropriate (e.g., whenever 

potentially exposed persons who are 

primarily Spanish-speaking are likely to 

be 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. 

d. Notification of Monitoring Results 

EPA is finalizing the requirement 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 and their designated 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
103586 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

representatives 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 exposure 

monitoring results, the ECEL and ECEL 

action level and what they mean in 

plain language, statement of whether the 

monitored airborne concentration of 

PCE exceeds the ECEL and the ECEL 

action level, and any corresponding 

respiratory protection required. If the 

ECEL is exceeded, the notice must also 

include a description of the actions 

taken by the owner or operator to reduce 

inhalation exposures to or below the 

ECEL. The notice must also include the 

quantity, location, manner of PCE use, 

and identified releases of PCE that could 

result in exposure to PCE at the time of 

monitoring. 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). 

4. Direct Dermal Contact Control 

(DDCC) 

To reduce exposures in the workplace 

and address the unreasonable risk of 

injury to health resulting from dermal 

exposures to PCE identified under the 

occupational conditions of use in the 

TSCA 2020 Risk Evaluation for PCE, 

EPA is finalizing largely as proposed, 

with modification to the compliance 

timeframe as described in Unit III.B., the 

DDCC requirements for all of the 

conditions of use identified in Unit 

IV.B.1. EPA is finalizing requirements 

that owners or operators must separate, 

distance, physically remove, or isolate 

all person(s) from direct handling of 

PCE or from skin contact with surfaces 

that may be contaminated with PCE 

(i.e., equipment or materials on which 

PCE may be present) under routine 

conditions in the workplace (hereafter 

referred to as direct dermal contact) 

within 450 days after publication of the 

final rule. For purposes of this 

rulemaking, direct dermal contact with 

PCE does not include vapor exposures 

through the skin, although EPA 

recommends and encourages owners 

and operators to implement control 

measures to prevent or reduce dermal 

exposures to airborne PCE vapors. The 

2020 Risk Evaluation for PCE identified 

that unreasonable risk to workers is also 

driven by the dermal exposure, 

specifically from direct skin contact 

with PCE; risk exceeding the benchmark 

was identified even when considering 

use of chemically resistant gloves in 

most commercial and industrial 

conditions of use. EPA has determined 

that preventing direct dermal contact 

will eliminate the unreasonable risk of 

injury to health resulting from dermal 

exposures for certain occupational 

conditions of use of PCE. See EPA’s 

description for how the requirements 

related to DDCC would address the 

unreasonable risk resulting from dermal 

exposures and the rationale for this 

regulatory approach in Units III.B.3. and 

V.A. of the 2023 PCE proposed rule. 

5. Exposure Control Plan 

EPA is finalizing its requirement that 

owners or operators implementing the 

WCPP use feasible exposure controls, 

including one or a combination of 

elimination, substitution, engineering 

controls, and administrative controls, 

prior to requiring the use of PPE (i.e., 

respirators or gloves) as a means of 

controlling exposures below EPA’s 

ECEL and/or prevent direct dermal 

contact with PCE for all potentially 

exposed persons, in accordance with the 

hierarchy of controls (Ref. 76). If an 

owner or operator chooses to replace 

PCE 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 an unreasonable risk of 

injury to health or the environment 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. 

Examples of engineering controls that 

may prevent or reduce the potential for 

direct dermal contact include 

automation, physical barriers between 

contaminated and clean work areas, 

enclosed transfer liquid lines (with 

purging mechanisms in place (e.g., 

nitrogen, aqueous) for operations such 

as product changes or cleaning), and 

design of tools (e.g., a closed-loop 

container system providing contact-free 

connection for unloading fresh and 

collecting spent solvents, pneumatic 

tools, tongs, funnels, glove bags, etc.). 

Examples of administrative controls that 

may prevent or reduce the potential for 

direct dermal contact include adjusting 

work practices (i.e., implementing 

policies and procedures) such as 

providing safe working distances from 

areas where direct handling of PCE may 

occur. 

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 and dermal 

PPE for persons potentially exposed 

through direct dermal contact to PCE. If 

efforts of elimination, substitution, 

engineering controls, and administrative 

controls are not sufficient to reduce 

exposures to or below the ECEL or 

prevent direct dermal contact for all 

potentially exposed persons in the 

workplace, EPA requires that the owner 

or operator use feasible controls to 

reduce PCE concentrations in the 

workplace to the lowest levels 

achievable and supplement these 

controls with respiratory protection and 

dermal PPE as needed to achieve the 

ECEL or prevent direct dermal contact. 

In such cases, EPA requires that the 

owner or operator provide potentially 

exposed persons reasonably likely to be 

exposed to PCE by inhalation to 

concentrations above the ECEL 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 as 

described in Unit IV. EPA also requires 

that the owner or operator provides 

potentially exposed persons reasonably 

likely to be exposed to PCE by direct 

dermal contact with dermal protection 

affording sufficient protection against 

dermal risk and appropriate training on 

the proper use of dermal protection, as 

described in Unit IV. 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 PCE. 

Furthermore, EPA also requires that the 

owner or operator document their 

efforts in using elimination, 

substitution, engineering controls, and 

administrative controls to reduce 

exposure to or below the ECEL in an 

exposure control plan. 

EPA is finalizing its requirement that 

the owner or operator include and 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103587 

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 that were considered 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 to prevent or reduce 

direct dermal contact with PCE in the 

workplace; 

• For each exposure control 

considered, exposure controls selected 

based on feasibility, effectiveness, and 

other relevant considerations; 

• 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 PCE, 

or otherwise result in increased 

exposure to PCE, including procedures 

for implementing corrective actions to 

mitigate exposure to PCE. 

Under this final rule, owners or 

operators are prohibited from using 

rotating work schedules to comply with 

the ECEL 8-hour TWA, in alignment 

with certain elements of existing 

OSHA’s standards for toxic and 

hazardous substances under 29 CFR part 

1910, subpart Z. Owners or operators 

must maintain the effectiveness of any 

engineering controls and administrative 

controls 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, including 

ECEL exposure monitoring records, 

ECEL compliance records, DDCC 

compliance records, and workplace 

participation records, available to 

potentially exposed persons and their 

designated representatives. Owners or 

operators must notify potentially 

exposed persons and their designated 

representatives of the availability of the 

exposure control plan and associated 

records within 30 days of the date that 

the exposure control plan is completed 

and at least annually thereafter. The 

notice of the availability of the plan and 

associated records must be provided in 

plain language writing to each 

potentially exposed person in a 

language that the person understands or 

posted in an appropriate and accessible 

location outside the regulated area with 

an English-language version and a nonEnglish version representing the 

language of the largest group of workers 

who do not read English. This final rule 

also requires the owner or operator to 

provide the exposure control plan and 

associated records at a reasonable time, 

place, and manner to a potentially 

exposed person or their designated 

representative upon request. As 

explained in Unit III.C.2., if the owner 

or operator is unable to provide the 

specified records within 15 working 

days, the owner or operator must inform 

the potentially exposed person or 

designated representative requesting the 

record within 15 working days that 

reason for the delay and the earliest date 

when the record can be made available. 

6. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) 

Where elimination, substitution, 

engineering controls, and administrative 

controls are not feasible to reduce the 

air concentration to or below the ECEL 

and/or prevent direct dermal contact 

with PCE for all potentially exposed 

persons, EPA is finalizing as proposed 

with slight modifications to improve 

clarity or for greater consistency with 

OSHA’s regulations to require owners 

and operators to provide PPE, including 

respiratory protection and dermal 

protection selected in accordance with 

the guidelines described in this unit, 

and to implement a PPE program. Unit 

IV. includes a description of the PPE 

Program, including required PPE as it 

relates to respiratory protection, 

required PPE as it relates to dermal 

protection, and other requirements such 

as additional training for respirators and 

recordkeeping to support 

implementation of a PPE program. 

a. Respiratory Protection 

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, 

with slight modification from the 

proposal, minimum respiratory PPE 

requirements based on an owner or 

operator’s most recent 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 

requirements for a respiratory protection 

PPE program with worksite-specific 

procedures and elements for required 

respirator use. Owners or operators 

must develop and administer a written 

respiratory protection program in 

accordance with OSHA’s Respiratory 

Protection Standard under 29 CFR 

1910.134(c)(1), (c)(3), and (c)(4). EPA is 

finalizing requirements that owners and 

operators provide training to all persons 

required to use respiratory protection 

consistent with 29 CFR 1910.134(k) 

prior to or at the time of initial 

assignment to a job involving potential 

exposure to PCE. Owners and operators 

must retrain all persons required to use 

PPE at least annually, or whenever the 

owner or operator has reason to believe 

that a previously trained person does 

not have the required understanding 

and skill to properly use PPE, or when 

changes in the workplace or in PPE to 

be used render the previous training 

obsolete. 

EPA is finalizing requirements that 

each owner or operator supply a 

respirator, selected in accordance with 

requirements described in Unit IV., to 

each person who enters a regulated area 

within 450 days after publication of the 

final rule, or within three months after 

the receipt of any exposure monitoring 

that indicates exposures exceeding the 

ECEL, and thereafter must ensure that 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
103588 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

all persons within the regulated area are 

using the provided respirators whenever 

PCE exposures exceed or can reasonably 

be expected to exceed the ECEL. 

EPA is also finalizing requirements 

that owners or operators who are 

required to administer a respiratory 

protection PPE program must supply a 

respirator selected based on a medical 

evaluation consistent with the 

requirements of 29 CFR 1910.134(e). If 

a potentially exposed person cannot use 

a negative-pressure respirator, then the 

owner or operator must provide that 

person with an alternative respirator. 

The alternative respirator must have less 

breathing resistance than the negativepressure respirator and provide 

equivalent or greater protection. If the 

person is unable to use an alternative 

respirator, then the person must not be 

permitted to enter the regulated area. 

Additionally, EPA is requiring owners 

and operators to select respiratory 

protection that properly fits each 

affected person and communicate 

respirator selections to each affected 

person in accordance with the 

requirements of 29 CFR 1910.134(f). 

Consistent with requirements of 29 CFR 

1910.134(g) through (j), EPA is requiring 

owners and operators to provide, ensure 

use of, and maintain (in a sanitary, 

reliable, and undamaged condition), 

respiratory protection that is of safe 

design and construction. EPA is also 

requiring owners and operators to 

provide training to all persons required 

to use respiratory protection consistent 

with the requirements of 29 CFR 

1910.134(k). 

EPA is finalizing the requirements to 

establish minimum respiratory 

protection requirements, such that any 

respirator affording a higher degree of 

protection than the following 

requirements may be used. EPA is 

finalizing the following requirements for 

respiratory protection, based on the 

most recent exposure monitoring 

concentrations results measured as an 8- 

hour TWA that exceed the ECEL (0.14 

ppm): 

• If the measured exposure 

concentration is at or below 0.14 ppm: 

no respiratory protection is required. 

• If the measured exposure 

concentration is above 0.14 ppm and 

less than or equal to 1.4 ppm (10 times 

ECEL): Any NIOSH Approved® airpurifying half mask respirator equipped 

with organic vapor cartridges or 

canisters; or any NIOSH Approved®

Supplied-Air Respirator (SAR) or 

Airline Respirator operated in demand 

mode equipped with a half mask; or any 

NIOSH Approved® Self-Contained 

Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) in a 

demand mode equipped with a half 

mask [Assigned Protection Factor (APF) 

10]. 

• If the measured exposure 

concentration is above 1.4 ppm and less 

than or equal to 3.5 ppm (25 times 

ECEL): Any NIOSH Approved® Powered 

Air-Purifying Respirator (PAPR) 

equipped with a loose-fitting facepiece 

or hood/helmet equipped with organic 

vapor cartridges or canisters; or any 

NIOSH Approved® SAR or Airline 

Respirator in a continuous-flow mode 

equipped with a loose-fitting facepiece 

or helmet/hood [APF 25]. 

• If the measured exposure 

concentration is above 3.5 ppm and less 

than or equal to 7.0 ppm (50 times 

ECEL): Any NIOSH Approved® airpurifying full facepiece respirator 

equipped with organic vapor cartridges 

or canisters; any NIOSH Approved®

PAPR with a half mask equipped with 

organic vapor cartridges or canisters; 

any NIOSH Approved® SAR or Airline 

Respirator in a continuous flow mode 

equipped with a half mask; any NIOSH 

Approved® SAR or Airline Respirator 

operated in a pressure-demand or other 

positive-pressure mode with a half 

mask; or any NIOSH Approved® SCBA 

in demand-mode equipped with a full 

facepiece or helmet/hood [APF 50]. 

• If the measured exposure 

concentration is above 7.0 ppm and less 

than or equal to 140 ppm (1,000 times 

ECEL): Any NIOSH Approved® PAPR 

equipped with a full facepiece equipped 

with organic vapor cartridges or 

canisters; any NIOSH Approved® SAR 

or Airline Respirator in a continuousflow mode equipped with full facepiece; 

any NIOSH Approved® SAR or Airline 

Respirator in pressure-demand or other 

positive-pressure mode equipped with a 

full facepiece and an auxiliary selfcontained air supply; or any NIOSH 

Approved® SAR or Airline Respirator in 

a continuous-flow mode equipped with 

a helmet/hood and has been tested to 

demonstrate performance at a level of a 

protection of APF 1,000 or greater. [APF 

1,000]. 

• If the measured exposure 

concentration is greater than 140 ppm 

(1,000+ times ECEL): Any SCBA in a 

pressure-demand or other positivepressure mode equipped with a full 

facepiece or helmet/hood [APF 10,000]. 

• If the exposure concentration is 

unknown: Any NIOSH Approved®

combination supplied air respirator 

equipped with a full facepiece and 

operated in pressure demand or other 

positive pressure mode with an 

auxiliary self-contained air supply; or 

any NIOSH Approved® SCBA operated 

in pressure demand or other positive 

pressure mode and equipped with a full 

facepiece or helmet/hood [APF 1000+]. 

Additionally, EPA is finalizing 

requirements that owners or operators 

select and provide respirators in 

accordance with the requirements of 29 

CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iv) and with 

consideration of workplace and user 

factors that affect respirator performance 

and reliability. 

EPA is requiring that the owner or 

operator must ensure that all filters, 

cartridges, and canisters used in the 

workplace are labeled and color coded 

with the NIOSH approval label and that 

the label is not removed and remains 

legible. Consistent with 29 CFR 

1910.134(d)(3)(iii), EPA is requiring 

either the use of respirators with an endof-life service indicator certified by 

NIOSH for the contaminant, in this case 

PCE, or implementation of a change 

schedule for canisters and cartridges 

that ensures that they are changed 

before the end of their service life. EPA 

is also requiring owners and operators 

to ensure that respirators are used in 

compliance with the terms of the 

respirator’s NIOSH certification. 

EPA is finalizing requirements that 

owners and operators must conduct 

regular evaluations of the workplace, 

including consultations with potentially 

exposed persons using respiratory 

protection, consistent with the 

requirements of 29 CFR 1910.134(l), to 

ensure that the provisions of the written 

respiratory protection program 

described in this Unit are being 

effectively implemented. 

EPA is finalizing the requirement that 

owners and operators document 

respiratory protection used and PPE 

program implementation. EPA is 

finalizing requirements that owners and 

operators document in the exposure 

control plan or other documentation of 

the facility’s safety and health program 

information relevant to the respiratory 

program, including records on the 

name, workplace address, work shift, 

job classification, work area, and type of 

respirator worn (if any) by each 

potentially exposed person, 

maintenance, fit-testing, and training as 

described in this unit. 

b. Dermal Protection 

As described in Unit III.B.1., EPA is 

finalizing requirements that each owner 

or operator supply dermal PPE that 

separates and provides a barrier to 

prevent direct dermal contact with PCE, 

selected in accordance with 

requirements described in this Unit, to 

each person who is reasonably likely to 

be dermally exposed in the work area 

through direct dermal contact, to be 

effective within 450 days of the 

publication of this final rule. Where 

elimination, substitution, engineering 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103589 

controls, and administrative controls are 

not feasible or sufficient to fully prevent 

direct dermal contact with PCE, EPA is 

finalizing requirements that appropriate 

dermal PPE be provided by owners and 

operators to, and be worn by, persons 

potentially exposed to direct dermal 

contact with PCE. EPA is requiring 

owners and operators to provide dermal 

PPE that is of safe design and 

construction for the work to be 

performed. EPA is also requiring owners 

and operators ensure each potentially 

exposed person who is required to wear 

PPE to use and maintain PPE in a 

sanitary, reliable, and undamaged 

condition. Additionally, EPA is 

requiring owners and operators to select 

and provide PPE that properly fits each 

potentially exposed person who is 

required to use PPE and communicate 

PPE selections to each affected person. 

In choosing appropriate dermal PPE, 

EPA is requiring owners and operators 

to select gloves, clothing, and protective 

gear (which covers any exposed dermal 

area of arms, legs, torso, and face) based 

on specifications from the manufacturer 

or supplier or individually prepared 

third party testing that demonstrate an 

impervious barrier to PCE during 

expected durations of use and normal 

conditions of exposure within the 

workplace, accounting for potential 

chemical permeation or breakthrough 

times. EPA is also requiring that owners 

and operators demonstrate that the 

selected PPE will be impervious for the 

expected duration and conditions of 

exposure, such as using the format 

specified in ASTM F1194–99 (2010) 

‘‘Standard Guide for Documenting the 

Results of Chemical Permeation Testing 

of Materials Used in Protective Clothing 

Materials,’’ reporting cumulative 

permeation rate as a function of time, or 

equivalent manufacturer- or supplierprovided testing. In alignment with the 

OSHA Hand Protection PPE Standard 

(29 CFR 1910.138), EPA is requiring 

owners and operators to select dermal 

PPE based on an evaluation of the 

performance characteristics of the PPE 

relative to the task(s) to be performed, 

conditions present, and the duration of 

use. EPA is also requiring owners and 

operators to consider likely 

combinations of chemical substances to 

which the clothing may be exposed in 

the work area when selecting the 

appropriate PPE such that the PPE will 

prevent direct dermal contact to PCE. 

Further information related to choosing 

appropriate PPE can be found in the 

summary of suitable gloves for PCE 

memo (Ref. 67). 

For example, owners and operators 

can select gloves that have been tested 

in accordance with the American 

Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM) F739 ‘‘Standard Test Method 

for Permeation of Liquids and Gases 

through Protective Clothing Materials 

under Conditions of Continuous 

Contact.’’ EPA is finalizing as proposed 

that PPE be provided for use for a time 

period only to the extent and no longer 

than the time period for which testing 

has demonstrated that the PPE will be 

impervious during expected durations 

of use and conditions of exposure. EPA 

is finalizing requirements that owners 

and operators also consider other factors 

when selecting appropriate PPE, 

including effectiveness of glove type 

when preventing exposures from PCE 

alone and in likely combination with 

other chemical substances used in the 

work area or when used with glove 

liners, permeation, degree of dexterity 

required to perform task, and 

temperature, as identified in the Hand 

Protection section of OSHA’s Personal 

Protective Equipment Guidance (Ref. 

77). EPA is also finalizing requirements 

that replacement PPE must be provided 

immediately if any person is dermally 

exposed to PCE longer than the 

breakthrough time period for which 

testing has demonstrated that the PPE 

will be impermeable or if there is a 

chemical permeation or breakage of the 

PPE. 

Additionally, EPA is finalizing as 

proposed requirements that owners and 

operators subject to this rule comply 

with provisions of 29 CFR 1910.133(b) 

for requirements on selection and use of 

eye and face protection. 

Additionally, as part of the PPE 

program, EPA is also finalizing as 

proposed that owners and operators 

must comply with OSHA’s general PPE 

training requirements at 29 CFR 

1910.132(f) for application of a PPE 

training program, including providing 

training on proper use of dermal PPE 

(e.g., when and where PPE is necessary, 

proper application, wear, and removal 

of PPE, maintenance, useful life, and 

disposal of PPE). EPA is finalizing that 

owners and operators provide PPE 

training to all persons required to use 

dermal PPE prior to or at the time of 

initial assignment to a job involving 

potential exposure to PCE. Owners and 

operators have to re-train each affected 

person at least once annually or 

whenever the owner or operator has 

reason to believe that a previously 

trained person does not have the 

required understanding and skill to 

properly use PPE, or when changes in 

the workplace or in the PPE to be used 

render the previous training obsolete. 

EPA is also finalizing as proposed 

requirements that owners and operators 

retain records of dermal PPE used and 

program implementation. EPA is 

requiring that owners and operators 

document in the exposure control plan 

or other documentation of the facility’s 

safety and health program, information 

relevant to any dermal PPE program, as 

applicable, including: 

• The name, workplace address, work 

shift, job classification, and work area of 

each person reasonably likely to directly 

handle PCE or handle equipment or 

materials on which PCE may be present 

and the type of PPE selected to be worn 

by each of these persons; 

• The basis for specific PPE selection 

(e.g., demonstration based on 

permeation testing or manufacturer 

specifications that each item of PPE 

selected provides an impervious barrier 

to prevent exposure during expected 

duration and conditions of exposure, 

including the likely combinations of 

chemical substances to which the PPE 

may be exposed in the work area); 

• Appropriately sized PPE and 

training on proper application, wear, 

and removal of PPE, and proper care/ 

disposal of PPE; 

• Occurrence and duration of any 

direct dermal contact with PCE that 

occurs during any activity or 

malfunction at the workplace that 

causes direct dermal exposures to occur 

and/or glove breakthrough, and 

corrective actions to be taken during 

and immediately following that activity 

or malfunction to prevent direct dermal 

contact to PCE; and 

• Training described in this unit. 

7. Additional Finalized Requirements 

a. Workplace Information and Training 

EPA is also finalizing its requirements 

to implement a training program in 

alignment with the OSHA Hazard 

Communication Standard (29 CFR 

1910.1200) and the OSHA General 

Industry Standard for Methylene 

Chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052). To ensure 

that potentially exposed persons in the 

workplace are informed of the hazards 

associated with PCE exposure, EPA is 

finalizing as proposed with slight 

modification to require that owners or 

operators of workplaces subject to the 

WCPP institute a training and 

information program for potentially 

exposed persons and assure their 

participation in the training and 

information program within 450 days 

after publication of the final rule. For 

purposes of workplace information and 

training, owners and operators are only 

required to train potentially exposed 

persons that are expected to be present 

in the workplace or to directly handle 

PCE or handle equipment or materials 

on which PCE may be present. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
103590 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

As part of the training and 

information program, the owner or 

operator is required to provide 

information and comprehensive training 

in an understandable manner (i.e., plain 

language) and in multiple languages as 

appropriate (e.g., based on languages 

spoken by potentially exposed persons) 

to potentially exposed persons prior to 

or at the time of initial assignment to a 

job involving potential exposure to PCE. 

Owners and operators are required to 

provide information and training, as 

referenced in the OSHA Hazard 

Communication Standard, to all 

potentially exposed persons that 

includes: 

• The requirements of the PCE WCPP 

and how to access or obtain a copy of 

the requirements of the WCPP, 

including but not limited to the 

exposure control plan, monitoring 

requirements, and PPE program; 

• The quantity, location, manner of 

use, release, and storage of PCE and the 

specific operations in the workplace 

that could results in PCE exposure, 

particularly noting where each regulated 

area is located; 

• Principles of safe use and handling 

of PCE in the workplace, including 

specific measures the owner or operator 

has implemented to reduce inhalation 

exposure at or below the ECEL or 

prevent dermal contact with PCE, such 

as work practices and PPE used; 

• The methods and observations that 

may be used to detect the presence or 

release of PCE in the workplace (such as 

monitoring conducted by the owner or 

operator, continuous monitoring 

devices, visual appearance, or odor of 

PCE when being released, etc.); and 

• The acute and chronic health 

hazards of PCE as detailed on relevant 

Safety Data Sheets (SDSs). 

In addition to providing training at 

the time of initial assignment to a job 

involving potential exposure to PCE, 

owners and operators subject to the PCE 

WCPP are required to re-train each 

potentially exposed person annually to 

ensure they understand the principles of 

safe use and handling of PCE in the 

workplace. EPA is finalizing its 

requirements that owners and update 

the training as necessary whenever there 

are changes in the workplace, such as 

new tasks or modifications of tasks, in 

particular, whenever there are changes 

in the workplace that increase exposure 

to PCE or where potentially exposed 

persons’ exposure to PCE can 

reasonably be expected to exceed the 

action level or increase the potential for 

direct dermal contact with PCE. To 

support compliance, EPA is finalizing as 

proposed that each owner or operator of 

a workplace subject to the WCPP would 

be required to provide to the EPA, upon 

request, all available materials related to 

workplace information and training. 

b. Workplace Participation 

EPA encourages owners and operators 

to consult with potentially exposed 

persons and their designated 

representatives on the development and 

implementation of exposure control 

plans and PPE/respirator programs. EPA 

is finalizing the requirement that 

owners and operators provide 

potentially exposed persons and their 

designated representatives regular 

access to the exposure control plans, 

exposure monitoring records, and PPE 

program implementation. 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 PCE exposure 

to readily access the exposure control 

plans, facility exposure monitoring 

records, PPE program implementation, 

or any other information relevant to PCE 

exposure in the workplace. 

c. Recordkeeping 

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; 

• PPE program implementation and 

documentation, including as necessary, 

respiratory protection and dermal 

protection used and related PPE 

training; and 

• Information and training provided 

to each person prior to or at the time of 

initial assignment and any retraining. 

In addition, EPA is finalizing as 

proposed requirements that owners and 

operators subject to the WCPP ECEL 

requirements maintain records to 

include: 

• Regulated areas and authorized 

personnel; 

• The exposure monitoring records; 

• Notification of exposure monitoring 

results; and 

• To the extent that the owner or 

operator relies on prior exposure 

monitoring data, records that 

demonstrates that it meets all of the 

requirements of this section. 

The owners and operators, upon 

request by EPA, are required to make all 

records that are maintained as described 

in Unit IV. available to EPA for 

examination and copying in accordance 

with EPA requirements. EPA 

emphasizes that all records required to 

be maintained can be kept in the most 

administratively convenient form such 

as electronic record form or paper form. 

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.B.1, based on 

consideration of public comments and 

reasonably available information, EPA is 

finalizing longer timeframes for nonFederal owners or operators, 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 nonFederal owners and operators perform 

initial exposure monitoring according to 

the process outlined in Unit IV. within 

360 days after publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register, or within 

30 days of introduction of PCE into the 

workplace, whichever is later. 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, or within 

30 days of introduction of PCE into the 

workplace, whichever is later. EPA is 

also finalizing its requirement that each 

non-Federal owner or operator ensure 

that exposure to PCE does not exceed 

the ECEL as an 8-hour TWA for all 

potentially exposed persons within 450 

days after publication of the final rule, 

while Federal agencies and Federal 

contractors acting for or on behalf of the 

Federal government must comply with 

the ECEL within 1005 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 to all potentially exposed 

persons in the regulated area within 

three months after receipt of the results 

of any exposure monitoring that 

indicates an exceedance of the ECEL. 

For non-Federal owners or operators, 

this will be within 450 days after 

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 1005 after the date 

publication. EPA is also finalizing the 

requirement that owners and operators 

demarcate a regulated area within three 

months after receipt of any exposure 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103591 

monitoring that indicates exposures 

exceeding the ECEL. Additionally, EPA 

is finalizing requirements that each nonFederal owner or operator ensure all 

persons are separated, distanced, 

physically removed, or isolated from 

direct dermal contact with PCE, 

including by providing dermal PPE 

within 450 days after publication of the 

final rule, while Federal agencies and 

Federal contractors acting for or on 

behalf of the Federal government must 

comply with dermal controls no later 

than 1005 days after publication of the 

final rule. Non-Federal owners or and 

operators shall proceed accordingly to 

implement an exposure control plan, 

including institution of feasible 

exposure controls other than PPE, 

within 900 days of the publication of 

this final rule, 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. Prescriptive Controls 

In contrast to the non-prescriptive 

requirements of the WCPP, including 

DDCC, where regulated entities would 

have flexibility to select controls in 

accordance with the hierarchy of 

controls to comply with the parameters 

outlined in Unit IV.B., EPA has found 

it appropriate in certain circumstances 

to require specific prescriptive controls 

for certain occupational conditions of 

use. In general, EPA is finalizing the 

prescriptive controls as proposed, with 

some modifications, for the industrial 

and commercial use of PCE as a 

laboratory chemical, as described in 

Unit III.A.2.d. Additionally, EPA is 

finalizing prescriptive controls for the 

industrial and commercial use in 

energized electrical cleaning. The 

rationale for these changes from the 

2023 PCE proposed rule, after 

consideration of public comments, is in 

Unit III.A.2.e. This unit provides a 

description of the conditions of use 

subject to specific prescriptive controls, 

the specific prescriptive control 

requirements, and the compliance 

timeframes for the requirements. 

1. Workplace Requirements for 

Laboratory Use 

a. Applicability 

The industrial and commercial use of 

PCE as a laboratory chemical refers to 

the industrial or commercial use of PCE, 

often in small quantities, 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. 

EPA recognizes that potentially 

exposed persons in a laboratory setting 

may include students, researchers, 

visiting scholars, or others whose job 

classifications may vary, such as 

depending on the academic period in 

university laboratories. The 

requirements described in Unit IV. 

apply to all potentially exposed persons 

in all laboratory settings, including 

academic and research laboratories, 

regardless of job classification. 

b. Workplace Requirements 

To address the unreasonable risk of 

injury to health resulting from dermal 

exposures to PCE identified for the 

industrial and commercial use as a 

laboratory chemical, EPA is requiring 

dermal PPE, including impermeable 

gloves and protective clothing, in 

combination with comprehensive 

training for tasks particularly related to 

the use of PCE in a laboratory setting as 

specified in this unit for each 

potentially exposed person with direct 

dermal contact to PCE in the work area 

through direct handling of the substance 

or from contact with surfaces that may 

be contaminated with PCE. For dermal 

PPE, EPA is requiring that each owner 

or operator comply with the 

requirements outlined in Units IV.B.6.b. 

for selection of dermal PPE and training 

for all potentially exposed persons. 

EPA’s description for how the 

requirements for the industrial and 

commercial use as a laboratory chemical 

address the unreasonable risk resulting 

from dermal exposures under the 

conditions of use and the rationale for 

this regulatory approach is outlined in 

Unit V. of the 2023 PCE proposed rule. 

In addition, EPA is requiring the use 

of laboratory ventilation devices, such 

as fume hoods, glove boxes, air handling 

units, exhaust fans, biological safety 

devices, airflow controls, and other 

local exhaust devices, in workplace 

laboratory settings for the industrial and 

commercial use of PCE as a laboratory 

chemical, to codify existing good 

laboratory practices. EPA is requiring 

each owner or operator of a workplace 

laboratory setting, to ensure laboratory 

ventilation devices are in use and 

functioning properly to minimize 

exposures to persons in the area where 

PCE is used as a laboratory chemical. 

EPA suggests owners or operators refer 

to OSHA’s 29 CFR 1910.1450, Appendix 

A, for National Research Council 

recommendations concerning laboratory 

chemical hood ventilation system 

characteristics and practices and to 

ANSI’s and ASSP’s Z9.5–2022 for 

recommendations on additional 

laboratory ventilation controls to 

minimize exposures to potentially 

exposed persons in the work area. 

c. Recordkeeping 

To support and demonstrate 

compliance, EPA is requiring that each 

owner or operator of a laboratory 

workplace subject to the requirements of 

this unit retain compliance records for 

five years. In alignment with 29 CFR 

1910.1450(e)(3)(ii) and (iii) and 29 CFR 

1910.132(d)(2), EPA is requiring that 

owners and operators must retain 

records of: 

• Dermal protection used by each 

potentially exposed person and PPE 

program implementation as outlined in 

this unit; 

• Criteria that the owner or operator 

will use to determine and implement 

control measures to reduce potentially 

exposed persons’ exposure to PCE 

including laboratory ventilation devices 

as outlined in this unit; and 

• Implementation of properly 

functioning laboratory ventilation 

devices using manufacturer’s 

instructions for installation, use, and 

maintenance of the systems, including 

inspections, tests, development of 

maintenance procedures, the 

establishment of criteria for acceptable 

test results, and documentation of test 

and inspection results. 

Every five years, the owner or 

operator must re-assess and update 

these records. 

d. Compliance Timeframes 

With regards to the compliance 

timeframe, EPA is requiring that each 

owner or operator of a workplace 

engaged in the industrial and 

commercial of PCE as a laboratory 

chemical ensure laboratory ventilation 

devices are in use and functioning 

properly and that dermal PPE is 

provided to all potentially exposed 

persons with direct dermal contact with 

PCE within 360 days after publication of 

the final rule. 

2. Workplace Requirements for 

Energized Electrical Cleaner 

To address the unreasonable risk of 

injury to health resulting from 

inhalation and dermal exposures to PCE 

identified for the industrial and 

commercial use as an energized 

electrical cleaner, which is a sub-use of 

the industrial and commercial use as an 

aerosol spray degreaser/cleaner, and in 

consideration of the lack of reasonably 

available technically and economically 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
103592 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

feasible alternatives to PCE for 

energized electrical cleaning, EPA is 

requiring (i) specific prescriptive 

controls outlined in this Unit, including 

dermal PPE and respiratory protection, 

or (ii) implementation of the WCPP 

outlined in Unit IV.B. EPA is also 

requiring labels and self-certification. 

As described in Unit III.A.2.e., EPA’s 

workplace requirements to address the 

unreasonable risk for industrial and 

commercial use as an energized 

electrical cleaner are consistent to the 

extent possible with existing regulations 

and best practices for work in electrical 

spaces. EPA acknowledges the existing 

OSHA requirements for electrical 

protective equipment under 29 CFR 

1910.137 and does not believe the 

requirements in this rule interfere with 

a potentially exposed person’s ability to 

safely use electrical protective 

equipment, such as rubber insulating 

gloves and rubber insulating sleeves, as 

required under OSHA. 

a. Applicability 

The industrial and commercial use of 

PCE as an energized electrical cleaner 

refers to the use of PCE in a product that 

meets both of the following criteria: (1) 

the product is labeled to clean and/or 

degrease electrical equipment, where 

cleaning and/or degreasing is 

accomplished when electrical current 

exists, or when there is a residual 

electrical potential from a component, 

such as a capacitor; and; (2) the product 

label clearly displays the statements: 

‘‘Energized Equipment use only. Not to 

be used for motorized vehicle 

maintenance, or their parts.’’ 

b. Workplace Requirements for 

Energized Electrical Cleaner 

EPA is requiring that owners or 

operators must either implement (i) 

specific prescriptive controls that 

provide dermal PPE and respiratory 

protection, or (ii) implement the WCPP 

for industrial and commercial use as 

energized electrical cleaner. Owners and 

operators must maintain a statement 

regarding whether the business is 

complying with the specified 

prescriptive controls or with the WCPP. 

i. Prescriptive Controls 

A. Dermal protection. To address the 

unreasonable risk of injury to health 

resulting from dermal exposures to PCE 

identified for the industrial and 

commercial use as an energized 

electrical cleaner, EPA is requiring 

dermal PPE, including impermeable 

gloves and protective clothing, in 

combination with comprehensive 

training for each potentially exposed 

person with direct dermal contact to 

PCE in the work area through direct 

handling of the substance or from 

contact with surfaces that may be 

contaminated with PCE. For dermal 

PPE, EPA is requiring that each owner 

or operator comply with the 

requirements outlined in Unit IV.B.6.b. 

for selection of dermal PPE and training 

for all potentially exposed persons. 

B. Respiratory protection. Based on 

the 2020 Risk Evaluation for PCE, EPA 

determined that the use of respirators 

with an APF of 50 could control PCE air 

concentrations to levels that address the 

unreasonable risk from inhalation 

exposure based on high-end exposures 

for the industrial and commercial use in 

aerosol spray degreaser/cleaner. 

Therefore, EPA is requiring use of 

specific respiratory protection, in 

combination with comprehensive 

training, for use of an energized 

electrical cleaner containing PCE in 

confined spaces, as defined in 29 CFR 

1910.146(b), or in an enclosed space 

(such as a manhole or vault), as 

described in 29 CFR 1910.269(c). 

Specifically, EPA is requiring owners or 

operators to provide to potentially 

exposed persons, and potentially 

exposed persons to use, the following: 

any NIOSH Approved® air-purifying 

full facepiece respirator equipped with 

organic vapor cartridges or canisters; 

any NIOSH Approved® Powered AirPurifying Respirator (PAPR) with a half 

mask equipped with organic vapor 

cartridges or canisters; any NIOSH 

Approved® Supplied-Air Respirator 

(SAR) or Airline Respirator in a 

continuous flow mode equipped with a 

half mask; any NIOSH Approved®

Supplied-Air Respirator (SAR) or 

Airline Respirator operated in a 

pressure-demand or other positivepressure mode with a half mask; or any 

NIOSH Approved® SCBA in demandmode equipped with a full facepiece or 

helmet/hood [APF 50]; or any respirator 

affording a higher degree of protection. 

In providing the specified respirators 

and training to potentially exposed 

persons, EPA is requiring owners or 

operators to administer a PPE program 

with procedures and elements for 

required respirator use as outlined in 

Unit IV.B.6.a. for proper respirator use, 

maintenance, fit-testing, medical 

evaluation, and training. EPA is 

requiring that the owner or operator 

must ensure that all filters, cartridges, 

and canisters used in the workplace are 

labeled and color coded with the NIOSH 

approval label and that the label is not 

removed and remains legible. 

For energized electrical cleaning in 

spaces that are not enclosed or confined, 

EPA is requiring use of respiratory 

protection described in Unit IV. if the 

potentially exposed person is permitted 

to approach exposed energized parts 

closer than the employer’s established 

minimum approach distance by meeting 

the requirements of 29 CFR 

1910.269(l)(3)(iii)(A) through (C) or 29 

CFR 1910.333(c)(3)(ii)(A) through (C), or 

if there is no established minimum 

approach distance. 

ii. WCPP 

EPA understands that there may be 

instances where a performance-based 

standard is more appropriate to address 

the unreasonable risk for the industrial 

and commercial use of PCE as an 

energized electrical cleaner, instead of 

the specific prescriptive dermal and 

respiratory protection requirements 

described in Unit IV.C.2.b.i. For 

example, the WCPP may be preferred by 

owners or operators that regularly use 

PCE to clean energized electrical 

equipment onsite at their facility or by 

owners or operators that are 

implementing the WCPP at their facility 

for another condition of use of PCE. In 

these instances, EPA is requiring owners 

or operators to comply with the WCPP 

requirements, including the ECEL, 

direct dermal contact controls, and 

ancillary provisions, outlined in Univ 

IV.B. Owners and operators who choose 

to follow the WCPP as an alternative to 

the specific prescriptive controls must 

also document and maintain a statement 

that they are electing to comply with the 

WCPP. 

c. Labeling Requirements for Energized 

Electrical Cleaner 

To prevent the use of an energized 

electrical cleaner containing PCE for 

unintended applications, such as 

automotive maintenance or electrical 

cleaner, EPA is requiring that all 

manufacturers (including importers), 

processors, and distributors in 

commerce of energized electrical 

cleaner containing PCE provide a label 

securely attached to each product. Label 

information is required to be clearly 

displayed in an easily readable font size, 

and containing the following text: ‘‘This 

product contains perchloroethylene 

(PCE) (CASRN 127–18–4), a chemical 

determined by the Environmental 

Protection Agency to present 

unreasonable risk of injury to health 

under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA), based on neurotoxicity and 

other adverse health effects. The use of 

PCE is restricted under 40 CFR part 751, 

subpart G. This product is for Energized 

Equipment use only. Not to be used for 

motorized vehicle maintenance, or their 

parts.’’ 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103593 

d. Self-Certification for Energized 

Electrical Cleaner 

To ensure safe and appropriate use of 

PCE as an energized electric cleaner and 

to prevent use of an energized electrical 

cleaner containing PCE for unintended 

applications, EPA is requiring a pointof-sale self-certification requirement in 

order to purchase and subsequently use 

PCE as an energized electrical cleaner. 

Under this self-certification 

requirement, EPA is requiring owners or 

operators, or persons specifically 

authorized by the owner or operator to 

purchase energized electrical cleaner, to 

submit a self-certification to the 

distributor each time energized 

electrical cleaner containing PCE is 

purchased. The self-certification 

consists of a statement indicating the 

owner or operator is implementing the 

prescriptive controls described in Unit 

IV. or the WCPP described in Unit IV.B. 

at their business. The self-certification 

must be signed and presented by a 

person authorized to do so by the owner 

or operator of the business entity. EPA 

is requiring that copies of the selfcertification be maintained as records by 

both the owner or operator and the 

distributor where PCE was purchased. 

Owners or operators who wish to 

continue or begin purchasing energized 

electrical cleaners containing PCE must 

self-certify that the business is 

implementing and complying with all 

aspects of the workplace controls 

(specified respiratory and dermal PPE or 

the WCPP) described in Unit IV., with 

the self-certification statement set forth 

in 40 CFR 751.611(d)(1). This selfcertification statement includes, among 

other information, that the business 

entity has complied with the rule’s 

requirements and understands the 

significant penalties for noncompliance 

with these requirements. 

The self-certification statement must 

be signed and dated by the owner or 

operator, including a name, title, email 

address, and phone number for the 

owner or operator who is self-certifying. 

The self-certification statement must 

also list the name and address of the 

business entity that is being certified 

and indicate if this is the business 

entity’s first purchase of energized 

electrical cleaner containing PCE, after 

publication of the final rule. The selfcertification statement would be valid 

for one year, unless the business entity 

has changed processes or there is an 

indication that exposures to PCE have 

changed. 

To ensure distributors are only selling 

PCE to owners or operators, or to 

persons specifically authorized by the 

owner or operator to purchase energized 

electrical cleaners, of business entities 

able to implement and comply with the 

workplace requirements for energized 

electrical cleaner, EPA is requiring 

owners or operators who self-certify to 

provide a copy of the business entity’s 

current self-certification statement to 

the distributor from whom energized 

electrical cleaner containing PCE is 

being purchased, for every purchase of 

PCE. EPA is also requiring the 

distributors to collect, maintain, and 

retain a copy of the self-certification 

statement. EPA is also requiring 

distributors to keep records, such as 

invoices, that indicate the name of the 

purchaser and business entity, date of 

sale, and quantity of PCE purchased. 

Distributors of PCE as an energized 

electrical cleaner may only distribute to 

those companies that provide the 

correct self-certification statement for 

purchasing. EPA realizes that some 

companies may not engage in or use 

energized electrical cleaners containing 

PCE at the time this rule is finalized. 

Owners or operators that may wish to 

purchase energized electrical cleaners 

containing PCE after the publication of 

the final rule are required to submit the 

self-certification statement to the 

distributor from whom PCE was initially 

purchased in order to purchase PCE, 

certifying that the business for which 

PCE is being purchased will implement 

and comply with the workplace 

requirements for industrial and 

commercial use as an energized 

electrical cleaner. EPA is also requiring 

that sellers and distributors review the 

self-certification statement to ensure it 

is appropriately completed to include 

the business entity’s information, as 

outlined in Unit IV. Distributors of PCE 

for use in energized electrical cleaners 

must have a complete and valid selfcertification statement in accordance 

with this section for each sale of PCE for 

such use. EPA is requiring that the 

distributors and owners or operators 

maintain and retain the self-certification 

statement and related invoices in the 

most administratively convenient form 

(electronic or paper) and retain the 

statement and supporting 

documentation for five years. 

e. Recordkeeping 

To support and demonstrate 

compliance, EPA is requiring that each 

owner or operator subject to the 

requirements of this Unit retain 

compliance records for five years. EPA 

is requiring that owners and operators 

must retain records of: 

• The self-certification statement and 

related invoices, including: (A) the 

written statement required in Unit 

IV.C.2.d.; (B) printed name and 

signature, job classification, email 

address, and phone number of the 

owner or operator who is self-certifying; 

(C) date of self-certification; and (D) 

name and address of business entity; 

and 

• Statement regarding whether the 

owner or operator is complying with the 

prescriptive dermal and respiratory 

protection requirements or with the 

WCPP. 

Additionally, for owners or operators 

that elect to comply with the 

prescriptive dermal and respiratory 

protection requirements outlined in 

Unit IV.C.2.b.i., EPA is requiring that 

owners and operators must retain 

records of: 

• Dermal protection used by each 

potentially exposed person and program 

implementation; 

• Respiratory protection used by each 

potentially exposed person and program 

implementation; 

For owners or operators that elect to 

comply with the WCPP instead of the 

prescriptive dermal and respiratory 

protection outlined in Unit IV.C.2.b.i., 

owners and operators must retain the 

records described in Unit IV.B.7.c. 

EPA is also requiring sellers and 

distributors of energized electrical 

cleaner containing PCE to retain the 

following: 

• Invoices that include: (A) name of 

purchaser; (B) date of sale; and (C) 

quantity of PCE or PCE containing 

products sold; and 

• Self-certification statement for each 

purchase of PCE; and 

• Copies of the labels required in Unit 

IV.C.2.c. 

f. Compliance Timeframes 

With regards to the compliance 

timeframe, EPA is requiring that each 

owner or operator of a business entity 

engaged in the industrial and 

commercial use of PCE as an energized 

electrical cleaner either: (1) Implement 

the specific prescriptive controls of 

dermal and respiratory protection for 

energized electrical cleaner described in 

this unit within 450 days of the 

publication of this final rule or (2) 

implement the WCPP in accordance 

with the compliance timeframes 

described in Unit IV.B.8., which 

includes requiring owners and operators 

to establish initial monitoring within 

360 days of the publication of this final 

rule and providing PPE within 450 days 

of the publication of this final rule. 

Additionally, EPA is requiring that the 

labeling requirement take effect 450 

days after publication of this final rule 

for manufacturers (including importers), 

processors, and distributors of energized 

electrical cleaner containing PCE. EPA 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
103594 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

is also requiring the self-certification 

requirements take effect 450 days after 

publication of this final rule for owners 

or operators and distributors. 

D. Prohibition of Manufacture, 

Processing, Distribution, and Use of PCE 

1. Prohibition of Certain Industrial and 

Commercial Uses and Manufacturing, 

Processing, and Distribution in 

Commerce of PCE for Those Uses 

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. The rule prohibits 

the manufacture, processing, 

distribution in commerce, and use of 

PCE for all industrial and commercial 

use, except for those industrial and 

commercial uses which would continue 

under the WCPP (as identified in Unit 

IV.A.2.), laboratory use (as identified in 

Unit IV.A.3.) and use as an energized 

electrical cleaner (as identified in Unit 

IV.A.3). Based on comments, EPA is 

finalizing timeframes longer than 

proposed for prohibitions of 

manufacture, processing, distribution, 

and most industrial and commercial use 

of PCE broadly. The rationale for these 

changes from the 2023 PCE proposed 

rule is in Unit III.B.2. EPA is also 

finalizing as proposed the phaseout 

timeframes for the industrial and 

commercial use of PCE in dry cleaning 

and related spot cleaning as described 

in Unit IV.D.3. 

As discussed in Unit II.C.4., 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. 8). 

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.B.2., in response to comments 

received, EPA is finalizing timeframes 

for prohibitions according to the 

following staggered timeframe: 

• Within 540 days of publication of 

this final rule for prohibitions on 

manufacturers; 

• Within 630 days of publication of 

this final rule for prohibitions on 

processors; 

• Within 720 days of publication of 

this final rule for prohibitions on 

distributing to retailers; 

• Within 810 days of publication of 

this final rule for prohibitions on all 

other distributors (including retailers); 

and 

• Within 900 days of publication of 

this final rule for prohibitions on 

industrial and commercial users. 

Additionally, EPA had proposed a 

WCPP for the industrial and commercial 

use of PCE for in-line conveyorized and 

web vapor degreasing. After receiving 

public comments that clarified that 

these uses are no longer ongoing, EPA 

is finalizing the prohibition of these 

uses. 

2. Prohibition of Manufacturing, 

Processing and Distribution in 

Commerce of PCE for Consumer Use 

The final rule prohibits the 

manufacture, processing, and 

distribution in commerce of PCE and 

PCE-containing products for all 

consumer use. As discussed in the 2023 

PCE proposed rule and in this final rule, 

‘‘consumer use’’ refers to all known, 

intended, or reasonably foreseen PCE 

consumer uses. 

EPA is also finalizing the proposed 

prohibitions on distributing in 

commerce to retailers, and on retailers 

from distributing in commerce, PCE and 

all PCE-containing products for any use 

(with the exception of dry cleaning, 

which is subject to a separate phaseout 

described in Unit IV.D.3), in order to 

prevent products intended for industrial 

and commercial use under the WCPP or 

prescriptive controls from being 

purchased by consumers. The 

prohibitions described in this unit will 

take effect in the following timeframes: 

• Within 540 days of publication of 

this final rule for prohibitions on 

manufacturers; 

• Within 630 days of publication of 

this final rule for prohibitions on 

processors, within 720 days of 

publication of this final rule for 

prohibitions on distributing to retailers; 

and 

• Within 810 days of publication of 

this final rule for prohibitions on all 

other distributors (including retailers). 

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 

751.5). 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 PCE, or any products 

containing PCE, to retailers prevents 

retailers from making these products 

available to consumers, which helps 

address that part of the unreasonable 

risk from PCE contributed by consumer 

use. 

3. Prohibition and Phaseout of PCE in 

Dry Cleaning 

EPA is finalizing as proposed the 

prohibition on the manufacturing, 

processing, distribution of commerce, 

and industrial and commercial use of 

PCE for dry cleaning and spot cleaning, 

including in 3rd generation (dry-to-dry 

machines with refrigerated condenser) 

and 4th/5th generation (dry-to-dry 

machines with refrigerated condenser 

and carbon adsorber process controls) 

machines. A prohibition on the 

manufacturing, processing, distribution 

in commerce, and industrial and 

commercial use of PCE in dry cleaning 

and spot cleaning addresses the 

unreasonable risk for the following 

conditions of use as described in Unit 

III.B.1 of the 2023 PCE proposed rule: 

• Industrial and commercial use in 

dry cleaning and spot cleaning post2006 dry cleaning. This condition of use 

refers to industrial and commercial use 

of PCE in products for spot cleaning and 

as a solvent in degreasing and cleaning 

applications to remove dirt, grease, 

stains, spots, and foreign matter from 

garments at dry cleaning facilities that 

use PCE dry cleaning machines after the 

promulgation of the 2006 PCE NESHAP 

for Dry Cleaning Facilities (40 CFR part 

63, subpart M). This includes dry 

cleaning facilities using third generation 

(dry-to-dry, non-vented machines with 

refrigerated condensers), fourth 

generation (dry-to-dry, non-vented 

machines with both refrigerated 

condensers and carbon adsorbers as 

secondary vapor controls), or fifth 

generation (dry-to-dry, non-vented 

machines with secondary vapor 

controls, a monitor inside the machine 

drum, and an interlocking system to 

ensure the concentration is below 

approximately 300 ppm before the 

loading door can be opened) PCE dry 

cleaning machines. 

• Industrial and commercial use in 

dry cleaning and spot cleaning 4th/5th 

generation only dry cleaning. This 

condition of use refers to industrial and 

commercial use of PCE in products for 

spot cleaning and as a solvent in 

degreasing and cleaning applications to 

remove dirt, grease, stains, spots, and 

foreign matter from garments at dry 

cleaning facilities that use fourth 

generation or fifth generation PCE 

machines. In addition to use as a solvent 

in dry cleaning equipment, PCE is found 

in products to spot clean garments to 

remove stains or spots before and after 

dry cleaning treatment. 

• Consumer use in dry cleaning 

solvent (i.e., exposure to clothing or 

articles recently dry cleaned with PCE). 

This condition of use refers to consumer 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103595 

exposure to PCE used to remove dirt, 

grease, stains, spots, and foreign matter 

from garments via dry cleaning, in 

particular the transportation, storage, 

and wear of articles that were dry 

cleaned with PCE. For example, 

garments that are dry cleaned at 

facilities that use PCE as a dry cleaning 

solvent have residual concentrations of 

PCE remaining in the article after a dry 

cleaning event. 

EPA is finalizing a phaseout period 

following the publication of the final 

rule. The phaseout starts with a 

prohibition on the industrial or 

commercial use of PCE in any dry 

cleaning machine acquired 180 days or 

later after publication of the final rule, 

followed by a prohibition on the 

industrial or commercial use of PCE in 

3rd generation machines 3 years after 

publication of the final rule. Full 

implementation of the phaseout will be 

achieved with a prohibition on the 

industrial or commercial use of PCE in 

all dry cleaning and spot cleaning, 

including in 4th and 5th generation 

machines, 10 years after publication of 

the final rule and a prohibition on the 

manufacturing, processing, and 

distribution in commerce of PCE for use 

in dry cleaning solvent 10 years after 

publication of the final rule. EPA 

understands that the use of PCE in dry 

cleaning is currently declining and that 

very few PCE machines are being 

produced or sold in the United States 

market (Ref. 21). As described more 

fully in the Economic Analysis (Ref. 3), 

EPA assumes dry cleaning machines are 

retired 15 to 25 years after the 

manufactured date. A 3-year phaseout of 

the use of PCE in 3rd generation dry 

cleaning machines takes into 

consideration the age of existing 3rd 

generation dry cleaning machines as 

well as public comments submitted on 

the proposed amendments to the PCE 

Dry Cleaning NESHAP (December 27, 

2021, 86 FR 73207) recommending a 3- 

to 5-year compliance timeframe at 

minimum to account for supply issues 

related to those machines. A 10-year 

phaseout of the use of PCE in dry 

cleaning and spot cleaning takes into 

account that, while the average 

projected useful lifespan of dry cleaning 

machines is 15 to 25 years, the purchase 

of new PCE dry cleaning machines has 

been in decline. EPA believes that the 

180-day and 3-year compliance dates for 

the start of the phaseout, and the 10- 

year compliance date for full 

implementation of the phaseout, are 

consistent with requirements in TSCA 

section 6(d)(1)(C) and (D), respectively, 

to specify mandatory compliance dates 

for the start of phaseout requirements 

that are as soon as practicable but not 

later than five years after the date of 

promulgation of the rule, and to specify 

mandatory compliance dates for full 

implementation of phaseout 

requirements that are as soon as 

practicable. EPA also believes that these 

compliance dates provide for a 

reasonable transition period, consistent 

with TSCA section 6(d)(1)(E). 

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, distributors, and commercial 

users maintain ordinary business 

records, such as invoices and bills-oflading, that demonstrate compliance 

with the prohibitions, restrictions, and 

other provisions of this proposed 

regulation; and to maintain such records 

for a period of 5 years from the date the 

record is generated. This requirement 

begins 60 days following publication of 

the final rule in the Federal Register. 

For enforcement purposes, EPA will 

have access to such businesses records 

plus additional records required under 

40 CFR 751.615. Recordkeeping 

requirements would ensure that owners 

or operators can demonstrate 

compliance with the regulations if 

necessary. 

2. Downstream Notification 

For conditions of use that are not 

otherwise prohibited or are subject to 

delayed prohibition compliance 

timeframes under this final regulation, 

EPA is finalizing as proposed, with 

slight modification, the requirements 

that manufacturers (including 

importers), processors, and distributors, 

excluding retailers, of PCE and PCEcontaining products provide 

downstream notification of the 

prohibitions through the SDSs by 

adding to sections 1(c) and 15 of the 

SDS the language set forth in 40 CFR 

751.613(c). This notification spreads 

awareness throughout the supply chain 

that PCE and PCE-containing products 

can only be distributed in commerce or 

processed with a concentration of PCE 

equal to or greater than 0.1% by weight 

for uses that are not prohibited and for 

dry cleaning until the prohibition dates 

come into effect. 

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 to revise their SDS 

within two months of rule publication 

and processors and distributors to revise 

their SDS within six months of rule 

publication. EPA did not receive public 

comments asserting that these 

compliance dates for updating the SDS 

were impracticable, and is therefore 

finalizing the compliance dates as 

proposed. The intention of downstream 

notification is to spread awareness 

throughout the supply chain of the 

restrictions on PCE under TSCA and to 

provide information to commercial endusers about allowable uses of PCE. 

F. TSCA Section 6(g) Exemptions 

EPA is finalizing with minor 

clarifications the proposed 10-year 

exemption for emergency use of PCE in 

furtherance of NASA’s mission for the 

following specific conditions of use: 

Industrial and commercial use as 

solvent for cold cleaning; and Industrial 

and commercial use in wipe cleaning. 

The exemption includes conditions, 

pursuant to TSCA section 6(g)(4), 

including required notification and 

controls for exposure, to the extent 

feasible. Specifically, this regulation 

requires the following: (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 days; and (2) 

NASA and its contractors must comply 

with the WCPP described in Unit IV.B 

to the extent feasible. The notification 

must include a description of the 

specific use of PCE 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 safer alternatives. 

EPA notes that in the event that 

sensitive information clearly marked as 

such relating to national security or 

critical infrastructure is submitted to 

EPA at any point during the TSCA 

section 6 process, the Agency will 

protect such information in accordance 

with applicable authorities. 

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 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.E.1. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
103596 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

V. TSCA Section 6(c)(2) Considerations 

A. Health Effects of PCE and the 

Magnitude of Human Exposure to PCE 

EPA’s analysis of the health effects of 

PCE and the magnitude of human 

exposure to PCE are in the 2020 Risk 

Evaluation for PCE and the 2022 revised 

unreasonable risk determination for PCE 

(Refs. 1, 2). A summary is presented in 

Unit V. 

The 2020 Risk Evaluation for PCE 

identified potential health effects of PCE 

including non-cancer adverse health 

effects such as neurotoxicity and central 

nervous system effects, kidney and liver 

effects, immune system toxicity, 

reproductive toxicity, and 

developmental toxicity and cancer 

hazards from carcinogenicity as well as 

genotoxicity. 

Among the non-cancer adverse health 

effects, EPA identified visual deficits 

indicative of neurotoxicity as a primary 

effect of PCE in humans following acute 

and chronic inhalation and dermal 

exposures. Identified symptoms of 

neurotoxicity include color confusion, 

changes in visual contrast detection, 

and alteration of visual-spatial function. 

Impaired visual and cognitive function 

and diminished color discrimination are 

the most sensitive adverse effects 

driving the unreasonable risk of PCE 

exposure. Prenatal and early childhood 

exposure to PCE has also been linked to 

statistically significant increased risk of 

engaging in risky behaviors. 

Additionally, the 2020 Risk Evaluation 

for PCE identified that PCE exposure is 

associated with several types of cancer, 

including liver tumors, brain gliomas, 

kidney cancer, and testicular cancer. By 

the criteria presented in EPA’s 

Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk 

Assessment (Ref. 78), PCE is 

characterized as ‘‘likely to be 

carcinogenic to humans by all routes of 

exposure’’ based on conclusive evidence 

in mice and rats and suggestive 

evidence in humans. 

Other adverse health effects identified 

in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for PCE 

identified include central nervous 

system depression, kidney 

nephrotoxicity and proximal tubule 

nuclear enlargement, liver necrosis and 

extreme dilation of blood or lymph 

vessels, reduced sperm quality, reduced 

red blood cells and hemoglobin, 

increased immune cells, decreased fetal/ 

placental weight, developmental 

neurotoxicity, and skeletal effects from 

chronic exposures (Ref. 1). 

Regarding the magnitude of human 

exposure, one factor EPA considers for 

the conditions of use that drive 

unreasonable risk is the size of the 

exposed population which, for PCE, 

EPA estimates is 259,609 workers and 

31,449 occupational non-users (ONUs) 

(Ref. 3). The number of consumers that 

use the approximately 115 types of 

products containing PCE each year is 

unknown. See section 6.1.9 of the 

Economic Analysis and section 8.4.1 of 

the response to comment document for 

additional detail, including a 

description of changes made from the 

2023 PCE proposed rule to EPA’s 

estimates in response to public 

comment (Refs. 3, 8). 

For the conditions of use that drive 

the unreasonable risk for PCE, PESS 

include workers, ONUs, consumer 

users, and bystanders to consumers 

using products containing PCE. 

Children of workers present at dry 

cleaners are also a PESS group exposed 

to PCE during industrial and 

commercial use of PCE in dry cleaning 

and spot cleaning. 

In addition to these estimates of 

numbers of workers, occupational nonusers, consumers, and bystanders to 

consumer use directly exposed to PCE, 

EPA recognizes there is exposure to the 

general population from air and water 

pathways for PCE. (While bystanders are 

individuals in proximity to a consumer 

use of PCE, fenceline communities are 

a subset of the general population who 

may be living in proximity to a facility 

where PCE is being used in an 

occupational setting). EPA separately 

conducted a screening approach to 

assess whether there may be potential 

risks to the general population from 

these exposure pathways. This analysis 

is summarized in full in the 2023 PCE 

proposed rule, which includes 

information on the SACC peer review. 

This unit addresses those areas where 

some risk was indicated at the fenceline, 

and the condition of use will be 

continuing under the rule. 

EPA’s analysis methodology 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 PCE, based on 

methods presented to the SACC, did not 

find risks from drinking water, 

incidental oral ingestion of surface 

water, or incidental dermal exposure to 

surface water (Ref. 79). EPA therefore 

does not intend to revisit or conduct an 

analysis of the water pathway for PCE 

as part of a supplemental risk 

evaluation. 

EPA’s analysis for the air pathway for 

PCE using methodology presented to 

SACC and the multi-year analysis 

conducted in response indicated 

potential exposure and associated risks 

to select populations within the general 

population at particular facilities (Ref. 

80). As described in Unit VI.A. of the 

2023 PCE proposed rule, EPA’s 

fenceline analysis for the air pathway 

for PCE indicates that EPA is not able 

to conclude that there are no potential 

risks to fenceline communities. 

Additionally, based on the fenceline 

analysis for the ambient air pathway for 

PCE, including the strengths, 

limitations, and uncertainties associated 

with the information used to inform the 

analysis, EPA is unable to determine 

with this screening analysis whether 

those risks drive the unreasonable risk 

of injury to health presented by PCE. 

Although EPA did not make a 

determination of unreasonable risk 

based on the fenceline screening 

analysis, this final regulatory action is 

expected to reduce the risks identified 

in the screening approach. Additionally, 

while the fenceline screening analysis 

identified facilities with some 

indication of releases and potential 

exposures with associated increased 

cancer risk that exceeds the 1 × 10¥6

benchmark, the analysis did not identify 

any facilities exceeding the 1 × 10¥4

benchmark; the highest risk estimate 

identified is in the 1 × 10¥5 range (Ref. 

80). Standard cancer benchmarks used 

by EPA and other regulatory agencies 

are an increased cancer risk above 

benchmarks ranging from 1 in 1,000,000 

to 1 in 10,000 (i.e., 1 × 10¥6 to 1 × 

10¥4). For example, when setting 

standards under CAA section 112(f)(2), 

EPA uses a two-step process, with ‘‘an 

analytical first step to determine an 

‘acceptable risk’ that considers all 

health information, including risk 

estimation uncertainty, and includes a 

presumptive limit on maximum 

individual risk (MIR) of approximately 

1-in-10 thousand’’ (Ref. 81, referencing 

the interpretation set forth in the 1989 

final National Emission Standards for 

Benzene rule (54 FR 38044 Sept. 14, 

1989)). 

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 reduce exposures to the general 

population, including fenceline 

communities. Of the 29 facilities which 

indicated potential exposure and 

associated increased cancer risk to 

fenceline communities, under the final 

regulation, 20 may be associated with 

conditions of use that EPA is not 

prohibiting, and thus exposures at the 

fenceline at the remaining 9 facilities 

would be addressed. 

Under the final rule, only 16 

conditions of use will continue (see 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103597 

Units IV.B. and IV.C. for a summary). 

For many of these conditions of use, 

EPA expects use and associated 

production volume of PCE to decline 

over time. For example, the 

manufacturing and processing: 

incorporation into a formulation, 

mixture, or reaction product conditions 

of use can reasonably be expected to 

decline. While EPA is permitting the 

continued manufacturing and 

processing of PCE subject to the WCPP, 

the downstream distribution and use of 

formulations, mixtures, or reaction 

products for most conditions of use 

would be prohibited. Exceptions 

include the distribution and use of 

products for conditions of use that EPA 

is not prohibiting in this final 

regulation, including certain degreasing 

applications (e.g., vapor degreasing, 

cold cleaning, and energized electrical 

cleaning), chemical milling, adhesives 

and sealants, processing aid, and 

laboratory use. Additionally, EPA 

expects the processing of PCE as a 

reactant in the generation of HFC–134a 

and HFC–125 to decline over time, in 

light of the AIM Act requirements to 

phase down production and 

consumption of listed HFCs by 85% 

over the next 15 years. HFC–125 and 

HFC–134a are two of the regulated 

substances that are subject to the AIM 

Act phasedown. 

For the conditions of use that are not 

prohibited, this final rule requires 

exposure controls via implementation of 

a WCPP or prescriptive controls as 

described in Units IV.B. and IV.C. While 

it is possible that efforts to reduce 

exposures in the workplace to levels 

below the ECEL could lead to adoption 

of engineering controls that ventilate 

more PCE outside, EPA predicts that 

this potential exposure would be 

limited as a result of the existing 

NESHAP that cover PCE for these 

conditions of use under the CAA. 

Applicable NESHAPs include: 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart F, Synthetic Organic 

Chemical Manufacturing Industry; 40 

CFR part 63, subpart DD, Off-Site Waste 

and Recovery Operations; 40 CFR part 

63, subpart VVV, Publicly Owned 

Treatment Works; 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart VVVVVV, Chemical 

Manufacturing Area Sources; 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart GG, Aerospace 

Manufacturing and Rework Facilities; 

40 CFR part 63, subpart T, Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning, and any exceedances 

would be an enforcement issue. The 

CAA establishes a two-phase process for 

the EPA’s development, review, and 

potential revision of NESHAP that 

impose emission standards and work 

practice requirements on subject 

categories of sources of hazardous air 

pollutants. First, the EPA sets 

technology-based or performance-based 

standards reflecting the maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

for major sources (CAA section 

112(d)(2)-(3)) and generally available 

control technology (GACT) for area or 

non-major sources (CAA section 

112(d)(5)). In the second phase, eight 

years after adoption of the first phase 

standards, the EPA performs a residual 

risk review of major source MACT 

standards to ensure that they provide an 

ample margin of safety to protect public 

health (CAA section 112(f)(2)), and a 

technology review of all NESHAP to 

account for developments in practices, 

processes and control technologies 

(CAA section 112(d)(6)). The CAA only 

requires the EPA to conduct the residual 

risk review one time for each MACT 

standard, although the EPA has 

discretion to conduct additional risk 

reviews where warranted. The 

technology review, instead, is a 

recurring duty, and the EPA must 

perform it no less often than every eight 

years. 

Thus, the prohibitions and 

restrictions on PCE in this final rule, 

combined with the expected decline in 

production volume for PCE and the 

CAA requirements described above, are 

expected to sufficiently address the 

emissions of PCE, and thus the resulting 

risks identified in the screening analysis 

to any general population or fenceline 

communities close to facilities engaging 

in PCE use. EPA therefore does not 

intend to revisit or conduct an analysis 

of the air pathway for PCE as part of a 

supplemental risk evaluation. 

B. Environmental Effects of PCE and the 

Magnitude of Environmental Exposure 

to PCE 

EPA’s analysis of the environmental 

effects of PCE and the magnitude of 

exposure of the environment to PCE are 

in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for PCE and 

the 2022 revised unreasonable risk 

determination for PCE (Refs. 1, 2). The 

unreasonable risk determination for PCE 

is based solely on risks to human health; 

based on the TSCA 2020 Risk 

Evaluation for PCE, EPA determined 

that exposures to the environment did 

not drive the unreasonable risk. A 

summary is presented in Unit V. 

The manufacturing, processing, use, 

and disposal of PCE can result in 

releases to the environment, including 

aquatic releases of PCE from facilities 

that manufacture, use, or process PCE. 

Fate, exposure, and environmental 

hazard were evaluated in the 2020 Risk 

Evaluation for PCE in order to 

characterize environmental risk of PCE. 

PCE has low bioaccumulation potential 

and moderate potential to accumulate in 

wastewater biosolids, soil, or sediment. 

Releases of PCE to the environment are 

likely to volatilize to the atmosphere, 

where it will slowly photooxidize. It 

may migrate to groundwater, where it 

will slowly hydrolyze. Additionally, the 

bioconcentration potential of PCE is 

low. 

Potential effects of PCE exposure 

described in the literature for aquatic 

life include mortality, developmental 

deformities, immobilization, 

reproductive effects, growth effects, and 

biomass effects. EPA concluded that 

PCE poses a hazard to environmental 

aquatic organisms, including aquatic 

invertebrates, fish, amphibians, and 

aquatic plants (algae). For acute 

exposures, PCE is a hazard to aquatic 

invertebrates based on immobilization, 

to fish based on immobilization of 

midge larvae at 7.0 mg/L, to fish based 

on mortality of rainbow trout as the 

most sensitive species with acute 

toxicity values as low as 4.8 mg/L, and 

amphibians based on developmental 

effects to the wood frog as the most 

sensitive species with acute toxicity 

values as low as 7.8 mg/L. For chronic 

exposures, PCE is a hazard to aquatic 

invertebrates, with a toxicity value of 

0.5 mg/L; and a chronic toxicity value 

of 0.84 mg/L for fish. PCE is also a 

hazard for green algae with a toxicity 

value of 3.6 mg/L. EPA incorporated 

modeled exposure data from the 

Exposure and Fate Assessment 

Screening Tool (Ref. 82), as well as 

monitored data from the Water Quality 

Portal (Ref. 83), to characterize the 

exposure of PCE to aquatic species. 

In the 2020 Risk Evaluation for PCE, 

the indicators evaluated for risk of 

injury to the environment include 

immobilization from acute exposure, 

growth effects from chronic exposure, 

and mortality to algae (Ref. 1). Based on 

the 2020 Risk Evaluation for PCE, EPA 

did not identify risk of injury to the 

environment that drive the 

unreasonable risk determination for 

PCE. 

C. Benefits of PCE for Various Uses 

As described in the 2023 PCE 

proposed rule, PCE is a solvent used in 

a variety of industrial, commercial, and 

consumer use applications, including as 

a feedstock in the production of 

fluorinated compounds, cleaning and 

degreasing, adhesives and sealants, 

paints and coatings, lubricants and 

greases, processing aid, and other uses. 

The physical and chemical properties of 

PCE, such as non-flammability, high 

volatility, low global warming potential, 

low vapor pressure, high chloride 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
103598 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

density, high boiling point, and high 

solvency of oils, waxes, and greases, as 

well as relatively low cost, make it a 

popular and effective solvent for many 

applications (Refs. 1, 84). 

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). Given 

the current GDP, this is equivalent to a 

cost of $40 billion to $80 billion. 

Therefore, because EPA has estimated 

that the monetized cost of the final rule 

would be $43.4 million annualized over 

20 years at a 2% discount rate, EPA has 

concluded that this rule is highly 

unlikely to have any measurable effect 

on the national economy (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. 

There are an estimated 154,683 small 

entities affected by the final rule with a 

per firm and total estimated cost impact 

of $177 and $27.4 million, respectively. 

Of the small businesses potentially 

impacted by this final rule, almost 

100% (154,671 out of 154,683) are 

expected to have impacts of less than 

1% to their firm revenues, 8 (0.00005%) 

are expected to have impacts between 1 

and 3% to their firm revenues, and 5 

(0.00003%) are expected to have 

impacts greater than 3% to their firm 

revenues. Most of these small entities 

(94%) are users of PCE in aerosol 

degreasing with an estimated 119,523 

small entities using PCE in energized 

electrical cleaning and an estimated 

26,050 small entities using PCE in other 

aerosol spray cleaning/degreasing uses 

like brake cleaning. 

EPA estimates that there are 6,000 

firms currently using PCE dry cleaning 

machines but estimates that only 62 

would still be using PCE for dry 

cleaning by the end of the proposed 10- 

year phaseout. As described further in 

the Economic Analysis, EPA maintains 

that almost no new PCE machines have 

been brought into service in recent years 

and therefore most existing dry cleaning 

machines using PCE are old and will no 

longer be in service by the phaseout 

date. 

In addition to dry cleaners, other 

users of PCE (such as in vapor 

degreasing and use as maskant in 

chemical milling) could be strongly 

impacted because they may have no 

economical alternative to the use of 

PCE. 

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 PCE for 

uses covered in this final rule may 

increase demand for safer chemical 

substitutes. This rule is not likely to 

have significant effects on the 

environment because PCE 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 PCE. 

The effects of this rule on public health 

are estimated to be positive, due to the 

reduced risk of cancer and other noncancer endpoints from exposure to PCE. 

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 rule are described at 

length in the Economic Analysis (Ref. 

3). The monetized costs for this final 

rule are estimated to be $43.4 million 

annualized over 20 years at a 2% 

discount rate. The monetized benefits 

are estimated to be $32.6 to $84.6 

million annualized over 20 years at a 

2% discount rate. 

EPA considered the estimated costs to 

regulated entities as well as the cost to 

administer and enforce an alternative 

regulatory action. The alternative 

regulatory action is described in detail 

in Unit IV.B of the 2023 PCE proposed 

rule. The estimated annualized cost of 

the alternative regulatory action is $62.1 

million at a 2% discount rate over 20 

years (Ref. 3). The monetized benefits of 

the alternative action are estimated to be 

$32.5 to $84.4 million annualized over 

20 years at a 2% discount rate (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. EPA 

believes that the balance of costs and 

benefits of this proposal cannot be fairly 

described without considering the 

additional, non-monetized benefits of 

mitigating the non-cancer adverse 

effects. These effects may include 

neurotoxicity, kidney toxicity, liver 

toxicity, immunological and 

hematological effects, reproductive 

effects, and developmental effects. The 

multitude of adverse effects from PCE 

exposure can profoundly impact an 

individual’s quality of life, as discussed 

in Units II.A. (overview), III.B.2. 

(description of the unreasonable risk), 

V.A. (discussion of the health effects), 

and the 2020 Risk Evaluation for PCE. 

Chronic adverse effects of PCE exposure 

include both cancer and the non-cancer 

effects listed previously. Acute effects of 

PCE exposure could be 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 PCE 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. 

These effects include willingness-to-pay 

to avoid illness, which includes cost of 

illness and other personal costs such as 

pain and suffering. Considering only 

monetized benefits underestimates the 

impacts of PCE adverse outcomes and 

therefore underestimates the benefits of 

this 2023 PCE proposed rule. 

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 unreasonable risk resulting from 

exposure to PCE. The regulatory action 

would cost $3.1 million per potential 

prevented cancer case while the primary 

alternative regulatory action would cost 

$4.4 million (using the 2% discount 

rate) (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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103599 

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 Unit VI., the Administrator does not 

determine that unreasonable risk from 

PCE 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 2023 PCE 

proposed rule, and responses to 

comments on that 9(a) analysis can be 

found in the Response to Comments, 

section 9.1 (Ref. 8). 

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 and the Consumer 

Product Safety Commission (CPSC), to, 

among other things, identify their 

respective authorities, jurisdictions, and 

existing laws with regard to risk 

evaluation and risk management of PCE. 

As discussed in more detail in the 

2023 PCE 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, in 1971, 

established a PEL for PCE of 100 ppm 

of air as an 8-hour TWA with an 

acceptable ceiling concentration of 200 

ppm and an acceptable maximum peak 

above the acceptable ceiling 

concentration for an eight-hour shift of 

300 ppm, maximum duration of 5 

minutes in any 3 hours. However, the 

exposure limits established by OSHA 

are higher than the exposure limit that 

EPA determined would be sufficient to 

address the unreasonable risk identified 

under TSCA from occupational 

inhalation exposures associated with 

certain conditions of use. 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. The U.S. CPSC, 

under authority provided to it by 

Congress in the Consumer Product 

Safety Act (CPSA), protects the public 

from unreasonable risk of injury or 

death associated with consumer 

products. Under the CPSA, CPSC has 

the authority to regulate PCE in 

consumer products, but not in other 

sectors such as automobiles, some 

industrial and commercial products, or 

aircraft for example. 

EPA therefore concludes that TSCA is 

the only regulatory authority able to 

prevent or reduce unreasonable risk of 

PCE to a sufficient extent across the 

range of conditions of use, exposures, 

and populations of concern. An action 

under TSCA is also able to address 

occupational unreasonable risk and 

would reach entities that are not subject 

to OSHA. Moreover, the timeframe and 

any exposure reduction as a result of 

updating OSHA or CPSC regulations for 

PCE cannot be estimated, while TSCA 

imposes a much more accelerated twoyear statutory timeframe for proposing 

and finalizing requirements to address 

unreasonable risk. Regulating PCE’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 PCE. 

Finally, as discussed in greater detail in 

the 2023 PCE 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, Federal 

Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), or 

OSH Act (88 FR 39652) (FRL–8329–01– 

OCSPP)). For these reasons, in the 

Administrator’s discretion, the 

Administrator has analyzed this issue 

and does not determine that 

unreasonable risk from PCE 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 PCE 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., RCRA, CAA, CWA). 

Updating regulations under other EPA 

statutes would not be sufficient to 

address the unreasonable risk of injury 

to the health of workers, occupational 

non-users, consumers, and bystanders 

who are exposed to PCE under its 

conditions of use. EPA’s section 9(b) 

analysis can be found in full in Unit 

VII.B. of the 2023 PCE proposed rule, 

and responses to comments on that 9(b) 

analysis can be found in the Response 

to Comments, section 9.2 (Ref. 8). 

For these reasons, the Administrator 

does not determine that unreasonable 

risk from PCE under its conditions of 

use, as evaluated in the 2020 Risk 

Evaluation for PCE (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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
103600 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 2023 PCE 

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 2023 PCE 

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 9.3 of the Response to 

Comments document (Ref. 8). 

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 

Perchloroethylene. Document ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0720–0035. EPA 

Publication No. 740–R1–8011. December 

2020. https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0502- 

0058. 

2. EPA. Perchloroethylene. Unreasonable 

Risk Determination. Document ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0720–0036. 

December 2022. 

3. EPA. Economic Analysis of the Final 

Regulation of Perchloroethylene Under 

TSCA Section 6(a). RIN 2070–AK84. 

December 2024. 

4. President Biden. 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. Access Chemical Data Reporting 

Data: 2016 CDR Data (Updated May 

2020). Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0037. Last Updated 

on May 16, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/ 

chemical-data-reporting/access-cdrdata#2016. 

6. EPA. Access Chemical Data Reporting 

Data: 2020 CDR Data (up-to-date as of 

April 2022). Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0038. Last Updated 

on May 16, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/ 

chemical-data-reporting/access-cdr-data. 

7. EPA. Regulatory Actions Pertaining to 

Perchloroethylene. Document ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0720–0039. 2022. 

8. EPA. Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA); Response to Public Comments. 

December 2024. 

9. Executive Order 13985. Advancing Racial 

Equity and Support for Underserved 

Communities Through the Federal 

Government. Federal Register. 86 FR 

7009, January 20, 2021. 

10. 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. 

11. Executive Order 14008. Tackling the 

Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad. 

Federal Register. 86 FR 7619, February 

1, 2021. 

12. EPA. An Alternatives Assessment for Use 

of Perchloroethylene. Document ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0720–0104. RIN 

2070–AK84. November 2022. 

13. EPA. Notes from Federalism Consultation 

on Forthcoming Proposed Rulemakings 

for Trichloroethylene, 

Perchloroethylene, and nMethylpyrrolidone under TSCA Section 

6(a). Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2020–0720–0058. July 22, 2021. 

14. EPA. Notes from Tribal Consultations on 

Forthcoming Proposed Rulemakings for 

Trichloroethylene (TCE) and 

Perchloroethylene (PCE). Document ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0720–0059. 

June 15, 2021 and July 8, 2021. 

15. Peter Sinsheimer; Green Analytics. 

Comments on Environmental Justice 

Consultation for TSCA PCE Risk 

Management of Dry Cleaning. Document 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0720– 

0060. August 20, 2021. 

16. Hans Kim; AQUA Wet Clean. Letter re: 

Environmental Justice Consultation 

USEPA TSCA PCE Risk Management. 

Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020– 

0720–0061. August 20, 2021. 

17. W. Heiger-Bernays and G. Nielsen. 

Comments on Environmental Justice 

Consultation #2 for TCE and PCE. 

Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020– 

0720–0062. July 5, 2021. 

18. Martin Argu ̈ ello; Physicians for Social 

Responsibility. USEPA EJ Consultation 

Meeting Comments on PCE and TCE 

TSCA Regulations. Document ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0720–0063. 

August 20, 2021. 

19. Sa Liu; School of Health Sciences Purdue 

University. Letter re: Environmental 

Justice Consultation on Forthcoming 

Proposed Rulemakings under TSCA 

Section 6(a). Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0064. August 20, 

2021. 

20. EPA. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis for Perchloroethylene; 

Regulation of Perchloroethylene under 

TSCA § 6(a) Proposed Rule; RIN 2070– 

AK84. Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0126. February 2023. 

21. EPA. Final Report of the Small Business 

Advocacy Review Panel on EPA’s 

Planned Proposed Rule Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA) Section 6(a) 

Perchloroethylene. Document ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0720–0066. 

February 1, 2023. 

22. EPA. Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (FRFA) for Perchloroethylene; 

Regulation under the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA). December 2024. 

23. EPA. Public Webinar on 

Perchloroethylene: Risk Evaluation and 

Risk Management under TSCA Section 6. 

Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020– 

0720–0002. January 14, 2021. https://

www.regulations.gov/document/EPAHQ-OPPT-2020-0720-0002. 

24. EPA. Small Business Administration 

Small Business Environmental 

Roundtable: Risk Evaluation and Risk 

Management under TSCA Section 6 for 

Perchloroethylene. Document ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0720–0004. 

January 15, 2021. 

25. EPA. Stakeholder Meeting List for 

Proposed Rulemaking for 

Perchloroethylene under TSCA Section 

6(a). Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2020–0720–0067. 

26. EPA. 2021 Policy on Children’s Health. 

Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020– 

0720–0068. October 5, 2021. 

27. EPA. Public Webinar on 

Perchloroethylene (PCE) Proposed 

Rulemaking under TSCA Section 6. July 

19, 2023. 

28. EPA. Stakeholder Meeting List for 

Proposed and Final Rulemaking for 

Perchloroethylene under TSCA Section 

6(a). 

29. EPA. Economic Analysis of the Proposed 

Regulation of Perchloroethylene. 

Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020– 

0720–0125. February 2023. 

30. BFK Solutions LLC. Comments on the 

Proposed Rulemaking for 

Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA). Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0255. August 14, 

2023. 

31. The Boeing Company. Comments on the 

Proposed Rulemaking for 

Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA). Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0278. August 15, 

2023. 

32. Chemical Users Coalition. Comments on 

the Proposed Rulemaking for 

Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA). Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0260. August 15, 

2023. 

33. American Chemistry Council. Comments 

on the Proposed Rulemaking for 

Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA). Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0275. August 15, 

2023. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103601 

34. Corteva Agriscience. Comments on the 

Proposed Rulemaking for 

Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA). Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0276. August 15, 

2023. 

35. EPA. Meeting with Corteva Agriscience 

on Risk Management under TSCA 

Section 6 and Perchloroethylene (PCE). 

September 28, 2023. 

36. Written Comments to OPPT on PCE Risk 

Management. Docket ID Nos.: EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2019–0502; EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2016–0732; EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0720. 

July 15, 2024. 

37. Dow Chemical. Comments on the 

Proposed Rulemaking for 

Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA). Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0284. August 15, 

2023. 

38. EPA. Meeting with Dow Chemical on 

Risk Management under TSCA Section 6 

and Perchloroethylene (PCE). September 

26, 2023. 

39. The Campus Safety Health and 

Environmental Management Association 

(CSHEMA). Comments on the Proposed 

Rulemaking for Perchloroethylene (PCE); 

Regulation Under the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA). Document ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0720–0248. 

August 10, 2023. 

40. Christopher Kolodziej. Comments on the 

Proposed Rulemaking for 

Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA). Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0256. August 15, 

2023. 

41. Purdue University. Comments on the 

Proposed Rulemaking for 

Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA). Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0241. July 21, 2023. 

42. Kristi Ohr. Comments on the Proposed 

Rulemaking for Perchloroethylene (PCE); 

Regulation Under the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA). Document ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0720–0213. June 

21, 2023. 

43. ANSI. ANSI/ASSP Z9.5–2022; Laboratory 

Ventilation. https://webstore.ansi.org/ 

standards/asse/ansiasspz92022?

source=blog&_gl=1*194rqnj*_gcl_

au*MjA3NzY5MzI1MS4

xNzExMDMzMDEz. 

44. ANSI. ANSI/ASHRAE 62.1–2022; 

Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air 

Quality. https://webstore.ansi.org/ 

standards/ashrae/ansiashrae622022. 

45. CRC Industries. Comments on the 

Proposed Rulemaking for 

Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA). Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0267. August 15, 

2023. 

46. Household and Commercial Products 

Association. Comments on the Proposed 

Rulemaking for Perchloroethylene (PCE); 

Regulation Under the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA). Document ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0720–0268. 

August 15, 2023. 

47. US Chamber of Commerce. Comments on 

the Proposed Rulemaking for 

Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA). Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0279. August 15, 

2023. 

48. American Petroleum Institute. Comments 

on the Proposed Rulemaking for 

Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA). Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0282. August 15, 

2023. 

49. Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance. 

Comments on the Proposed Rulemaking 

for Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA). Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0291. August 15, 

2023. 

50. National Steering Committee of the State 

Small Business Environmental 

Assistance Programs. Comments on the 

Proposed Rulemaking for 

Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA). Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0265. August 15, 

2023. 

51. National Fire Protection Association 

(NFPA). NFPA 70E Standard for 

Electrical Safety in the Workplace. 

https://www.nfpa.org/codes-andstandards/nfpa-70e-standarddevelopment/70e. 

52. EPA. Meeting with CRC Industries on 

Risk Management under TSCA Section 6 

and Perchloroethylene (PCE). October 

10, 2023. 

53. The Chemours Company. Comments on 

the Proposed Rulemaking for 

Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA). Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0273. August 15, 

2023. 

54. Honeywell. Comments on the Proposed 

Rulemaking for Perchloroethylene (PCE); 

Regulation Under the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA). Document ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0720–0254. 

August 14, 2023. 

55. American Chemistry Council. Comments 

on the Proposed Rulemaking for 

Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA). Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0288. August 15, 

2023. 

56. American Fuel & Petrochemical 

Manufacturers. Comments on the 

Proposed Rulemaking for 

Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA). Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0277. August 15, 

2023. 

57. Semiconductor Industry Association. 

Comments on the Proposed Rulemaking 

for Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA). Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0271. August 15, 

2021. 

58. NABTU AFL–CIO, and USW. Comments 

on the Proposed Rulemaking for 

Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA). Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0264. August 15, 

2023. 

59. et al. SAFECHEM. Comments on the 

Proposed Rulemaking for 

Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA). Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0257. August 15, 

2023. 

60. NIOSH. NIOSH Manual of Analytical 

Methods (NMAM), 5th Edition, Section 2 

(February 2020). https://www.cdc.gov/ 

niosh/nmam/pdfs/nmam_5thed_

ebook.pdf. 

61. Alliance for Automotive Innovation. 

Comments on the Proposed Rulemaking 

for Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA). Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0274. August 15, 

2023. 

62. MilliporeSigma. Comments on the 

Proposed Rulemaking for 

Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA). Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0247. August 10, 

2023. 

63. National Association of Chemical 

Distributors (NACD). Comments on the 

Proposed Rulemaking for 

Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA). Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0237. July 17, 2023. 

64. AIHA. Comments on the Proposed 

Rulemaking for Perchloroethylene (PCE); 

Regulation Under the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA). Document ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0720–0240. July 

19, 2023. 

65. Earthjustice et al. Comments on the 

Proposed Rulemaking for 

Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA). Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0289. August 15, 

2023. 

66. Environmental Defense Fund. Comments 

on the Proposed Rulemaking for 

Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA). Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0280. August 15, 

2023. 

67. EPA. Perchloroethylene (PCE): Risk 

Management Support Documents. 

Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020– 

0720–0076. November 18, 2022. 

68. Jean Warshaw. Comments on the 

Proposed Rulemaking for 

Perchloroethylene (PCE); Regulation 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA). Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0285. August 15, 

2023. 

69. OSHA. OSHA 1999 Multi-Employer 

Citation Policy. Accessed 10/27/2023. 

https://www.osha.gov/enforcement/ 

directives/cpl-02-00-124. 

70. EPA. Final Scope of the Risk Evaluation 

for 1,2-Dichloroethane. Document ID No. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
103602 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0720–0071. EPA 

Publication No. EPA–740–R–20–005. 

August 2020. https://

www.regulations.gov/document/EPAHQ-OPPT-2018-0427-0048. 

71. EPA. Existing Chemical Exposure Limit 

(ECEL) for Occupational Use of 

Perchloroethylene. Document ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0720–0043. April 

15, 2021. https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0720- 

0023. 

72. OSHA. Final Rule. Occupational 

Exposure to Methylene Chloride. 

Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020– 

0720–0073. Federal Register. 62 FR 

1494, January 10, 1997. 

73. 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. 

74. OSHA. Letter from OSHA. June 5, 2024. 

75. NIOSH. Letter from NIOSH. June 28, 

2024. 

76. NIOSH. Hierarchy of Controls. Document 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0720– 

0042. Page last reviewed: August 11, 

2022. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ 

hierarchy/. 

77. OSHA. Personal Protective Equipment. 

Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020– 

0720–0077. 2004. https://www.osha.gov/ 

sites/default/files/publications/ 

osha3151.pdf. 

78. EPA. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk 

Assessment. Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0072. March 2005. 

https://www.epa.gov/risk/guidelinescarcinogen-risk-assessment. 

79. EPA. Perchloroethylene: Fenceline 

Technical Support—Water Pathway. 

Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020– 

0720–0091. October 6, 2022. 

80. EPA. Perchloroethylene: Fenceline 

Technical Support—Air Pathway. 

Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020– 

0720–0092. December 8, 2022. 

81. EPA. Final Rule. National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Carbon Black Production and Cyanide 

Chemicals Manufacturing Residual Risk 

and Technology Reviews, and Carbon 

Black Production Area Source 

Technology Review. Federal Register. 86 

FR 66096, November 19, 2021 (FRL– 

7523–03–OAR). 

82. EPA. Exposure and Fate Assessment 

Screening Tool Version 2014 (E–FAST 

2014). Document ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2020–0720–0094. Washington, 

DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics. Last updated: February 17, 2022. 

https://www.epa.gov/tsca-screeningtools/e-fast-exposure-and-fateassessment-screening-tool-version-2014. 

83. National Water Quality Monitoring 

Council (NWQMC): Water Quality Portal. 

Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020– 

0720–0095. 2017. https://www.water

qualitydata.us/. 

84. William P.L. Carter. Development of the 

SAPRC–07 Chemical Mechanism and 

Updated Ozone Reactivity Scales. Center 

for Environmental Research and 

Technology, College of Engineering, 

University of California. Revised January 

27, 2010. 

85. EPA. Supporting Statement for an 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA); Regulation of Perchloroethylene 

under TSCA Section 6(a). (Final Rule; 

RIN 2070–AK84). EPA ICR No. 2740.02 

and OMB Control No. 2070–0233. 

December 2024. 

86. Kevin Ashley. Harmonization of NIOSH 

Sampling and Analytical Methods With 

Related International Voluntary 

Consensus Standards. Document ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0720–0101. J 

Occup Environ Hyg. 12(7): D107–15. 

June 11, 2015. https://www.ncbi.nlm.

nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4589148/. 

87. EPA. Notes from Environmental Justice 

Consultations on Forthcoming Proposed 

Rulemakings for Trichloroethylene (TCE) 

and Perchloroethylene (PCE). June 16 

and July 6, 2021. 

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 

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 rule will be 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. 2740.02, and OMB Control No. 

2070–0233 (Ref. 85).) The ICR is 

available in the docket and is briefly 

summarized here. The information 

collection requirements are not 

enforceable until OMB approves them. 

There are four primary provisions of 

the final rule that may increase burden 

under the PRA. The first is downstream 

notification, which would be carried out 

by updates to the relevant SDS and 

which will be required for 

manufacturers, processors, and 

distributors in commerce of PCE, who 

will provide notice to companies 

downstream upon shipment of PCE 

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 may 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 

development of documentation 

demonstrating eligibility for an 

exemption from the proposed 

prohibitions, and related 

recordkeeping). The third primary 

provision of the rule that is expected to 

increase burden under the PRA is 

information generation related to 

workplace requirements for laboratory 

use-related information and generation, 

(including development of 

documentation for a PPE program, 

related recordkeeping, and development 

of documentation demonstrating 

implementation of a properly 

functioning ventilated laboratory safety 

device). The fourth primary provision of 

the rule that is expected to increase 

burden under the PRA is information 

generation related to energized electrical 

cleaning, including self-certification, 

recordkeeping, and notification 

requirements (including development 

and documentation of those 

requirements under the specific 

prescriptive controls or WCPP and 

related recordkeeping; development of 

documentation of a self-certification 

statement and related recordkeeping; 

notification of self-certification; and 

labeling). 

Respondents/affected entities: 

Persons that manufacture, process, use, 

distribute in commerce, or dispose of 

PCE or products containing PCE. See 

also Unit I.A. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (TSCA section 6(a) and 40 

CFR part 751). 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103603 

Estimated number of respondents: 

157,760. 

Frequency of response: On occasion. 

Total estimated burden: 432,203 

hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 

CFR 1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: $34,515,086 (per 

year), includes $2,922,680 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’s 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 section 603 and 609(b) of 

the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., EPA 

prepared an IRFA for the 2023 PCE 

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 2023 PCE proposed 

rule (88 FR 39652, June 16, 2023) (FRL– 

8329–02–OCSPP). 

As required by section 604 of the 

RFA, EPA prepared a FRFA for this 

action (Ref. 22). The FRFA addresses 

issues raised by public comments on the 

IRFA for the 2023 PCE 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 of TSCA 6(a) (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. PCE was the subject of a risk 

evaluation under TSCA section 

6(b)(4)(A) that was issued in December 

2020. In addition, in December 2022, 

EPA issued a revised unreasonable risk 

determination that PCE 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 PCE no longer presents 

such risk. 

EPA developed this final rule after 

considering EPA’s unreasonable risk 

determination for PCE, information 

provided in public comments on the 

2023 PCE proposed rule, findings from 

and comments on the SBAR panel, other 

required consultations, and additional 

public outreach. For more information 

on the 2023 PCE proposed rule, SBAR 

panel, and outreach efforts for this 

action, see the docket for this 

rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020– 

0720). 

To address the identified 

unreasonable risk, this rule (1) prohibits 

most industrial and commercial uses 

and the manufacture (including import), 

processing and distribution in 

commerce, of PCE for those uses; (2) 

prohibits the manufacture (including 

import), processing, and distribution in 

commerce of PCE for all consumer use; 

(3) prohibits the manufacture (including 

import), processing, distribution in 

commerce, and use of PCE in dry 

cleaning and related spot cleaning 

through a 10-year phaseout; (4) requires 

a WCPP, including an inhalation 

exposure concentration limit, direct 

dermal contact controls, and related 

workplace exposure controls for many 

occupational conditions of use of PCE 

not prohibited; (5) require prescriptive 

workplace controls for laboratory use 

and energized electrical cleaner; (6) 

establish recordkeeping and 

downstream notification requirements; 

(7) provides certain time-limited 

exemptions from requirements for uses 

of PCE which are critical that have no 

technically feasible, safer alternative 

available; and (8) identifies a regulatory 

threshold for products containing PCE 

for the prohibitions and restrictions on 

PCE. 

2. Significant Issues Raised by the 

Public Comments in Response to the 

IRFA and EPA Response 

A summary of significant issues 

raised by comments about the IRFA 

(Ref. 20) and EPA’s response is in the 

Response to Comments document (Ref. 

8) in section 11.3. 

3. SBA Office of Advocacy Comments 

and EPA Response 

SBA Office of Advocacy provided 

comments on the 2023 PCE proposed 

rule (EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0720). A 

summary of these comments and EPA’s 

response is in the Response to 

Comments document (Ref. 8) in sections 

5.1.3, 5.3.2, 5.3.3, 5.8.2, 7.1, and 8.4.3. 

4. Estimate of the Number of Small 

Entities to Which the Final Rule Applies 

The final rule potentially affects small 

manufacturers (including importers), 

processors, distributors, retailers, users 

of PCE or of products containing PCE, 

and entities engaging in disposal. EPA 

estimates that the rule would affect 

approximately 157,760 firms using PCE, 

of which 154,683 small entities (based 

on SBA definitions in March 2023) have 

estimated impacts. EPA estimates that 

most small entities that use PCE use it 

in aerosol spray degreasing and 

cleaning; 119,523 in energized electrical 

cleaning and 26,050 in other aerosol 

spray cleaning/degreasing (include 

brake cleaners). An estimated 5,949 of 

these entities are commercial users of 

PCE in dry cleaning applications. Users 

of products containing PCE, including 

adhesives and sealants, liquid cleaners/ 

degreasers, mold cleaners, and other 

products also account for some of the 

affected small entities. EPA also 

estimates that 69 small entities use PCE 

in chemical milling, 87 use PCE in 

recycling and disposal, and 25 

incorporate PCE into other formulations, 

mixtures, and reaction products. For a 

full description of the estimated number 

of small entities affected by this rule, 

see the FRFA (Ref. 22). 

5. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping 

and Other Compliance Requirements of 

the Final Rule 

a. Compliance Requirements 

EPA is prohibiting most conditions of 

use of PCE. As described in the final 

rule, EPA is prohibiting all 

manufacturing (including import), 

processing, and distribution in 

commerce of PCE for consumer use. 

After the publication of the final rule, 

prohibitions on manufacturing, 

processing, and distribution in 

commerce of PCE for consumer use will 

occur in 540 days for manufacturers, 

630 days for processers, 720 days for 

distributing to retailers, and 810 days 

for all other distributors and retailers. 

EPA is also prohibiting most 

industrial and commercial uses and the 

manufacture (including import), 

processing and distribution in 

commerce of PCE for those uses. The 

prohibitions for these commercial uses 

will 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
103604 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

for each stage of the supply chain. After 

the publication of the final rule, 

prohibitions come into effect in 540 

days for manufacturers, 630 days for 

processers, 720 days for distributing to 

retailers, 810 days for all other 

distributors and retailers, and 900 days 

for industrial and commercial use. 

EPA is finalizing a prohibition 

compliance date for commercial use of 

PCE in any dry cleaning machine 

acquired 180 days or later after the 

publication of this final rule, followed 

by a prohibition on the use of PCE in 

3rd generation machines 3 years after 

the publication of this final rule. Full 

implementation of the phaseout will be 

achieved with a prohibition on the use 

of PCE in all dry cleaning and spot 

cleaning, including in 4th and 5th 

generation machines, 10 years after the 

publication of this final rule and a 

prohibition on the manufacturing, 

processing, and distribution in 

commerce of PCE for use in dry cleaning 

solvent 10 years after the publication of 

this final rule. 

For most other conditions of use that 

contribute to the unreasonable risk from 

PCE, EPA is finalizing a WCPP to 

address the unreasonable risk as 

outlined in Unit IV.B. The WCPP 

includes a combination of requirements 

to address unreasonable risk driven by 

inhalation and dermal exposures in the 

workplace. The PCE WCPP 

encompasses restrictions on certain 

occupational conditions of use and 

includes provisions for an ECEL, DDCC, 

and ancillary requirements to support 

implementation of these restrictions. 

Due to the low exposure level and 

stringent requirements in the WCPP that 

is necessary to address the unreasonable 

risk from PCE, EPA identified certain 

conditions of use where the Agency 

expects a WCPP can be successfully 

implemented. 

As described in Unit IV.B., the WCPP 

is non-prescriptive, in the sense that 

regulated entities are not required to use 

specific controls prescribed by EPA to 

achieve the exposure concentration 

limit. Rather, it is a performance-based 

exposure limit that enables owners or 

operators to determine how to most 

effectively meet the exposure limit 

based on conditions at their workplace. 

Exposures remaining at or below the 

ECEL would address any unreasonable 

risk of injury to health driven by 

inhalation exposures for occupational 

conditions of use. EPA’s requirements 

include the specific exposure limits that 

are required to meet the TSCA section 

6(a) standard to apply one or more 

requirements to the substance so that it 

no longer presents unreasonable risk, 

and also include ancillary requirements 

necessary for the ECEL’s successful 

implementation as part of a WCPP. 

EPA is also finalizing a requirement 

for specific prescriptive controls for the 

industrial and commercial use of PCE in 

laboratory chemicals and specific 

prescriptive controls for energized 

electrical cleaner as outlined in Unit 

IV.C. For laboratory use, EPA is 

requiring dermal PPE in combination 

with comprehensive training for tasks 

particularly related to the use of PCE in 

a laboratory setting for each potentially 

exposed person to direct dermal contact 

with PCE. Additionally, EPA is 

requiring the use of laboratory 

ventilation devices in workplaces 

engaged in the laboratory chemical 

condition of use. To support and 

demonstrate compliance, EPA is 

finalizing that each owner or operator of 

a laboratory workplace subject to the 

workplace controls for laboratory use 

requirements retain compliance records 

for five years. For energized electrical 

cleaner, EPA is requiring labeling, selfcertification, and either the WCPP or 

prescriptive controls that include 

respiratory and dermal PPE in 

combination with comprehensive 

training for tasks. 

EPA is not requiring reporting 

requirements beyond downstream 

notification or labeling (third-party 

notifications). Regarding recordkeeping 

requirements, three primary provisions 

of the final rule relate to recordkeeping. 

The first is recordkeeping of general 

records: all persons who manufacture, 

process, distribute in commerce, or 

engage in industrial or commercial use 

of PCE or PCE-containing products must 

maintain ordinary business records, 

such as invoices and bills-of-lading 

related to compliance with the 

prohibitions, restrictions, and other 

provisions of the regulation. The second 

is recordkeeping related to WCPP 

compliance: under the final rule, 

facilities complying with the rule 

through the WCPP are required to 

develop and maintain records 

associated with ECEL exposure 

monitoring (including measurements, 

compliance with GLP Standards or use 

of a laboratory accredited by the AIHA 

or another industry-recognized program 

and information regarding monitoring 

equipment); ECEL compliance 

(including the exposure control plan, 

PPE program implementation, and 

workplace information and training); 

DDCC compliance (including the 

exposure control plan, PPE program 

implementation, basis for specific PPE 

selection, occurrence and duration of 

direct dermal contact with PCE, and 

workplace information and training); 

and workplace participation. The third 

is recordkeeping for business entities 

complying with the prescriptive 

controls for laboratory use or for 

energized electrical cleaning. To 

support and demonstrate compliance, 

EPA is finalizing that each owner or 

operator of a workplace subject to the 

WCPP or specific prescriptive controls 

retain compliance records for five years. 

b. Classes of Small Entities Subject to 

the Compliance Requirements 

The small entities that would be 

potentially directly regulated by this 

rulemaking are small entities that 

manufacture (including import), 

process, distribute in commerce, use, or 

dispose of PCE, including retailers of 

PCE for end-consumer uses. 

c. Professional Skills Needed To 

Comply 

Entities subject to this rule that 

manufacture (including import), 

process, or distribute PCE in commerce 

for consumer use would be required to 

cease such activity. The entity would be 

required to modify their SDS to inform 

their customers of the prohibition on 

manufacture, processing, and 

distribution of PCE for consumer use. 

They would also be required to 

maintain ordinary business records, 

such as invoices and bills-of-lading, that 

demonstrate compliance with the 

prohibitions, restrictions, and other 

provisions of this final rule. None of 

these activities require any special 

skills. 

Entities that use PCE in any industrial 

and commercial capacity that is 

prohibited would be required to cease 

that activity. Restriction or prohibition 

of these uses will likely require the 

implementation of an alternative 

chemical or the cessation of use of PCE 

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 PCE may choose to 

contract with another entity to do so. 

Entities that are permitted to continue 

to manufacture, process, distribute, use 

(with the exception for use as a 

laboratory chemical or use in energized 

electrical cleaning), or dispose of PCE 

are required to implement a WCPP and 

would have to meet the provisions of 

the program for continued use of PCE. 

Entities that would be permitted to 

continue use of PCE as a laboratory 

chemical or in energized electrical 

cleaning are required to implement 

prescriptive workplace controls for 

those uses and would have to meet the 

provisions of the workplace restrictions 

for continued use of PCE. Adaption to 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103605 

a WCPP or prescriptive workplace 

controls 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 or workplace 

controls themselves, entities that use 

PCE may choose to contract with 

another entity to do so. Records would 

have to be maintained for compliance 

with a WCPP or workplace controls, as 

applicable. While this recording activity 

itself may not require a special skill, the 

information 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 PCE by inhalation to concentrations 

above the ECEL are required to be 

trained for the proper use of respirators. 

Potentially exposed persons reasonably 

likely to have direct dermal contact to 

PCE are required to be trained for proper 

use of dermal protection. While this 

does not necessarily entail a specialized 

skill, it does require specialized training 

for those handling PCE within regulated 

areas and includes activity-specific 

training for proper PPE use. 

6. Steps Taken To Minimize Economic 

Impact to Small Entities 

a. Small Business Advocacy Review 

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 October 27, 2022, 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. Ten 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 February 1, 2023. 

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 7.A. of the FRFA (Ref. 22). 

EPA detailed the SBAR Panel’s 

request for comment on these specific 

topics in the IRFA and 2023 PCE 

proposed rule 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 2023 PCE 

proposed rule and EPA’s responses are 

in the Response to Comments document 

in the docket (Ref. 8). 

b. Alternatives Considered 

To identify the regulatory approach 

that would address the unreasonable 

risk from PCE, 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 2023 PCE proposed rule, 

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 PCE on health 

and the environment, the magnitude of 

exposure to PCE of human beings and 

the environment, the benefits of PCE 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 PCE 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 2023 PCE proposed 

rule, and throughout Unit V.A. of the 

2023 PCE proposed rule. 

Based on consideration of public 

comments received on the 2023 PCE 

proposed rule, EPA has made some 

changes from the 2023 PCE proposed 

rule to the final rule. These changes 

include the finalization of additional 

conditions of use under the WCPP or 

prescriptive controls rather than 

prohibition, prohibition of additional 

conditions of use rather than the WCPP, 

and changes to compliance timeframes 

for prohibition and the WCPP. 

Additional changes to the rule based on 

consideration of public comments are 

detailed Unit III. of the final rule and 

include modifications to provisions of 

the WCPP. For additional information 

and rationale towards alternative 

actions, see Unit III.D. of this final rule 

and section 7.B. of the FRFA (Ref. 22). 

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 

(adjusted annually for inflation) or more 

(in 1995 dollars) 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 PCE. It is not expected 

to affect state, local, or Tribal 

governments because the use of PCE by 

government entities is minimal. The 

costs involved in this action are 

estimated not to exceed $183 million in 

2023$ ($100 million in 1995$ adjusted 

for inflation using the GDP implicit 

price deflator) or more in any one year. 

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 regulations 

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 background presentation on 

September 9, 2020, and a consultation 

meeting on July 22, 2021. EPA invited 

the following national organizations 

representing State and local elected 

officials to these meetings: American 

Water Works Association, Association 

of Clean Water Administrators, 

Association of Metropolitan Water 

Agencies, Association of State Drinking 

Water Administrators, Environmental 

Council of the States, National 

Association of Counties, National 

Conference of State Legislatures, 

National Governors Association, 

National League of Cities, National 

Water Resources Association, and 

United States Conference of Mayors. A 

summary of the meeting with these 

organizations, including the views that 

they expressed, is available in the 

docket (Ref. 13). 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, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
103606 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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. PCE is not manufactured, 

processed, or distributed in commerce 

by Tribes, and therefore, this 

rulemaking would not impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

Tribal governments. 

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 May 17, 2021, to August 20, 2021, 

with meetings on June 15, 2021, and 

July 8, 2021. 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 PCE, types of information to inform 

risk management, principles for 

transparency during risk management, 

and types of information EPA sought 

from Tribes (Ref. 14). 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. 14). 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 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) 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 PCE risk evaluation. 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. 

EPA’s Policy on Children’s Health 

applies to this action. Information on 

how the Policy was applied and on the 

action’s health and risk assessments are 

contained in Units III.A.3. and B.2., 

VI.A. and B., and the 2020 Risk 

Evaluation for PCE (Ref. 1) and the 

Economic Analysis for the 2023 PCE 

proposed rule (Ref. 3). 

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 

PCE. Consistent with the Agency’s 

Performance Based Measurement 

System (PBMS), EPA will not require 

the use of specific, prescribed analytic 

methods. Rather, the Agency plans to 

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 PCE 

at the ECEL and the ECEL action level. 

Some examples of methods which meet 

the criteria are included in appendix B 

of the ECEL memo (Ref. 71). EPA 

recognizes that there may be voluntary 

consensus standards that meet the 

criteria (Ref. 86). 

J. Executive Orders 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations and 14096: 

Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment 

to Environmental Justice for All 

EPA believes that the human health or 

environmental conditions that exist 

prior to this action 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 environmental justice 

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, including data from TRI, 

EPA Enforcement and Compliance 

History Online, National Air Toxics 

Assessment, 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 

more likely to be people of color than 

the general population in affected 

States, although this varied by use 

assessed. Additionally, based on 

reasonably available information, the 

Agency understands that most dry 

cleaning workers are members of 

minority populations. 

EPA believes that this action is likely 

to reduce existing disproportionate and 

adverse effect on communities with 

environmental justice concerns. This 

regulatory action would apply 

requirements to the extent necessary so 

that PCE no longer presents an 

unreasonable risk, EPA is not able to 

quantify the distribution of the change 

in risk across affected populations due 

to data limitations that prevented EPA 

from conducting a more comprehensive 

analysis of such a change. 

EPA additionally identified and 

addressed environmental justice 

concerns by conducting outreach to 

communities with environmental justice 

concerns. For example, on June 16 and 

July 6, 2021, EPA held public meetings 

as part of this consultation (Ref. 87). 

These meetings were held pursuant to 

and in compliance with Executive Order 

12898 and Executive Order 14008, 

Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and 

Abroad (86 FR 7619, February 1, 2021). 

EPA received five written comments 

following the EJ meetings, in addition to 

oral comments provided during the 

consultations. In general, commenters 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103607 

supported strong outreach to affected 

communities, encouraged EPA to follow 

the hierarchy of controls, favored 

prohibitions, and noted the uncertainty, 

and in some cases inadequacy, of PPE. 

Commenters also urged the EPA to 

extend the rulemaking into ongoing 

releases from hazardous waste and 

disposal sites, in particular vapor 

intrusion of PCE from contaminated 

groundwater, soil, and indoor air. 

Additionally, commenters expressed 

concern that the adverse health impacts 

of PCE dry cleaning fall 

disproportionately to owners and 

employees of minority owned small 

businesses, noted the viability of 

professional wet cleaning as an 

alternative to PCE dry cleaning, and 

urged EPA to consider economic 

impacts and a financial program to 

offset transition costs to local 

communities. 

The information supporting the 

review under Executive Order 12898 

and Executive Order 14096 is contained 

in Units I.E., II.D., III.A.1., VI.A., and in 

the Economic Analysis (Ref. 3). 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/materials-june-and-july2021-environmental-justice. These 

materials and a summary of the 

consultation 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 is not 

a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 751 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Export notification, Hazardous 

substances, Import certification, 

Reporting and recordkeeping. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

Therefore, for the reasons stated in the 

preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 751 

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 definitions for 

‘‘Designated representative,’’ ‘‘Direct 

dermal contact,’’ ‘‘ECEL,’’ and 

‘‘Exposure group’’ to read as follows: 

§ 751.5 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Designated representative means any 

individual or organization to whom a 

potentially exposed person gives written 

authorization to exercise a right of 

access. A recognized or certified 

collective bargaining agent must be 

treated automatically as a designated 

representative without regard to written 

authorization. 

Direct dermal contact means direct 

handling of a chemical substance or 

mixture or skin contact with surfaces 

that may be contaminated with a 

chemical substance or mixture. 

ECEL is an Existing Chemical 

Exposure Limit, and means an airborne 

concentration calculated as an eight (8)- 

hour time-weighted average (TWA). 

* * * * * 

Exposure group means a group of 

potentially exposed persons with a 

similar exposure profile to a chemical 

substance or mixture based on the 

substantial similarity of tasks 

performed, the manner in which the 

tasks are performed, and the materials 

and processes with which they work. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend part 751 by adding Subpart 

G to read as follows: 

Subpart G—Perchloroethylene (PCE) 

Sec. 

751.601 General. 

751.603 Definitions. 

751.605 Prohibitions of manufacturing, 

processing, distribution in commerce, 

and use. 

751.607 Workplace Chemical Protection 

Program (WCPP). 

751.609 Workplace requirements for 

laboratory use. 

751.611 Workplace requirements for 

energized electrical cleaner. 

751.613 Downstream notification. 

751.615 Recordkeeping requirements. 

751.617 Exemptions. 

§ 751.601 General. 

(a) Applicability. This Subpart 

establishes prohibitions and restrictions 

on the manufacture (including import), 

processing, distribution in commerce, 

use, and disposal of perchloroethylene 

(CASRN 127–18–4) (PCE), also known 

as tetrachloroethylene, to prevent 

unreasonable risk of injury to health in 

accordance with TSCA section 6(a). 

(b) Regulatory threshold. Unless 

otherwise specified in this Subpart, the 

prohibitions and restrictions of this 

Subpart do not apply to products 

containing PCE at thresholds less than 

0.1 percent by weight. 

(c) Owner and operator requirements. 

Any requirement for an owner or 

operator, or an owner and operator, is a 

requirement for any individual that is 

either an owner or an operator. 

§ 751.603 Definitions. 

The definitions in Subpart A of part 

751 apply to this Subpart unless 

otherwise specified in this section. In 

addition, the following definitions 

apply to this Subpart: 

3rd generation machine means a dryto-dry machine with a refrigerated 

condenser, as those terms are defined in 

40 CFR part 63, subpart M. 

4th or 5th generation machine means 

a dry-to-dry machine with a carbon 

adsorber and refrigerated condenser, as 

those terms are defined in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart M. 

Distribute in commerce has the same 

meaning as in section 3 of the Act, 

except that the term does not include 

retailers for purposes of §§ 751.613 and 

751.615. 

ECEL has the same meaning as in 

§ 751.5 and, for PCE, is an airborne 

concentration of PCE of 0.14 part per 

million (ppm). 

ECEL action level means a 

concentration of airborne PCE of 0.10 

part per million (ppm) calculated as an 

eight (8)-hour time-weighted average 

(TWA). 

Energized electrical cleaner means a 

product that meets both of the following 

criteria: (1) the product is labeled to 

clean and/or degrease electrical 

equipment, where cleaning and/or 

degreasing is accomplished when 

electrical current exists, or when there 

is a residual electrical potential from a 

component, such as a capacitor; and (2) 

the product label clearly displays the 

statements: ‘‘Energized Equipment use 

only. Not to be used for motorized 

vehicle maintenance, or their parts.’’ 

§ 751.605 Prohibitions of manufacturing, 

processing, distribution in commerce, and 

use. 

(a) Applicability. (1) The provisions of 

this section apply as indicated in 

paragraph (b) of this section to all 

manufacturing (including import), 

processing, and distribution in 

commerce of PCE for consumer use. 

(2) The provisions of this section 

apply as indicated in paragraph (b) of 

this section to: 

(i) All manufacturing (including 

import), processing, and distribution in 

commerce of PCE for industrial and 

commercial use, other than for the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
103608 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

industrial and commercial uses 

addressed under §§ 751.607(a), 

751.609(a), and 751.611(a), or covered 

by paragraph (a)(3) of this section; and 

(ii) All industrial and commercial use 

of PCE, other than the industrial and 

commercial uses addressed under 

§§ 751.607(a), 751.609(a), and 

751.611(a), or covered by paragraph 

(a)(3) of this section. 

(3) The provisions of this section 

apply as indicated in paragraph (b) of 

this section to all manufacturing 

(including import), processing, 

distribution in commerce, and 

industrial and commercial use of PCE in 

dry cleaning and related spot cleaning, 

including: 

(i) Industrial and commercial use in 

dry cleaning and related spot cleaning 

in 3rd generation machines; and 

(ii) Industrial and commercial use in 

dry cleaning and related spot cleaning 

in 4th and 5th generation machines. 

(4) This section does not apply to the 

distribution in commerce or use of 

clothing and articles that have been 

commercially dry cleaned with PCE. 

(5) This section does not apply to 

manufacturing, processing, or 

distribution in commerce of PCE solely 

for export that meets the conditions 

described in TSCA section 12(a)(1)(A) 

and (B). 

(b) Prohibitions. (1) After June 11, 

2026, all persons are prohibited from 

manufacturing (including importing) 

PCE for the uses listed in paragraphs 

(a)(1) and (a)(2)(ii) of this section. 

(2) After September 9, 2026, all 

persons are prohibited from processing 

PCE, including any PCE-containing 

products, for the uses listed in 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)(ii) of this 

section. 

(3) After December 8, 2026, all 

persons are prohibited from distributing 

in commerce (including making 

available) PCE, including any PCEcontaining products, to retailers for any 

use other than commercial dry cleaning. 

(4) After March 8, 2027, all retailers 

are prohibited from distributing in 

commerce (including making available) 

PCE, including any PCE-containing 

products. 

(5) After March 8, 2027, all persons 

are prohibited from distributing in 

commerce (including making available) 

PCE, including any PCE-containing 

products, for the uses described in 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)(ii) of this 

section. 

(6) After June 7, 2027, all persons are 

prohibited from industrial or 

commercial use of PCE, including any 

PCE-containing products, for the uses 

listed in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this 

section. 

(7) All persons are prohibited from 

industrial or commercial use of PCE in 

dry cleaning machines acquired after 

June 16, 2025. 

(8) After December 20, 2027, all 

persons are prohibited from industrial 

or commercial use of PCE for the use 

listed in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this 

section. 

(9) After December 19, 2034, all 

persons are prohibited from the 

manufacturing (including importing), 

processing, distribution in commerce, or 

industrial or commercial use of PCE for 

dry cleaning and spot cleaning, 

including for the use listed in paragraph 

(a)(3)(ii) of this section. 

(10) After December 19, 2034, all 

persons are prohibited from 

manufacturing (including import), 

processing, distribution in commerce, or 

use of PCE, including any PCE 

containing products, for industrial or 

commercial use in an emergency by the 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration or its contractors as 

described in § 751.117(b). 

§ 751.607 Workplace Chemical Protection 

Program (WCPP). 

(a) Applicability. The provisions of 

this section apply to the following 

conditions of use of PCE, including 

manufacturing and processing for 

export, unless otherwise indicated in 

this section, except to the extent the 

conditions of use are prohibited by 

§ 751.605: 

(1) Manufacturing (domestic 

manufacture); 

(2) Manufacturing (import); 

(3) Processing as a reactant/ 

intermediate; 

(4) Processing into formulation, 

mixture or reaction product; 

(5) Repackaging; 

(6) Industrial and commercial use as 

solvent for open-top batch vapor 

degreasing; 

(7) Industrial and commercial use as 

solvent for closed-loop batch vapor 

degreasing 

(8) Industrial and commercial use in 

maskant for chemical milling; 

(9) Industrial and commercial use in 

solvent-based adhesives and sealants; 

(10) Industrial and commercial use as 

a processing aid in catalyst regeneration 

in petrochemical manufacturing; 

(11) Industrial and commercial use as 

a processing aid in sectors other than 

petrochemical manufacturing; 

(12) Industrial and commercial use for 

cold cleaning of tanker vessels; 

(13) Recycling; and 

(14) Disposal. 

(b) Existing chemical exposure limit 

(ECEL)—(1) Applicability. The 

provisions of this paragraph (b) apply to 

any workplace engaged in a condition of 

use that is listed in paragraph (a)(1) 

through (12) of this section and not 

prohibited by § 751.605. 

(2) Eight-hour time-weighted average 

(TWA) ECEL. Beginning September 20, 

2027 for Federal agencies and Federal 

contractors acting for or on behalf of the 

Federal government, March 13, 2026 for 

non-Federal owners and operators, or 

beginning four months after 

introduction of PCE into the workplace 

if PCE use commences after December 

15, 2025, the owner or operator must 

ensure that no person is exposed to an 

airborne concentration of PCE in excess 

of the ECEL, consistent with the 

requirements of paragraph (d)(1)(i) of 

this section and, if necessary, paragraph 

(f) of this section. 

(3) Exposure monitoring—(i) General. 

(A) Owners or operators must 

determine each potentially exposed 

person’s exposure, without regard to 

respiratory protection, by either: 

(1) Taking a personal breathing zone 

air sample of each potentially exposed 

person’s exposure; or 

(2) Taking personal breathing zone air 

samples that are representative of the 8- 

hour TWA of each exposure group. 

(B) Personal breathing zone air 

samples are representative of the 8-hour 

TWA of all potentially exposed persons 

in an exposure group if the samples are 

of at least one person’s full-shift 

exposure who represents the highest 

potential PCE exposures in that 

exposure group. 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. 

(C) Exposure samples must be 

analyzed using an appropriate analytical 

method by a laboratory that complies 

with the Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) 

Standards in 40 CFR part 792 or a 

laboratory accredited by the American 

Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) 

or another industry-recognized program. 

(D) Owners or operators must ensure 

that methods used to perform exposure 

monitoring produce results that are 

accurate, to a confidence level of 95 

percent, to within plus or minus 25 

percent for airborne concentrations of 

PCE. 

(E) Owners and operators must remonitor within 15 working days after 

receipt of any exposure monitoring 

when results indicate non-detect, unless 

an Environmental Professional as 

defined at 40 CFR 312.10 or a Certified 

Industrial Hygienist reviews the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103609 

monitoring results and determines remonitoring is not necessary. 

(ii) Initial monitoring. By June 21, 

2027 for Federal agencies and Federal 

contractors acting for or on behalf of the 

Federal government, by December 15, 

2025 for non-Federal owners and 

operators, or within 30 days of 

introduction of PCE into the workplace, 

whichever is later, each owner or 

operator covered by this section must 

perform initial monitoring of potentially 

exposed persons. Where the owner or 

operator has monitoring results from 

monitoring conducted within five years 

prior to February 18, 2025 and the 

monitoring satisfies all other 

requirements of this section, the owner 

or operator may rely on such earlier 

monitoring results to satisfy the 

requirements of this paragraph. 

(iii) Periodic monitoring. The owner 

or operator must establish an exposure 

monitoring program for periodic 

monitoring of exposure to PCE in 

accordance with table 1. 

TABLE 1 TO § 751.607(b)(3)(iii)—PERIODIC MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

Air concentration condition Periodic monitoring requirement 

If initial exposure monitoring is below ECEL action level (<0.10 ppm 8- 

hour TWA).

Periodic exposure monitoring is required at least once every five years. 

If the most recent exposure monitoring indicates that airborne exposure 

is above the ECEL (>0.14 ppm 8-hour TWA).

Periodic exposure monitoring is required within three months of the 

most recent exposure monitoring. 

If the most recent exposure monitoring indicates that airborne exposure 

is at or above the ECEL action level but at or below the ECEL (≥0.10 

ppm 8-hour TWA, ≤0.14 ppm 8-hour TWA).

Periodic exposure monitoring is required within six months of the most 

recent exposure monitoring. 

If the two most recent (non-initial) exposure monitoring measurements, 

taken at least seven days apart within a 6 month period, indicate exposure is below the ECEL action level (<0.10 ppm 8-hour TWA).

Periodic exposure monitoring is required within five years of the most 

recent exposure monitoring. 

If the owner or operator engages in a condition of use for which WCPP 

ECEL is required but does not manufacture, process, use, or dispose 

of PCE in that condition of use over the entirety of time since the last 

required monitoring event.

The owner or operator may forgo the next periodic monitoring event. 

However, documentation of cessation of use of PCE is required; and 

periodic monitoring is required when the owner or operator resumes 

the condition of use. 

(iv) Additional monitoring. (A) The 

owner or operator must conduct the 

exposure monitoring required by 

paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section 

within 30 days after there has been a 

change in the production, process, 

control equipment, personnel or work 

practices that may reasonably be 

expected to result in new or additional 

exposures above the ECEL action level 

or when the owner or operator has any 

reason to believe that new or additional 

exposures above the ECEL action level 

have occurred. Prior monitoring data 

cannot be used to meet this 

requirement. 

(B) Whenever start-ups or shutdowns, 

or spills, leaks, ruptures or other 

breakdowns or unexpected releases 

occur that may lead to exposure to 

potentially exposed persons, the owner 

or operator must conduct the exposure 

monitoring required by paragraph 

(b)(3)(ii) of this section within 30 days 

after the conclusion of the start-up or 

shutdown and/or the cleanup of the 

spill or repair of the leak, rupture or 

other breakdown. Prior monitoring data 

cannot be used to meet this 

requirement. 

(v) Observation of monitoring. (A) 

Owners and operators must provide 

potentially exposed persons or their 

designated representatives an 

opportunity to observe any monitoring 

of occupational exposure to PCE that is 

conducted under this section and 

designed to characterize their exposure. 

(B) When monitoring observation 

requires entry into a regulated area, the 

owner or operator must provide the 

observers with the required PPE. 

(C) Only persons who are authorized 

to have access to facilities classified in 

the interest of national security must be 

permitted to observe exposure 

monitoring conducted in such facilities. 

(vi) Notification of monitoring results. 

(A) The owner or operator must inform 

each person whose exposures are 

monitored or who is part of a monitored 

exposure group and their designated 

representatives of any monitoring 

results within 15 working days of 

receipt of those monitoring results. 

(B) This notification must include the 

following: 

(1) Exposure monitoring results; 

(2) Identification and explanation of 

the ECEL and ECEL action level; 

(3) Statement of whether the 

monitored airborne concentration of 

PCE exceeds the ECEL action level or 

ECEL; 

(4) If the ECEL is exceeded, 

descriptions of any exposure controls 

implemented by the owner or operator 

to reduce exposures to or below the 

ECEL, as required by paragraph (d)(1) of 

this section; 

(5) Explanation of any respiratory 

protection provided in accordance with 

paragraphs (b)(4)(iv), (d)(1)(i), and (f) of 

this section; 

(6) Quantity of PCE in use at the time 

of monitoring; 

(7) Location of PCE use at the time of 

monitoring; 

(8) Manner of PCE use at the time of 

monitoring; and 

(9) Identified releases of PCE. 

(C) Notice must be written in plain 

language and either provided to each 

potentially exposed person and their 

designated representatives individually 

in a language that the person 

understands, 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. 

(4) Regulated areas—(i) 

Establishment. By September 20, 2027 

for Federal agencies and Federal 

contractors acting for or on behalf of the 

Federal government and by March 13, 

2026 for non-Federal owners and 

operators, or within three months after 

receipt of any exposure monitoring that 

indicates exposures exceeding the 

ECEL, the owner or operator must 

establish and maintain a regulated area 

wherever airborne concentrations of 

PCE exceed or can reasonably be 

expected to exceed, the ECEL. 

(ii) Access. The owner or operator 

must limit access to regulated areas to 

authorized persons. 

(iii) Demarcation. The owner or 

operator must demarcate regulated areas 

from the rest of the workplace in a 

manner that adequately establishes and 

alerts persons to the boundaries of the 

area and minimizes the number of 

authorized persons exposed to PCE 

within the regulated area. 

(iv) Provisions of respirators. (A) The 

owner or operator must ensure that each 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
103610 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

person who enters a regulated area is 

supplied with a respirator selected in 

accordance with paragraph (f) of this 

section and must ensure that all persons 

within the regulated area are using the 

provided respirators whenever PCE 

exposures may exceed the ECEL. 

(B) An owner or operator who has 

implemented all feasible controls as 

required in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this 

section, and who has established a 

regulated area as required by paragraph 

(b)(4)(i) of this section where PCE 

exposure can be reliably predicted to 

exceed the ECEL only on certain days 

(for example, because of work or process 

schedule) must have persons use 

respirators in that regulated area on 

those days. 

(v) Prohibited activities. (A) The 

owner or operator must ensure that, 

within a regulated area, persons do not 

engage in non-work activities which 

may increase PCE exposure. 

(B) The owner or operator must 

ensure that while persons are wearing 

respirators in the regulated area, they do 

not engage in activities which interfere 

with respirator performance. 

(c) DDCC. Beginning September 20, 

2027 for Federal agencies and Federal 

contractors acting for or on behalf of the 

Federal government and beginning 

March 13, 2026 for non-Federal owners 

and operators, owners or operators must 

ensure that all persons are separated, 

distanced, physically removed, or 

isolated from direct dermal contact with 

PCE consistent with the requirements of 

paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section and, 

if necessary, paragraph (f) of this 

section. 

(d) Exposure control procedures and 

plan—(1) Methods of compliance—(i) 

ECEL. (A) By December 20, 2027 for 

Federal agencies and Federal 

contractors acting for or on behalf of the 

Federal government, or by June 7, 2027 

for non-Federal owners and operators, 

the owner or operator must institute one 

or a combination of elimination, 

substitution, engineering controls, or 

administrative controls to reduce 

exposure to or below the ECEL except 

to the extent that the owner or operator 

can demonstrate that such controls are 

not feasible, in accordance with the 

hierarchy of controls. 

(B) If the feasible controls required 

under paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A) of this 

section that can be instituted do not 

reduce exposures for potentially 

exposed persons to or below the ECEL, 

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. 

(C) Where an owner or operator 

cannot demonstrate exposure to PCE has 

been reduced to or below the ECEL 

through the use of controls required 

under paragraphs (d)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of 

this section, and has not demonstrated 

that it has appropriately supplemented 

with respiratory protection that 

complies with the requirements of 

paragraph (f) of this section, this will 

constitute a failure to comply with the 

ECEL. 

(ii) DDCC requirements. (A) By 

December 20, 2027 for Federal agencies 

and Federal contractors acting for or on 

behalf of the Federal government, or by 

June 7, 2027 for non-Federal owners and 

operators, the owner or operator must 

institute one or a combination of 

elimination, substitution, engineering 

controls, or administrative controls to 

prevent all persons from direct dermal 

contact with PCE except to the extent 

that the owner or operator can 

demonstrate that such controls are not 

feasible. 

(B) If the feasible controls required 

under paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(A) of this 

section that can be instituted do not 

prevent direct dermal contact, then the 

owner or operator must use such 

controls to reduce direct dermal contact 

to the extent achievable by these 

controls and must supplement those 

controls with the use of dermal 

protection that complies with the 

requirements of paragraph (f) of this 

section. 

(C) Where an owner or operator 

cannot demonstrate direct dermal 

contact to PCE is prevented through the 

use of controls required under 

paragraphs (d)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this 

section, and has not demonstrated that 

it has appropriately supplemented with 

dermal protection that complies with 

the requirements of paragraph (f) of this 

section, this will constitute a failure to 

comply with the direct dermal contact 

control requirements. 

(2) Exposure control plan. By 

December 20, 2027 for Federal agencies 

and Federal contractors acting for or on 

behalf of the Federal government, or by 

June 7, 2027 for non-Federal owners and 

operators, each owner and operator 

must establish 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 paragraphs (d)(1)(i)(A) 

and (d)(1)(ii)(A) of this section, in the 

following sequence: elimination, 

substitution, engineering controls 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 

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) 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 PCE, 

or otherwise result in increased 

exposure to PCE, including procedures 

for implementing corrective actions to 

mitigate exposure to PCE. 

(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 this paragraph 

(d). 

(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 (b) through 

(d) of this section. 

(iii) Availability of exposure control 

plan. (A) Owners or operators must 

make the exposure control plan and 

associated records, including ECEL 

exposure monitoring records, ECEL 

compliance records, DDCC compliance 

records, and workplace participation 

records described in § 751.615(b), 

available to potentially exposed persons 

and their designated representatives. 

(B) Owners or operators must notify 

potentially exposed persons and their 

designated representatives of the 

availability of the exposure control plan 

and associated records within 30 days of 

the date that the exposure control plan 

is completed and at least annually 

thereafter. 

(C) Notice of the availability of the 

exposure control plan and associated 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103611 

records must be provided in plain 

language writing to each potentially 

exposed person in a language that the 

person understands 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. 

(D) Upon request by the potentially 

exposed person or their designated 

representative(s), 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 

working days, the owner or operator 

must, within those 15 working days, 

inform the potentially exposed person 

or designated representative(s) 

requesting the record(s) of the reason for 

the delay and the earliest date when the 

record will be made available. 

(e) Workplace information and 

training. (1) By March 13, 2026, the 

owner or operator must institute a 

training program and ensure that 

persons potentially exposed to PCE 

participate in the program according to 

the requirements of this paragraph (e). 

(2) The owner or operator must ensure 

that each potentially exposed person is 

trained prior to or at the time of a 

potential exposure to PCE. 

(3) The owner or operator must ensure 

that information and training is 

presented in a manner that is 

understandable to each person required 

to be trained. 

(4) The following information and 

training must be provided to all persons 

potentially exposed to PCE: 

(i) The requirements of this section, as 

well as how to access or obtain a copy 

of these requirements in the workplace; 

(ii) The quantity, location, manner of 

use, release, and storage of PCE and the 

specific operations in the workplace 

that could result in exposure to PCE, 

particularly noting where each regulated 

area is located; 

(iii) Methods and observations that 

may be used to detect the presence or 

release of PCE in the workplace (such as 

monitoring conducted by the owner or 

operator, continuous monitoring 

devices, visual appearance or odor of 

PCE when being released); 

(iv) The acute and chronic health 

hazards of PCE as detailed on relevant 

Safety Data Sheets; and 

(v) The principles of safe use and 

handling of PCE and measures 

potentially exposed persons can take to 

protect themselves from PCE, including 

specific procedures the owner or 

operator has implemented to protect 

potentially exposed persons from 

exposure to PCE, such as appropriate 

work practices, emergency procedures, 

and personal protective equipment to be 

used. 

(5) The owner or operator must retrain each potentially exposed person 

annually to ensure that each such 

person maintains the requisite 

understanding of the principles of safe 

use and handling of PCE in the 

workplace. 

(6) Whenever there are workplace 

changes, such as modifications of tasks 

or procedures or the institution of new 

tasks or procedures, that increase 

exposure, and where such exposure 

exceeds or can reasonably be expected 

to exceed the ECEL action level or 

increase potential for direct dermal 

contact, the owner or operator must 

update the training and ensure that each 

potentially exposed person is re-trained. 

(f) Personal protective equipment 

(PPE)—(1) Protection. The provisions of 

paragraph (f) apply to any owner or 

operator that is required to provide 

respiratory protection pursuant to 

paragraphs (b)(4)(iv) or (d)(1)(i)(B) of 

this section or § 751.611(b), or dermal 

protection pursuant to paragraphs (c) or 

(d)(1)(ii)(B) of this section, 

§ 751.609(b)(2), or § 751.611(b). 

(2) Respiratory protection. (i) By 

September 20, 2027 for Federal agencies 

and Federal contractors acting for or on 

behalf of the Federal government, by 

March 13, 2026 for non-Federal owners 

and operators, or within three months 

after receipt of any exposure monitoring 

that indicates exposures exceeding the 

ECEL, if an owner or operator is 

required to provide respiratory 

protection pursuant to paragraph (f)(1) 

of this section, the owner or operator 

must ensure that each potentially 

exposed person is provided with a 

respirator according to the requirements 

of this section. 

(ii) For purposes of this paragraph 

(f)(2), cross-referenced provisions in 29 

CFR 1910.134 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. Other terms in crossreferenced provisions in 29 CFR 

1910.134 that are defined in 29 CFR 

1910.134(b) have the meaning assigned 

to them in that paragraph. 

(iii) By September 20, 2027 for 

Federal agencies and Federal 

contractors acting for or on behalf of the 

Federal government, or by March 13, 

2026 for non-Federal owners and 

operators, or within three months after 

receipt of any exposure monitoring that 

indicates exposures exceeding the 

ECEL, if an owner or operator is 

required to provide respiratory 

protection pursuant to paragraph (f)(1) 

of this section, the owner or operator 

must develop and administer a written 

respiratory protection program 

consistent with the requirements of 29 

CFR 1910.134(c)(1), (c)(3) and (c)(4). 

(iv) Owners and operators must select 

respiratory protection required by 

paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section based 

on a medical evaluation consistent with 

the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.134(e). 

If a potentially exposed person cannot 

use a negative-pressure respirator that 

would otherwise be required by 

paragraph (f)(1) of this section, then the 

owner or operator must provide that 

person with an alternative respirator. 

The alternative respirator must have less 

breathing resistance than the negativepressure respirator and provide 

equivalent or greater protection. If the 

person is unable to use an alternative 

respirator, then the person must not be 

permitted to enter the regulated area. 

(v) Owners and operators must select 

respiratory protection that properly fits 

each affected person and communicate 

respirator selections to each affected 

person consistent with the requirements 

of 29 CFR 1910.134(f),1910.134 App A. 

(vi) Owners and operators must 

provide, ensure use of, and maintain (in 

a sanitary, reliable, and undamaged 

condition) respiratory protection that is 

of safe design and construction for the 

applicable condition of use consistent 

with the requirements of 29 CFR 

1910.134(g) through (j),1910.134 App. 

B–1 to B–2. 

(vii) Prior to or at the time of initial 

assignment to a job involving potential 

exposure to PCE, owners and operators 

must provide training to all persons 

required to use respiratory protection 

consistent with 29 CFR 1910.134(k), 

1910.134 App. D. 

(viii) Owners and operators must 

retrain all persons required to use PPE 

at least annually, or whenever the 

owner or operator has reason to believe 

that a previously trained person does 

not have the required understanding 

and skill to properly use PPE, or when 

changes in the workplace or in PPE to 

be used render the previous training 

obsolete. 

(ix) Owners or operators must select 

and provide to persons appropriate 

respirators as indicated by the most 

recent monitoring results as follows: 

(A) If the measured exposure 

concentration is at or below 0.14 ppm: 

no respiratory protection is required. 

(B) If the measured exposure 

concentration is above 0.14 ppm and 

less than or equal to 1.4 ppm (10 times 

ECEL): Any National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
103612 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(NIOSH) Approved® air-purifying half 

mask respirator equipped with organic 

vapor cartridges or canisters; or any 

NIOSH Approved® Supplied-Air 

Respirator (SAR) or Airline Respirator 

operated in demand mode equipped 

with a half mask; or any NIOSH 

Approved® Self-Contained Breathing 

Apparatus (SCBA) in a demand mode 

equipped with a half mask [APF 10]. 

(C) If the measured exposure 

concentration is above 1.4 ppm and less 

than or equal to 3.5 ppm (25 times 

ECEL): Any NIOSH Approved® Powered 

Air-Purifying Respirator (PAPR) 

equipped with a loose-fitting facepiece 

or hood/helmet equipped with organic 

vapor cartridges or canisters; or any 

NIOSH Approved® SAR or Airline 

Respirator in a continuous-flow mode 

equipped with a loose-fitting facepiece 

or helmet/hood [APF 25]. 

(D) If the measured exposure 

concentration is above 3.5 ppm and less 

than or equal to 7.0 ppm (50 times 

ECEL): Any NIOSH Approved® airpurifying full facepiece respirator 

equipped with organic vapor cartridges 

or canisters; any NIOSH Approved®

PAPR with a half mask equipped with 

organic vapor cartridges or canisters; 

any NIOSH Approved® SAR or Airline 

Respirator in a continuous flow mode 

equipped with a half mask; any NIOSH 

Approved® SAR or Airline Respirator 

operated in a pressure-demand or other 

positive-pressure mode with a half 

mask; or any NIOSH Approved® SCBA 

in demand-mode equipped with a full 

facepiece or helmet/hood [APF 50]. 

(E) If the measured exposure 

concentration is above 7.0 ppm and less 

than or equal to 140 ppm (1,000 times 

ECEL): Any NIOSH Approved® PAPR 

equipped with a full facepiece equipped 

with organic vapor cartridges or 

canisters; any NIOSH Approved® SAR 

or Airline Respirator in a continuousflow mode equipped with full facepiece; 

any NIOSH Approved® SAR or Airline 

Respirator in pressure-demand or other 

positive-pressure mode equipped with a 

full facepiece and an auxiliary selfcontained air supply; or any NIOSH 

Approved® SAR or Airline Respirator in 

a continuous-flow mode equipped with 

a helmet or hood and that has been 

tested to demonstrated performance at a 

level of a protection of APF 1,000 or 

greater [APF 1000]. 

(F) If the measured exposure 

concentration is greater than 140 ppm 

(1,000+ times ECEL): Any NIOSH 

Approved® Self-Contained Breathing 

Apparatus (SCBA) in a pressure-demand 

or other positive-pressure mode 

equipped with a full facepiece or 

helmet/hood [APF 10,000]. 

(G) If the exposure concentration is 

unknown: Any NIOSH Approved®

combination supplied air respirator 

equipped with a full facepiece and 

operated in pressure demand or other 

positive pressure mode with an 

auxiliary self-contained air supply; or 

any NIOSH Approved® SCBA operated 

in pressure demand or other positive 

pressure mode and equipped with a full 

facepiece or hood/helmet [APF 1000+]. 

(x) Owners and operators must select 

and provide respirators as required in 

paragraph (f)(2) of this section 

consistent with the requirements of 29 

CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iv), and with 

consideration of workplace and user 

factors that affect respirator performance 

and reliability. 

(xi) Owners and operators who select 

air-purifying respirators must either: 

(A) Select respirators that have an 

end-of-service-life indicator (ESLI) that 

is NIOSH Approved® for PCE; or 

(B) Implement a change schedule for 

canisters and cartridges based on 

objective information or data that 

ensures that canisters and cartridges are 

changed before the end of their service 

life. The written respiratory protection 

program required by paragraph (f)(2)(iii) 

of this section must include a 

description of the information and data 

relied upon, the basis for reliance on the 

information and data, and the basis for 

the canister and cartridge change 

schedule. 

(xii) Owners and operators must 

ensure that respirators are used in 

compliance with the terms of the 

respirator’s NIOSH certification. 

(xiii) Owners and operators must 

conduct regular evaluations of the 

workplace, including consultations with 

potentially exposed persons using 

respiratory protection, consistent with 

the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.134(l), 

to ensure that the provisions of the 

written respiratory protection program 

required under paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of 

this section are being effectively 

implemented. 

(xiv) The respiratory protection 

requirements in this paragraph (f)(2) 

represent the minimum respiratory 

protection requirements, such that any 

respirator affording a higher degree of 

protection than the required respirator 

may be used. 

(3) Dermal protection. (i) By 

September 20, 2027 for Federal agencies 

and Federal contractors acting for or on 

behalf of the Federal government, or by 

March 13, 2026 for non-Federal owners 

and operators, if an owner or operator 

is required to provide dermal protection 

pursuant to paragraph (f)(1) of this 

section, the owner or operators must 

ensure that each potentially exposed 

person is provided with dermal PPE 

according to the requirements of this 

section. 

(ii) Owners or operators must supply 

and require the donning of dermal PPE 

that separates and provides a barrier to 

prevent direct dermal contact with PCE 

in the specific work area where it is 

selected for use, selected in accordance 

with this paragraph (f)(3) and provided 

in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.132(h), 

to each person who is reasonably likely 

to be dermally exposed in the work area 

through direct dermal contact with PCE. 

For the purposes of this paragraph 

(f)(3)(ii), provisions in 29 CFR 

1910.132(h) applying to an ‘‘employee’’ 

also apply equally to potentially 

exposed persons, and provisions 

applying to an ‘‘employer’’ also apply 

equally to owners or operators. 

(iii) Owners or operators must select 

and provide dermal PPE in accordance 

with 29 CFR 1910.133(b) and 

additionally as specified in this 

paragraph (f)(3) to each person who is 

reasonably likely to be dermally 

exposed in the work area through direct 

dermal contact with PCE. For the 

purposes of this paragraph (f)(3)(iii), 

provisions in 29 CFR 1910.133(b) 

applying to an ‘‘employer’’ also apply 

equally to owners or operators. 

(iv) Owners or operators must select 

and provide to persons appropriate 

dermal PPE based on an evaluation of 

the performance characteristics of the 

PPE relative to the task(s) to be 

performed, conditions present, and the 

duration of use. Replacement PPE must 

be provided immediately if any person 

is dermally exposed to PCE longer than 

the breakthrough time period for which 

testing has demonstrated that the PPE 

will be impermeable or if there is a 

chemical permeation or breakage of the 

PPE. Dermal PPE must include, but is 

not limited to, the following items: 

(A) Impervious gloves selected based 

on specifications from the manufacturer 

or supplier or by individually prepared 

third-party testing. 

(B) Impervious clothing covering the 

exposed areas of the body (e.g., long 

pants, long sleeved shirt). 

(v) Owners or operators must 

demonstrate that each item of gloves 

and other clothing selected provides an 

impervious barrier to prevent direct 

dermal contact with PCE during normal 

and expected duration and conditions of 

exposure within the work area by 

evaluating the specifications from the 

manufacturer or supplier or 

individually prepared third-party 

testing of the dermal PPE or of the 

material used in construction of the 

dermal PPE, to establish that the dermal 

PPE will be impervious to PCE alone 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103613 

and in likely combination with other 

chemical substances in the work area. 

(vi) Dermal PPE that is of safe design 

and construction for the work to be 

performed must be provided, used, and 

maintained in a sanitary, reliable, and 

undamaged condition. Owners and 

operators must select PPE that properly 

fits each affected person and 

communicate PPE selections to each 

affected person. 

(vii) Owners or operators must 

provide training in accordance with 29 

CFR 1910.132(f) to all persons required 

to use dermal protection prior to or at 

the time of initial assignment to a job 

involving exposure to PCE. For the 

purposes of this paragraph (f)(3)(vii), 

provisions in 29 CFR 1910.132(f) 

applying to an ‘‘employee’’ also apply 

equally to potentially exposed persons, 

and provisions applying to an 

‘‘employer’’ also apply equally to 

owners or operators. 

(viii) Owners and operators must 

retrain each person required to use 

dermal protection at least annually or 

whenever the owner or operator has 

reason to believe that a previously 

trained person does not have the 

required understanding and skill to 

properly use dermal protection, or when 

changes in the workplace or in dermal 

protection to be used render the 

previous training obsolete. 

§ 751.609 Workplace requirements for 

laboratory use 

(a) Applicability. The provisions of 

this section apply to the industrial and 

commercial use of PCE as a laboratory 

chemical. 

(b) Laboratory use requirements. (1) 

After December 15, 2025, owners or 

operators must ensure laboratory 

ventilation devices such as fume hoods 

or glove boxes are in use and 

functioning properly and that specific 

measures are taken to ensure proper and 

adequate performance of such 

equipment to minimize exposures to 

potentially exposed persons in the area 

when PCE is used in a laboratory 

setting. 

(2) After December 15, 2025, owners 

or operators must ensure that all 

persons reasonably likely to be exposed 

from direct dermal contact to PCE in a 

laboratory setting are provided with 

dermal personal protective equipment 

and training on proper use of PPE in a 

manner consistent with § 751.607(f)(3), 

except that the date listed in paragraph 

(f)(3)(i) does not apply. 

§ 751.611 Workplace requirements for 

energized electrical cleaner. 

(a) Applicability. The provisions of 

this section apply as indicated in 

paragraphs (b) through (d) of this 

section to: 

(1) All manufacturing (including 

importing), processing, and distribution 

in commerce of PCE for industrial and 

commercial use as energized electrical 

cleaner, and 

(2) Industrial and commercial use of 

PCE as energized electrical cleaner. 

(b) Energized electrical cleaner 

requirements. The provisions of this 

paragraph (b) apply to any workplace 

engaged in the condition of use listed in 

paragraph (a)(2). 

(1) PPE. (i) The provisions of this 

paragraph (b)(1) apply after March 13, 

2026. 

(ii) Owners or operators must ensure 

that all potentially exposed persons 

using PCE, including any PCE 

containing products, are provided with 

dermal PPE and training on proper use 

of PPE in accordance with 

§ 751.607(f)(3). 

(iii) If any of the criteria in paragraphs 

(b)(1)(iii)(A) or (B) are met, then owners 

or operators must ensure that all 

persons using PCE, including any PCE 

containing products, are provided with 

respiratory PPE and training on proper 

use of PPE in accordance with 

§ 751.607(f)(2), except that instead of 

selecting appropriate respirators based 

on monitoring results pursuant to 

paragraph (f)(2)(ix), owners or operators 

must select from and provide the 

following types of respirators: any 

NIOSH Approved® air-purifying full 

facepiece respirator equipped with 

organic vapor cartridges or canisters; 

any NIOSH Approved® PAPR with a 

half mask equipped with organic vapor 

cartridges or canisters; any NIOSH 

Approved® SAR or Airline Respirator in 

a continuous flow mode equipped with 

a half mask; any NIOSH Approved®

SAR or Airline Respirator operated in a 

pressure-demand or other positivepressure mode with a half mask; any 

NIOSH Approved® SCBA in demandmode equipped with a full facepiece or 

helmet/hood [APF 50]; or any respirator 

affording a higher degree of protection. 

(A) The potentially exposed person is 

in a confined space, as defined in 29 

CFR 1910.146(b), or in an enclosed 

space, as described in 29 CFR 

1910.269(e); or 

(B) The potentially exposed person 

approaches the exposed energized 

equipment closer than the employer’s 

established minimum approach distance 

required under 29 CFR 1910.269(l)(3) or 

when there is no established minimum 

approach distance. 

(2) Alternative to PPE requirements. 

(i) As an alternative to the requirements 

in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the 

owner or operator may choose to follow 

the WCPP provisions in § 751.607. 

(ii) Owners or operators who choose 

to follow the WCPP as an alternative to 

the requirements in paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section must: 

(A) Document and maintain a 

statement that they are electing to 

comply with the WCPP. 

(B) Comply with the WCPP provisions 

in § 751.607 and document compliance 

in accordance with § 751.615(b). 

(c) Label. After March 13, 2026, all 

manufacturers (including importers), 

processors and distributors in commerce 

of PCE or PCE-containing products for 

industrial and commercial use as 

energized electrical cleaner must 

provide a label securely attached to each 

product. Label information must be 

prominently displayed and in an easily 

readable font size, with the sentences: 

‘‘This product contains 

perchloroethylene (PCE) (CASRN 127– 

18–4), a chemical determined by the 

Environmental Protection Agency to 

present unreasonable risk of injury to 

health under the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA), based on 

neurotoxicity and other adverse health 

effects. The use of PCE is restricted 

under 40 CFR part 751, subpart G. This 

product is for Energized Equipment use 

only. Not to be used for motorized 

vehicle maintenance, or their parts.’’ 

(d) Self-certification. After March 13, 

2026, the owner or operator of the 

business entity purchasing and using 

PCE, including any PCE containing 

products, for the industrial and 

commercial use as energized electrical 

cleaner must self-certify that use is in 

compliance with requirements of 

paragraph (b) of this section with the 

following written statement. 

(1) The self-certification must include 

the following written statement: 

I certify each of the following statements 

under penalty of law. This document was 

prepared under my direction and 

supervision. This energized electrical cleaner 

will be used for energized equipment use 

only. This business entity has implemented 

and complies with the EPA requirements for 

the use of energized electrical cleaner that 

contains perchloroethylene under 40 CFR 

751.611 and only trained and qualified 

persons will handle the energized electrical 

cleaner. Based on my inquiry of the person 

or persons who manages this business entity 

and/or those persons directly responsible for 

implementing the EPA requirements for 

energized electrical cleaner that contains 

perchloroethylene, and to the best of my 

knowledge and belief, this business entity is 

in compliance with the EPA requirements for 

energized electrical cleaner. I am aware that 

there are significant penalties, including the 

possibility of civil penalties for failing to 

comply with these requirements and criminal 

fines and imprisonment, for knowingly 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
103614 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

failing to comply with these requirements. I 

understand that this certification shall serve 

as a certification that this business entity will 

properly implement and comply with the 

EPA requirements for energized electrical 

cleaner consistent with the applicable 

regulatory timelines. 

(2) The self-certification must also 

include the following: 

(i) Printed name and signature, job 

classification, title, email address, and 

phone number of the owner or operator 

who is self-certifying. 

(ii) Date of self-certification. 

(iii) Name and address of the business 

entity. 

(iv) Indication of whether this is the 

business entity’s first purchase of PCE, 

including PCE containing products, 

after publication of the final rule. 

(3) Owners or operators or persons 

specifically authorized by the owner or 

operator to purchase energized electrical 

cleaner must provide a copy of the selfcertification statement for each business 

entity to the distributor from whom 

PCE, including PCE containing 

products, is being purchased, for every 

purchase. 

(4) Distributors of PCE, including PCE 

containing products, must review the 

self-certification statement to ensure it 

is appropriately completed to include 

the owner or operator’s and the business 

entity’s information required by this 

section. 

(5) Distributors of PCE, including PCE 

containing products, must have a 

complete and valid self-certification 

statement in accordance with this 

section for each sale of PCE, including 

PCE containing products, for use in 

energized electrical cleaning. 

§ 751.613 Downstream notification. 

(a) Beginning on February 18, 2025, 

each person who manufactures 

(including imports) PCE for any use 

must, prior to or concurrent with the 

shipment, notify companies to whom 

PCE is shipped, in writing, of the 

restrictions described in this Subpart in 

accordance with paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(b) Beginning on June 16, 2025, each 

person who processes or distributes in 

commerce PCE or any PCE-containing 

products for any use must, prior to or 

concurrent with the shipment, notify 

companies to whom PCE is shipped, in 

writing, of the restrictions described in 

this Subpart in accordance with 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(c) The notification required under 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section 

must occur by inserting the following 

text in Section 1(c) and 15 of the Safety 

Data Sheet (SDS) provided with the PCE 

or with any PCE-containing product: 

After December 8, 2026 this chemical 

substance (as defined in TSCA section 3(2))/ 

product cannot be distributed in commerce 

to retailers for any use. After March 8, 2027, 

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 PCE equal to or greater than 

0.1% by weight for the following purposes: 

(1) Processing as a reactant/intermediate; (2) 

Processing into formulation, mixture or 

reaction product; (3) Processing by 

repackaging; (4) Recycling; (5) Industrial and 

commercial use as solvent in open-top batch 

vapor degreasing; (6) Industrial and 

commercial use as solvent in closed-loop 

batch vapor degreasing; (7) Industrial and 

commercial use in maskant for chemical 

milling; (8) Industrial and commercial use as 

a processing aid in catalyst regeneration in 

petrochemical manufacturing; (9) Industrial 

and commercial use as a processing aid in 

sectors other than petrochemical 

manufacturing; (10) Industrial and 

commercial use as solvent for cold cleaning 

of tanker vessels; (11) Industrial and 

commercial use as energized electrical 

cleaner; (12) Industrial and commercial use 

in laboratory chemicals; (13) Industrial and 

commercial use in solvent-based adhesives 

and sealants; (14) Industrial and commercial 

use in dry cleaning in 3rd generation 

machines until December 20, 2027; (15) 

Industrial and commercial use in all dry 

cleaning and related spot cleaning until 

December 19, 2034; (16) Export; and (17) 

Disposal. 

§ 751.615 Recordkeeping requirements. 

(a) General records. After February 18, 

2025, all persons who manufacture 

(including import), process, distribute 

in commerce, or engage in industrial or 

commercial use of PCE or PCEcontaining products must maintain 

ordinary business records, such as 

downstream notifications, invoices and 

bills-of-lading related to compliance 

with the prohibitions, restrictions, and 

other provisions of this subpart G. 

(b) WCPP compliance—(1) ECEL 

exposure monitoring. For each 

monitoring event, owners or operators 

subject to the ECEL described in 

§ 751.607(b) must document and retain 

records of the following: 

(i) Dates, duration, and results of each 

sample taken; 

(ii) The quantity, location(s) and 

manner of PCE use at the time of each 

monitoring event; 

(iii) All measurements that may be 

necessary to determine the conditions 

that may affect the monitoring results; 

(iv) Name, workplace address, work 

shift, job classification, work area, and 

type of respiratory protection (if any) by 

each monitored person; 

(v) Identification of all potentially 

exposed persons that a monitored 

person is intended to represent if using 

a representative sample, consistent with 

§ 751.607(b)(3)(i)(A) and (B); 

(vi) Sampling and analytical methods 

used as described in 

§ 751.607(b)(3)(i)(D); 

(vii) Compliance with the GLP 

Standards in 40 CFR part 792, or use of 

a laboratory accredited by the AIHA or 

another industry-recognized program, as 

required by § 751.607(b)(3)(i)(C); and 

(viii) Information regarding air 

monitoring equipment, including: Type, 

maintenance, calibrations, performance 

tests, limits of detection, and any 

malfunctions; 

(ix) Re-monitoring determinations 

conducted by an Environmental 

Professional as defined at 40 CFR 312.10 

or a Certified Industrial Hygienist, if 

results indicated non-detect; and 

(x) Notification of exposure 

monitoring results in accordance with 

§ 751.607(b)(3)(v). 

(2) ECEL compliance. Owners or 

operators subject to the ECEL described 

in § 751.607(b) must retain records of: 

(i) Exposure control plan as described 

in § 751.607(d)(2); 

(ii) Implementation of the exposure 

control plan as described in 

§ 751.607(d)(2), including: 

(A) Any regular inspections, 

evaluations, and updating of the 

exposure controls to maintain 

effectiveness; 

(B) Confirmation that all persons are 

implementing the exposure controls; 

and 

(C) Each occurrence and duration of 

any start-up, shutdown, or malfunction 

of the facility that causes an exceedance 

of the ECEL and any subsequent 

corrective actions taken by the owner or 

operator during the start-up, shutdown, 

or malfunctions to mitigate exposures to 

PCE. 

(iii) Respiratory protection used by 

each potentially exposed person and 

PPE program implementation as 

described in § 751.607(f)(2) including: 

(A) The name, workplace address, 

work shift, job classification, work area 

of each potentially exposed person, and 

the type of respiratory protection 

provided to each potentially exposed 

person; 

(B) The basis for the specific 

respiratory protection selection in 

accordance with § 751.607(f)(2); and 

(C) Fit testing and training in 

accordance with § 751.607(f)(2). 

(iv) Information and training provided 

as required in § 751.607(e). 

(3) DDCC compliance. Owners or 

operators subject to DDCC requirements 

described in § 751.607(c) must retain 

records of: 

(i) Exposure control plan as described 

in § 751.607(d)(2); 

(ii) Dermal protection used by each 

potentially exposed person and PPE 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 103615 

program implementation as described in 

§ 751.607(f)(3), including: 

(A) The name, workplace address, 

work shift, job classification, and work 

area of each person reasonably likely to 

directly handle PCE or handle 

equipment or materials on which PCE 

may be present and the type of PPE 

selected to be worn by each of these 

persons; 

(B) The basis for specific PPE 

selection (e.g., demonstration based on 

permeation testing or manufacturer 

specifications that each item of PPE 

selected provides an impervious barrier 

to prevent exposure during expected 

duration and conditions of exposure, 

including the likely combinations of 

chemical substances to which the PPE 

may be exposed in the work area); 

(C) Appropriately sized PPE and 

training on proper application, wear, 

and removal of PPE, and proper care/ 

disposal of PPE; 

(D) Occurrence and duration of any 

direct dermal contact with PCE that 

occurs during any activity or 

malfunction at the workplace that 

causes direct dermal exposures to occur 

and/or glove breakthrough, and 

corrective actions to be taken during 

and immediately following that activity 

or malfunction to prevent direct dermal 

contact to PCE; and 

(E) Training in accordance with 

§ 751.607(f)(3). 

(iii) Information and training 

provided as required in § 751.607(e). 

(4) Workplace participation. Owners 

or operators must document the notice 

to and ability of any potentially exposed 

person that may reasonably be affected 

by PCE inhalation exposure or direct 

dermal contact and their designated 

representatives to readily access the 

exposure control plans, facility 

exposure monitoring records, PPE 

program implementation records, or any 

other information relevant to PCE 

exposure in the workplace. 

(c) Workplace requirements for 

laboratory use compliance. Owners and 

operators subject to the laboratory 

chemical requirements described in 

§ 751.609 must retain records of: 

(1) Dermal protection used by each 

potentially exposed person and PPE 

program implementation, as described 

in § 751.615(b)(3)(ii); 

(2) Documentation identifying: 

Criteria that the owner or operator will 

use to determine and implement control 

measures to reduce potentially exposed 

persons’ exposure to PCE including 

laboratory ventilation devices; 

(3) Documentation identifying: 

Implementation of properly functioning 

laboratory ventilation devices using 

manufacturer’s instructions for 

installation, use, and maintenance of the 

devices including inspections, tests, 

development of maintenance 

procedures, the establishment of criteria 

for acceptable test results, and 

documentation of test and inspection 

results; and 

(d) Workplace requirements for 

energized electrical cleaner. (1) Owners 

and operators subject to the energized 

electrical cleaner requirements 

described in § 751.611 must retain 

records of: 

(i) Statement regarding whether the 

owner or operator is complying with the 

prescriptive PPE requirements described 

in § 751.611(b)(1) or with the WCPP 

described in § 751.611(b)(2). 

(ii) Dermal and respiratory protection 

used by each potentially exposed person 

and program implementation as 

described in § 751.611(b)(1) or WCPP 

records described in § 751.615(b). 

(iii) Labels used as described in 

§ 751.611(c). 

(iv) Self-certification statements 

provided as described in 

§ 751.611(d)(1)–(3). 

(2) Distributors of PCE, including PCE 

containing products, for use in 

energized electrical cleaning must retain 

sale records, including: 

(i) Name of purchaser; 

(ii) Date of sale; 

(iii) Quantity of PCE or PCE 

containing products sold; 

(iv) Self-certification statement for 

each purchase of PCE; and 

(v) Copies of labels required in 

§ 751.611(c). 

(e) Records related to exemptions. To 

maintain eligibility for an exemption 

described in § 751.617, the records 

maintained by the owners or operators 

must demonstrate compliance with the 

specific conditions of the exemption. 

(f) Retention. Owners or operators 

must retain the records required under 

this section for a period of 5 years from 

the date that such records were 

generated. 

§ 751.617 Exemptions. 

(a) General applicability. (1) Timelimited 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) Time-limited exemption for 

emergency use by the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

Under 15 U.S.C. 2605(g)(1)(A), use of 

PCE or PCE containing products for the 

conditions of use identified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section in an 

emergency by the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration (NASA) and 

its contractors operating within the 

scope of their contracted work is exempt 

from the requirements of § 751.605 until 

December 19, 2034. 

(1) Applicability. This exemption 

shall apply to the following specific 

conditions of use: 

(i) Industrial and commercial use as 

solvent for cold cleaning; and 

(ii) Industrial and commercial use in 

wipe cleaning. 

(2) Emergency use. (i) An emergency 

is a serious and sudden situation 

requiring immediate action, within 15 

days or less, necessary to protect: 

(A) Safety of NASA’s or their 

contractors’ personnel; 

(B) NASA’s missions; 

(C) Human health, safety, or property, 

including that of adjacent communities; 

or 

(D) The environment. 

(ii) Each emergency is a separate 

situation; if use of PCE exceeds 15 days, 

then justification must be documented. 

(3) Eligibility. To be eligible for the 

exemption, NASA and its contractors 

must: 

(i) Select PCE because there are no 

technically and economically feasible 

safer alternatives available during the 

emergency. 

(ii) Perform the emergency use of PCE 

at locations controlled by NASA or its 

contractors. 

(iii) Comply with the following 

conditions: 

(A) Within 15 working days of the 

emergency use by NASA or its 

contractors, 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 that 

includes the following: 

(1) Identification of the conditions of 

use detailed in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section that the emergency use fell 

under; 

(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 PCE was 

selected, including why there were no 

technically and economically feasible 

safer alternatives available in the 

particular emergency. 

(iv) The owner or operator must 

comply with and document such 

compliance efforts under the WCPP 

provisions in § 751.607, to the extent 

technically feasible in light of the 

particular emergency. 

(v) The owner or operator of the 

location where the use takes place must 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9
103616 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

comply with the recordkeeping 

requirements in § 751.615. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30117 Filed 12–17–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES9