EPA Methylene Chloride Ban Court Ruling

The Fifth Circuit's ruling removed EPA's 2024 TSCA rule, but it did not remove methylene chloride regulation. OSHA's methylene chloride standard, FDA's ban in cosmetics, DOT transport rules, the CERCLA reportable quantity and Clean Air Act air-toxics controls all still apply. So do California's product bans and Prop 65 warning duty. EPA's 2019 ban on consumer paint and coating removers was not part of the case.

Approach: I searched OSHA's chemical database and annotated limit tables, FDA's list of banned cosmetic ingredients, the CPSC banned-substance sections, DOT's Hazardous Materials Table, EPA's TSCA risk evaluation record, and California's CARB, Prop 65 and DTSC lists. I also read the Fifth Circuit opinion and EPA's November 2025 compliance-date rule. I couldn't load the current eCFR text of 40 CFR 751 Subpart B, so I can't confirm how it reads today.

Federal rules still in force

Area	Rule	What it requires
Workplace (OSHA)	29 CFR 1910.1052	25 ppm 8-hour limit, 125 ppm short-term limit, 12.5 ppm action level; skin notation; OSHA lists it as a carcinogen [1]. Table Z-2 refers to 1910.1052 [2]. The standard covers general industry, construction and shipyards. It requires air monitoring, regulated areas, respirators (half masks not allowed), medical surveillance, medical removal protection and hazard communication (OSHA).
Cosmetics (FDA)	21 CFR 700.19	Banned from cosmetics: "It causes cancer in animals and is likely to be harmful to human health" [3]
Transport (DOT)	49 CFR 172.101	Dichloromethane, UN1593, Class 6.1, Packing Group III [4]
Release reporting	49 CFR 172.101 Appendix A (hazardous substances)	Reportable quantity of 1000 lb (454 kg) [5]
Air emissions	Clean Air Act	The court itself noted that "EPA already regulates MC emissions as a hazardous air pollutant" (opinion p. 42). I did not look up the individual air-toxics (NESHAP) standards.

EPA's TSCA rules after the ruling

• 2019 consumer paint and coating remover ban (84 Fed. Reg. 11420): This rule banned making, processing and distributing methylene chloride for consumer paint and coating removal. The court called it "not challenged here," and an earlier Second Circuit challenge to it was denied (opinion p. 6). The 2024 rule later reorganized 40 CFR 751 Subpart B, and I couldn't check how the CFR text reads after the vacatur.
• 2024 rule and its amendments: The vacated rule banned 40 of 53 uses (§§ 751.105-108). It allowed 13 uses under a Workplace Chemical Protection Program (§ 751.109) (opinion p. 8). In November 2025, EPA extended the compliance dates for non-federal laboratories, for example initial monitoring moved to November 9, 2026 and the exposure limit to February 8, 2027 (EPA pre-publication notice). That amendment changed § 751.109, which fell with the 2024 rule.
• Risk determination: The court also vacated the "associated risk determination." That is EPA's 2022 "whole chemical" revision, which had withdrawn the June 2020 findings that some uses posed no unreasonable risk ^[6]. On remand, EPA has to redo the work under the court's limits: no "whole chemical" determination, and it must account for PPE that workers wear.

California rules (separate from the federal case)

• Prop 65: Listed for cancer since April 1, 1988, so the warning requirement applies ^[7].
• Safer Consumer Products: On DTSC's Candidate Chemicals List. "Paint or Varnish Strippers with Methylene Chloride" is a designated Priority Product ^[8].
• CARB consumer product bans (17 CCR § 94509(m)), each with a three-year sell-through period:
  • Table (m)(1)(A), already in effect: Bans methylene chloride in many adhesives, cleaners, degreasers and lubricants, for example:
    • contact adhesives ^[9]
    • general purpose degreaser ^[10]
    • graffiti remover ^[11]
    • pressurized gas duster ^[12]
    • plastic pipe adhesive, effective 8/1/2022, sell-through to 8/1/2025 ^[13]
    • single purpose cleaner and degreaser, effective 1/1/2017 ^[14][15]
  • Table (m)(1)(B), effective 2023: Air fresheners, dry shampoo and hair finishing spray ^[16][17][18].
  • Still to come:
    • hair shine and temporary hair color on 1/1/2029 ^[19][20]
    • aerosol crawling bug insecticide on 1/1/2030 ^[21]
    • one more air freshener sub-row, by fragrance content, on 1/1/2031 ^[22]

These are examples; the two tables have 53 product rows in total (43 in (m)(1)(A), 10 in (m)(1)(B)).

Not found: The CPSC banned-substance sections of 16 CFR Part 1500 have no methylene chloride entry. I did not check rules in other US states or the EPCRA Toxics Release Inventory.

I can write out all 53 CARB product rows, or check the specific air-toxics standards that apply to your process, if that would help.

Sources:

• Fifth Circuit opinion, East Fork Enterprises v. EPA (Sept. 15, 2026)
• OSHA 29 CFR 1910.1052
• EPA pre-publication final rule, compliance date extension (signed Nov. 7, 2025)

What companies should do now: treat the court ruling as narrow. Keep full compliance with OSHA's methylene chloride standard, keep the 2019 consumer paint-remover ban in place, and keep meeting California's rules. Don't dismantle your EPA Workplace Chemical Protection Program (WCPP) yet: as of October 1, 2026 the eCFR still prints all of 40 CFR 751 Subpart B with no vacatur note, and EPA has not said anything publicly about the decision.

Approach: I read OSHA's enforcement directive for the methylene chloride standard and EPA's methylene chloride page. I also read the eCFR text of 40 CFR 751 Subpart B as of October 1, 2026. I found no official EPA notice putting the vacatur into effect or describing what happens on remand.

1. Keep OSHA compliance in place (29 CFR 1910.1052, 1915.1052, 1926.1152) This is now the main binding workplace rule. The 25 ppm 8-hour limit, 125 ppm short-term limit (STEL) and 12.5 ppm action level still apply ^[1]. OSHA's directive lists what employers must do:

• Engineering and work-practice controls, then respirators and protective clothing where needed, hygiene facilities, medical surveillance, worker information and training, and records ^[23].
• Exposure monitoring. Every employer where methylene chloride is present must determine employee exposure. Initial monitoring can be skipped only if you have documented objective data showing exposures cannot reach the action level or STEL. That data can come from the product manufacturer ^[24][25].
• Regulated areas. These must be marked where exposures exceed the limits, with respirators worn inside them and no eating, drinking or smoking ^[26].
• Medical surveillance, including arrangements for emergencies ^[27]. Medical removal protection applies to workers moved off the job because exposure may worsen existing skin, heart, liver or neurological disease ^[23].
• Training, updated whenever a task or process change raises exposure above the action level ^[27].

2. Don't treat the ruling as lifting the consumer paint-remover ban The Fifth Circuit said the 2019 rule was "not challenged here" (opinion p. 6). The eCFR still carries § 751.105(a): "After November 22, 2019, all persons are prohibited from manufacturing, processing and distributing in commerce methylene chloride for consumer paint and coating removal" (eCFR, 40 CFR 751 Subpart B). EPA's page also says the rule requires manufacturers and distributors to notify retailers and others in the supply chain and to keep records (EPA). Keep those supply-chain notices going.

3. Handle the 2024 TSCA obligations carefully

• The rule text hasn't changed. The court vacated the 2024 rule, but the official text has not caught up. The eCFR still lists the use bans (§ 751.107), the WCPP (§ 751.109), downstream notification (§ 751.111), recordkeeping (§ 751.113), exemptions (§ 751.115) and the furniture-refinishing interim requirements (§ 751.117). EPA's page, last updated March 6, 2026, still describes the WCPP deadlines and says nothing about the decision.
• What this means in practice: before dropping any WCPP element or restarting a use the 2024 rule banned, get a legal view on when the vacatur takes effect. Non-federal labs had initial WCPP monitoring due November 9, 2026 under the November 2025 extension, so they face this decision first.
• Low-regret steps: keep the controls that also satisfy OSHA, since the court said EPA's limits were about ten times stricter than OSHA's. Pause spending that only serves the stricter EPA limits.

4. Prepare for the remand EPA must redo the risk determination. The court ruled out a "whole chemical" determination and required EPA to account for the PPE workers actually wear. Your evidence is most useful in that rulemaking, so keep:

• monitoring results by use;
• respirator programme and fit-test records;
• data on engineering controls;
• evidence on how feasible and costly alternatives are, since the court also faulted EPA for not weighing limited alternatives.

5. Keep the other rules on your checklist (unaffected by the ruling)

• California:
  • Prop 65 cancer warnings ^[7].
  • DTSC Priority Product status for methylene chloride paint and varnish strippers ^[8].
  • CARB product bans, including future dates of 1/1/2029 for hair shine and temporary hair color ^[19][20] and 1/1/2030 for aerosol crawling bug insecticide ^[21].
• Cosmetics: FDA's ban under 21 CFR 700.19 ^[3].
• Transport: DOT shipping as UN1593, Class 6.1, PG III ^[4].
• Spill reporting: the 1000 lb reportable quantity ^[5].
• Air: Clean Air Act air-toxics controls, which the court acknowledged.

Still unknown: I found nothing official on a rehearing petition, a Supreme Court petition, or EPA's plans on remand. EPA's page and the eCFR are where any change will show up first.

I can map your specific uses against the 2024 rule's banned and WCPP categories, or look up the air-toxics standards that apply to your process.

Sources:

• EPA: Risk Management for Methylene Chloride
• eCFR, 40 CFR 751 Subpart B (as of Oct. 1, 2026)
• Fifth Circuit opinion, East Fork Enterprises v. EPA (Sept. 15, 2026)