EPA methylene chloride rule vacated by the Fifth Circuit
The Fifth Circuit vacated EPA's 2024 methylene chloride rule. OSHA and the 2019 consumer ban remain. Check the mandate before changing controls.
On September 15, 2026, the Fifth Circuit vacated EPA's May 2024 TSCA section 6(a) methylene chloride rule (opinion). In the same opinion, the court vacated the associated risk determination and remanded the matter to EPA. With the methylene chloride rule vacated, the 2024 use bans and the Workplace Chemical Protection Program (2 ppm and 16 ppm) fall with it. OSHA's methylene chloride standard and the 2019 consumer paint remover ban still apply. Confirm the mandate before you drop 2024 controls.
The case is East Fork Enterprises v. EPA, No. 24-60227, consolidated with No. 24-60256. News coverage appeared on October 14, but the opinion is dated September 15. Methylene chloride is also called dichloromethane. East Fork Enterprises and Epic Paint make products containing it, and they petitioned with the American Chemistry Council. Judge Edith H. Jones wrote for a panel with Judges Higginbotham and Southwick (opinion, pp. 2, 9-10).
What the court decided
The court granted the industry petition, vacated "the challenged rule and associated risk determination" in full, denied the Sierra Club's petition and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion. Sierra Club had argued the rule did not go far enough (opinion, pp. 2, 9-10 and 44).
The vacated risk determination is the November 2022 revision, not the June 2020 risk evaluation. That revision replaced use-by-use findings with one "whole chemical" finding and dropped the assumption that workers wear personal protective equipment (PPE). TSCA does not regulate pharmaceutical uses of methylene chloride (opinion, pp. 6-8).
Before oral argument, EPA told the court it no longer defends the "whole chemical" and no-PPE positions (opinion, p. 11, footnote 4). The court gave these reasons (opinion, pp. 12-36):
- TSCA requires a separate risk determination for each condition of use. EPA "lacked legal authority" to find unreasonable risk for the chemical as a whole (pp. 12-15).
- EPA must account for PPE where evidence shows workers use it. Assuming no PPE was contrary to law (pp. 15-17).
- The 16 ppm 15-minute limit rested on one 12-person study (Putz), and the 2 ppm chronic limit on one rat study. The court held the risk analysis "arbitrary and capricious, lacking substantial evidence, and contrary to law" (pp. 26-33).
- EPA cannot ban a chemical just because it is uncertain whether users can meet its limits. It also failed to weigh comments that many uses have no feasible alternative, or what alternatives cost (pp. 33-36).
What the vacated rule did
The 2024 rule (89 FR 39254, May 8, 2024, effective July 8, 2024) prohibited 40 of 53 conditions of use and barred retailers from distributing methylene chloride and products containing it (opinion, pp. 8-9). The other 13 uses could continue under the Workplace Chemical Protection Program, at 40 CFR 751.109. The court listed them (opinion, p. 8):
- domestic manufacture
- import
- processing as a reactant
- processing into a formulation, mixture or reaction product
- repackaging
- recycling
- laboratory chemical
- paint and coating removal from certain aircraft or spacecraft components
- bonding agent for solvent welding
- processing aid
- plastic and rubber products manufacturing
- solvent that becomes part of a formulation where methylene chloride is reclaimed
- disposal
| Item | 2024 EPA rule (vacated) | OSHA 1910.1052 (still in force) |
|---|---|---|
| 8-hour limit | 2 ppm | 25 ppm |
| Short-term limit | 16 ppm, 15 min | 125 ppm, 15 min |
OSHA's methylene chloride standard sets the 25 ppm and 125 ppm limits in that table, plus a 12.5 ppm action level. Under the 2024 rule, private facilities had to meet the WCPP limits after August 1, 2025. A November 2025 extension aligned non-federal laboratories with federal facilities: initial monitoring by November 9, 2026, the exposure limits by February 8, 2027, and an exposure control plan by May 10, 2027.
Is methylene chloride banned after the ruling?
Yes, for some uses. The 2024 prohibitions are what the court vacated. The EPA methylene chloride ban for consumer paint removal remains, with other federal and state rules:
- Since November 22, 2019, no one may manufacture, process or distribute methylene chloride for consumer paint and coating removal. That includes distribution to and by retailers for that use (40 CFR 751.105; 84 FR 11420). The court said this 2019 rule was "not challenged here" (opinion, p. 6).
- For methylene chloride safety at work, 29 CFR 1910.1052 still applies to general industry, construction and shipyards. It requires exposure monitoring, regulated areas, respiratory protection, medical surveillance and hazard communication.
- Any cosmetic containing methylene chloride as an ingredient is deemed adulterated under 21 CFR 700.19.
- California has listed dichloromethane for cancer on the Prop 65 list since April 1, 1988. CARB bans it in listed consumer products such as adhesives, degreasers and hair spray, with sell-through periods and dates running to January 1, 2031 (17 CCR 94509(m)).
What happens to the TSCA risk evaluation
On remand, EPA has to judge risk use by use and account for PPE where workers actually wear it. Any new rule must regulate only "to the extent necessary," and EPA has to weigh feasible, economically viable alternatives. The court did not find methylene chloride safe. Industry petitioners did not argue that (opinion, pp. 12-17 and 33-36).
When the vacatur takes hold in practice depends on the mandate. Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a party has 45 days to seek rehearing when a US agency is a party. The mandate normally issues 7 days after that deadline, and the court may shorten or extend the time by order. Check the Fifth Circuit docket before you treat the 2024 bans as gone.
Official pages have not caught up. As of October 13, 2026, the eCFR still prints all of Subpart B with no note of the decision. EPA's risk management page, last updated March 6, 2026, still describes the 2024 prohibitions, the WCPP and the lab extension. Those pages are not a substitute for the mandate.
What manufacturers, formulators and users should do now
- Keep full compliance with OSHA 1910.1052. Those exposure limits remain binding.
- Keep the consumer paint remover ban, including retailer distribution limits for that use.
- Before you drop WCPP controls or restart a use the 2024 rule banned, confirm on the Fifth Circuit docket that the mandate has issued, watch for an EPA notice and an eCFR update, and get legal advice. Non-federal labs and federal facilities, with initial monitoring due November 9, 2026, face this first.
- Check California Prop 65 and CARB separately, including which CARB product category covers your product. This ruling does not reach them.
- Keep exposure monitoring, respirator and PPE records, plus evidence on methylene chloride alternatives and their cost. That is the evidence the court told EPA to weigh on remand.
RegAffairs AI has a cited answer on the methylene chloride ruling covering the decision and the duties that remain.