[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65066-65122]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-17204]



[[Page 65065]]

Vol. 89

Thursday,

No. 153

August 8, 2024

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





40 CFR Part 751





1-Bromopropane (1-BP); Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control 
Act (TSCA); Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2024 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 65066]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 751

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0471; FRL-8156-01-OCSPP]
RIN 2070-AK73


1-Bromopropane (1-BP); Regulation Under the Toxic Substances 
Control Act (TSCA)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is 
proposing to address the unreasonable risk of injury to human health 
presented by 1-bromopropane (1-BP) (CASRN 106-94-5), also known as n-
propyl bromide, under its conditions of use as documented in EPA's 
August 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP and the December 2022 Revised Risk 
Determination for 1-BP prepared under the Toxic Substances Control Act 
(TSCA). 1-BP is a widely used solvent in a variety of occupational and 
consumer applications, including vapor degreasing, aerosol degreasing, 
adhesives and sealants, and in insulation. EPA determined that 1-BP 
presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health due to the 
significant adverse health effects associated with exposure to 1-BP, 
including neurotoxicity, developmental toxicity from acute and chronic 
inhalation exposures and dermal exposures, and cancer from chronic 
inhalation exposures. 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 the chemical no longer presents unreasonable risk. To address the 
identified unreasonable risk, EPA is proposing requirements to, among 
other things, prevent consumer access to the chemical, restrict the 
industrial and commercial use of the chemical while also allowing for a 
reasonable transition period where an industrial and commercial use of 
the chemical is being prohibited, and protect workers from the 
unreasonable risk of 1-BP while on the job.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 23, 2024. Under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection 
provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or 
before September 9, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification 
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0471, through the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions 
for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information 
you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Additional 
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more 
information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    For technical information: Bethany Masten, Existing Chemicals Risk 
Management Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, 
DC 20460-0001; telephone number (202) 564-8803; email address: 
[email protected].
    For general information: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South 
Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; 
email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

A. Does this action apply to me?

1. General Applicability
    You may be potentially affected by the proposed action if you 
manufacture (defined under TSCA to include import), process, distribute 
in commerce, use, or dispose of 1-BP or products containing 1-BP. The 
following list of North American Industrial Classification System 
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. 
Potentially affected entities include:
     Crude Petroleum Extraction (NAICS code 211120).
     All Other Specialty Trade Contractors (NAICS code 238990).
     Broadwoven Fabric Mills (NAICS code 313210).
     Nonwoven Fabric Mills (NAICS code 313230).
     Textile and Fabric Finishing Mills (NAICS code 313310).
     Fabric Coating Mills (NAICS code 313320).
     Prefabricated Wood Building Manufacturing (NAICS code 
321992).
     Paper Bag and Coated and Treated Paper Manufacturing 
(NAICS code 322220).
     Commercial Screen Printing (NAICS code 323113).
     Petroleum Refineries (NAICS code 324110).
     All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing (NAICS 
code 324199).
     Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS code 
325180).
     All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS code 
325199).
     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).
     Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical 
Manufacturing (NAICS code 325992).
     All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation 
Manufacturing (NAICS code 325998).
     Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing (NAICS code 
326140).
     Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) 
Product Manufacturing (NAICS code 326150).
     Tire Manufacturing (except Retreading) (NAICS code 
326211).
     Tire Retreading (NAICS code 326221).
     Rubber and Plastics Hoses and Belting Manufacturing (NAICS 
code 326220).
     All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing (NAICS code 
326299).
     Other Concrete Product Manufacturing (NAICS code 327390).
     Gypsum Product Manufacturing (NAICS code 327420).
     Cement Manufacturing (NAICS code 327310).
     Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing (NAICS 
code 331110).
     Iron and Steel Pipe and Tube Manufacturing from Purchased 
Steel (NAICS code 331210).
     Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturing (NAICS code 332221).
     Steel Wire Drawing (NAICS code 331222).
     Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Smelting and Refining 
(NAICS code 331410).
     Copper Rolling, Drawing, Extruding, and Alloying (NAICS 
code 331420).
     Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) Rolling, 
Drawing, and Extruding (NAICS code 331491).
     Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying of Nonferrous 
Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) (NAICS code 331492).
     Nonferrous Metal Die-Casting Foundries (NAICS code 
331523).
     Iron and Steel Forging (NAICS code 332111).

[[Page 65067]]

     Nonferrous Forging (NAICS code 332112).
     Custom Roll Forming (NAICS code 332114).
     Powder Metallurgy Part Manufacturing (NAICS code 332117).
     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 Window and Door Manufacturing (NAICS code 332321).
     Machine Shops (NAICS code 332710).
     Precision Turned Product Manufacturing (NAICS code 
332721).
     Bolt, Nut, Screw, Rivet, and Washer Manufacturing (NAICS 
code 332722).
     Industrial Valve Manufacturing (NAICS code 332911).
     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).
     Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and 
Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 
code 333415).
     Special Die and Tool, Die Set, Jig, and Fixture 
Manufacturing (NAICS code 333514).
     Cutting Tool and Machine Tool Accessory Manufacturing 
(NAICS code 333515).
     Speed Changer, Industrial High-Speed Drive, and Gear 
Manufacturing (NAICS code 333612).
     Air and Gas Compressor Manufacturing (NAICS code 333912).
     Measuring, Dispensing, and Other Pumping Equipment 
Manufacturing (NAICS code 333914).
     Elevator and Moving Stairway Manufacturing (NAICS code 
333921).
     Conveyor and Conveying Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS code 
333922).
     Overhead Traveling Crane, Hoist, and Monorail System 
Manufacturing (NAICS code 333923).
     Industrial Process Furnace and Oven Manufacturing (NAICS 
code 333924).
     Power-Driven Handtool Manufacturing (NAICS code 333991).
     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 333998).
     Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS code 
334310).
     Capacitor, Resistor, Coil, Transformer, and Other Inductor 
Manufacturing (NAICS code 334416).
     Electronic Connector Manufacturing (NAICS code 334417).
     Printed Circuit Assembly (Electronic Assembly) 
Manufacturing (NAICS code 334418).
     Other Electronic Component Manufacturing (NAICS code 
334419).
     Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and 
Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing (NAICS code 334511).
     Automatic Environmental Control Manufacturing for 
Residential, Commercial, and Appliance Use (NAICS code 334512).
     Instruments and Related Products Manufacturing for 
Measuring, Displaying, and Controlling Industrial Process Variables 
(NAICS code 334513).
     Instrument Manufacturing for Measuring and Testing 
Electricity and Electrical Signals (NAICS code 334515).
     Residential Electric Lighting Fixture Manufacturing (NAICS 
code 335131).
     Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Electric 
Lighting Fixture Manufacturing (NAICS code 335132).
     Electric Lamp Bulb and Other Lighting Equipment 
Manufacturing (NAICS code 335139).
     Power, Distribution, and Specialty Transformer 
Manufacturing (NAICS code 335311).
     Motor and Generator Manufacturing (NAICS code 335312).
     Switchgear and Switchboard Apparatus Manufacturing (NAICS 
code 335313).
     Relay and Industrial Control Manufacturing (NAICS code 
335314).
     Fiber Optic Cable Manufacturing (NAICS code 335921).
     Current-Carrying Wiring Device Manufacturing (NAICS code 
335931).
     Carbon and Graphite Product Manufacturing (NAICS code 
335991).
     Automobile and Light Duty Motor Vehicle Manufacturing 
(NAICS code 336110).
     Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing (NAICS code 336120).
     Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing (NAICS code 336211).
     Truck Trailer Manufacturing (NAICS code 336212).
     Motor Home Manufacturing (NAICS code 336213).
     Travel Trailer and Camper Manufacturing (NAICS code 
336214).
     Motor Vehicle Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts 
Manufacturing (NAICS code 336310).
     Motor Vehicle Electrical and Electronic Equipment 
Manufacturing (NAICS code 336320).
     Motor Vehicle Steering and Suspension Components (except 
Spring) Manufacturing (NAICS code 336330).
     Motor Vehicle Brake System Manufacturing (NAICS code 
336340).
     Motor Vehicle Transmission and Power Train Parts 
Manufacturing (NAICS code 336350).
     Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturing 
(NAICS code 336360).
     Motor Vehicle Metal Manufacturing (NAICS code 336370).
     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).
     Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing (NAICS code 336510).
     Ship Building and Repairing (NAICS code 336611).

[[Page 65068]]

     Wood Kitchen Cabinet and Countertop Manufacturing (NAICS 
code 337110).
     Upholstered Household Furniture Manufacturing (NAICS code 
337121).
     Nonupholstered Wood Household Furniture Manufacturing 
(NAICS code 337122).
     Institutional Furniture Manufacturing (NAICS code 337127).
     Wood Office Furniture Manufacturing (NAICS code 337211).
     Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing (NAICS code 
339113).
     Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing (NAICS code 
339114).
     Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing (NAICS code 339910).
     Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing (NAICS code 
339920).
     Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device Manufacturing (NAICS 
code 339991).
     Fastener, Button, Needle, and Pin Manufacturing (NAICS 
code 339993).
     All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing (NAICS code 339999).
     Metal Service Centers and Other Metal Merchant Wholesalers 
(NAICS code 423510).
     Industrial Machinery and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers 
(NAICS code 423830).
     Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS 
code 424210).
     Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers 
(NAICS code 424690).
     New Car Dealers (NAICS code 441110).
     Used Car Dealers (NAICS code 441120).
     Home Centers (NAICS code 444110).
     Paint and Wallpaper Stores (NAICS code 444120).
     Electronics and Appliance Retailers (NAICS code 449210).
     Sporting Goods Stores (NAICS code 459110).
     Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation (NAICS code 
481111).
     Other Support Activities for Air Transportation (NAICS 
code 488190).
     Other Warehousing and Storage (NAICS code 493190).
     Miscellaneous Intermediation (NAICS code 523910).
     Portfolio Management and Investment Advice (NAICS code 
523940).
     Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and 
Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology) (NAICS code 
541715).
     Research and Development in the Social Sciences and 
Humanities (NAICS code 541720).
     Janitorial Services (NAICS code 561720).
     Carpet and Upholstery Cleaning Services (NAICS code 
561740).
     Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal (NAICS code 
562211).
     Junior Colleges (NAICS code 611210).
     Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools (NAICS 
code 611230).
     General Automotive Repair (NAICS code 811111).
     Specialized Automotive Repair (NAICS code 811114).
     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).
     Other Electronic and Precision Equipment Repair and 
Maintenance (NAICS code 811210).
     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).
     Coin-Operated Laundries and Drycleaners (NAICS code 
812310).
     Drycleaning and Laundry Services (except Coin-Operated) 
(NAICS code 812320).
2. Applicability to Importers and Exporters
    This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing 
import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Persons 
who import any chemical substance in bulk form, as part of a mixture, 
or as part of an article (if required by rule) are 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. Those persons must certify that the shipment of the 
chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under 
TSCA. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 
CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, any persons who export or intend 
to export a chemical substance that is the subject of this proposed 
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.
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this 
proposed action to a particular entity, consult the technical 
information contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Under TSCA section 6(a) (15 U.S.C. 2605(a)), if EPA determines 
through a TSCA section 6(b) risk evaluation that a chemical substance 
presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, 
EPA must by rule apply one or more requirements listed in TSCA section 
6(a) to the extent necessary so that the chemical substance or mixture 
no longer presents such risk.

C. What action is the Agency taking?

    Pursuant to TSCA section 6(b), EPA determined that 1-BP 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) and susceptible life 
stages identified as relevant to the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP by 
EPA, under the conditions of use (Refs. 1, 2). The term ``conditions of 
use'' is defined at TSCA section 3(4) (15 U.S.C. 2602(4)) to mean the 
circumstances under which a chemical substance is intended, known, or 
reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in 
commerce, used, or disposed of. A detailed description of the 
conditions of use that EPA identified, evaluated and determined to 
contribute to EPA's determination that 1-BP presents an unreasonable 
risk is included in Unit III.B.1. EPA notes that all conditions of use 
of 1-BP (excluding the commercial and consumer use of 1-BP in 
insulation) are subject to this proposal. Accordingly, to address the 
unreasonable risk, EPA is proposing, under TSCA section 6(a), to:
    (i) Prohibit the manufacture (including import), processing, and 
distribution in commerce of 1-BP for all consumer uses (excluding 
insulation for building and construction materials), outlined in Unit 
IV.A.1.;
    (ii) Prohibit the manufacture (including import), processing and 
distribution in commerce of 1-BP for four industrial and commercial 
uses, outlined in Unit IV.A.1.;
    (iii) Require strict workplace controls, including a 1-BP Workplace 
Chemical Protection Program (WCPP), which would include requirements to 
meet an inhalation exposure concentration limit,

[[Page 65069]]

for seven occupational conditions of use of 1-BP, outlined in Unit 
IV.A.2.;
    (iv) Require the use of prescriptive controls for six occupational 
conditions of use of 1-BP, outlined in Unit IV.A.3.;
    (v) Require purchasers to provide sellers with a self-
certification, which would document the purchaser's commitment to 
comply with the 1-BP WCPP, for six occupational conditions of use of 1-
BP, outlined in Unit IV.A.2.; and
    (vi) Establish recordkeeping and downstream notification 
requirements outlined in Unit IV.A.4.
    In addition, in each of the proposed rules under TSCA section 6(a), 
EPA is proposing to amend the general provisions of 40 CFR 751, subpart 
A, to define ``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 in 40 CFR part 751. EPA seeks public 
comment on all aspects of this proposed rule.

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.'' 1-BP was the subject of a risk evaluation under TSCA section 
6(b)(4)(A) that was issued in August 2020 (Ref. 1). In addition, EPA 
issued a revised unreasonable risk determination in December 2022 (Ref. 
2), determining that 1-BP, as a whole chemical substance, presents an 
unreasonable risk of injury to health under the conditions of use. As a 
result, EPA is proposing to take action to the extent necessary so that 
1-BP no longer presents such risk. The unreasonable risk is described 
in Unit III.B.2. and the conditions of use that contribute to the 
unreasonable risk for 1-BP are described in Unit III.B.1.
    1-BP's hazards are well established. EPA's 2020 Risk Evaluation for 
1-BP considered the hazards associated with exposure to 1-BP and 
determined that 1-BP presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health 
due to the significant adverse health effects associated with exposure 
to 1-BP. While some of the risks of adverse effects from 1-BP exposure 
may be acute and experienced for only a short duration, other health 
risks may be chronic and result in long-term impacts that are 
irreversible (e.g., developmental toxicity, cancer). The most sensitive 
adverse health effect of 1-BP exposure is developmental toxicity. Other 
significant adverse health effects include reproductive toxicity, liver 
toxicity, kidney toxicity, neurotoxicity, other developmental toxicity, 
and cancer. For this proposed rulemaking, EPA has determined that 
protecting at the cancer endpoint would also address the risk for other 
acute or chronic non-cancer endpoints. This proposed rule, once final, 
would eliminate the unreasonable risk to human health from the TSCA 
conditions of use of 1-BP, as identified in the 2020 Risk Evaluation 
for 1-BP and the revised unreasonable risk determination for 1-BP in 
December 2022. This proposed rule, once final, is part of EPA's efforts 
to advance the Biden Cancer Moonshot policy, reducing exposure to 
carcinogens in the environment as part of a national effort to 
accelerate the rate of progress against cancer, reduce the cancer death 
rate, and improve the life experience of those living with and 
surviving cancer and their caregivers.
    EPA is not proposing a complete ban on 1-BP. This rule proposes to 
allow certain uses of 1-BP to continue 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 proposing strict workplace controls under a WCPP, EPA expects that 
many workplaces already have stringent controls in place that reduce 
exposures to 1-BP; for some workplaces, such as those using 1-BP in 
vapor degreasing, EPA understands that these existing controls may 
already reduce exposure enough to meet the inhalation exposure 
concentration limit proposed in this rulemaking (Ref. 1).
    Accordingly, EPA is proposing strict workplace controls to address 
the unreasonable risk and to allow continued use of 1-BP for several 
conditions of use, including processing for incorporation into 
formulation, mixture, or reaction products; use in vapor degreasing; 
use in cold cleaning; use in aerosol spray degreasers/cleaners; use in 
electronic and electronic products and metal products; use in asphalt 
extraction and laboratory chemicals; processing as a reactant/
intermediate; and use in coatings for temperature indicators, which, in 
total, comprise an estimated 97% of the current production volume of 1-
BP. EPA is proposing to prohibit certain conditions of use of 1-BP, 
including manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution 
in commerce of 1-BP for all consumer use, excluding the use of 1-BP in 
insulation; use in dry cleaning and spot cleaning, adhesives and 
sealants, liquid cleaners, automotive care products, anti-adhesive 
agents, functional fluids, and arts, crafts, and hobby materials, 
comprising an estimated 3% of the current production volume of 1-BP. 
Unit IV.A. describes EPA's proposed regulatory action and Unit IV.B. 
describes the alternative regulatory actions considered as required 
under TSCA section 6(c)(2)(A). The rationale for the proposed 
regulatory action and alternative regulatory actions, including what is 
feasible and appropriate for each condition of use, is described in 
Unit V., and the TSCA section 6 requirements considered in developing 
the regulatory actions are described in Unit III.B.3.

E. What are the estimated incremental impacts of this action?

    EPA has prepared an Economic Analysis (EA) of the potential 
incremental impacts associated with this rulemaking that can be found 
in the rulemaking docket and is briefly summarized here (Ref. 3). The 
cost of the proposed rule is estimated to be $14.8 million annualized 
over 20 years at a 3% discount rate and $15.5 million annualized over 
20 years at a 7% discount rate. These costs take compliance with 
implementation of a WCPP into consideration, which would include an 
existing chemical exposure limit (ECEL) of 0.05 ppm (0.25 mg/m3) for 
inhalation exposures as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA), 
applicable personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements, and 
reformulation costs of numerous products. The estimates discussed in 
the preamble reflect the central estimates for the number of sites and 
workers affected rather than the low- or high-end estimates. The 
sensitivity analysis in Chapter 11 presents the estimated costs, 
benefits, and net benefits for low, central, and high estimates of 
affected sites, workers, and occupational non-users (ONUs). The 
economic impact on users of 1-BP for vapor degreasing is unclear 
because some users may not be able to continue using their current 
equipment (open-top vapor degreasers). Based on engagement with 
industry, including public comments received on the draft risk 
evaluation and draft revised unreasonable risk determination for 1-BP, 
EPA expects workplaces engaged in vapor degreasing to have the ability 
to implement a WCPP that would include an ECEL, PPE requirements, and 
ancillary requirements. EPA estimates

[[Page 65070]]

that complying with the WCPP would cost vapor degreasing users $13.8 
million while prohibition would cost vapor degreasing users $174.8 
million (3% discount rate annualized over 20 years). Vapor degreasing 
is used in several advanced manufacturing industries, including 
aerospace, automotive, energy, medical devices, and others (Ref. 3).
    The actions proposed in this rulemaking 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 rulemaking are approximately $27.2 
million annualized over 20 years at a 3% discount rate and $12.9 
million annualized over 20 years at a 7% discount rate. The monetized 
benefits include potential reductions in risk of colon and lung 
cancers. Non-monetized benefits include risk reduction of liver 
toxicity, kidney toxicity, reproductive toxicity, developmental 
toxicity, and neurotoxicity (peripheral neuropathy) (Ref. 3).
    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 (Ref. 3). In general, workers in 
affected industries and regions, as well as residents of nearby 
communities, are similar to workers and residents nationwide. Data 
limitations prevent EPA from conducting a more comprehensive 
environmental justice (EJ) analysis that would identify the incremental 
impacts of the regulatory options and assess the extent to which they 
mitigate or exacerbate any disproportionate impacts in communities with 
EJ concerns.

F. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

1. Submitting CBI
    Do not submit CBI to EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or 
email. If you wish to include CBI in your comment, please follow the 
applicable instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets#rules and clearly mark the part or all of the information that 
you claim to be CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment 
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that 
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for 
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2 and/or 40 CFR part 703, as appliable.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
    When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting 
tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. Background

A. Overview of 1-BP

    This proposed rule applies to 1-BP (CASRN 106-94-5) and is 
specifically intended to address the unreasonable risk of injury to 
health EPA has identified in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP and the 
2022 revised unreasonable risk determination, as described in Unit 
III.B.2. 1-BP is a colorless, volatile liquid with a mildly sweet odor 
that is produced in and imported into the United States. 1-BP is 
manufactured, processed, distributed, used, and disposed of as part of 
many industrial, commercial, and consumer conditions of use.
    As outlined in further detail in Unit III.B.1., 1-BP is used as a 
solvent in cleaning and degreasing operations (including vapor 
degreasing, cold cleaning, and aerosol degreasing), spray adhesives, 
and dry cleaning. 1-BP is also used as a reactant in the manufacturing 
of other chemical substances. Consumer uses of 1-BP include aerosol 
degreasers, spot cleaners, and stain removers. 1-BP is also used in 
insulation for building and construction materials. According to data 
submitted for the 2016 submission period under EPA's Chemical Data 
Reporting (CDR) rule, the total aggregate annual production volume of 
1-BP in the U.S. increased from 15.4 million pounds to 25.8 million 
pounds between 2012 and 2015 (Ref. 4). The total aggregate annual 
production volume ranged from 1 to 50 million pounds between 2016 and 
2019 according to CDR (Ref. 5).

B. Regulatory Actions Pertaining to 1-BP

    Because of its adverse health effects, 1-BP is subject to several 
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 1-BP, as well as other Federal, state, and 
international regulations, is in the docket and in Appendix A of the 
2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP (Refs. 6, 1). EPA acknowledges that 
additional 1-BP regulatory steps occurred after 2020, including the 
addition of 1-BP as a Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) to the Clean Air 
Act list in January 2022, as discussed in Unit X.C.5.

C. Consideration of Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA) Occupational Health Standards in TSCA Risk Evaluations and TSCA 
Risk Management Actions

    Although EPA must consider and factor in, to the extent 
practicable, certain non-risk factors as part of TSCA section 6(a) 
rulemaking (see TSCA section 6(c)(2)), EPA must nonetheless still 
ensure that the selected regulatory requirements apply ``to the extent 
necessary so that the chemical substance or mixture no longer presents 
[unreasonable] risk.'' 15 U.S.C. 2605(a). This requirement to eliminate 
unreasonable risk is distinguishable from approaches mandated by some 
other laws, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), 
which includes both significant risk and feasibility (technical and 
economic) considerations in the setting of standards.
    Congress intended for EPA to consider occupational risks from 
chemicals it evaluates under TSCA, among other potential exposures, as 
relevant and appropriate. As noted previously, section 6(b) of TSCA 
requires EPA to evaluate risks to PESS identified as relevant by the 
Administrator. TSCA section 3(12) defines the term ``potentially 
exposed or susceptible subpopulation'' as ``a group of individuals 
within the general population identified by the Administrator who, due 
to either greater susceptibility or greater exposure, may be at greater 
risk than the general population of adverse health effects from 
exposure to a chemical substance or mixture, such as infants, children, 
pregnant women, workers, or the elderly.''
    The OSH Act similarly requires OSHA to evaluate risk specific to 
workers prior to promulgating new or revised standards and requires 
OSHA standards to substantially reduce significant risk to the extent 
feasible, even if workers are exposed over a full working lifetime. See 
29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5); Indus. Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Am. Petroleum 
Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 642 (1980) (plurality opinion).
    Thus, the standards for chemical hazards that OSHA promulgates 
under the OSH Act share a broadly similar purpose with the standards 
that EPA promulgates under TSCA section 6(a). The control measures OSHA 
and EPA require to satisfy the objectives of their respective statutes 
may also, in many circumstances, overlap or coincide. However, as this 
section outlines, there

[[Page 65071]]

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 (Ref. 6) when 
evaluating and addressing potential unreasonable risk to workers so 
that compliance requirements are clearly explained to the regulated 
community.
1. OSHA Requirements
    OSHA's mission is to ensure that employees work in safe and 
healthful conditions. The OSH Act establishes requirements that each 
employer comply with the General Duty Clause of the Act (29 U.S.C. 
654(a)), as well as with occupational safety and health standards 
issued under the Act.
a. General Duty Clause of the OSH Act
    The General Duty Clause of the OSH Act requires employers to keep 
their workplaces free from recognized hazards that are causing or are 
likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees. The 
General Duty Clause is cast in general terms, and does not establish 
specific requirements like exposure limits, PPE, or other specific 
protective measures that EPA could potentially consider when developing 
its risk evaluations or risk management requirements. OSHA, under 
limited circumstances, has cited the General Duty Clause for regulating 
exposure to chemicals. To prove a violation of the General Duty Clause, 
OSHA must prove employer or industry recognition of the hazard, the 
hazard was causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm, 
and a feasible method to eliminate or materially reduce the hazard was 
available. In rare situations, OSHA has cited employers for violation 
of the General Duty Clause where exposures were below a chemical-
specific permissible exposure limit (PEL), a TWA based on an employee's 
average airborne exposure in any 8-hour work shift of a 40-hour work 
week which shall not be exceeded (Ref. 7). In such situations, OSHA 
must demonstrate that the employer had actual knowledge that the PEL 
was inadequate to protect its employees from death or serious physical 
harm. Because of the heavy evidentiary burden on OSHA to establish 
violations of the General Duty Clause, it is not frequently used to 
cite employers for employee exposure to chemical hazards.
b. OSHA Standards
    OSHA standards are issued pursuant to the OSH Act and are found in 
title 29 of the CFR. There are separate standards for general industry, 
laboratories, construction, maritime and agriculture sectors, and 
general standards applicable to a number of sectors (e.g., OSHA's 
Respiratory Protection standard). OSHA has numerous standards that 
apply to employers who operate chemical manufacturing and processing 
facilities, as well as to downstream employers whose employees may be 
occupationally exposed to hazardous chemicals.
    OSHA sets legally enforceable limits on the airborne concentrations 
of hazardous chemicals, referred to as PELs, established for employers 
to protect their workers against the health effects of exposure to 
hazardous substances (29 CFR part 1910, subpart Z, part 1915, subpart 
Z, and part 1926, subparts D and Z). Under section 6(a) of the OSH Act, 
OSHA was permitted an initial 2-year window after the passage of the 
Act to adopt ``any national consensus standard and any established 
Federal standard.'' 29 U.S.C. 655(a). OSHA used this authority in 1971 
to establish PELs that were adopted from Federal health standards 
originally set by the Department of Labor through the Walsh-Healy Act, 
in which approximately 400 occupational exposure limits (OELs) were 
selected based on the American Conference of Governmental Industrial 
Hygienists (ACGIH) 1968 list of Threshold Limit Values (TLVs). In 
addition, about 25 exposure limits recommended by the American 
Standards Association (now called the American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI) were adopted as PELs.
    Following the 2-year window provided under section 6(a) of the OSH 
Act for adoption of national consensus and existing Federal standards, 
OSHA has issued health standards following the requirements in section 
6(b) of the Act. OSHA has established approximately 30 PELs under 
section 6(b)(5) as part of comprehensive substance-specific standards 
that include additional requirements for protective measures such as 
use of PPE, establishment of regulated areas, exposure assessment, 
hygiene facilities, medical surveillance, and training. These ancillary 
provisions in substance-specific OSHA standards further mitigate 
residual risk that could be present due to exposure at the PEL.
    OSHA has not established a PEL for 1-BP and for those it has, in 
many instances, scientific evidence has accumulated suggesting that the 
current limits of many PELs are not sufficiently protective. Unlike 
EPA's requirements under TSCA to address unreasonable risk, 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.
    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. However, it is also appropriate that EPA 
consider the chemical standards that OSHA has already developed to 
limit the compliance burden to employers by aligning management 
approaches required by the agencies, where alignment will adequately 
address unreasonable risk to workers. The following section discusses 
EPA's consideration of OSHA standards in its risk evaluation and 
management strategies under TSCA.
2. Consideration of OSHA Standards in TSCA Risk Evaluations
    When characterizing the risk during risk evaluation under TSCA, EPA 
believes it is appropriate to evaluate the levels of risk present in 
scenarios where no mitigation measures are assumed to be in place for 
the purpose of determining unreasonable risk (see Unit II.C.2.a.). (It 
should be noted that there are some cases where scenarios may reflect 
certain mitigation measures, such as in instances where exposure 
estimates are based on monitoring data at facilities that have existing 
engineering controls in place.)
    In addition, EPA believes it may be appropriate to also evaluate 
the levels of risk present in scenarios considering applicable OSHA 
requirements as well as scenarios considering industry or sector best 
practices for industrial hygiene that are clearly articulated to the 
Agency. EPA may evaluate risk

[[Page 65072]]

under scenarios that consider industry or sector best practices for 
industrial hygiene that are clearly articulated to the Agency, when 
doing so serves to inform its risk management efforts. Characterizing 
risks using scenarios that reflect different levels of mitigation can 
help inform potential risk management actions by providing information 
that could be used during risk management to tailor risk mitigation 
appropriately to address any unreasonable risk identified (see Unit 
II.C.2.b. and Unit II.C.3.).
a. Risk Characterization for Unreasonable Risk Determination
    When making unreasonable risk determinations as part of TSCA risk 
evaluations, EPA cannot assume as a general matter that all workers are 
always equipped with and appropriately using sufficient PPE, although 
it does not question the veracity of public comments received on the 
2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP regarding the occupational safety 
practices often followed by industry respondents. When characterizing 
the risk to human health from occupational exposures during risk 
evaluation under TSCA, EPA believes it is appropriate to evaluate the 
levels of risk present in scenarios where PPE is not assumed to be used 
by workers. This approach of not assuming PPE use by workers considers 
the risk to PESS (workers and occupational non-users (ONUs)) who may 
not be covered by OSHA standards, such as self-employed individuals and 
public sector workers who are not covered by a State Plan. Mitigation 
scenarios included in the EPA risk evaluation in order to inform its 
risk management efforts (e.g., scenarios considering use of PPE) likely 
represent current practice in many facilities where companies 
effectively address worker and bystander safety requirements. However, 
the Agency cannot assume that all facilities across all uses of the 
chemical substances will have adopted these practices for the purposes 
of making the TSCA risk determination.
    Therefore, EPA makes its determinations of unreasonable risk based 
on scenarios that do not assume compliance with OSHA standards, 
including any applicable exposure limits or requirements for use of 
respiratory protection or other PPE. Making unreasonable risk 
determinations based on such scenarios should not be viewed as an 
indication that EPA believes there are no occupational safety 
protections in place at any location, or that there is widespread 
noncompliance with applicable OSHA standards. Rather, it reflects EPA's 
recognition that unreasonable risk may exist: (1) for subpopulations of 
workers that may be highly exposed because they are not covered by OSHA 
standards, such as self-employed individuals and public sector workers 
who are not covered by an OSHA State Plan; (2) because EPA finds 
unreasonable risk for purposes of TSCA notwithstanding existing OSHA 
requirements.
b. Risk Evaluation To Inform Risk Management Requirements
    In addition to the scenarios described previously, EPA risk 
evaluations may characterize the levels of risk present in scenarios 
considering applicable OSHA requirements (e.g., chemical-specific PELs 
and/or chemical-specific health standards with PELs and additional 
ancillary provisions) as well as scenarios considering industry or 
sector best practices for industrial hygiene that are clearly 
articulated to the Agency to help inform risk management decisions.
3. Consideration of OSHA Standards in TSCA Risk Management Actions
    When undertaking risk management actions, EPA: (1) Develops 
occupational risk mitigation measures to address any unreasonable risk 
identified by EPA, striving for consistency with applicable OSHA 
requirements and industry best practices, including appropriate 
application of the hierarchy of controls (Ref. 8), when those measures 
would address an unreasonable risk; and (2) Ensures that EPA 
requirements apply to all potentially exposed workers in accordance 
with TSCA requirements. 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 applicability of TSCA 
while avoiding the imposition of duplicative requirements.
    Informed by the mitigation scenarios and information gathered 
during the risk evaluation and risk management process, the Agency 
might propose rules that require risk management practices that may be 
already common practice in many or most facilities. Adopting clear, 
broadly applicable regulatory standards will foster compliance across 
all facilities (ensuring a level playing field) and assure protections 
for all affected workers, especially in cases where current OSHA 
standards may not apply to them or not be sufficient to address the 
unreasonable risk.
4. 1-BP and OSHA Requirements
    EPA incorporated the considerations described earlier in this unit 
in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP, the December 2022 revised 
unreasonable risk determination for 1-BP, and this proposed risk 
management rulemaking. Specifically, in the TSCA 2020 Risk Evaluation 
for 1-BP, EPA presented risk estimates based on workers' exposures with 
and without respiratory protection. EPA determined that even when 
respirators with APF 50 are used by workers, most of the conditions of 
use evaluated presented an unreasonable risk. Additional consideration 
of OSHA standards in the revised unreasonable risk determination is 
discussed further in the Federal Register notice announcing that 
document (Ref. 9). In Units III.B.3. and V., EPA outlines the 
importance of considering the hierarchy of controls utilized by the 
industrial hygiene community (hereafter referred to as ``hierarchy of 
controls'') when developing risk management actions in general, and 
specifically when determining if and how regulated entities may meet a 
risk-based exposure limit for 1-BP. The hierarchy of controls is a 
prioritization of exposure control strategies from most preferred to 
least preferred techniques. In order of precedence, they are: 
elimination of the hazard, substitution with a less hazardous 
substance, engineering controls, administrative controls such as 
training or exclusion zones with warning signs, and, finally, use of 
PPE (Ref. 8). Under the hierarchy of controls, the use of respirators 
(and all PPE) should only be considered after all other measures have 
been taken to reduce exposures. As discussed in Units IV.A. and V.A.1., 
EPA's risk management approach would not rely solely or primarily on 
the use of respirators to address unreasonable risk to workers; 
instead, EPA is proposing prohibitions for or affecting certain 
conditions of use, a WCPP for most occupational conditions of use, 
self-certification for certain occupational conditions of use, and 
prescriptive controls for certain occupational conditions of use. The 
WCPP would require consideration of the hierarchy of controls before 
use of respirators and other PPE. The WCPP is discussed in full in 
Units IV.A.2. and V.A.1.b.
    In accordance with the approach described earlier in Unit II.C.3., 
EPA intends for this regulation to be as consistent as possible with 
the existing OSHA standards, with additional requirements as necessary 
to address the unreasonable risk. One notable difference between the 
WCPP and the OSHA standards are the exposure limits. The WCPP would 
include an ECEL of 0.05 ppm as an 8-hour TWA to address unreasonable 
risks for chronic cancer and non-cancer and acute non-

[[Page 65073]]

cancer inhalation endpoints. EPA recognizes that there is no OSHA PEL 
for 1-BP; however, OSHA and the National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health (NIOSH) issued a Hazard Alert in 2013, which 
indicates a recommended time-weighted average threshold limit value 
(TWA-TLV) of 10 ppm by the American Conference of Governmental 
Industrial Hygienists (Ref. 10). However, in 2011, ACGIH recommended 
0.10 ppm as the TWA-TLV value for 1-BP and adopted this value in 2014. 
(Ref. 10). OSHA also released an Enforcement Policy for Respiratory 
Hazards Not Covered by OSHA Permissible Exposure Limits that explains 
OSHA requirements and the applicability of this policy pertaining to 1-
BP exposure limits under certain conditions (Ref. 11).
    The TSCA ECEL value for 1-BP is a lower value than other existing 
OELs, discussed in Unit II.C.5., because many of those OELs are 
outdated, and they may not fully capture either the complete database 
of studies considered in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP or more 
recent advances in modeling and scientific interpretation of 
toxicological data applied in the calculation of the 1-BP ECEL. EPA 
considers the 1-BP ECEL to represent the best available science under 
TSCA section 26(h) because it was derived from information in the 2020 
Risk Evaluation for 1-BP, which was subject to peer review, and which 
is the result of a systematic review approach that investigated the 
reasonably available information in order to identify relevant adverse 
health effects. Additionally, by using the information from the 2020 
Risk Evaluation for 1-BP, the ECEL incorporates advanced modeling and 
peer-reviewed methodologies, and accounts for exposures to potentially 
exposed or susceptible subpopulations, as required by TSCA.
    For 1-BP, the TSCA ECEL is an 8-hour occupational inhalation 
exposure limit based on cancer inhalation risks and takes into 
consideration the uncertainties identified in the 2020 Risk Evaluation 
for 1-BP (Ref. 12). The ECEL represents the concentration at which an 
adult human, including a member of a PESS, would be unlikely to suffer 
adverse effects if exposed for a working lifetime. EPA has determined 
as a matter of risk management policy that ensuring exposures remain at 
or below the ECEL will eliminate any unreasonable risk of injury to 
health from occupational inhalation exposures. In addition to the ECEL, 
as part of this rulemaking, EPA is proposing an ECEL action level. An 
ECEL action level, similar to other OEL frameworks, is typically a 
value lower than the ECEL value, that would trigger additional 
monitoring to ensure that workers are not exposed to concentrations 
above the ECEL.
    For 1-BP, the ECEL of 0.05 ppm is based on the cancer endpoints. As 
demonstrated in the ECEL memo, cancer from chronic inhalation exposures 
is the basis of the 1-BP ECEL (Ref. 12). As discussed in Units II.D., 
III.B., and VII.D., the TSCA ECEL represents the best available science 
at time of publication of the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP.
5. 1-BP and Other Occupational Exposure Limits
    EPA is aware of other OELs for 1-BP, including the California 
Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) PEL and the ACGIH 
TLV. The 2014 8-hour TWA TLV recommended by the ACGIH is 0.10 ppm. This 
TLV is based on the potential for neurotoxicity, liver toxicity, and 
reproductive/developmental toxicity. While a variety of studies 
covering numerous health effects are discussed in the report, the most 
relevant study cited (Ref. 13) reported ``diminished vibration 
sensation and lower scores in memory and mood tests'' in workers at 
measured occupational exposures as low as 0.34 ppm. The TLV appears to 
be semi-quantitative and not directly extrapolated from any individual 
point of departure. The August 2020 TSCA Risk Evaluation for 1-BP 
discussed the Ichihara results (Ref. 1, 13), however they were 
considered ambiguous due to 1-BP co-exposures that may have 
significantly contributed to the observed neurotoxicity. The TLV report 
also discusses the NTP 2011 cancer results that were the basis of the 
TSCA ECEL, however linear low-dose extrapolation was not performed in 
order to derive a lower TLV.
    The 2014 Cal/OSHA PEL is 5 ppm, higher than the ACGIH TLV, and has 
a skin notation, meaning that a worker's skin, eyes and mouth should be 
protected from any contact with 1-BP (Ref. 14). The Cal/OSHA PEL is 
based on reproductive and developmental toxicity (observed in animal 
studies) and technological feasibility assessments from industry (Ref. 
14).

D. Summary of EPA's Risk Evaluation Activities on 1-Bromopropane

    In December 2016, EPA selected 1-BP as one of the first 10 
chemicals for risk evaluation under TSCA section 6 (Ref. 15). EPA 
published the scope of the 1-BP risk evaluation in June 2017 (82 FR 
31592, July 7, 2017), and, after receiving public comments, published 
the problem formulation in June 2018 (83 FR 26998, June 11, 2018). In 
August 2019, EPA published a draft risk evaluation (84 FR 39830, August 
12, 2019), and, after public comment and peer review by the Science 
Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC), EPA issued the 2020 Risk 
Evaluation for 1-BP in August 2020 in accordance with TSCA section 6(b) 
(85 FR 48687, August 12, 2020). EPA subsequently issued a draft revised 
TSCA unreasonable risk determination for 1-BP (87 FR 43265, July 20, 
2022), and after public notice and receipt of comments, published a 
revised Unreasonable Risk Determination for 1-BP (87 FR 77603, December 
2022). The 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP and supplemental materials are 
in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0235, with the December 2022 revised 
unreasonable risk determination and additional materials supporting the 
risk evaluation process are in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0741, on https://www.regulations.gov.
1. 2020 Risk Evaluation
    In the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP, EPA evaluated risks 
associated with 25 conditions of use within the following categories: 
manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, 
industrial and commercial use, consumer use, and disposal. Descriptions 
of these conditions of use are in Unit III.B.1. The 2020 Risk 
Evaluation for 1-BP identified significant adverse health effects 
associated with exposure to 1-BP, including developmental toxicity from 
acute and chronic inhalation exposures and dermal exposures, and cancer 
from chronic inhalation exposures to 1-BP. A further discussion of the 
hazards of 1-BP is included in Unit III.B.2.
2. Revised Unreasonable Risk Determination
    EPA has been revisiting specific aspects of its first ten TSCA 
existing chemical risk evaluations, including the 2020 Risk Evaluation 
for 1-BP, to ensure that the risk evaluations upon which risk 
management decisions are made better align with TSCA's objective of 
protecting human health and the environment. For 1-BP, EPA revised the 
original unreasonable risk determination based on the 2020 Risk 
Evaluation for 1-BP and issued a final revised unreasonable risk 
determination on December 2022 (Ref. 2). EPA revised the risk 
determination for the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP pursuant to TSCA 
section 6(b) and consistent with Executive Order 13990, (``Protecting 
Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the 
Climate

[[Page 65074]]

Crisis'') and other Administration priorities (Refs. 16, 17, and 18). 
The revisions consisted of making the risk determination based on the 
whole-chemical substance instead of by individual conditions of use 
(which resulted in the revised risk determination superseding the prior 
``no unreasonable risk'' determinations and withdrawing the associated 
TSCA section 6(i)(1) ``no unreasonable risk'' order); and clarifying 
that the risk determination does not reflect an assumption that all 
workers are always provided and appropriately wear PPE (Ref. 2).
    In determining whether 1-BP presents unreasonable risk under the 
conditions of use, EPA considered relevant risk-related factors, 
including, but not limited to: the effects of the chemical substance on 
health (including cancer and non-cancer risks) and human exposure to 
the substance under the conditions of use (including duration, 
magnitude, and frequency of exposure); the effects of the chemical 
substance on the environment and environmental exposure under the 
conditions of use; the population exposed (including any PESS); 
susceptible life stages; the severity of hazard (including the nature 
of the hazard, the irreversibility of the hazard); and uncertainties.
    EPA determined that 1-BP presents an unreasonable risk of injury to 
health. The contributions to the unreasonable risk determination are 
risks to workers and ONUs (workers who do not directly handle the 
chemical but perform work in an area where the chemical is present) due 
to occupational exposures to 1-BP (i.e., during manufacture, 
processing, industrial and commercial uses, disposal); and to consumers 
and bystanders associated with consumer uses of 1-BP due to exposures 
from consumer use of 1-BP and products containing 1-BP. EPA did not 
identify risks of injury to the environment that contribute to the 
unreasonable risk determination for 1-BP. The 1-BP 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., with descriptions to 
aid chemical manufacturers, processors, and users in determining how 
their particular use or activity would be addressed under the proposed 
regulatory provisions.
    While the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP estimated different risks 
for occupational non-users and workers, the benchmark (and thus the 
ECEL value) is the same for both populations. That is, while workers 
and occupational non-users may have different exposure patterns, the 
level of exposure such that risks are no longer unreasonable is the 
same for both workers and occupational non-users. Thus, for the 
purposes of risk management, the distinction between worker and 
occupational non-user is no longer relevant, and both are encompassed 
by the proposed definition of a potentially exposed person, as outlined 
in Unit IV.A.2.a. EPA notes that this proposed definition is intended 
to apply to occupational workplaces as part of implementation of the 
WCPP, and recognizes that other individuals or communities may be 
exposed to 1-BP as consumers, members of fenceline communities, or 
members of the general population.
3. Fenceline Screening Analysis
    The 2020 TSCA Risk Evaluation for 1-BP excluded the assessment of 
certain exposure pathways that were or could be regulated under another 
EPA-administered statute (see section 1.4.2 of the August 2020 Risk 
Evaluation for 1-BP (Refs. 1, 2). This resulted in the ambient air 
pathway for 1-BP exposure not being fully assessed for human health 
risk to the general population. The August 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-
BP did assess the water pathway based on fate and monitoring and 
modeling data, which determined there was no presence of 1-BP (Ref. 1). 
In June 2021, EPA made a policy announcement on the path forward for 
TSCA chemical risk evaluations, indicating that EPA would, among other 
things, examine whether the exclusion of certain exposure pathways from 
the risk evaluations could lead to a failure to identify and protect 
fenceline communities (Refs. 9; 15). EPA then conducted a screening 
analysis to identify whether there may be potential risks to people 
living near the fenceline of facilities releasing 1-BP.
    In order to determine whether there may be potential risk to the 
general population in proximity to a facility releasing 1-BP, EPA 
developed the TSCA Screening Level Approach for Assessing Ambient Air 
and Water Exposures to Fenceline Communities Version 1.0, which was 
presented to the SACC in March 2022, with a report issued by the SACC 
on May 18, 2022 (Ref. 19). This analysis is discussed in Unit VI.A.

III. Regulatory Approach

A. Background

    Under TSCA section 6(a), if the Administrator determines, through a 
TSCA section 6(b) risk evaluation that the manufacture (including 
import), processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of a 
chemical substance or mixture, or any combination of such activities, 
presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, 
EPA must by rule apply one or more of the following requirements to the 
extent necessary so that the chemical substance or mixture no longer 
presents such risk.
     Prohibit or otherwise restrict the manufacturing, 
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)).
    As described in Unit III.B.3., EPA analyzed how the TSCA section 
6(a) requirements could be applied to address the unreasonable risk 
found to be present in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP and the final 
revised unreasonable risk determination, so that 1-BP no longer 
presents such

[[Page 65075]]

unreasonable risk. EPA's proposed regulatory action and two alternative 
regulatory actions are described in Unit IV. EPA is requesting public 
comment on all elements of the proposed regulatory action and the 
alternative regulatory actions and is providing notice that based on 
consideration of comments and any new information submitted to EPA 
during the comment period on this proposed rule, EPA may in the final 
rule modify elements of the proposed regulatory action. The public 
should understand that public comments could result in changes to 
elements of the proposed and alternative regulatory actions when this 
rulemaking is finalized. For example, elements such as timelines for 
phase out could be lengthened or shortened, ECELs could be modified, or 
the WCPP could have conditions added or eliminated, or uses proposed to 
be prohibited could be allowed with a WCPP or uses proposed to be 
allowed with a WCPP could be prohibited.
    Under the authority of TSCA section 6(g), EPA may consider granting 
a time-limited exemption from a requirement of a TSCA section 6(a) rule 
for a specific condition of use if EPA finds that: (1) The specific 
condition of use is a critical or essential use for which no 
technically and economically feasible safer alternative is available, 
taking into consideration hazard and exposure; (2) Compliance with the 
requirement, as applied with respect to the specific condition of use 
would significantly disrupt the national economy, national security, or 
critical infrastructure; or (3) The specific condition of use, as 
compared to reasonably available alternatives, provides a substantial 
benefit to health, the environment, or public safety. At this time, EPA 
is not proposing to grant TSCA section 6(g) exemptions in this proposed 
rulemaking.
    TSCA section 6(c)(2)(A) requires EPA, in proposing and promulgating 
TSCA section 6(a) rules, to consider and include a statement addressing 
certain factors, including the costs and benefits and the cost 
effectiveness of the regulatory action and of the one or more primary 
alternative regulatory actions considered by the Administrator. A 
description of all TSCA section 6 requirements considered in developing 
this proposed regulatory action is in Unit III.B.3., and Unit V.B. 
includes more information regarding EPA's consideration of exemptions 
and alternatives. TSCA section 6(c)(2)(C) requires that in deciding 
whether to prohibit or restrict in a manner that substantially prevents 
a specific condition of use and in setting an appropriate transition 
period for such action, EPA consider, to the extent practicable, 
whether technically and economically feasible alternatives that benefit 
health or the environment will be reasonably available as substitutes 
when the proposed prohibition or restriction takes effect. Unit IV.B. 
includes more information regarding EPA's consideration of 
alternatives, and Unit VI. provides more information on EPA's 
considerations more broadly under TSCA section 6(c)(2).
    EPA carried out required consultations as described in this unit 
and also considered impacts on children's environmental health as part 
of its approach to developing this TSCA section 6 regulatory action.
1. Consultations
    EPA conducted consultations and outreach in developing this 
proposed regulatory action. The Agency held a federalism consultation 
from October 22, 2020, until January 23, 2021, as part of this 
rulemaking process and pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 
August 10, 1999). This included a background presentation on September 
9, 2020, and a consultation meeting on October 22, 2020. During the 
consultation, EPA met with State and local officials early in the 
process of developing the proposed action in order to receive 
meaningful and timely input into its development (Ref. 20). During the 
consultation, participants and EPA discussed preemption, EPA's 
authority under TSCA section 6 to regulate identified unreasonable 
risks, what activities would be potentially regulated in the proposed 
rule; and the relationship between TSCA and existing statutes--
particularly the Clean Air Act (CAA) (Ref. 20).
    1-BP is not manufactured (including imported), processed, 
distributed in commerce, or regulated by Tribal governments. However, 
EPA consulted with Tribal officials during the development of this 
proposed action (Ref. 21). The Agency held a Tribal consultation from 
October 7, 2020, to January 8, 2021, with meetings on November 12 and 
17, 2020. Tribal officials were given the opportunity to meaningfully 
interact with EPA risk managers 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 1-
BP, types of information that would be helpful to inform risk 
management, principles for transparency during the risk management 
process, and types of information EPA is seeking from tribes (Ref. 21). 
EPA received no written comments as part of this consultation.
    In addition to the formal consultations, EPA also conducted 
outreach to advocates of communities that might be subject to 
disproportionate risk from the exposures to 1-BP, such as low-income 
populations, and indigenous peoples. EPA's Environmental Justice (EJ) 
consultation occurred from November 4, 2020, through January 18, 2021. 
On November 16 and 19, 2020, EPA held public meetings as part of this 
consultation. These meetings were held pursuant to EPA policy to 
advance meaningful community engagement as part of the goal of 
environmental justice. During the consultations, participants and EPA 
discussed risk management under TSCA section 6(a), types of information 
that would be helpful to inform risk management, principles for 
transparency during the risk management process, and the relationship 
between TSCA and existing statutes, particularly the Clean Air Act. In 
general, commenters supported strong regulation of 1-BP to protect 
lower-income communities and workers. Commenters also supported strong 
outreach to affected communities, encouraged EPA to follow the NIOSH 
hierarchy of controls in regulating 1-BP, favored prohibitions, and 
noted the uncertainties associated with use of personal protective 
equipment (e.g., in some cases, use of PPE did not provide adequate 
protection given the exposure scenario). (Ref. 22)
    As required by section 609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 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 this 
proposed rule's requirements (Ref. 23). EPA met with SERs before and 
during Panel proceedings, on November 5, 2020, and May 11, 2021. Panel 
recommendations are in Unit X.C. and in the Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) (Ref. 24); the Panel report is in the 
docket (Ref. 23). EPA requests comment on all elements of the IRFA, 
and, in particular, the flexibilities that EPA has identified following 
input from the SERs during the SBAR process. Additional requests for 
comment based on Panel recommendations are in Unit VIII.
    Units X.C., X.E., X.F., and X.J. provide more information regarding 
the consultations.

[[Page 65076]]

2. Other Stakeholder Engagement
    In addition to the formal consultations described in Unit X., EPA 
held a webinar on September 30, 2020, providing an overview of the TSCA 
risk management process and the risk evaluation findings for 1-BP. EPA 
also presented on the risk evaluation and risk management under TSCA 
for 1-BP at a Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy 
Environmental roundtable on September 11, 2020. At both events EPA 
staff provided an overview of the TSCA risk management process and the 
findings in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP (Ref. 25). Attendees of 
these meetings were given an opportunity to voice their concerns 
regarding the risk evaluation and risk management.
    Furthermore, EPA engaged in discussions with representatives from 
different industries, non-governmental organizations, technical experts 
and users of 1-BP. A list of external meetings held during the 
development of this proposed rule is in the docket (Ref. 26); meeting 
materials and summaries are also in the docket. The purpose of these 
discussions was to create awareness and educate stakeholders and 
regulated entities on the provisions for risk management required under 
TSCA section 6(a); explain the risk evaluation findings; obtain input 
from manufacturers, processors, distributors, users, academics, 
advisory councils, and members of the public health community about 
uses of 1-BP; identify workplace practices, engineering controls, 
administrative controls, PPE, and industrial hygiene plans currently in 
use or feasibly adoptable to reduce exposure to 1-BP under the 
conditions of use; understand the importance of 1-BP in the various 
uses subject to this proposed rule; compile knowledge about critical 
uses, substitute chemicals or alternative methods; identify various 
standards and performance specifications; and generate potential risk 
reduction strategies. EPA has met with, or otherwise communicated with, 
a variety of companies, trade associations and non-governmental 
organizations to discuss the topics outlined in this paragraph; a list 
of external meetings held during the development of this proposed rule 
is in the docket. (Ref. 26).
3. Children's Environmental Health
    EPA's Policy on Children's Health (Ref. 27) 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.'' Infants, children, and 
pregnant women are life stages that are listed as examples of 
subpopulations that may be considered relevant ``potentially exposed or 
susceptible subpopulations'' in the TSCA section 3(12) definition of 
that term. In addition, TSCA section 6(a) requires EPA to apply one or 
more risk management requirements under TSCA section 6(a) so that 1-BP 
no longer presents an unreasonable risk (including unreasonable risk to 
PESS).
    The 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP considered impacts on both 
children and adults from occupational and consumer use from inhalation 
and dermal exposures, as applicable. For occupational use, the risk 
evaluation considered males (>16 years of age) and females of 
reproductive age (>16 years of age to less than 54 years of age) for 
both dermal and inhalation exposures. For consumer use, EPA evaluated 
dermal and inhalation exposures for children ages 11-15 and 16-20 years 
of age, and the evaluation of inhalation exposures to bystanders 
includes infants, toddlers, and older children. Several health effects 
of 1-BP exposure are relevant to early life stages, including 
developmental toxicity (i.e. increases in post-implantation loss), and 
other adverse effects including reproductive toxicity and cancer.

B. Regulatory Assessment of 1-BP

1. Description of Conditions of Use
    This unit describes the TSCA conditions of use that contribute to 
EPA's unreasonable risk determination for the chemical substance 1-BP. 
Condition of use descriptions were obtained from EPA sources such as 
CDR use codes, the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP and related documents, 
as well as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 
harmonized use codes and stakeholder engagements. For additional 
descriptions of the conditions of use, including process descriptions 
and worker activities considered in the risk evaluation, see the 
Problem Formulation of the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP, the 2020 Risk 
Evaluation for 1-BP, and supplemental files (Refs. 28, 1, 29). EPA 
acknowledges that some of the terms in this unit may be defined under 
other statutes, however the descriptions here are intended to provide 
clarity to the regulated entities who will implement the provisions of 
this rulemaking under TSCA section 6(a).
a. Manufacturing (Including 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.
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 1-BP in chemical 
reactions for the manufacturing of another chemical substance or 
product. Through processing as a reactant or intermediate, 1-BP serves 
as a feedstock in the production of another chemical product via a 
chemical reaction in which 1-BP is completely consumed. For example, 1-
BP is used as a reactant in the production of other organic and 
inorganic chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers, and other agricultural 
chemicals.
ii. Processing: Incorporation Into a Formulation, Mixture, or Reaction 
Products
    This condition of use refers to when 1-BP is added to a product (or 
product mixture) prior to further distribution of the product.
iii. Processing: Incorporation Into Articles
    This condition of use refers to when 1-BP becomes an integral 
component of an article distributed for industrial, commercial, or 
consumer use. An article refers to a manufactured item which: (1) Is 
formed to a specific shape or design during manufacture; (2) has end 
use function(s) dependent in whole or in part upon its shape or design 
during end use; and (3) has either no change of chemical composition 
during its end

[[Page 65077]]

use or only those changes of composition which have no commercial 
purpose separate from that of the article, and that result from a 
chemical reaction that occurs upon end use of other chemical 
substances, mixtures, or articles, except that fluids are particles 
that are not considered articles regardless of shape or design. 40 CFR 
704.3
iv. Processing by Repackaging
    This condition of use refers to the preparation of a chemical 
substance or mixture for distribution in commerce in a different form, 
state, or quantity. This includes transferring of 1-BP from a bulk 
container into smaller containers.
v. Recycling
    This condition of use refers to processing waste streams of 1-BP at 
a third-party site for the purpose of recovering materials or otherwise 
preparing the waste for reuse instead of disposal. Waste solvents can 
be restored via solvent reclamation/recycling. The recovery process may 
involve an initial vapor recovery or mechanical separation step 
followed by distillation, purification, and final packaging.
c. Industrial and Commercial Use
i. Industrial and Commercial Use as Solvent for Open-Top Batch and In-
Line Conveyorized Vapor Degreasing
    This condition of use refers to the industrial and commercial use 
of 1-BP as a solvent for cleaning and degreasing through the process of 
heating 1-BP 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 and in-line conveyorized vapor 
degreaser machines.
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 1-BP as a solvent for cleaning and degreasing through the process of 
heating 1-BP 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 degreaser machines.
iii. Industrial and Commercial Use as Solvent for Cold Cleaning
    This condition of use refers to the industrial and commercial use 
of 1-BP as a non-boiling solvent in cold cleaning machines, including 
simple spray sinks and dip tanks, to remove dirt, oils, greases, and 
other surface contaminants from metal and other parts.
iv. Industrial and Commercial Use as Solvent for Aerosol Spray 
Degreaser/Cleaner
    This condition of use refers to the industrial and commercial use 
of 1-BP as a solvent in degreasing and cleaning products to remove 
dirt, grease, stains, spots, and foreign matter through a process that 
uses an aerosolized solvent spray, typically applied from a pressurized 
can, to remove residual contaminants from electronics, metals, and 
other fabricated materials. This description does not apply to use of 
1-BP in products intended for automotive care, anti-adhesive agents for 
mold cleaning and release products, adhesive accelerants for arts, 
crafts, and hobby materials, or functional fluids, which are described 
in ``Other industrial and commercial uses'' in this unit, or dry 
cleaning solvents and stain removers, which are described in 
``Industrial and commercial use in dry cleaning solvents, spot cleaners 
and stain removers'' in this unit.
v. Industrial and Commercial Use in Adhesives and Sealants
    This condition of use refers to the industrial and commercial use 
of 1-BP as a solvent in spray adhesives and sealants for foam cushion 
manufacturing and fabrication (e.g., the furniture industry).
vi. Industrial and Commercial Use in Dry Cleaning Solvents, Spot 
Cleaners and Stain Removers
    This condition of use refers to the industrial and commercial use 
of 1-BP 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. 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) 1-BP dry cleaning machines. In addition to use as a 
solvent in dry cleaning equipment, 1-BP is found in products to spot 
clean garments to remove stains or spots before and after dry cleaning 
treatment.
vii. Industrial and Commercial Use in Coin and Scissor Cleaner (Liquid, 
Spray, or Aerosol Cleaners)
    This condition of use refers to the industrial and commercial use 
of 1-BP in aerosol and non-aerosol product formulations, designed to 
clean collectible coins and scissors.
viii. Commercial Use in Insulation
    This condition of use refers to the commercial use of 1-BP in 
insulation material in the form of rigid board insulation, which can be 
used for interior and exterior applications including walls, ceilings, 
roofs, foundations, basements, and crawl spaces in commercial and 
residential buildings.
ix. Other Industrial and Commercial Uses
    This condition of use refers to the industrial and commercial uses 
of 1-BP in a variety of other aerosol and non-aerosol uses not already 
described previously in this unit.
     Aerosol mold cleaning and release: This refers to the 
industrial and commercial use of 1-BP in aerosol mold cleaning and 
release products used to coat the molds for injection moldings, 
compression molding, blow molding, and extrusion applications.
     Asphalt extraction: This refers to the industrial and 
commercial use of 1-BP for asphalt extraction in centrifuge extractors, 
vacuum extractors, and reflux extractors to separate asphalt from the 
aggregate and filler material to allow for determination of asphalt 
content.
     Automotive care products: This condition of use also 
refers to the industrial and commercial use of 1-BP in aerosolized 
products, particularly engine degreasers and brake cleaners, to remove 
residual contaminants from fabricated parts.
     General purpose degreaser: This refers to the industrial 
and commercial use of 1-BP in aerosolized and non-aerosolized products 
used in industrial settings, with usage varying widely by facility to 
clean and maintain equipment (primarily during plant shutdowns) and 
also used for heavy duty transportation maintenance (e.g., maintaining 
buses, trains, trucks, etc.).
     High voltage cable cleaner: This refers to the industrial 
and commercial use of 1-BP in both aerosolized and non-aerosolized 
cleaning products to clean the semi-conductive cores of high voltage 
cables when splicing and terminating cables.
     Refrigerant flush: This refers to the industrial and 
commercial use of 1-BP

[[Page 65078]]

in products used to clean refrigeration lines in various industries, 
and flush oxygen lines in hospitals and in the aerospace industry.
     Temperature indicators: This refers to the industrial and 
commercial use of 1-BP in temperature-indicating fluids and coatings, 
which can be applied to fabrics, rubber, plastics, glass, and/or 
polished metals.
     Other uses: This refers to the industrial and commercial 
use of 1-BP in a variety of other products such as an adhesive 
accelerant, a coating component for pipes and fixtures, functional 
fluids (closed/open systems), cutting oils, and as a laboratory 
chemical for research and development.
d. Consumer Use
i. Consumer Use as a Solvent in Aerosol Spray Degreasers/Cleaners
    This condition of use refers to the consumer use of 1-BP in 
aerosolized products to dissolve oils, greases, and similar materials 
from textiles, glassware, metal surfaces, and other articles. This 
includes the use of 1-BP in aerosolized products for cleaning or 
degreasing in electronic degreasers.
ii. Consumer Use in Spot Cleaners or Stain Removers
    This condition of use refers to the consumer use of 1-BP for 
cleaning and furniture care in the form of spot cleaners or stain 
removers to remove dirt, grease, stains, and foreign matter from 
furniture or furnishings, or to cleanse, sanitize, or improve the 
appearance of surfaces.
iii. Consumer Use in Liquid Cleaners (e.g., Coin and Scissor Cleaners)
    This condition of use refers to the consumer use of 1-BP in liquid 
cleaning products to dissolve oils, greases, and stains, or to cleanse, 
sanitize, or improve the appearance of surfaces.
iv. Consumer Use in Liquid Spray/Aerosol Cleaners
    This condition of use refers to the consumer use of 1-BP in liquid 
and aerosolized products for cleaning and furniture care to remove 
dirt, grease, and stains, or to cleanse, scour, polish, protect, or 
improve the appearance of surfaces.
v. Consumer Use in Arts, Crafts and Hobby Materials (Adhesive 
Accelerant)
    This condition of use refers to the consumer use of 1-BP in 
aerosolized products for arts, crafts, and hobby activities to 
accelerate the time it takes for the adhesive to dry.
vi. Consumer Use in Automotive Care Products (Refrigerant Flush)
    This condition of use refers to the consumer use of 1-BP in liquid 
cleaning products to dissolve and flush out foreign materials from 
coils of an automobile AC coil.
vii. Consumer Use in Anti-Adhesive Agents (Mold Cleaning and Release 
Products)
    This condition of use refers to the consumer use of 1-BP in 
products for mold cleaning and release. These products are used as 
anti-adhesive agents to prevent bonding between other substances by 
discouraging surface attachments.
e. Disposal
    This condition of use refers to the process of disposing generated 
waste streams of 1-BP that are collected and transported to a third-
party site for their final disposition, such as waste incineration or 
landfilling.
f. Terminology in This Proposed Rule
    For purposes of this proposed rulemaking, ``occupational conditions 
of use'' refers to the TSCA conditions of use described in Units 
III.B.1.a., b., c., and e. Although EPA identified both industrial and 
commercial uses in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP for purposes of 
distinguishing scenarios, the Agency clarified then and clarifies now 
that EPA interprets the authority Congress gave to the Agency to 
``regulat[e] any manner or method of commercial use'' under TSCA 
section 6(a)(5) to reach both industrial and commercial uses.
    Additionally, in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for the chemical 
substance 1-BP, EPA identified and assessed all known, intended, and 
reasonably foreseen industrial, commercial, and consumer uses of 1-BP, 
and determined in the December 2022 final revised unreasonable risk 
determination that 1-BP as a whole chemical substance presents 
unreasonable risks to health and the environment. EPA determined that 
all industrial, commercial, and consumer uses of 1-BP evaluated in the 
2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP contribute to the EPA determination that 
1-BP presents unreasonable risk of injury to health, except for the use 
of 1-BP in insulation. As such, for purposes of this risk management 
rulemaking, ``consumer use'' refers to all known, intended, and 
reasonably foreseen consumer uses of 1-BP, except for the use of 1-BP 
in insulation. Likewise, for the purpose of this risk management 
rulemaking, ``industrial and commercial use'' refers to all industrial 
and commercial uses, including known, intended, or reasonably foreseen 
1-BP industrial and commercial use, except for the use of 1-BP in 
insulation.
    EPA is not proposing to incorporate the descriptions of known, 
intended or reasonably foreseen uses in Unit III.B.1.a. through e. into 
the regulatory text as definitions because these uses represent the 
specific uses evaluated in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP. This risk 
evaluation was used to inform EPA's determination that 1-BP presents 
unreasonable risk. EPA requests comment on whether EPA should 
promulgate definitions for those conditions of use evaluated in the 
2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP that would not be prohibited, and, if so, 
whether the descriptions in this unit are consistent with the 
conditions of use evaluated in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP and 
whether they provide a sufficient level of detail to improve the 
clarity and readability of the regulation if EPA were to promulgate a 
regulation that contains a list of the industrial and commercial 
conditions of use evaluated in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP.
    EPA also requests comment on whether, rather than just excluding 
the consumer and commercial uses of 1-BP in insulation from the 
prohibitions and other requirements in this risk management rulemaking, 
EPA should more broadly exclude the use of articles under TSCA section 
6(c)(2)(E), which would also exclude the use of 1-BP in articles that 
were not specifically evaluated in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP, 
and if so, whether and how to define ``article'' for the purposes of 
this rulemaking.
    EPA further notes that this proposed rule does not apply to any 
substance excluded from the definition of ``chemical substance'' under 
TSCA 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 (FFDCA), when manufactured, 
processed, or distributed in commerce for use as a food, food additive, 
drug, cosmetic or device.
2. Description of Unreasonable Risk Under the Conditions of Use
    EPA has determined that 1-BP presents an unreasonable risk of 
injury to human health under the conditions of use based on acute and 
chronic non-cancer risks and chronic cancer risks (Ref. 2). As 
described in the TSCA

[[Page 65079]]

section 6(b) 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP, EPA identified non-cancer 
adverse effects from acute and chronic inhalation and dermal exposures 
to 1-BP, and cancer from chronic inhalation and dermal exposures to 1-
BP (Ref. 1). For this proposed rulemaking, EPA has determined that 
protecting people from 1-BP-related cancer would also protect people 
from unreasonable risks for other 1-BP-related acute or chronic adverse 
health effects. EPA identified non-cancer adverse effects from acute 
inhalation and dermal exposures and non-cancer adverse effects from 
chronic inhalation and dermal exposures for all conditions of use (Ref. 
1). Additional risks associated with other adverse effects (e.g., 
developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, liver toxicity, kidney 
toxicity, neurotoxicity) were identified for acute and chronic 
exposures. EPA also concluded, based on EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen 
Risk Assessment (Ref. 30), that 1-BP is considered to be carcinogenic 
to workers and ONUs by all routes of exposure and calculated cancer 
risks from chronic inhalation and dermal exposures. Unit VI.A. 
summarizes the health effects and the magnitude of the exposures (Ref. 
1).
    To make the unreasonable risk determination for 1-BP, EPA evaluated 
exposures to workers, ONUs, consumer users, and bystanders to consumer 
use, using reasonably available monitoring and modeling data for 
inhalation and dermal exposures (Ref. 2). The August 2020 Risk 
Evaluation for 1-BP did assess the water pathway based on environmental 
fate characteristics and monitoring and modeling data. Based on this 
analysis, EPA determined that 1-BP would be unlikely to be present in 
surface water (Ref. 1). EPA conducted a screening level analysis to 
determine whether there may be potential risks from the ambient air 
pathway to fenceline communities. A discussion of EPA's analysis and 
the expected effects of this rulemaking on fenceline communities and 
the ongoing revisions of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAPs) under the CAA is in Unit VI.A.
    For the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP, EPA considered PESS. EPA 
identified the following groups as PESS: workers, ONUs, consumers, 
bystanders, and those with certain pre-existing health conditions, 
higher body fat content, or particular genetic polymorphisms (Ref. 1). 
Furthermore, the developing fetus and (by extension) women of 
childbearing age were identified as susceptible life stages (Ref. 1). 
All PESS and susceptible life stages are included in the quantitative 
and qualitative analyses described in the risk evaluation and were 
considered in the determination of unreasonable risk for 1-BP. As 
discussed in Units II.D. and VI.A., the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP 
did not fully assess the ambient air exposure pathways to the general 
population in the published risk evaluation; this may have caused some 
risks to be unaccounted for in the risk evaluation and in EPA's risk 
determination. EPA considers people in communities in proximity to 
facilities using 1-BP who are exposed to 1-BP through the ambient air 
pathway to constitute a subset of the general population and 
categorizes them as fenceline communities; they may also be considered 
PESS. See Unit VI.A. for further discussion on assessing and protecting 
against risk to fenceline communities.
3. Description of TSCA Section 6 Requirements for Risk Management
    EPA examined the TSCA section 6(a) requirements (listed in Unit 
III.A.) to identify which ones have the potential to eliminate the 
unreasonable risk for 1-BP. This unit summarizes the TSCA section 6 
considerations for issuing regulations under TSCA section 6(a). Unit V. 
outlines how EPA applied these considerations specifically to managing 
the unreasonable risk from 1-BP.
    As required, EPA developed a proposed regulatory action and one or 
more primary alternative regulatory actions, which are described in 
Units IV.A. and IV.B., respectively. 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 (see Unit III.B.1.f.), 
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 does 
not have direct authority to regulate consumer use. Therefore, EPA 
considered how it could exercise its authority under TSCA to regulate 
the manufacturing (including import), processing, and/or distribution 
in commerce of 1-BP at different points in the supply chain to 
eliminate exposures or restrict the availability of 1-BP and 1-BP-
containing products for consumer use in order to address the 
unreasonable risk.
    As required by TSCA Section 6(c)(2), EPA considered several 
factors, in addition to identified unreasonable risk, when selecting 
among possible TSCA section 6(a) requirements. To the extent 
practicable, EPA factored into its decisions: (1) the effects of 1-BP 
on health and the environment, (2) the magnitude of exposure to 1-BP of 
human beings and the environment, (3) the benefits of 1-BP for various 
uses, and (4) the reasonably ascertainable economic consequences of the 
rule. In evaluating the reasonably ascertainable economic consequences 
of the proposed rule, EPA considered (1) the likely effect of the 
proposed rule on the national economy, small business, technological 
innovation, the environment, and public health, (2) the costs and 
benefits of the proposed regulatory action and one or more primary 
alternative regulatory actions considered, and (3) the cost 
effectiveness of the proposed regulatory action and of the one or more 
primary alternative regulatory actions considered. See Unit VI. for 
further discussion related to TSCA section 6(c)(2)(A) considerations, 
including the statement of effects of the proposed rule with respect to 
these considerations.
    EPA also considered the regulatory authority under TSCA and other 
statutes such as the OSH Act, the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 
and other EPA-administered statutes to examine (1) whether there are 
opportunities for all or part of risk management action on 1-BP to be 
addressed under other statutes, such that a referral may be warranted 
under TSCA sections 9(a) or 9(b); or (2) whether TSCA section 6(a) 
regulation could include alignment of requirements and definitions in 
and under existing statutes to minimize confusion to the regulated 
entities and the general public.
    In addition, EPA followed other TSCA requirements such as 
considering the availability of alternatives when contemplating 
prohibition or a substantial restriction (TSCA section 6(c)(2)(C), as 
outlined in Unit V.B.), and setting proposed compliance dates in 
accordance with the requirements in TSCA section 6(d)(1) (described in 
the proposed and alternative regulatory actions in Unit IV.).
    To the extent information was reasonably available, when selecting 
regulatory actions, EPA considered pollution prevention and the 
hierarchy of controls adopted by OSHA and NIOSH, with the goal of 
identifying risk management control methods that are permanent, 
feasible, and effective. EPA also considered how to address the 
unreasonable risk while providing flexibility to the regulated entities 
where appropriate. EPA considered the information presented in the 2020 
Risk Evaluation for 1-BP, as well as additional input from stakeholders 
(as described in Unit III.A.), and anticipated

[[Page 65080]]

compliance strategies from regulated entities.
    Taken together, these considerations led EPA to the proposed 
regulatory action and primary alternative regulatory actions described 
in Unit IV. Additional details related to how the requirements in this 
unit were incorporated into development of those actions are in Unit V.
    As demonstrated by the number of distinct programs addressed in 
this rulemaking and the structure of this proposed rule in addressing 
them independently, EPA generally intends the rule's provisions to be 
severable from each other. EPA expects to provide additional detail on 
severability in the final rule once the Agency has considered public 
comments and finalized the regulatory language.

IV. Proposed and Alternative Regulatory Actions

    This unit describes the proposed regulatory action by EPA so that 
1-BP will no longer present an unreasonable risk of injury to health. 
In addition, as indicated by TSCA section 6(c)(2)(A), EPA must consider 
the costs and benefits and the cost-effectiveness of the proposed 
regulatory action and one or more primary alternative regulatory 
actions. In the case of 1-BP, the proposed regulatory action is 
described in Unit IV.A. and the two alternative regulatory actions 
considered are described in Unit IV.B. An overview of the proposed 
regulatory action and two alternative regulatory actions for each 
condition of use is in Unit IV.C. The rationale for the proposed and 
alternative regulatory actions and associated compliance timeframes are 
discussed in this unit and in more detail in Unit V.A.

A. Proposed Regulatory Action

    EPA is proposing under TSCA section 6(a) to: (1) prohibit the 
manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution in 
commerce of 1-BP for all consumer uses, excluding the use of 1-BP in 
insulation, outlined in Unit IV.A.1.b.; (2) prohibit the industrial and 
commercial use of 1-BP for four occupational uses, and the manufacture 
(including import), processing, and distribution in commerce of 1-BP 
for those uses, outlined in Unit IV.A.1.a.; (3) require strict 
workplace controls, including a 1-BP WCPP, which would include 
requirements to meet an inhalation exposure concentration limit and use 
of gloves for seven occupational conditions of use, outlined in Unit 
IV.A.2.; (4) require self-certification, which would document the 
purchaser's commitment to comply with the 1-BP WCPP, for six 
occupational conditions of use, outlined in Unit IV.A.1.4.; (5) require 
the use of prescriptive controls for six occupational conditions of 
use, outlined in Unit IV.A.1.3.; and (6) establish recordkeeping and 
downstream notification requirements, outlined in Unit IV.A.5. Pursuant 
to TSCA section 12(a)(2), this proposed rule would apply to 1-BP even 
if being manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce solely for 
export from the United States because EPA has determined that 1-BP 
presents an unreasonable risk to health within the United States or to 
the environment of the United States.
    EPA notes that some uses identified for prohibitions, the WCPP, or 
self-certification were identified within larger conditions of use in 
the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP. The regulatory action proposed for 
each use is described in this unit, and the rationale is provided in 
Unit V.
1. Prohibitions of Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce, 
and Use
a. Prohibition of Certain Industrial and Commercial Uses and 
Manufacturing, Processing, and Distribution of 1-BP for Those Uses
    EPA is proposing to prohibit the manufacturing, processing, 
distribution in commerce, and use of 1-BP for industrial and commercial 
uses of 1-BP except for those uses which would continue under the WCPP, 
self-certification, and/or prescriptive controls. The proposed 
prohibitions under TSCA would not apply to any use of 1-BP that is 
excluded from TSCA's definition of ``chemical substance'' under TSCA 
section 3(2)(B)(ii)(vi). This proposed prohibition would include a 
prohibition on the manufacturing (including import), processing, 
distribution in commerce, and use of 1-BP for the following industrial 
and commercial uses:
     In adhesives and sealants;
     In dry cleaning solvents, spot cleaners and stain 
removers;
     In coin and scissor cleaner (liquid, spray, or aerosol 
cleaners); and
     In other uses in arts, crafts, hobby materials (adhesive 
accelerant); automotive care products (engine degreaser, brake cleaner, 
refrigerant flush); anti-adhesive agents (mold cleaning and release 
product); functional fluids (closed/open-systems)--refrigerant/cutting 
oils.
    As discussed in Units III.B.3. and V.A., based on consideration of 
alternatives under TSCA section 6(c)(2)(C), uncertainty relative to the 
feasibility of exposure reduction to sufficiently address the 
unreasonable risk across the broad ranges of work environments and 
activities, and the irreversible health effects associated with 1-BP 
exposures, EPA has determined that prohibition is the best way to 
address the unreasonable risks from 1-BP contributed by the conditions 
of use identified in this unit. As noted in Unit III.B.1.f., this 
proposal does not apply to any substance excluded from the definition 
of ``chemical substance'' under TSCA section 3(2)(B)(ii) through (vi).
    EPA is proposing to stagger the compliance dates for the proposed 
prohibitions described in this unit, such that the requirements would 
come into effect in 6 months for manufacturers, 9 months for 
processors, 12 months for distributing to retailers, 15 months for all 
distributors (including retailers), and 18 months for industrial and 
commercial users after the publication date of the final rule. When 
proposing these compliance dates as required under TSCA section 6(d), 
EPA considered the irreversible health effects and risks associated 
with 1-BP exposure. EPA has no reasonably available information 
indicating that the proposed compliance dates are not practicable for 
the activities that would be prohibited, or that additional time would 
be needed for products to clear the channels of trade. For 1-BP, for 
the conditions of use EPA is proposing to prohibit, the Agency believes 
either 1-BP may no longer be used, or regulated entities would be able 
to meet the proposed regulatory compliance timeframes, due to 
availability of alternatives. EPA recognizes that for other proposed 
regulations under TSCA section 6, including methylene chloride (88 FR 
28284, May 3, 2023 (FRL-8155-02-OCSPP), perchloroethylene (88 FR 39652, 
June 16, 2023) (FRL-8329-02-OCSPP), and carbon tetrachloride (88 FR 
49180, July 28, 2023) (FRL-8206-01-OCSPP), public comments have 
provided information in support of longer compliance timeframes. 
Similarly, for 1-BP, EPA requests comment on whether additional time is 
needed, for example, for products to clear the channels of trade, or 
for implementing the use of substitutes; comments should include 
documentation such as the specific use of the chemical throughout the 
supply chain; concrete steps taken to identify, test, and qualify 
substitutes for those uses (including details on the substitutes tested 
and the specific certifications that would require updating); and 
estimates of the time

[[Page 65081]]

required to identify, test, and qualify substitutes with supporting 
documentation. EPA also requests comment on whether there are other 
considerations that should apply. EPA may finalize shorter or 
significantly longer compliance timeframes based on consideration of 
public comments. EPA would also like comment on whether it should 
consider a de minimis level of 1-BP in formulations for certain 
continuing industrial and commercial uses to account for impurities 
(e.g., 0.1% or 0.5%) when finalizing these prohibitions, and, if so, 
what level should be considered de minimis.
b. Prohibition of Manufacturing, Processing and Distribution in 
Commerce of 1-BP for Consumer Use
    In the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP, EPA evaluated consumer uses 
of 1-BP:
     As a solvent in aerosol spray degreasers/cleaners;
     In spot cleaners and stain removers;
     In liquid coin cleaners (e.g., coin and scissor cleaners);
     In liquid spray/aerosol cleaners;
     In arts, crafts, hobby materials (adhesive accelerant);
     In automotive care products (refrigerant flush);
     In anti-adhesive agents (mold cleaning and release 
products); and
     In building/construction materials in insulation.
    The consumer uses evaluated in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP 
constitute all known, intended, and reasonably foreseen consumer uses 
of 1-BP. EPA determined that all of these consumer uses, except for the 
use of 1-BP in insulation, contribute to unreasonable risk of injury to 
health. As such, for purposes of this risk management rulemaking, 
``consumer use'' refers to all consumer uses including known, intended, 
and reasonably foreseen consumer uses for 1-BP. EPA is proposing to 
prohibit the manufacturing, processing, and distribution in commerce of 
1-BP for consumer use, except for the consumer use of 1-BP in 
insulation.
    As discussed in Units III.B.3. and V.A., based on consideration of 
the severity of the hazards of 1-BP in conjunction with the limited 
options available to adequately address the identified unreasonable 
risk to consumers and bystanders under TSCA section 6(a), EPA is 
proposing to address the unreasonable risk from consumer use by 
prohibiting the manufacturing (including import), processing, and 
distribution in commerce of 1-BP for consumer use, in order to remove 
1-BP and products containing 1-BP from the market, thereby effectively 
eliminating instances of consumer use that contribute to the 
unreasonable risk of injury to health.
    Additionally, EPA is proposing to prohibit retailers from 
distributing in commerce 1-BP, including any 1-BP-containing products 
except insulation products, in order to prevent products intended for 
industrial and commercial use from being purchased by consumers. A 
retailer is any person or business entity that distributes or makes 
available chemical substances or products containing chemical 
substances 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 (as EPA proposes to define that term in 40 CFR 751.5). For a 
distributor not to be considered a retailer, the distributor must 
distribute or make available chemical substances solely to commercial 
or industrial end-users or businesses. Prohibiting manufacturers 
(including importers), processors, and distributors from distributing 
1-BP, or any products except insulation containing 1-BP, to retailers 
would prevent retailers from making these products available to 
consumers, which would help address that part of the unreasonable risk 
associated with consumer use of 1-BP. EPA is requesting comment on 
commercial distribution channels or systems that would allow for 
distribution to commercial users while preventing retailers from making 
these products available to consumers, or feasible distribution 
channels for commercial users that have been developed in analogous 
situations, including information on whether there are market barriers 
to such systems.
    EPA is proposing that the prohibitions of manufacturing, 
processing, and distribution in commerce of 1-BP for consumer use 
described in this unit would become effective in 6 months for 
manufacturers, 9 months for processers, 12 months for distributing to 
retailers, and 15 months for all other distributors (including 
retailers) after the publication date of the final rule in the Federal 
Register. EPA considered the irreversible health effects and risks 
associated with 1-BP when proposing compliance dates. EPA has no 
reasonably available information indicating these proposed compliance 
dates are not practicable for the activities that would be prohibited, 
or that additional time is needed for products to clear the channels of 
trade. However, EPA requests comment on whether additional time is 
needed, for example, for products to clear the channels of trade. EPA 
may finalize shorter or significantly longer compliance timeframes 
based on public comment.
2. Workplace Chemical Protection Program (WCPP)
a. Overview
    As described in Unit III.B.3., under TSCA section 6(a), EPA is 
required to issue a regulation applying one or more of the TSCA section 
6(a) requirements to the extent necessary so that the unreasonable risk 
of injury to health or the environment from a chemical substance is no 
longer presented. The TSCA section 6(a) requirements provide EPA the 
authority to limit or restrict a number of activities, alone or in 
combination, including the manufacture, processing, distribution in 
commerce, commercial use, and disposal of the chemical substance. Given 
this authority, EPA may find it appropriate in certain circumstances to 
propose requirements under a WCPP for certain occupational (i.e., 
manufacturing, processing, industrial and commercial use, and disposal) 
conditions of use. A WCPP for 1-BP would encompass the inhalation 
exposure limit and action level, the associated implementation 
requirements, and may include other components, such as respiratory 
protection or dermal protection, as described in this unit to ensure 
that the chemical substance no longer presents unreasonable risk. Under 
a WCPP, owners or operators would have some flexibility, within the 
parameters outlined in this unit, regarding how they prevent 
exceedances of the identified EPA exposure limit thresholds. In the 
case of 1-BP, meeting the EPA exposure limits, in tandem with other 
requirements as listed in this proposed rule, for certain occupational 
conditions of use would address unreasonable risk to potentially 
exposed persons from inhalation and dermal exposure.
    EPA uses the term ``potentially exposed person'' in this unit and 
in the regulatory text to include workers, occupational non-users, 
employees, independent contractors, employers, and all other persons in 
the work area where 1-BP is present and who may be exposed to 1-BP 
under the conditions of use for which a WCPP would apply. One important 
reason to define a potentially exposed person for the purposes of a 
WCPP as any person who may be exposed in the workplace is to emphasize 
the broad scope of exposures which must be categorized when

[[Page 65082]]

implementing a WCPP. EPA notes that this definition is intended to 
apply only in the context of risk management, and specifically in the 
context of a WCPP (e.g., workers directly using the chemical, workers 
in the vicinity of the use, students in a laboratory setting). The term 
is not intended as a replacement for the term Potentially Exposed or 
Susceptible Subpopulation as defined by TSCA section 3(12). EPA 
additionally recognizes that other individuals or communities may be 
exposed to 1-BP as consumers, members of fenceline communities, or 
members of the general population, which is separate and apart from 
those potentially exposed for the purposes of the regulatory 
requirements of the WCPP. In those instances, where regulatory 
requirements address exposures unrelated to a WCPP EPA would use 
distinct terminology to refer to those other populations. EPA's 
intention is to require a comprehensive WCPP that would address the 
unreasonable risk from 1-BP to potentially exposed persons directly 
handling the chemical or in the area where the chemical is being used.
    Similarly, the 2020 risk evaluation for 1-BP did not distinguish 
between employers, contractors, or other legal entities or businesses 
that manufacture, process, distribute in commerce, use, or dispose of 
1-BP. EPA uses the term ``owner or operator'' to describe the entity 
responsible for implementing the WCPP for workplaces where an 
applicable condition of use of 1-BP is occurring. The term includes any 
person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises such a 
workplace.
    An ECEL is a risk-based inhalation exposure threshold. The ECEL 
would be accompanied by monitoring, training, recordkeeping and other 
requirements to help ensure that the threshold is not exceeded. With an 
ECEL, regulated entities have some flexibility, within certain 
parameters outlined in this unit, for preventing exceedances of the 
identified exposure threshold. Therefore, EPA generally refers to the 
ECEL and ancillary requirements as a non-prescriptive approach. In the 
case of 1-BP, the exposure threshold identified by EPA for certain 
occupational conditions of use would mitigate unreasonable risks from 
inhalation exposure contributed by those conditions of use for 
potentially exposed persons.
    This unit includes a summary of the proposed 1-BP WCPP, including a 
description of the ECEL; proposed implementation requirements and a 
TSCA ECEL action level; proposed monitoring requirements; a description 
of potential exposure controls, which consider the hierarchy of 
controls; information that may be used to inform PPE selection; and 
additional requirements proposed for recordkeeping, and worker 
training, participation, and notification. This unit also describes 
compliance timeframes for these proposed requirements.
b. Existing Chemical Exposure Limit (ECEL)
i. ECEL and ECEL Action Level
    To reduce exposures in the workplace and address the unreasonable 
risk of injury to health resulting from inhalation exposures to 1-BP 
identified under the occupational conditions of use in the TSCA 2020 
Risk Evaluation for 1-BP, EPA is proposing an ECEL of 0.05 parts per 
million (ppm) (0.25 mg/m3) for inhalation exposures to 1-BP as an 8-
hour TWA. This ECEL is based on the cancer inhalation unit risk (IUR) 
at a risk level of 1 x 10-4, which is the most sensitive 
hazard value across acute, chronic non-cancer, and cancer endpoints, 
(Refs. 12, 1). As described in the ECEL memo documenting EPA's approach 
for determining the exposure limit, EPA expects that, at the ECEL value 
of 0.05 ppm based on the cancer endpoint, a worker or ONU is protected 
against other endpoints, including developmental effects.
    EPA has determined, as a matter of risk management policy, that 
ensuring exposures remain at or below the ECEL would eliminate the 
contribution to the unreasonable risk of injury to health for 1-BP 
resulting from inhalation exposures in an occupational setting. EPA is 
proposing to establish requirements to meet an ECEL as part of the WCPP 
for:
     Manufacturing (domestic manufacturing);
     Processing as incorporation into a formulation, mixture, 
or reaction products;
     Industrial and commercial use as a solvent in open-top and 
in-line batch vapor degreasing;
     Industrial and commercial use as a solvent in closed-loop 
vapor degreasing;
     Industrial and commercial use as a solvent for cleaning 
and degreasing in cold cleaners;
     Industrial and commercial use as a solvent in aerosol 
spray degreaser/cleaner; and
     Industrial and commercial use in other uses in electronic 
and electronic products and metal products; laboratory chemicals; 
asphalt extraction; and coatings for temperature indicators.
    Each owner or operator of a workplace where these conditions of use 
occur would be responsible for compliance with the ECEL and the 
associated requirements. EPA's description for how the requirements 
related to an ECEL would address the unreasonable risk resulting from 
inhalation exposures and the rationale for this regulatory approach are 
outlined in Units III.B.3. and V.A.
    If ambient exposures are kept at or below the 8-hour ECEL of 0.05 
ppm, EPA expects that a potentially exposed person in the workplace 
would be protected against non-cancer effects resulting from 
occupational exposures, as well as excess risk of cancer (Ref. 12).
    EPA is also proposing to establish an ECEL action level of 0.03 ppm 
as an 8-hour TWA for 1-BP. Air concentrations at or above the action 
level would trigger more frequent periodic monitoring of exposures to 
1-BP, as described in this unit. EPA is proposing to adopt the action 
level approach in implementing the TSCA ECEL, consistent with the 
action level approach utilized by OSHA in the implementation of OSHA 
standards. As explained by OSHA, due to the variable nature of employee 
exposures, compliance with an action level provides employers with 
greater assurance that their employees will not be exposed to 
concentrations above the PELs (Ref. 31). EPA agrees with this reasoning 
and, like OSHA, expects the inclusion of an ECEL action level will 
stimulate innovation within industry to reduce exposures to levels 
below the action level. Therefore, EPA has identified a need for an 
action level for 1-BP and is proposing a level that is lower than the 
8-hour ECEL, which is in alignment with the precedented approach 
established under most OSHA standards. EPA is soliciting comment 
regarding an ECEL action level that is lower than the ECEL.
    In summary, EPA is proposing that each owner or operator of a 
workplace subject to the ECEL must ensure that no person is exposed to 
airborne concentration of 1-BP in excess of 0.05 ppm as an 8-hr TWA, 
with an action level identified as 0.03 ppm as an 8-hr TWA. For 
conditions of use for which requirements to meet an ECEL are being 
proposed, EPA believes that the regulated community has the ability to 
detect the values for the ECEL and ECEL action level as they are above 
the threshold of 1-BP monitoring devices, which can detect 
concentration levels as low as <=0.0005 ppm (Ref. 12). The Agency has 
also identified personal breathing zone air sampling devices with a 
minimum limit of quantitation and level of detection at the ECEL level. 
(Ref. 12) EPA is requesting comment on

[[Page 65083]]

issues around the viability of current analytical methods and detection 
limits for occupational 1-BP sampling and/or monitoring methods, 
including information on the availability of laboratory capacity needed 
to meet the proposed standard, and the costs associated with such 
testing. EPA's methodology and inputs for the ECEL value are directly 
derived from the peer reviewed analysis in the August 2020 Risk 
Evaluation, which was also subject to public comment. See Ref 2 for 
additional information on the ECEL value and cancer risk. As with all 
aspects of this rulemaking, the public is welcome to comment on the 
methodology for the ECEL value and ECEL action level.
    EPA expects that many workplaces already have stringent controls in 
place that reduce exposures to 1-BP; for some workplaces, including 
those engaged in vapor degreasing, cold cleaning, and use of 1-BP in 
electronics and electronic products, EPA understands that these 
existing controls may already reduce 1-BP air concentration levels to 
near or below the ECEL (Ref. 32). As discussed further in Unit V.A.1., 
for some conditions of use for which EPA is proposing the ECEL, data 
were submitted during the risk evaluation that indicate inhalation 
exposures may already be near or below the ECEL for some facilities, 
indicating that such facilities may already be in compliance with the 
proposed ECEL. As noted previously in this unit, EPA expects that, if 
inhalation exposures for affected occupational conditions of use are 
kept at or below the ECEL, potentially exposed persons reasonably 
likely to be exposed in the workplace would be protected from the 
unreasonable risk.
    EPA is also proposing to require owners or operators to comply with 
additional requirements under the WCPP that would be needed to ensure 
successful implementation of the ECEL.
ii. Monitoring Results
    Overview. Monitoring requirements are a key component of 
implementing EPA's proposed WCPP. Initial monitoring for 1-BP is 
critical for establishing a baseline of exposure for potentially 
exposed persons; similarly, periodic exposure monitoring assures 
continued compliance so that potentially exposed persons in the 
workplace are not exposed to levels that would result in an 
unreasonable risk of injury. Periodic exposure monitoring frequency 
could change if certain conditions are met, which are described in this 
unit. Additionally, in some cases, a change in workplace conditions 
with potential to impact exposure levels would warrant additional 
monitoring, which is also described. To ensure compliance with 
monitoring activities, EPA proposes exposure monitoring recordkeeping 
requirements outlined in this unit.
    Initial Exposure Monitoring. Under the proposed regulation, each 
owner or operator of a workplace where any conditions of use listed 
earlier in this unit is occurring would be required to perform initial 
exposure monitoring to determine the extent of exposure of potentially 
exposed persons to 1-BP. Initial monitoring would notify owner or 
operators of the magnitude of possible exposures to their potentially 
exposed persons with respect to their unique work conditions and 
environments. The results of the initial exposure monitoring would 
determine the frequency of future periodic monitoring, whether 
additional exposure controls are necessary (such as engineering 
controls, administrative controls, and/or respiratory protection), and 
whether the owner or operator would need to demarcate a regulated area 
as described in this unit.
    EPA is proposing to require each owner or operator to establish an 
initial baseline monitoring sample to determine the magnitude of 
exposure for all persons who may be exposed to 1-BP within 33 months 
for Federal agencies and Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of 
the Federal Government and within 6 months after the date of 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register for non-Federal 
owners and operators, or within 30 days of introduction of 1-BP into 
the workplace, whichever is later. Where 1-BP is present in the 
workplace, each owner or operator would be required to determine each 
potentially exposed person's exposure by either taking a personal 
breathing zone air sample of each potentially exposed person or taking 
personal breathing zone air samples that are representative of each 
potentially exposed person's exposure performing the same or 
substantially similar operations in each work shift, in each job 
classification, and in each work area (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 at least one person's full-
shift exposure who represents the highest potential 1-BP exposures in 
that exposure group. Monitoring samples must be taken when and where 
the operating conditions are best representative of each potentially 
exposed person's full-shift exposures. EPA expects that owners and 
operators would attempt to monitor a baseline for all of the tasks 
during the same timeframe; however, EPA understands that certain tasks 
occur less frequently, and EPA is soliciting comments regarding the 
timing of the initial exposure monitoring so that it would be 
representative of all tasks involving 1-BP where exposures may approach 
the ECEL action level. If the owner or operator chooses a 
representative sample, such sampling must include persons that are the 
closest to the source of 1-BP, so that the monitoring results are 
representative of the most highly exposed persons in the workplace.
    EPA also recognizes that some entities may already have exposure 
monitoring data. If the owner or operator has monitoring data conducted 
within five years prior to the effective date of the final rule and the 
monitoring satisfies all other requirements of this section, including 
the requirement that the data represent the highest 1-BP 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.
    Periodic exposure monitoring. EPA is proposing to require each 
owner or operator to conduct, for those exposure groups that exceed the 
following airborne concentration levels, the following periodic 
monitoring:
     If samples taken during the initial exposure monitoring 
reveal a concentration below the ECEL action level (<0.03 ppm 8-hr 
TWA), the owner or operator must repeat the periodic exposure 
monitoring at least once every 5 years.
     If the most recent exposure monitoring indicates that 
airborne exposure is above the ECEL (>0.05 ppm 8-hour TWA), the owner 
or operator must repeat the periodic exposure monitoring within 3 
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 (>= 0.03 ppm 8-
hour TWA) but at or below the ECEL (<= 0.05 ppb 8-hour TWA), the owner 
or operator must repeat the periodic exposure monitoring within 6 
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 
owner or operator must repeat such monitoring within 6 months of the 
most recent monitoring until two consecutive monitoring measurements, 
taken at least seven days apart, are below the ECEL action level (<0.03 
ppb 8-hour TWA), at which time the owner

[[Page 65084]]

or operator must repeat the periodic exposure monitoring at least once 
every 5 years.
    Additionally, in instances where an owner or operator does not 
manufacture, process, use, or dispose of 1-BP for a condition of use 
for which the WCPP is proposed over the entirety of time since the last 
required periodic monitoring event, EPA is proposing that the owner or 
operator would be permitted to forgo the next periodic monitoring 
event. However, documentation of cessation of use of 1-BP would be 
required and periodic monitoring would be required to resume should the 
owner or operator restart any of the conditions of use listed in Unit 
IV.A.2. for which the WCPP is proposed. The timeframe for periodic 
monitoring after an owner or operator restarts a condition of use would 
be based on the most recent monitoring measurements and the timeframe 
would begin from the date of restart.
    The proposed periodic monitoring requirements are also outlined in 
Table 1. EPA requests comment on the proposed timeframes for periodic 
monitoring outlined in this unit. EPA may finalize significantly 
shorter or longer compliance timeframes based on public comment.

                Table 1--Periodic Monitoring Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Air concentration condition        Periodic monitoring requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If initial exposure monitoring is below  Periodic exposure monitoring is
 the ECEL action level (<0.03 ppm 8-      required at least once every
 hour TWA).                               five years.
If the most recent exposure monitoring   Periodic exposure monitoring is
 indicates that airborne exposure is      required within 3 months of
 above the ECEL (>0.05 ppm 8-hr TWA).     the most recent exposure
                                          monitoring.
If the most recent exposure monitoring   Periodic exposure monitoring is
 indicates that airborne exposure is at   required within 6 months of
 or above the ECEL action level, but at   the most recent exposure
 or below the ECEL (>= 0.03 ppm 8-hr      monitoring.
 TWA, <= 0.05 ppm 8-hr TWA).
If the two most recent (non-initial)     Periodic exposure monitoring is
 exposure monitoring measurements,        required within 5 years of the
 taken at least seven days apart within   most recent exposure
 a 6 month period, indicate exposure is   monitoring.
 below the ECEL action level (<0.03 ppm
 8-hr TWA).
If the owner or operator engages in a    The owner or operator may forgo
 condition of use for which the ECEL      the next periodic monitoring
 would be required but does not           event. However, documentation
 manufacture, process, use, or dispose    of cessation of use of 1-BP is
 of 1-BP in that condition of use over    required and periodic
 the entirety of time since the last      monitoring would be required
 required monitoring event.               immediately when the owner or
                                          operator resumes any condition
                                          of use.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional exposure monitoring. In addition to the initial and 
periodic exposure monitoring, EPA is proposing 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, shutdown, 
spills, leaks, ruptures or other breakdowns or unexpected releases that 
may lead to employee exposure, EPA is proposing 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 6 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 3 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.
    EPA is requesting comment on the proposed timeframe of within 30 
days to conduct additional exposure monitoring after there has been 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 have occurred. EPA is also requesting 
comment on the proposed timeframe of within 30 days to conduct 
additional exposure monitoring after the cleanup of the spill or repair 
of the leak, rupture or other breakdown.
    Other monitoring requirements. For each monitoring event, EPA is 
proposing to require owners or operators to ensure that their methods 
are accurate, to a confidence level of 95 percent, to within plus or 
minus 25 percent for airborne concentrations of 1-BP. Also, EPA is 
proposing to require use of appropriate sampling and analytical methods 
used to determine 1-BP exposure such as use of an analytical method 
already approved by EPA, OSHA or NIOSH, or another analytical method 
that has been demonstrated to meet the proposed accuracy requirement at 
an appropriate level of detection for the ECEL and ECEL action level by 
a laboratory in compliance with the Good Laboratory Practice Standards 
at 40 CFR part 792, or use of a laboratory accredited by the AIHA or 
another industry-recognized program, as required by proposed 
751.807(b)(2)(i)(C). Additionally, EPA is proposing to require owners 
and operators to re-monitor within 15 working days after receipt of the 
results of any exposure monitoring when results indicate 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 is also proposing to require that each owner or operator 
maintain exposure monitoring records that include the following 
information for each monitoring event:
    (A) Dates, duration, and results of each sample taken.
    (B) 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.

[[Page 65085]]

    (C) Name, workplace address, work shift, job classification, and 
work area of the person monitored; documentation of all potentially 
exposed persons whose exposures the monitoring is intended to represent 
if using a representative sample; and type of respiratory protective 
device worn by the monitored person, if any.
    (D) Use of appropriate sampling and analytical methods, such as 
analytical methods already approved by EPA, OSHA or NIOSH, or 
compliance with an analytical method verification procedure.
    (E) Compliance with the Good Laboratory Practice Standards at 40 
CFR part 792.
    (F) Information regarding air monitoring equipment, including: 
type, maintenance, calibrations, performance tests, limits of 
detection, and any malfunctions.
iii. Incorporation of the Hierarchy of Controls
    EPA is proposing to require owners or operators to implement the 
WCPP in accordance with the hierarchy of controls and encourages the 
use of pollution prevention to control exposures whenever practicable. 
Pollution prevention, also known as source reduction, is any practice 
that reduces, eliminates, or prevents pollution at its source (e.g., 
elimination and substitution). Similarly, the hierarchy of controls 
includes, in order of preference, elimination, substitution, 
engineering controls, and administrative controls, prior to relying on 
PPE as a means of controlling exposures (Ref. 8). EPA is proposing to 
require owners or operators to reduce inhalation exposures to or below 
the ECEL in accordance with the hierarchy of controls. EPA expects 
that, for conditions of use for which EPA is proposing a WCPP, 
compliance at most workplaces would be part of an existing industrial 
hygiene program. Workplaces that cannot feasibly eliminate the source 
of 1-BP emissions or replace 1-BP with a substitute would have to use 
engineering and/or administrative controls to implement process changes 
to reduce exposures to the extent feasible, following the hierarchy of 
controls (Ref. 8). If an owner or operator chooses to replace 1-BP with 
a substitute, EPA recommends that they carefully review the available 
hazard and exposure information on the potential substitutes to avoid a 
substitute chemical that might later be found to present unreasonable 
risks or be subject to regulation (sometimes referred to as a 
``regrettable substitute'').
    If an effort to identify and implement feasible exposure controls 
such as elimination, substitution, engineering controls, and 
administrative controls is not sufficient to reduce exposures to or 
below the ECEL for all persons in the workplace, EPA proposes to 
require each owner or operator to use such controls to reduce 1-BP 
concentrations in the workplace to the lowest levels achievable and, 
only after levels cannot be further reduced, supplement these controls 
using respiratory protection before persons are permitted to enter a 
regulated area, as described in this unit. In such cases, EPA would 
require that the owner or operator provide those persons exposed or who 
may be exposed to 1-BP by inhalation above the ECEL with respirators 
sufficient to ensure that their exposures do not exceed the ECEL, as 
described in this unit. EPA also proposes to require that each owner or 
operator document their evaluation of elimination, substitution, 
engineering and administrative exposure control strategies, and if 
applicable the reasons why they found these strategies infeasible to 
control exposures to or below the ECEL, in an exposure control plan as 
described in this unit. In addition, a regulated entity would be 
prohibited from rotating work schedules of potentially exposed persons 
to comply with the ECEL 8-hour TWA. EPA may require more, less, or 
different documentation regarding exposure control strategies in the 
final rule based on consideration of public comments.
    The Agency understands that certain engineering controls can reduce 
exposures to people inside the workplace but may lead to increased 
ventilation of 1-BP outside of the workplace, thereby increasing risks 
to people in fenceline communities of adverse health effects from 
exposures to 1-BP in ambient air. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 
prohibit increased releases of 1-BP to outdoor air associated with the 
implementation of the WCPP. This proposed requirement is intended to 
avoid unintended increases in exposures to people from 1-BP emissions 
to ambient air. The proposed rule would require owners and operators to 
attest in their WCPP exposure control plan that engineering controls 
selected do not increase emissions of 1-BP to ambient air outside of 
the workplace and document in their exposure control plan whether 
additional equipment was installed to capture emissions of 1-BP to 
ambient air. EPA requests comment on how this proposed requirement may 
impact the availability, feasibility, or cost of engineering controls 
as a means to reduce workplace exposures to or below the proposed ECEL.
iv. Regulated Area
    Based on the exposure monitoring, EPA is proposing to require that 
owners or operators of workplaces subject to a WCPP demarcate any area 
where airborne concentrations of 1-BP exceed or are reasonably expected 
to exceed the ECEL. Regulated areas would be demarcated using 
administrative controls, such as warning signs or highly visible 
signifiers, in multiple languages as appropriate (e.g., based on 
languages spoken by potentially exposed persons), placed in conspicuous 
areas, and documented through training and recordkeeping. The owner or 
operator would be required to restrict access to the regulated area 
from any potentially exposed person who lacks proper training, is not 
wearing required PPE as described in this unit or is otherwise 
unauthorized to enter. EPA is proposing to require owners and operators 
to demarcate and establish a regulated area beginning 36 months for 
Federal agencies and Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of the 
Federal Government and beginning 9 months for non-Federal owners and 
operators after the date of publication of the final rule, or within 4 
after introduction of 1-BP into the workplace if 1-BP use commences 9 
months after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register. EPA is soliciting comment on requiring warning signs to 
demarcate regulated areas, such as the requirements found in OSHA's 
General Industry Standard for Beryllium (29 CFR 1910.1024(m)(2)).
v. Notification of Monitoring Results
    EPA proposes that the owner or operator must, within 15 working 
days after receipt of the results of any exposure monitoring, notify 
each person whose exposure is represented by that monitoring in 
writing, either individually to each potentially exposed person or by 
posting the information in an appropriate location accessible to all 
persons whose exposure is represented by the monitoring, such as public 
spaces or common areas, outside the regulated area. This notice must 
include the exposure monitoring results, identification and explanation 
of the ECEL and ECEL action level in plain language, any corresponding 
required respiratory protection, if applicable, the quantity, location, 
manner of 1-BP use and identified releases of 1-BP that could result in 
exposure to 1-BP at the time of monitoring. The notice must also 
include a description of actions

[[Page 65086]]

taken by the owner or operator to reduce inhalation exposures to or 
below the ECEL, if applicable, or refer to a document available to the 
potentially exposed persons which states the actions to be taken to 
reduce exposures, and must be posted in multiple languages if necessary 
(e.g., notice must be in a language that the potentially exposed person 
understands, including a non-English language version representing the 
language of the largest group of workers who cannot readily comprehend 
or read English).
c. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Program
    Where elimination, substitution, engineering controls, and 
administrative controls are not feasible to reduce the air 
concentration to or below the ECEL for all potentially exposed persons, 
EPA is proposing to require implementation of a respiratory PPE program 
in alignment with OSHA's Respiratory Protection Standard at 29 CFR 
1910.134. EPA is also proposing to require implementation of a dermal 
PPE program. Owners and operators would be required to provide PPE, 
including respiratory protection and dermal protection selected in 
accordance with the guidelines described in this unit, that is of safe 
design and construction for the work to be performed. EPA is proposing 
to require owners and operators to ensure each potentially exposed 
person who is required by this unit to wear PPE to use and maintain PPE 
in a sanitary, reliable, and undamaged condition. Owners and operators 
would be required to select and provide PPE that properly fits each 
potentially exposed person who is required by this unit to use PPE and 
communicate PPE selections to each affected person.
    As part of the PPE program, EPA is also proposing that owners and 
operators must comply with OSHA's PPE training requirements at 29 CFR 
1910.132(f) or 29 CFR 1910.134(k) for application of a PPE training 
program, including providing training on proper use of 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 proposing 
that owners and operators would provide PPE training to each 
potentially exposed person who is required by this unit to wear PPE 
prior to or at the time of initial assignment to a job involving 
potential exposure to 1-BP. Owners and operators would also 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.
    This unit includes a description of the PPE Program, including 
proposed PPE as it relates to respiratory protection, proposed PPE as 
it relates to dermal protection, and other proposed requirements such 
as additional training for respirators and recordkeeping to support 
implementation of a PPE program.
i. Respiratory Protection
    Where elimination, substitution, engineering controls, and 
administrative controls are not feasible to reduce the air 
concentration to or below the ECEL, EPA proposes to set minimum 
respiratory PPE requirements based on an entity's most recent measured 
air concentration and the level of PPE that EPA determined would be 
needed to reduce exposure to the ECEL. In those circumstances, EPA is 
proposing to require a respiratory protection PPE program with 
worksite-specific procedures and elements for required respirator use. 
The respiratory protection PPE program proposed by EPA would be based 
on the most recent exposure monitoring concentration measured as an 8-
hour TWA and would be administered by a suitably trained program 
administrator. EPA is also proposing to require each owner or operator 
select respiratory protection in accordance with the guidelines 
described in this unit and 29 CFR 1910.134(a) through (l), except 
(d)(1)(iii) for proper respirator use, maintenance, fit-testing, 
medical evaluation, and training. EPA is not proposing to cross 
reference 29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iii) because the proposed WCPP contains 
requirements for identifying 1-BP respiratory hazards in the workplace, 
including monitoring requirements.
    Required Respiratory Protection. EPA is proposing to require that 
each owner or operator supply a respirator, selected in accordance with 
this unit, to each person who enters a regulated area within 3 months 
after the receipt of any exposure monitoring that indicates exposures 
exceeding the ECEL, or receipt of any exposure monitoring that 
indicates non-detect or air monitoring equipment malfunction resulting 
in an unknown concentration, and thereafter must ensure that all 
persons within the regulated area are using the provided respirators 
whenever 1-BP exposures exceed or can reasonably be expected to exceed 
the ECEL, or receipt that indicate non-detect or air monitoring 
equipment malfunction resulting in an unknown concentration. Given the 
risks associated with 1-BP exposure above the ECEL, prompt compliance 
with the respiratory protection requirements is important, but EPA 
expects that most owners or operators will need some time after the 
exposure monitoring results are received to acquire the correct 
respirators and establish a respiratory protection program, including 
training, fit-testing, and medical evaluations. EPA believes that 3 
months should be sufficient for this purpose. EPA is also proposing 
that owners or operators who are required to administer a respiratory 
protection PPE program must supply a respirator selected in accordance 
with 29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1) (except (d)(1)(iii)). Additionally, EPA is 
proposing 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. 29 CFR 1910.134(d)(3)(iii), which EPA is proposing 
to cross-reference, requires either the use of respirators with an end-
of-life service indicator certified by NIOSH for the contaminant, in 
this case 1-BP, 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 requesting comment on whether there 
should be a requirement to replace cartridges or canisters after a 
certain number of hours, such as the requirements found in OSHA's 
General Industry Standard for 1,3-Butadiene (29 CFR 1910.1051), or a 
requirement for a minimum service life of non-powered air-purifying 
respirators such as the requirements found in OSHA's General Industry 
Standard for Benzene (29 CFR 1910.1028(g)(3)(D)).
    EPA is proposing to establish minimum respiratory protection 
requirements, such that any respirator affording a higher degree of 
protection than the following proposed requirements may be used. While 
this unit includes respirator selection requirements for respirators of 
assigned protection factors (APF) of 1,000 or greater, EPA does not 
anticipate that respirators beyond APF 50 would be widely or regularly 
used to address unreasonable risk, particularly when other controls are 
put in place. EPA is proposing the following requirements for 
respiratory protection, based on the exposure monitoring concentrations 
measured as an 8-hour TWA that exceed the ECEL (0.05 ppm):
     If the measured exposure concentration is at or below 0.05 
ppm: no respiratory protection is required.

[[Page 65087]]

     If the measured exposure concentration is above 0.05 ppm 
and less than or equal to 0.5 ppm (10 times ECEL): Any NIOSH 
Approved[supreg] air-purifying half mask respirator equipped with 
organic vapor cartridges or canisters; or any NIOSH Approved[supreg] 
Supplied-Air Respirator (SAR) or Airline Respirator operated in demand 
mode equipped with a half mask; or any NIOSH Approved[supreg] Self-
Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) in a demand mode equipped with a 
half mask [APF 10].
     If the measured exposure concentration is above 0.50 ppm 
and less than or equal to 1.25 ppm (25 times ECEL): Any NIOSH 
Approved[supreg] 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[supreg] Supplied-Air 
Respirator (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 1.25 ppm 
and less than or equal to 2.5 ppm (50 times ECEL): Any NIOSH 
Approved[supreg] air-purifying full facepiece respirator equipped with 
organic vapor cartridges or canisters; any NIOSH Approved[supreg] 
Powered Air-Purifying Respirator (PAPR) with a half mask equipped with 
organic vapor cartridges or canisters; any NIOSH Approved[supreg] 
Supplied-Air Respirator (SAR) or Airline Respirator in a continuous 
flow mode equipped with a half mask; any NIOSH Approved[supreg] 
Supplied-Air Respirator (SAR) or Airline Respirator operated in a 
pressure-demand or other positive-pressure mode with a half mask; or 
any NIOSH Approved[supreg] SCBA in demand-mode equipped with a full 
facepiece or helmet/hood [APF 50].
     If the measured exposure concentration is above 2.5 ppm 
and less than or equal to 50 ppm (1,000 times ECEL): Any NIOSH 
Approved[supreg] Powered Air-Purifying Respirator (PAPR) equipped with 
a full facepiece equipped with organic vapor cartridges or canisters; 
any NIOSH Approved[supreg] Supplied-Air Respirator (SAR) or Airline 
Respirator in a continuous-flow mode equipped with full facepiece; any 
NIOSH Approved[supreg] Supplied-Air Respirator (SAR) or Airline 
Respirator in pressure-demand or other positive-pressure mode equipped 
with a full facepiece and an auxiliary self-contained air supply; or 
any NIOSH Approved[supreg] Supplied-Air Respirator (SAR) or Airline 
Respirator in a continuous-flow mode equipped with a helmet or 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 50 
ppm (10,000 times ECEL) or the concentration is unknown: Any NIOSH 
Approved[supreg] 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].
    EPA proposes to require that owners and operators document 
respiratory protection used and PPE program implementation. EPA 
proposes to require 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, and fit-testing, as described in 29 CFR 
1910.134(f), and training in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.132(f) and 29 
CFR 1910.134(k).
ii. Dermal Protection
    EPA is proposing to require owners or operators to provide and 
ensure potential exposed persons use chemically resistant gloves made 
of supported polyvinyl alcohol or a multiple-layer laminated material, 
in accordance with the OSHA/NIOSH Hazard Alert (Ref. 14), in 
combination with specific activity training (e.g., procedure for glove 
removal and disposal) for tasks where dermal exposure can be expected 
to occur. EPA is proposing that owners and operators must also consider 
other glove factors, such as whether gloves are tested using American 
Society for Testing Material (ASTM) F73 ``Standard Test Method for 
Permeation of Liquids and Gases through Protective Clothing Materials 
under Conditions of Continuous Contact, compatibility of multiple 
chemicals used simultaneously while wearing 1-BP-resistant gloves, 
glove liners, permeation, degree of dexterity required to perform a 
task, and temperature, as identified in the Hand Protection section of 
OSHA's Personal Protection Equipment Guidance (Ref. 33), when selecting 
appropriate dermal PPE. EPA requests comment on the degree to which 
additional guidance or requirements related to use of gloves might be 
necessary. Additionally, EPA requests comment on whether EPA should 
incorporate additional dermal protection requirements into the exposure 
control plan for dermal exposures.
d. General WCPP Requirements
i. Exposure Control Plan
    EPA proposes to require that owners and operators document their 
exposure control strategy and implementation in an exposure control 
plan. This may be accomplished by adding EPA-required information to 
any existing documentation of a facility's safety and health program 
developed as part of meeting OSHA requirements or other safety and 
health standards. EPA proposes to require that each owner or operator 
document in the exposure control plan the following:
    (A) Identification and rationale of hierarchy of controls used or 
not used in the following sequence: elimination of 1-BP, substitution 
of 1-BP, engineering controls, and administrative controls to reduce 1-
BP exposures in the workplace to either at or below the ECEL or to the 
lowest level achievable;
    (B) The exposure controls selected based on feasibility, 
effectiveness, and other relevant considerations;
    (C) If exposure controls were not selected, document the efforts 
identifying why these are not feasible, not effective, or otherwise not 
implemented;
    (D) Actions that must be taken to implement exposure controls 
selected, including proper installation, regular inspections, 
maintenance, training or other actions;
    (E) Description of any regulated area and how it is demarcated, and 
identification of authorized persons;
    (F) Attestation that exposure controls selected do not increase 
emissions of 1-BP to ambient air outside of the workplace and whether 
additional equipment was installed to capture or otherwise prevent 
increased emissions of 1-BP to ambient air;
    (G) Description of activities conducted by the owner or operator to 
review and update the exposure control plan as necessary, but at least 
every 5 years, 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;
    EPA is proposing that non-Federal owners or operators implement an 
exposure control plan within 12 months after date of publication of the 
final rule in the Federal Register. EPA requests comment on any 
advantages or drawbacks for this timeline.

[[Page 65088]]

ii. Workplace Information and Training
    EPA is also proposing to require implementation of 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 1-BP 
exposure, EPA is proposing 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.
    As part of the training and information program, the owner or 
operator would be 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). This information and training 
would have to be provided to potentially exposed persons prior to or at 
the time of initial assignment to a job involving potential exposure to 
1-BP. Owners and operators would be required to provide information and 
training, as referenced in the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard, to 
all potentially exposed persons that includes: (A) The requirements of 
the 1-BP 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; (B) the quantity, location, 
manner of use, release, and storage of 1-BP and the specific operations 
in the workplace that could results in 1-BP exposure; (C) principles of 
safe use and handling of 1-BP 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 1-BP, such 
as work practices and PPE used; (D) the methods and observations that 
may be used to detect the presence or release of 1-BP in the workplace 
(such as monitoring conducted by the owner or operator, continuous 
monitoring devices, visual appearance or odor of 1-BP when being 
released, etc.); and (E) the acute and chronic health hazards of 1-BP 
as detailed on relevant SDSs.
    In addition to providing training at the time of initial assignment 
to a job involving potential exposure to 1-BP, and in alignment with 
the OSHA General Industry Standard for Beryllium (20 CFR 1910.1024), 
owners and operators subject to the 1-BP WCPP would be required to re-
train each potentially exposed person annually to ensure they 
understand the principles of safe use and handling of 1-BP in the 
workplace. Owners and operators would also need to 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 1-BP or where 
potentially exposed persons' exposure to 1-BP can reasonably be 
expected to exceed the action level. To support compliance, EPA is 
proposing 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.
iii. Workplace Participation
    EPA encourages owners and operators to consult with persons that 
have potential for exposure on the development and implementation of 
exposure control plans and PPE (including respirators) programs. EPA is 
proposing to require owners or operators to provide potentially exposed 
persons regular access to the exposure control plans, exposure 
monitoring records, and PPE program implementation and documentation. 
To ensure compliance in workplace participation, EPA is proposing that 
the owner or operator document the notice to and ability of any 
potentially exposed person to readily access the exposure control 
plans, facility exposure monitoring records, PPE program 
implementation, or any other information relevant to 1-BP exposure in 
the workplace. EPA is also proposing that potentially exposed persons 
be permitted to observe exposure monitoring. EPA is requesting comment 
on how owners and operators can engage with potentially exposed persons 
on the development and implementation of an exposure control plan and 
PPE program. EPA is also requesting comment on whether EPA should 
include provisions allowing potentially exposed persons to designate a 
representative who would then be permitted to observe exposure 
monitoring and have regular access to exposure-related information at 
the request of the potentially exposed person.
iv. Recordkeeping
    To support and demonstrate compliance, EPA is proposing that each 
owner or operator of a workplace subject to a WCPP retain compliance 
records for five years. EPA is proposing to require records to include: 
(A) The exposure control plan; (B) PPE program implementation and 
documentation, including as necessary, respiratory protection and 
dermal protection used and related PPE training; and (C) information 
and training provided to each person prior to or at the time of initial 
assignment and any re-training.
    In addition, EPA is proposing that owners and operators subject to 
the WCPP ECEL requirements maintain records to include: (D) the 
exposure monitoring records; (E) notification of exposure monitoring 
results; (F) 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; and (G) the occurrence and 
duration of any start-up, shutdown, or malfunction of the facility that 
causes air concentrations to be above the ECEL, and subsequent 
corrective actions taken during start-up, shutdown, or malfunctions to 
mitigate exposures to 1-BP.
    The owners and operators, upon request by EPA, would be required to 
make all records that are maintained as described in this unit 
available to EPA. All records required to be maintained by this unit 
could be kept in the most administratively convenient form (electronic 
or paper).
v. Compliance Timeframes
    EPA is proposing to require each non-Federal owner and operator of 
a workplace, other than Federal agencies and Federal contractors acting 
for or on behalf of the Federal Government, subject to an ECEL conduct 
initial baseline monitoring according to the process outlined in this 
unit by 6 months after date of publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register or within 30 days of introduction of 1-BP into the 
workplace if 1-BP use commences at least 6 months after the date of 
publication. EPA is proposing to require each non-Federal owner or 
operator ensure the airborne concentration of 1-BP does not exceed the 
ECEL for all persons within 9 months after date of publication of the 
final rule in the Federal Register, or beginning 4 months after 
introduction of 1-BP into the workplace if 1-BP use commences at least 
6 months after the date of publication. EPA is also proposing to 
require non-Federal

[[Page 65089]]

owners and operators to establish and maintain a regulated area within 
9 months after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register, or beginning 4 months after introduction of 1-BP into the 
workplace if 1-BP use commences at least 9 months after the date of 
publication. If applicable, each non-Federal owner or operator must 
provide respiratory protection sufficient to reduce inhalation exposure 
to or below the ECEL to all potentially exposed persons in the 
regulated area within 3 months after receipt of the results of any 
exposure monitoring that indicates exposures exceeding the ECEL or, if 
using monitoring data conducted within 5 years prior to the effective 
date of the final rule that satisfies all other requirements of this 
section, within 6 months after the date of publication of the final 
rule in the Federal Register. Non-Federal regulated entities must then 
proceed accordingly to implement an exposure control plan within 12 
months after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register. EPA requests comment relative to the ability of owners or 
operators to conduct initial monitoring within the timeframes 
identified in this unit, and anticipated timelines for any procedural 
adjustments needed to comply with the requirements outlined in this 
unit, including establishment of a PPE program and development of an 
exposure control plan.
    With regard to the compliance timeframe for those occupational 
conditions of use which are subject to dermal requirements under the 
WCPP, EPA is proposing to require each non-Federal owner or operator of 
a workplace subject to dermal requirements to provide dermal protection 
as outlined in this unit by 9 months after publication of the final 
rule in the Federal Register.
    However, EPA is concerned about the ability of certain departments 
and agencies of the Federal Government, as well as Federal contractors 
acting for or on behalf of the Federal Government, to comply with these 
timeframes. 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 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 proposed rulemaking would 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 would require support in the Federal budget, which, for 
some agencies, is a multi-year process. Therefore, EPA is generally 
providing three years for agencies of the Federal Government and their 
contractors, when acting for or on behalf of the Federal government, to 
comply with the WCPP. Further, because military construction must 
follow a lengthy Congressional approval process prior to contracting 
for and beginning any actual construction work, which takes a minimum 
of 5 years, EPA is also proposing 5 years after the date of the 
publication of the final rule for the Department of Defense and Federal 
contractors acting for or on behalf of the Department of Defense if 
ongoing or planned construction is necessary to implement the feasible 
controls required by the WCPP to reduce exposure to or below the ECEL.
    When proposing these compliance dates as required under TSCA 
section 6(d), EPA considered irreversible health effects and risks 
associated with 1-BP exposure. EPA has no reasonably available 
information indicating that the proposed compliance dates are not 
practicable for the activities that would be impacted, or that 
additional time is needed to implement all aspects of the WCPP. 
However, EPA requests comment on whether additional time is needed or 
if there are available substitutes for these applications. As discussed 
in Unit IV.A.1., EPA recognizes that recent proposed rulemakings under 
TSCA section 6(a) have received public comments requesting longer 
compliance timeframes. For 1-BP, EPA believes that the proposed 
compliance timeframes for the WCPP described in this unit may present 
fewer compliance challenges for non-Federal owners and operators. than 
those described by commenters on other rules; for example, under the 
WCPP, owners or operators would have some flexibility, within the 
parameters outlined in this unit, regarding how they prevent 
exceedances of the ECEL. EPA may finalize shorter or longer compliance 
timeframes based on consideration of public comments.
3. Prescriptive Controls
a. Overview
    In contrast to the proposed non-prescriptive requirements of the 
ECEL where regulated entities would have flexibility to select controls 
in accordance with the hierarchy of controls to comply with the 
parameters outlined in this unit, EPA may also find it appropriate in 
certain circumstances to require specific prescriptive controls for 
certain occupational conditions of use. In the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 
1-BP, EPA identified that the use of gloves would reduce dermal 
exposures from 1-BP adequate to address the unreasonable risk driven by 
dermal exposures. Therefore, EPA is proposing to require the use of use 
of chemically-resistant gloves made of supported polyvinyl alcohol or 
multiple-layer laminated materials for certain occupational conditions 
of use, as described in this unit. This unit describes proposed 
requirements for the gloves, including additional requirements proposed 
for recordkeeping. This unit also describes compliance timeframes for 
these proposed requirements.
b. Glove Requirements
    For the conditions of use that would not otherwise be prohibited 
under this proposed regulation or subject to the WCPP, EPA is proposing 
the owner or operator apply prescriptive controls to reduce dermal 
exposures in the workplace and address the unreasonable risk of injury 
to health resulting from dermal exposures to 1-BP. Specifically, EPA is 
proposing that the owner or operator supply and ensure the use of 
chemically-resistant gloves made of supported polyvinyl alcohol or 
multiple-layer laminated materials, by all persons likely to be 
dermally exposed to 1-BP (including industrial and commercial products 
containing 1-BP). EPA is proposing to establish glove requirements for:
     Manufacturing (import);
     Processing as a reactant;
     Processing as incorporation into articles;
     Processing by repackaging;
     Recycling; and
     Disposal.
    EPA is proposing to require owners or operators of a facility 
engaged in one or more uses of 1-BP as listed in this unit, to supply 
and ensure proper use of gloves, as described in this unit and in 
accordance with the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP and the OSHA/NIOSH 
Hazard Alert (Ref. 14). In the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP, EPA 
identified the use of gloves with a protection factor (PF) of 5 as 
adequate to address the unreasonable risk presented by dermal exposures 
to 1-BP. As described in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP, a glove 
with a protection factor of 5 is a glove ``with available permeation 
data indicating that the material of construction offers good 
protection for the substance.''
    To further ensure correct glove usage, owners or operators must 
provide

[[Page 65090]]

training in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.132(f) to all persons required 
to use gloves prior to or at the time of initial assignment to a job 
involving exposure to 1-BP. EPA is proposing such training be conducted 
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 gloves, or when changes in the 
workplace or in gloves to be used render the previous training 
obsolete.
    To further ensure compliance, EPA proposes to require that owners 
and operators document the following information, as applicable: (A) 
The name, workplace address, work shift, job classification, and work 
area of each person reasonably likely to directly handle 1-BP or handle 
equipment or materials on which 1-BP may present; (B) the type of glove 
being used at the facility, either supported polyvinyl alcohol or 
multiple-layer laminates; and (C) appropriately sized gloves and 
training on proper application, wear, and removal of gloves, and proper 
care/disposal of gloves.
    EPA is soliciting comments on the requirements proposed in this 
unit for glove requirements. In addition, EPA understands that some 
workplaces rinse and reuse gloves after minimal use and is therefore 
soliciting comments on the impact on effectiveness of rinsing and 
reusing gloves. EPA also requests comment on the degree to which 
additional guidance related to use of gloves might be appropriate. EPA 
notes that disposal of gloves would be addressed by hazardous wastes 
requirements under 40 CFR 261.33.
    EPA is proposing to require each non-Federal owner or operator 
supply chemically-resistant gloves made of supported polyvinyl alcohol 
or multiple-layer laminate, in accordance with this unit, to each 
potentially exposed person within 6 months after publication of the 
final rule.
    As described in Unit IV.A.2.d.v, EPA is concerned about the ability 
of certain departments and agencies of the Federal Government, as well 
as Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal 
Government, to comply with the proposed timeframes for non-Federal 
owners and operators. For example, procurement requirements and the 
need for Federal budget support to implement these requirements will 
likely result in increased compliance timelines. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing 36 months for agencies of the Federal Government and their 
contractors, when acting for or on behalf of the Federal government, to 
provide and ensure the use of gloves that are chemically-resistant to 
1-bromopropane, made of supported polyvinyl alcohol or a multiple-layer 
laminated materials, by all persons likely to be dermally exposed to 1-
bromopropane (including products containing 1-bromopropane).
4. Self-Certification
    To ensure the safe and appropriate use of 1-BP, EPA is proposing to 
require most owners or operators who implement the WCPP to also self-
certify as to their implementation of and compliance with the WCPP as a 
condition of the ability to purchase and use 1-BP in accordance with 
this regulation. EPA is proposing to establish requirements to self-
certify for:
     Processing as incorporation into a formulation, mixture, 
or reaction product;
     Industrial and commercial use as a solvent in open-top and 
in-line batch vapor degreasing;
     Industrial and commercial use as a solvent in closed-loop 
vapor degreasing;
     Industrial and commercial use as a solvent for cleaning 
and degreasing in cold cleaners;
     Industrial and commercial use as a solvent in aerosol 
spray degreaser/cleaner; and
     Industrial and commercial use in other uses in electronic 
and electronic products and metal products; laboratory chemicals; 
asphalt extraction; and coatings for temperature indicators.
    EPA is proposing a point-of-sale self-certification requirement in 
order to purchase and subsequently use 1-BP for those facilities that 
have the ability to implement and comply with a WCPP. As discussed 
further in Unit V.A.1.d., this self-certification would further ensure 
that only facilities able to implement and comply with a WCPP are able 
to purchase and use 1-BP. Under a self-certification requirement, 
entities would submit a self-certification to the distributor each time 
1-BP is purchased. The self-certification would consist of a statement 
indicating that the facility is implementing a WCPP that would include 
an ECEL, PPE requirements, and ancillary requirements, the self-
certification would be signed and presented by the facility owner or 
operator or person authorized to do so.
    Self-Certification Statement. Owners or operators who wish to 
continue or begin purchasing 1-BP for one or more conditions of use as 
outlined in this unit must self-certify that each facility engaged in 
one or more such conditions of use is implementing and complying with 
all aspects of the WCPP, as outlined in Unit IV.A.2. EPA is proposing 
the following self-certification statement:

    I certify each of the following statements under penalty of law. 
This document was prepared under my direction and supervision. This 
facility's implementation of the WCPP for 1-bromopropane was 
evaluated by qualified personnel with industrial hygiene 
qualifications or similar experience and that this facility has 
implemented and complies with the WCPP for 1-bromopropane. Based on 
my inquiry of the individual or individuals who manage the facility 
and/or those individuals directly responsible for implementing the 
1-bromopropane WCPP, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, the 
facility is in compliance with the 1-bromopropane WCPP, including 
the exposure control plan. 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 failing to comply with these 
requirements. If this is the first purchase of 1-bromopropane for 
this facility, I understand that this certification will serve as a 
certification that this facility will properly implement and comply 
with the WCPP for 1-bromopropane consistent with the applicable 
regulatory timelines.

    The self-certification statement must be signed and dated by the 
owner or operator of the facility, 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 facility that is being certified; the condition of 
use, (e.g., solvent for aerosol spray degreaser/cleaner) and examples 
of the type of equipment the owner/operator plans to use to meet the 
WCPP (e.g., closed loop vapor degreaser); and indicate if this is the 
facility's first purchase of 1-BP, after publication of the final rule. 
The self-certification statement would be valid for one year, unless 
the facility has changed processes or there is an indication that 
exposures to 1-BP have changed.
    To ensure distributors are only selling 1-BP to owners or operators 
of facilities able to implement and comply with the workplace 
requirements of the WCPP, EPA is proposing to require owners or 
operators who self-certify to provide a copy of the facility's current 
self-certification statement to the distributor from whom 1-BP is being 
purchased, for every purchase of 1-BP. EPA is also proposing for the 
distributors to collect, maintain, and retain a copy of the self-
certification statement. EPA is also proposing to require distributors 
to keep records, such as invoices, that indicate the name of the 
purchaser and facility, date of sale, and quantity of 1-BP purchased. 
Distributors of 1-BP for the uses described in this unit may only

[[Page 65091]]

distribute to those facilities that provide the correct self-
certification statement for purchasing. EPA realizes that some 
facilities may not engage in the 1-BP uses listed in this unit at the 
time this proposed rule is finalized. Owners or operators that may wish 
to purchase 1-BP after the publication of the final rule would still be 
required to submit the self-certification statement to the distributor 
from whom 1-BP was initially purchased in order to purchase 1-BP, 
certifying that the facility for which 1-BP is being purchased will 
implement and comply with the WCPP. EPA is also proposing that 
distributors review the self-certification statement to ensure it is 
appropriately completed to include the owner or operator's and the 
facility's information, as outlined in this unit. As proposed, 
distributors would have to have a completed and valid self-
certification statement for each sale of 1-bromopropane for the uses 
subject to the self-certification requirements. EPA is proposing 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. EPA is 
requesting comment on the self-certification requirement for ensuring 
that only those facilities able to implement and comply with the WCPP 
are able to purchase 1-BP. Additionally, EPA is interested in hearing 
if there are other requirements such as a tax identification number, 
commercial account, or other verification EPA should consider including 
to ensure that those workplaces that can implement and comply with the 
WCPP are able to purchase 1-BP while other facilities with the same use 
who cannot implement the WCPP are unable to do so.
5. Other Requirements
a. Recordkeeping
    In addition to the recordkeeping requirements for the WCPP, self-
certification, and prescriptive controls outlined in this unit, for 
conditions of use that are not otherwise prohibited under this proposed 
regulation, EPA is also proposing that manufacturers, processors, 
distributors, and industrial and commercial users (except for the 
commercial use of 1-BP in insulation and insulation products) maintain 
ordinary business records, such as invoices and bills-of-lading, 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. EPA is 
proposing that this requirement begin on the effective date of the 
final rule (60 days following publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register). Recordkeeping requirements would ensure that owners 
or operators can demonstrate compliance with the regulations if 
necessary. EPA may require more, less, or different documentation in 
the final rule based on consideration of public comments.
b. Downstream Notification
    For conditions of use that are not otherwise prohibited under this 
proposed regulation, EPA is proposing that manufacturers (including 
importers), processors, and distributors, excluding retailers, of 1-BP 
and 1-BP-containing products, except for the manufacture, processing, 
distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of 1-BP in building/
construction materials (insulation), provide downstream notification of 
the prohibitions through the Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) required by OSHA 
under 29 CFR 191.1200(g) by adding to sections 1(c) and 15 of the SDS 
the following language:

    After [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] this chemical/product can only be 
distributed in commerce to or by retailers for the commercial and 
consumer use of 1-bromopropane in building/construction materials 
(insulation). After [DATE 21 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], this chemical/product is and 
can only be distributed in commerce or processed for the following 
occupational uses: Processing as a reactant/intermediate; Processing 
into formulation, mixture, or reaction products; Processing for 
incorporation into articles; Processing by repackaging; Recycling; 
Industrial and commercial use as solvent for cleaning and degreasing 
in vapor degreaser (batch vapor degreaser--open-top, in-line vapor 
degreaser); Industrial and commercial use as solvent for cleaning 
and degreasing in vapor degreaser (batch vapor degreaser--closed-
loop); Industrial and commercial use as solvent for cleaning and 
degreasing in cold cleaners; Industrial and commercial use as 
solvent in aerosol spray degreaser/cleaner; Industrial and 
commercial use in other uses in electronic and electronic products 
and metal products, asphalt extraction, laboratory chemicals, and 
temperature indicator--coatings; and Disposal.

    The intention of downstream notification is to spread awareness 
throughout the supply chain of the restrictions on the use of 1-BP 
under TSCA as well as provide information to commercial end users about 
allowable uses of 1-BP.
    To provide adequate time to update the SDS and ensure that all 
affected products in the supply chain include the revised SDS, EPA is 
proposing a 2-month period for manufacturers and a 6-month period for 
processors and distributors to implement the proposed SDS changes 
following publication of the final rule.
    EPA requests comments on the appropriateness of identified 
compliance timeframes for recordkeeping and downstream notification 
requirements described in this unit.
6. Federal Uses
    EPA acknowledges that after the issuance of this rule, once 
finalized, 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 that are set consistent with TSCA section 6(d). EPA 
has the authority under TSCA section 6(g) to consider whether a time 
limited exemption is appropriate and, consistent with TSCA section 
6(g)(1), could expeditiously promulgate such exemptions independently 
from this rulemaking, including consideration of emergency or interim 
rulemaking. EPA will initiate a notice of proposed rulemaking for 
public comment on this topic and will add this to the Spring 2024 
Regulatory Agenda. Additionally, any person could petition EPA to 
request that EPA issue or amend a rule under TSCA section 6.

B. Alternative Regulatory Actions

    As indicated by TSCA section 6(c)(2)(A)(iv)(II) through (III), EPA 
must consider and publish a statement based on reasonably available 
information with respect to the reasonably ascertainable economic 
consequences of the rulemaking, including consideration of the costs 
and benefits and the cost effectiveness of the proposed regulatory 
action and one or more primary alternative regulatory actions 
considered by the Agency. This unit includes a description of the 
primary alternative regulatory action and the second alternative 
regulatory action considered by the Agency. An overview of the proposed 
regulatory action and two alternative regulatory actions for each 
condition of use is in Unit IV.C.

[[Page 65092]]

1. Primary Alternative Regulatory Action Considered
    The primary alternative regulatory action described in this 
document and considered by EPA combines prohibitions, requirements for 
a WCPP, self-certification, and prescriptive controls to address the 
unreasonable risk from 1-BP contributed by the various conditions of 
use. The primary alternative regulatory action described in this 
document differs from the proposed regulatory action by considering 
prescriptive workplace controls and implementation of a PPE program for 
some conditions of use that would be subject to a WCPP under the 
proposed regulatory action. The primary alternative regulatory action 
additionally considers alternative compliance timeframes for 
prohibitions and implementation of a WCPP and prescriptive controls, as 
described in this unit. EPA is putting forth only alternative 
regulatory options that would eliminate the unreasonable risk from 1-BP 
and notes that TSCA section 6(a) requires that EPA impose regulatory 
requirements to the extent necessary to address unreasonable risk. 
Thus, EPA has concluded that it would be most advantageous to put forth 
and receive public input on alternative regulatory options that the 
Agency could adopt in a final rule consistent with the requirements of 
TSCA section 6(a). Where EPA has identified different types of 
regulatory requirements that would address the unreasonable risk (e.g., 
a WCPP and prescriptive controls), EPA is seeking public input on each 
type of regulatory requirement. However, where EPA has identified only 
one type of regulatory requirement that would address the unreasonable 
risk (e.g., a prohibition), EPA is seeking public input on the timing 
for compliance with such a requirement. EPA requests comment on this 
primary alternative regulatory action and whether any elements of the 
primary alternative regulatory action described in this unit should be 
considered as EPA develops the final regulatory action. EPA also 
requests comment on any advantages or drawbacks for the timelines 
outlined in this unit compared to the timelines identified for the 
proposed regulatory action in Unit IV.A.
a. Prohibitions
    The primary alternative regulatory action considered by EPA would 
prohibit the manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and 
use for the following industrial and commercial uses, which EPA is also 
proposing to prohibit as part of the proposed regulatory action: 
industrial and commercial use in adhesives and sealants; industrial and 
commercial use in dry cleaning solvents, spot cleaners and stain 
removers; industrial and commercial use in liquid cleaners (e.g., coin 
and scissor cleaner); and industrial and commercial use in arts, 
crafts, hobby materials (adhesive accelerant); automotive care products 
(engine degreaser, brake cleaner, refrigerant flush); anti-adhesive 
agents (mold cleaning and release product); and functional fluids 
(close/open-systems)--refrigerant/cutting oils. Additionally, the 
primary alternative regulatory action would prohibit the manufacture, 
processing, and distribution of 1-BP for all consumer use, except in 
insulation. As shown in Unit IV.C., which presents an overview of the 
proposed regulatory action and two alternative regulatory actions for 
each condition of use, the primary alternative action described in this 
document would prohibit the same occupational and consumer conditions 
of use as the proposed regulatory action.
    Regarding compliance timeframes, the primary alternative regulatory 
action would include longer timeframes for implementation of the 
prohibitions than the proposed regulatory action. Under the primary 
alternative action, the prohibitions would generally take effect 6 
months later than in the proposed regulatory action. Under a compliance 
timeframe that is 6 months longer than the proposed regulatory action, 
the prohibitions for the manufacturing, processing, distribution in 
commerce, and use of 1-BP for certain occupational conditions of use 
described in this unit would take effect 12 months for manufacturers, 
15 months for processers, 18 months for distributing to retailers, 21 
months for all other distributors (including retailers), and 24 months 
for industrial and commercial users after the publication date of the 
final rule. With regard to the compliance timeframe for the 
manufacturing, processing, and distribution in commerce for consumer 
use (except consumer use in building/construction materials in 
insulation), under the primary alternative regulatory action, 
prohibitions described in this unit would take effect in 12 months for 
manufacturers, 15 months for processors, 18 months for distributing to 
retailers, and 21 months for all other distributors (including 
retailers) after the publication date of the final rule.
b. Workplace Chemical Protection Program (WCPP)
    The primary alternative regulatory action described in this 
document would require a WCPP, including requirements to meet an ECEL, 
for the following occupational conditions of use: manufacturing 
(domestic); processing into formulation, mixture, or reaction products; 
industrial and commercial use as solvent for cleaning and degreasing in 
cold cleaners; industrial and commercial use as solvent in aerosol 
spray degreaser/cleaner; and industrial and commercial use in other 
uses in electronic and electronic products and metal products; 
laboratory chemicals for asphalt extraction; coatings for temperature 
indicator. EPA requests comment on the ways in which 1-BP may be used 
in these conditions of use, including whether activities may take place 
in a closed system and the degree to which users of 1-BP in these 
sectors could successfully implement an ECEL and ancillary requirements 
described in Unit IV.A.
    As with the compliance timeframes considered as part of the primary 
alternative action for prohibition, the primary alternative regulatory 
action also includes longer compliance timeframes for implementation of 
a 1-BP WCPP by non-Federal owners and operators. The primary 
alternative regulatory action does not include longer compliance 
timeframes for implementation of a 1-BP WCPP for Federal agencies and 
Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal Government. 
Under the primary alternative action, the requirements for the WCPP 
would take effect 6 months later than the proposed regulatory action 
for non-Federal owners and operators. Under a compliance timeframe that 
is 6 months longer than the proposed regulatory action, the 
requirements for non-Federal owners and operators to conduct initial 
baseline monitoring would take effect 12 months after the date of 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Also under the 
primary alternative action, the requirements for each non-Federal owner 
or operator to provide respiratory protection to all potentially 
exposed persons in the regulated area would be within 3 months after 
receipt of the results of any exposure monitoring or within 15 months 
after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. 
Non-Federal owners and operators would be required to implement an 
exposure control plan within 18 months after date of publication of the 
final rule in the Federal Register. EPA requests comment on any 
advantages or drawbacks for the timelines outlined in this unit 
compared to the timelines

[[Page 65093]]

identified for the proposed regulatory action in Unit IV.A.
c. Prescriptive Controls
i. Prescriptive Controls--PPE
    In contrast to the proposed non-prescriptive requirements of the 
WCPP, outlined in Unit IV.A.2., including requirements to meet an ECEL, 
where regulated entities would have the ability to select appropriate 
controls in accordance with the hierarchy of controls to comply with 
the performance-based parameters, EPA may also find it appropriate in 
certain circumstances to require specific prescriptive controls for 
certain occupational conditions of use. In the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 
1-BP, EPA explained how engineering and administrative controls and use 
of PPE could reduce 1-BP exposures in occupational settings; therefore, 
EPA considered a combination of required engineering, administrative 
and PPE controls as the prescriptive approach in the primary 
alternative regulatory action for the following conditions of use: 
industrial and commercial use of solvent for cleaning and degreasing in 
vapor degreasers (batch vapor degreaser--open-top and, in-line vapor 
degreaser); and industrial and commercial use of solvent for cleaning 
and degreasing in vapor degreasers (batch vapor degreaser--closed-
loop). Under the proposed regulatory action, these two conditions of 
use would be regulated under the WCPP.
    When considering the use of required prescriptive engineering 
controls, administrative controls and PPE, EPA expects that such 
controls will be fully and properly implemented. Merely having the 
specified controls present is not sufficient to consider them ``fully 
and properly'' implemented. Rather, the regulated entities would be 
required to ensure that the controls are present and maintained, and 
that employees understand the proper use of those controls and use them 
accordingly. Examples of practices that would demonstrate that the 
regulated entities are in compliance with the controls would include 
proper installation and maintenance of the equipment according to 
manufacturer's instructions, timely replacement of filters and other 
similar parts, regular documented inspections to ensure equipment is 
operating properly, maintaining the required flow rates, and regular 
documented training to ensure proper use of controls.
    For the condition of use of industrial and commercial use as 
solvent for cleaning and degreasing in vapor degreaser (batch vapor 
degreaser--open-top, inline vapor degreaser) EPA described in section 
2.3.1.11 of the risk evaluation a local exhaust ventilation system for 
an open-top vapor degreaser (lateral exhaust hoods installed on two 
sides of the tank) that can reduce worker exposure. There are several 
limitations regarding use of ventilation systems, including 
uncertainties regarding the type of model used and the lack of 
monitoring data. Additionally, local exhaust ventilation systems may 
increase the volatilization of the solvent, leading to an increase in 
the use of solvent and the cost of operating the vapor degreaser. Also, 
a local ventilation system might require a Title V operating permit 
under the Clean Air Act and could require additional controls, such as 
the use of a carbon adsorber, to avoid emissions to the environment. As 
discussed in the proposed regulatory action (Unit IV.A.1.), EPA is 
proposing to require pollution prevention and source reduction wherever 
possible when making decisions about what control techniques to 
install. In addition, as indicated in the risk evaluation, a 90% 
reduction of 1-BP workplace emissions by using a local exhaust 
ventilation system is not enough to address the unreasonable risk to 
workers and occupational non-users. Additional controls would be 
needed, such as respirators with an APF of 50. Workers would also need 
gloves to reduce dermal exposures.
    In Section 2.3.1.12 of the risk evaluation, EPA also identified a 
study indicating that air emissions can be reduced by 98% or more when 
a closed-loop degreaser is used instead of an open-top vapor degreaser 
(Ref. 1). Also, in the risk evaluation, EPA indicated that the 
unreasonable risk to workers when using a closed-loop degreaser could 
be addressed by using respirators with an APF of 10, but additional 
controls would be needed to reduce inhalation exposures to occupational 
non-users.
    Therefore, under this primary alternative regulatory action, for 
the industrial and commercial use as solvent for cleaning and 
degreasing in vapor degreaser (batch vapor degreaser--open-top, inline 
vapor degreaser), EPA considered requirements to demonstrate reductions 
of emissions based on engineering controls and achieve an exposure 
concentration of less than 2.5 ppm (50 times the proposed ECEL value of 
0.05ppm) as an 8-hour time-weighted average, isolate the vapor 
degreaser with controlled access to a ``regulated area'' where only 
workers who are wearing PPE to minimize exposures to 1-BP, and use of 
respirators with APF of 50 for any worker operating the vapor 
degreaser, would be permitted to go. EPA also considered requirements 
for use of gloves made of supported polyvinyl alcohol or a multiple-
layer laminated material. EPA also considered requiring periodic 
monitoring (personal breathing zone or representative sample) every 3 
months to determine that the respirators used are of a sufficient 
protection factor to be adequate to protect workers. In addition, EPA 
considered requiring that the regulated entity implement all aspects of 
a respiratory protection program (e.g., training, fitting, medical 
surveillance, etc.), as outlined in Unit IV.A.2.c., and referred to 29 
CFR 1910.132, 29 CFR 1910.133, and 29 CFR 1910.134 for requirements on 
selection and use of PPE.
    Also as a primary alternative regulatory option, for the industrial 
and commercial use as solvent for cleaning and degreasing in vapor 
degreaser (batch vapor degreaser--closed-loop) EPA considered requiring 
regulated entities to: use closed-loop vapor degreasers with the 
adequate maintenance and a ventilation system or other engineering 
controls to achieve an exposure concentration of less than 0.5 ppm as 
an 8-hour time-weighted average; require isolation of the vapor 
degreaser in a ``regulated area'' with controlled access to minimize 
exposures to 1-BP; and require the use of respirators with APF of 10 
for any worker in the vicinity of the vapor degreaser within the 
regulated area. EPA also considered requiring use of gloves made of 
supported polyvinyl alcohol or a multiple-layer laminated material. EPA 
also considered requiring periodic monitoring (personal breathing zone 
or representative sample) every 3 months to determine that the 
respirators used are adequate to protect workers. In addition, EPA 
considered requiring that the regulated entity implement all aspects of 
a respiratory protection program (e.g., training, fitting, medical 
surveillance, etc.), as outlined in Unit IV.A.2.c., and refers to 29 
CFR 1910.132, 29 CFR 1910.133, and 29 CFR 1910.134 for requirements on 
selection and use of PPE.
    EPA also considered requiring the use of closed-loop vapor 
degreasers instead of open-top or inline vapor degreasers. EPA 
recognizes that using only closed-loop vapor degreasers can present 
several challenges to the regulated entities, depending on the size of 
the parts, the configuration of their operation and the time required 
to complete the cleaning operation. In addition, closed-loop vapor 
degreasers

[[Page 65094]]

can be expensive. Therefore, EPA is also seeking comments on an 
alternative regulatory approach where facilities would be required to 
use only closed-loop vapor degreasers for any batch vapor degreasing, 
and use ventilation systems and engineering controls that achieve 
exposure concentrations of less than 0.5 ppm as an 8-hour time-weighted 
average, isolate the vapor degreaser in a ``regulated area'' with 
controlled access to minimize exposures to 1-BP, and require the use of 
respirators with APF of 10 for any worker in the regulated area of the 
vapor degreaser, and the use of gloves made of supported polyvinyl 
alcohol or a multiple-layer laminated material. This alternative also 
considered requiring periodic monitoring (personal breathing zone or 
representative sample) every 3 months to determine that the respirators 
used are adequate to protect workers, and requiring that the regulated 
entity implement all aspects of a respiratory protection program (e.g., 
training, fitting, medical surveillance, etc.), as outlined in Unit 
IV.A.2.c., including referring to 29 CFR 1910.132, 29 CFR 1910.133, and 
29 CFR 1910.134 for requirements on selection and use of PPE.
    For batch vapor degreasing (open-top and inline vapor degreasers) 
and cold cleaning, EPA also considered requiring engineering controls 
similar to the requirements set by the National Emission Standards for 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning (40 CFR part 63, subpart T), which 
currently apply to other halogenated solvents but not 1-BP. EPA would 
expect that requirements under 40 CFR part 63, subpart T most likely 
would not reduce the 1-BP concentrations to 0.05 ppm as an 8-hour time-
weighted average. Even if facilities were to install control measures 
to meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart T, EPA believes 
that additional controls and PPE would be needed, including the use of 
gloves made of supported polyvinyl alcohol or a multiple-layer 
laminated material. Therefore, EPA is seeking comments regarding how 
the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart T could be applied for 1-
BP, as well as any additional information on how effective these 
requirements would be to reduce 1-BP air concentrations and additional 
controls needed to reduce 1-BP exposure to workers to 0.05 ppm as an 8-
hour time-weighted average.
    Under this primary alternative regulatory option, EPA considered 
requiring that the regulated entity engaged in any uses of 1-BP 
outlined in this Unit IV.B.1.c. develop an exposure control plan, as 
outlined in Unit IV.A.2.d.i., as well as comply with monitoring 
requirements, as outlined in Unit IV.2.A.b.ii., and recordkeeping 
requirements, as outlined in Unit IV.2.A.d.iv.
    EPA also considered requiring that within 15 working days after 
receipt of the results of any exposure monitoring, the regulated entity 
must notify each person whose exposure is represented by that 
monitoring in writing, either individually to each person or by posting 
the information in an appropriate and accessible location. The notice 
would identify the exposure monitoring results, and any corresponding 
respiratory protection required. Also, the notice would be required to 
include a description of the actions taken by the regulated entity to 
reduce inhalation exposures or refer to a document available to the 
person which states the actions to be taken to reduce exposures.
ii. Prescriptive Controls--Gloves
    Under the primary alternative regulatory action, EPA would apply 
prescriptive controls to reduce dermal exposures in the workplace and 
address the unreasonable risk of injury to health resulting from dermal 
exposures to 1-BP. Specifically, EPA is proposing that the owner or 
operator require the use of gloves for the following conditions of use: 
manufacturing (import); processing as a reaction; processing as 
incorporation into articles; repackaging, recycling; and disposal. As 
shown in Unit IV.C., which presents an overview of the proposed 
regulatory action and two alternative regulatory actions for each 
condition of use, the primary alternative action described in this 
document would subject the same occupational conditions of use to 
prescriptive dermal controls as the proposed regulatory action.
    Regarding compliance timeframes, the primary alternative regulatory 
action would include longer timeframes for implementation of glove use 
by non-Federal owners and operators than the proposed regulatory 
action. Under the primary alternative action, prescriptive controls 
would generally take effect for non-Federal owners and operators 6 
months later than in the proposed regulatory action. Under a compliance 
timeframe that is 6 months longer than the proposed regulatory action, 
the prescriptive controls for certain occupational conditions of use of 
1-BP described in this unit would take effect for non-Federal owners 
and operators 12 months after the publication date of the final rule. 
The primary alternative regulatory action does not include longer 
compliance timeframes for implementation of these prescriptive controls 
for Federal agencies and Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of 
the Federal Government.
d. Self-Certification
    The primary alternative regulatory action considered by EPA would 
also require self-certification, as outlined in Unit IV.A.4., for the 
following occupational conditions of use: processing for incorporation 
into a formulation, mixture, or reaction products; industrial and 
commercial use as solvent for cleaning and degreasing in vapor 
degreaser (batch vapor degreaser--open-top, in-line); industrial and 
commercial use as solvent for cleaning and degreasing in vapor 
degreaser (batch vapor degreaser--closed-loop); industrial and 
commercial use as solvent for cleaning and degreasing in cold cleaners; 
industrial and commercial use as solvent in aerosol spray degreaser/
cleaner; industrial and commercial use in other uses in electronic and 
electronic products and metal products, laboratory chemicals and 
asphalt extraction, and in coatings for temperature indicators. As 
shown in Unit IV.C., which presents an overview of the proposed 
regulatory action and two alternative regulatory actions for each 
condition of use, the primary alternative action described in this 
document would subject the same occupational conditions of use to self-
certification requirements as the proposed regulatory action. While 
similar in most ways to the proposed regulatory action, the primary 
alternative regulatory action differs from the proposed regulatory 
action by requiring prescriptive controls rather a WCPP for two 
industrial and commercial conditions of use: industrial and commercial 
use as solvent for cleaning and degreasing in vapor degreaser (batch 
vapor degreaser--open-top, in-line); industrial and commercial use as 
solvent for cleaning and degreasing in vapor degreaser (batch vapor 
degreaser--closed-loop). If the primary alternative regulatory action 
is chosen rather than the proposed regulatory action, EPA will update 
the self-certification statement to better align with whichever 
regulatory action is chosen.
2. Second Alternative Regulatory Action Considered
a. Prohibitions
    The second alternative regulatory action described in this document 
and considered by EPA is to prohibit all occupational uses of 1-BP and 
the manufacture, processing, and

[[Page 65095]]

distribution in commerce of 1-BP for all consumer uses, except for the 
consumer use of 1-BP in building/construction materials (insulation) 
and distribution in commerce for non-prohibited uses, to address the 
unreasonable risk from 1-BP contributed by the various conditions of 
use. While similar in some ways to the proposed regulatory action, the 
second alternative regulatory action differs from the proposed 
regulatory action by prohibiting the conditions of use that would have 
requirements for a WCPP, self-certification, and/or prescriptive 
controls under the proposed regulatory action. Regarding the compliance 
timeframes, the second alternative regulatory action would include a 
longer timeframe for implementation of prohibition than the proposed 
regulatory action. Additionally, EPA would not stagger the compliance 
dates for manufacturers, processors, and distributors. The prohibitions 
for the manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and use 
for the occupational conditions of use, except for the commercial use 
of 1-BP in insulation, would take effect 3 years after the publication 
date of the final rule. With regard to the compliance timeframe for the 
manufacturing, processing, and distribution in commerce for consumer 
use, except the consumer use of 1-BP in insulation, the prohibitions 
would take effect 3 years after the publication date of the final rule 
(Ref. 32). EPA requests comment on this second alternative regulatory 
action and whether any elements of this second alternative regulatory 
action described in this unit should be considered as EPA develops the 
final regulatory action. EPA also requests comment on any advantages or 
drawbacks for the timelines outlined in this unit compared to the 
timelines identified for the proposed regulatory action in Unit IV.A.
b. Recordkeeping and Downstream Notification
    The second alternative regulatory action also would include a 
requirement that manufacturers, processors and distributors maintain 
ordinary business records, such as invoices and bills-of-lading, that 
demonstrate compliance with the prohibitions, restrictions, and other 
provisions of the second alternative regulatory action; and to maintain 
such records for a period of 5 years from the date the record is 
generated. The recordkeeping requirements associated with this second 
alternative regulatory action would take effect 90 days after the 
effective date of the final rule.
    Also, under this second alternative regulatory action, EPA would 
require that manufacturers, processors, and distributors, excluding 
retailers, of 1-BP provide downstream notification of the prohibitions 
through SDS by adding to sections 1(c) and 15 of the SDS the following 
language:

    As of [DATE 90 DAYS AFTER OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE], 
this chemical/product can only be distributed in commerce (as 
defined in TSCA section 3(5)) or processed (as defined in TSCA 
section 3(13)) for use in insulation for building/construction 
materials.

    The downstream notification requirements associated with this 
alternative approach would take effect 90 days after the effective date 
of the final rule in order to provide adequate time to undertake the 
changes to the SDS and ensure that all products in the supply chain 
include the revised SDS.

C. Overview of Conditions of Use, Proposed Regulatory Action and 
Alternative Regulatory Actions

    Table 2 is a side-by-side depiction of the proposed regulatory 
action with the primary and secondary alternative regulatory actions 
that EPA considered for each condition of use identified as driving the 
unreasonable risk (Ref. 2). The purpose of this table is to succinctly 
convey to the public certain differences between the proposed 
regulatory action and the alternative regulatory actions; as such the 
actions in each column are truncated and do not reflect all the details 
of the proposed and alternative regulatory actions, including 
differences in timeframes, as outlined in Units IV.A. and B. The 
proposed action and the alternative regulatory actions that EPA 
considered are described more fully in Units IV.A. and B.

 Table 2--Overview of Conditions of Use Driving Unreasonable Risk and Proposed Regulatory Action and Alternative
                                                Regulatory Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Conditions of use                                             Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Condition of use driving          Proposed regulatory      Primary alternative      Secondary alternative
   unreasonable risk determination             action                 action \2\                 action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial and commercial use as      1-BP WCPP + self-        Prescriptive Controls +  Prohibit.
 solvent for open-top batch and in-    certification.           self-certification.
 line vapor degreasing.
Industrial and commercial use as      1-BP WCPP + self-        Prescriptive Controls +  Prohibit.
 solvent for closed-loop batch vapor   certification.           self-certification.
 degreasing.
Industrial and commercial use as      1-BP WCPP + self-        1-BP WCPP + self-        Prohibit.
 solvent for cold cleaning.            certification.           certification.
Industrial and commercial use as a    1-BP WCPP + self-        1-BP WCPP + self-        Prohibit.
 solvent for aerosol spray degreaser/  certification.           certification.
 cleaner.
Industrial and commercial use in      1-BP WCPP + self-        1-BP WCPP + self-        Prohibit.
 other uses in electronic and          certification.           certification.
 electronic products and metal
 products; laboratory chemicals;
 asphalt extraction.
Industrial and commercial use in      Prohibit...............  Prohibit...............  Prohibit.
 adhesives and sealants.
Industrial and commercial use in      Prohibit...............  Prohibit...............  Prohibit.
 other uses in arts, crafts, hobby
 materials (adhesive accelerant);
 automotive care products (engine
 degreaser, brake cleaner,
 refrigerant flush); anti-adhesive
 agents (mold cleaning and release
 product); functional fluids (close/
 open-systems)--refrigerant/cutting
 oils.
Industrial and commercial use in dry  Prohibit...............  Prohibit...............  Prohibit.
 cleaning solvents, spot cleaners
 and stain removers.
Industrial and commercial use in      Prohibit...............  Prohibit...............  Prohibit.
 coin and scissor cleaner (liquid,
 aerosol, or spray cleaners).
Consumer use as solvent in aerosol    Prohibit \1\...........  Prohibit \1\...........  Prohibit.\1\
 degreasers/cleaners.

[[Page 65096]]

 
Consumer use in spot cleaners and     Prohibit \1\...........  Prohibit \1\...........  Prohibit.\1\
 stain removers.
Consumer use in liquid cleaners       Prohibit \1\...........  Prohibit \1\...........  Prohibit.\1\
 (e.g., coin and scissor cleaner)
 and liquid aerosol/spray cleaners.
Consumer use in liquid spray/aerosol  Prohibit \1\...........  Prohibit \1\...........  Prohibit.\1\
 cleaners.
Consumer use in arts, crafts, and     Prohibit \1\...........  Prohibit \1\...........  Prohibit.\1\
 hobby materials (adhesive
 accelerant).
Consumer use in automotive care       Prohibit \1\...........  Prohibit \1\...........  Prohibit.\1\
 products (refrigerant flush).
Consumer use in anti-adhesive agents  Prohibit \1\...........  Prohibit \1\...........  Prohibit.\1\
 (mold cleaning and release
 products).
Manufacturing (Domestic               1-BP WCPP..............  1-BP WCPP..............  Prohibit.
 manufacturing).
Manufacturing (Import)..............  Prescriptive Controls..  Prescriptive Controls..  Prohibit.
Processing: processing as a reactant  Prescriptive Controls..  Prescriptive Controls..  Prohibit.
Processing: incorporation into a      1-BP WCPP + self-        1-BP WCPP + self-        Prohibit.
 formulation, mixture, or reaction     certification.           certification.
 product.
Processing: incorporation into        Prescriptive Controls..  Prescriptive Controls..  Prohibit.
 articles.
Processing: repackaging.............  Prescriptive Controls..  Prescriptive Controls..  Prohibit.
Processing: recycling...............  Prescriptive Controls..  Prescriptive Controls..  Prohibit.
Disposal............................  Prescriptive Controls..  Prescriptive Controls..  Prohibit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Prohibit manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution in commerce for the consumer use.
  Except in insulation.
\2\ Different timeframes are applicable to the primary and secondary alternative regulatory actions considered,
  in comparison to the proposed regulatory action.

V. Rationale for the Proposed Regulatory Action and Alternative 
Regulatory Actions

    This unit describes how the considerations described in Unit 
III.B.3. were applied when selecting among the TSCA section 6(a) 
requirements to arrive at the proposed and alternative regulatory 
actions described in Unit IV.

A. Consideration of Risk Management Requirements Available Under TSCA 
Section 6(a)

1. Proposed Regulatory Action
a. Prohibition
    EPA considered a prohibition as a regulatory option and is 
proposing it for certain occupational conditions of use (Unit IV.A.). 
As described in this unit, EPA determined prohibition was appropriate 
for certain occupational conditions of use after taking into 
consideration other combinations of controls such as self-
certification, a non-prescriptive WCPP, or prescriptive controls (i.e., 
engineering controls, administrative controls, and PPE).
    EPA also considered the potential for 1-BP use to increase in 
particular sectors, such as dry cleaning solvents, where it has largely 
been phased out because of its well-established hazard (Refs. 26, 3). 
In order to prevent the potential for use of 1-BP to increase in a 
sector that has already moved away from it, use of 1-BP for certain 
conditions of use would be prohibited under the proposed regulatory and 
alternative regulatory actions. Such uses of 1-BP include, but are not 
limited to, use as dry cleaning solvents, use in adhesives and 
sealants, and use in liquid cleaners and liquid spray/aerosol cleaners.
    EPA determined prohibition would not be appropriate for the 
remaining occupational conditions of use, such as manufacturing 
(domestic manufacturing and import), processing as a reactant, 
processing for incorporation into articles, recycling, and repackaging; 
processing into a formulation, mixture, or reaction product; and 
industrial and commercial uses as a solvent for cleaning and degreasing 
in vapor degreasers, in aerosol spray degreaser/cleaner, in electronic 
and electronic products and metal products, in laboratory use for 
asphalt extraction, and in coating for temperature indicators. EPA made 
this determination based on compelling reasons, as described below, to 
not prohibit the activity and to identify a different regulatory action 
that would address the unreasonable risk. For example, prohibition may 
not be appropriate for conditions of use where EPA identified strict 
workplace controls could be implemented to address the unreasonable 
risk as described in Unit V.A.1.b. Additionally, prohibition may not be 
appropriate for conditions of use where alternative substances to 1-BP 
are more or equally hazardous (in particular some of the other solvents 
undergoing risk evaluation and risk management under TSCA section 6).
    For these conditions of use, EPA determined restrictions under a 1-
BP WCPP, self-certification requirements, prescriptive controls, or a 
combination of such requirements were more appropriate for addressing 
the unreasonable risk to the extent necessary so that 1-BP no longer 
presents such risk, while also allowing for regulated entities to 
continue operations, as described in this unit and in Unit IV.A.
    Regarding industrial, commercial, and consumer uses of 1-BP, TSCA 
section 6(a)(2) provides EPA with the authority to prohibit or 
otherwise restrict the manufacture (including import), processing, or 
distribution in commerce of a substance or mixture ``for a particular 
use'' to ensure that a chemical substance no longer presents 
unreasonable risk. For this rulemaking, EPA proposes that ``for a 
particular use'' includes consumer use more broadly, as well as 
industrial and commercial use, which encompasses all known, intended, 
and reasonably foreseen uses of 1-BP. Given the severity and ubiquitous 
nature of the risks identified in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP for 
all industrial, commercial, and consumer conditions of use (except in 
insulation), and noting that those conditions of use encompass all 
known, intended, and reasonably foreseen use of 1-BP, EPA proposes that 
prohibiting manufacture (including importing),

[[Page 65097]]

processing, and distribution in commerce of 1-BP for some industrial 
and commercial use and all consumer conditions of use, except for the 
consumer and commercial use of 1-BP in building materials/construction 
(insulation), is reasonable and necessary to eliminate the unreasonable 
risk of 1-BP from industrial, commercial, and consumer use. This 
includes precluding retailers from selling 1-BP and products containing 
1-BP, except insulation, to consumers for unspecified end-uses. EPA 
believes that any retailer selling products containing 1-BP, except 
insulation, to consumers for unspecified end-uses would be selling 
products for use by consumers for one of the consumer uses EPA 
evaluated in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP and found to contribute 
to the unreasonable risk for 1-BP in the 2022 revised risk 
determination. EPA's proposed requirements to address unreasonable risk 
to consumers and bystanders to consumer use are described in Unit IV.A.
    A key consideration regarding consumer uses is the role of 
retailers and other distributors. A retailer, as EPA has defined in 40 
CFR 751.103 (and proposes to define in CFR 751.5), is any entity that 
makes available a chemical substance or mixture to consumer end users, 
including through e-commerce internet sales or distribution. 
Previously, in the 2019 methylene chloride TSCA section 6(a) risk 
management rule addressing consumer use of methylene chloride in paint 
and coating removal (Ref. 34), EPA prohibited retailers from 
distributing in commerce paint and coating removers containing 
methylene chloride (see 40 CFR 751.105(b) and (c)). To meet the same 
goal of protecting consumers from accessing products containing 1-BP 
that could pose unreasonable risks, for a broader range of consumer 
use, EPA considered and is proposing a similar provision to ensure that 
retailers will not be able to purchase 1-BP for sale or distribution to 
consumers and will not be able to sell or distribute 1-BP to consumers, 
including making available to consumers products containing 1-BP, 
except insulation. For these reasons, as described in Unit IV.A., EPA's 
proposal to address unreasonable risk from 1-BP includes prohibition on 
the distribution in commerce of 1-BP to and by retailers, except for 
the use of 1-BP in insulation.
b. Workplace Chemical Protection Program (WCPP)
    One option EPA considered for occupational conditions of use was 
establishing a requirement for a 1-BP WCPP, which would include a 
combination of requirements to the extent necessary to address 
unreasonable risk contributed by inhalation and dermal exposures in the 
workplace. A 1-BP WCPP would encompass restrictions on certain 
occupational conditions of use and could include provisions for an ECEL 
and ancillary requirements to support implementation of these exposure 
limits. Due to the low exposure level and stringent requirements in the 
1-BP WCPP that would be necessary to address the unreasonable risk from 
1-BP, EPA identified those conditions of use where the Agency expected 
a 1-BP WCPP could be successfully implemented.
i. Existing Chemical Exposure Limit (ECEL)
    One requirement considered by EPA to include in a 1-BP WCPP to 
address unreasonable risk contributed by inhalation exposures to 1-BP 
for occupational conditions of use was establishing an ECEL and related 
implementation measures, such as exposure monitoring. As described in 
Unit IV.A., the 1-BP WCPP would be non-prescriptive, in the sense that 
regulated entities would not be required to use specific controls 
prescribed by EPA to achieve the exposure concentration limit. Rather, 
it would be a performance-based exposure limit that would enable owners 
or operators to determine how to most effectively meet the exposure 
limit based on conditions at their workplace, consistent with the 
hierarchy of controls.
    A central component of the 1-BP WCPP is the exposure limit. EPA has 
determined as a matter of risk management policy that ensuring 
exposures remain at or below the ECEL will eliminate any unreasonable 
risk of injury to health from occupational inhalation exposures for 
those conditions of use subject to the WCPP.
    In the case of 1-BP, EPA has calculated the ECEL to be 0.05 parts 
per million (ppm) (0.25 mg/m\3\) for inhalation exposures as an 8-hour 
TWA in workplace settings, based on the chronic cancer inhalation unit 
risk (IUR) at a risk level of 1 x 10-4. This is the 
concentration at which an adult human, including a member of a 
potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation, would be unlikely to 
suffer adverse effects if exposed for a working lifetime (Ref. 12). EPA 
chose the chronic cancer inhalation endpoint for 1-BP as the basis for 
this exposure limit because it is the most protective of the endpoints 
identified for occupational settings, and therefore will be protective 
of both acute and chronic cancer and chronic non-cancer inhalation 
endpoints over the course of a working day and lifetime, as described 
in Unit IV.A.2.b.
    In deciding whether an ECEL and related required implementation 
measures would appropriately address the unreasonable risk contributed 
by occupational inhalation exposures for specific conditions of use, 
EPA considered factors related to work activities that may make it 
difficult to comply with an ECEL, particularly at the low air 
concentration level EPA has identified. Once EPA identified the 
appropriate risk-based inhalation limit to address identified 
unreasonable risk, EPA carefully considered the appropriateness of such 
an exposure control program for each occupational condition of use of 
1-BP, in the context of the unreasonable risk. Examples include 
conditions of use with work activities that may take place in the 
field, making it challenging to establish a regulated area and conduct 
monitoring; work activities that may take place in open systems that 
require manual contact with the chemical substance; work activities 
that may take place in small, enclosed spaces, creating challenges for 
implementing engineering controls or using respiratory PPE; work 
activities that require a high range of motion or for some other reason 
create challenges for the implementation of respiratory PPE; and the 
type of PPE that would be needed under the 1-BP WCPP to meet the ECEL 
in the absence of, or in addition to, other feasible exposure controls, 
based on analysis in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP describing 
expected exposures with and without use of PPE.
    EPA also considered the feasibility of exposure reduction 
sufficient to address the unreasonable risk, including in facilities 
complying with recommended OELs such as the ACGIH TLV. This creates a 
degree of uncertainty as to whether facilities engaging in some 
industrial and commercial conditions of use could meet the ECEL (and 
associated action level) and whether they could do so without relying 
primarily on the use of PPE (which is the least preferred option in the 
hierarchy of controls), and, therefore, whether exposures could be 
reduced in a manner aligned with the hierarchy of controls.
    EPA understands that this uncertainty extends to the feasibility of 
respirators to address unreasonable risk from 1-BP as well. Although 
respirators, specifically SCBAs, could reduce exposures to levels that 
protect against non-cancer and cancer risks, not all workers may be 
able to wear respirators. Individuals with impaired lung function

[[Page 65098]]

due to asthma, emphysema, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, for 
example, may be physically unable to wear a respirator. OSHA requires 
that a determination regarding the ability to use a respirator be made 
by a physician or other licensed health-care professional, and annual 
fit testing is required for tight-fitting, full-face piece respirators 
to provide the required protection. Individuals with facial hair, such 
as beards or sideburns that interfere with a proper face-to-respirator 
seal, cannot wear tight fitting respirators. In addition, respirators 
may also present communication problems, vision problems, worker 
fatigue, and reduced work efficiency (63 FR 1152, January 8, 1998). 
According to OSHA, ``improperly selected respirators may afford no 
protection at all (for example, use of a dust mask against airborne 
vapors), may be so uncomfortable as to be intolerable to the wearer, or 
may hinder vision, communication, hearing, or movement and thus pose a 
risk to the wearer's safety or health.'' (63 FR 1189 through 1190).
ii. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Program
    Another requirement considered by EPA to include in a 1-BP WCPP to 
address unreasonable risk driven by exposures to 1-BP for occupational 
conditions of use was requiring a prescriptive PPE program. The 
requirements under this prescriptive program are a process-based set of 
provisions to address unreasonable risk driven by workplace exposures 
to 1-BP. In order to address workplace exposures to 1-BP, requirements 
would include use of prescriptive PPE, including dermal PPE. EPA's 
description for how the requirements related to this prescriptive PPE 
program would address the unreasonable risk resulting from workplace 
exposures and the rationale for this regulatory approach is outlined in 
Units III.B.3. and V.A.
    Similar to the ECEL, under prescriptive PPE requirements, EPA is 
proposing to require owners and operators to implement respiratory 
controls in accordance with the hierarchy of controls, as outlined in 
Unit IV.A.2.c. EPA also recommends and encourages the use of pollution 
prevention as a means of controlling exposures whenever practicable.
    In contrast to the proposed non-prescriptive requirements of the 
ECEL, EPA is proposing to require owners and operators to implement 
specific prescriptive controls for those occupational conditions of use 
subject to a 1-BP WCPP. Specifically, EPA is proposing to require the 
use of chemically resistant gloves made of supported polyvinyl alcohol 
or a multiple-layer laminated material, in combination with specific 
activity training (e.g., procedure for glove removal and disposal) for 
tasks where dermal exposure can be expected to occur.
    In consideration of the whole of the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP, 
including the uncertainties, EPA has preliminarily determined that 
preventing workplace exposure to 1-BP through prescriptive PPE 
requirements, including the use of respirators and/or gloves, workplace 
specific training, and PPE training, as described in Unit IV.A.2.c., 
for certain occupational conditions of use would address the 
unreasonable risk from 1-BP exposures in the workplace driven by these 
conditions of use for potentially exposed persons.
iii. 1-BP WCPP
    Taking into account these considerations, EPA is proposing that 
certain conditions of use would be allowed to continue if regulated 
entities could ensure exposures remain at or below the ECEL and other 
requirements are met in the 1-BP WCPP. In contrast to considerations 
that would weigh against the likelihood that a facility within a 
condition of use to successfully implement a WCPP, there are certain 
considerations that indicate a facility engaged in a condition of use 
would likely be able to achieve effective risk management via WCPP. 
Based on reasonably available information, including monitoring data 
process descriptions, and information related to considerations 
described previously in this unit, EPA's confidence that requirements 
to meet an ECEL can be implemented is highest in highly standardized 
and industrialized settings, such as where 1-BP is used in a closed 
system (Ref. 32). For example, two industry commenters provided EPA 
with closed system process and exposure monitoring information that 
indicate circumstances where the requirements to meet an ECEL could be 
successfully implemented (Ref. 32).
    Pursuant to TSCA section 6(c)(2)(A)(i), EPA is considering 
reasonably available information regarding the adverse effects of 1-BP 
on human health and the magnitude of exposure of human beings to 1-BP. 
EPA recognizes that people at workplaces that manufacture, process, 
use, or dispose of 1-BP may live in the fenceline communities 
surrounding these facilities and consequently may be potentially 
exposed to 1-BP through ambient air outside of working hours. In 
addition, the Agency understands that certain engineering controls can 
reduce exposure to people inside the workplace but may lead to 
increased ventilation of 1-BP outside of the workplace, thereby 
increasing risks to people in fenceline communities of adverse health 
effects from exposure to 1-BP in ambient air. Therefore, pursuant to 
TSCA section 6(c)(2)(B), EPA is considering the potential adverse 
effects on health of people in fenceline communities posed by emissions 
of 1-BP to ambient air described in Unit VI. as a factor when proposing 
to prohibit increased releases of 1-BP to outdoor air associated with 
the implementation of the WCPP. This proposed requirement is intended 
to avoid unintended increases in exposures to people from 1-BP 
emissions to ambient air. The proposed rule would require owners and 
operators to attest in their WCPP exposure control plan that 
engineering controls selected to address worker risk do not increase 
emissions of 1-BP to ambient air outside of the workplace and document 
in their exposure control plan whether additional equipment was 
installed to capture emissions of 1-BP to ambient air.
    Details of the proposed 1-BP WCPP, including provisions for the 
ECEL and ancillary required implementation measures, requirements for 
demonstrating compliance, and requirements for distributors, are 
described in more detail in Unit IV.A. EPA requests comment on all 
aspects of this proposal to allow certain conditions of use to continue 
under the WCPP, including the likelihood that the provisions of the 
WCPP, including exposure monitoring, engineering and administrative 
controls, PPE, and the exposure control plan, could be successfully 
implemented for the identified conditions of use, including, for 
example, the industrial and commercial use as a solvent for aerosol 
spray degreaser/cleaner.
c. Prescriptive Controls
    In addition to the considerations addressed in Unit V.A.1.b., EPA 
is also proposing prescriptive controls to reduce dermal exposures in 
the workplace and address the unreasonable risk of injury to health 
resulting from dermal exposures to 1-BP. Specifically, EPA is proposing 
the use of chemically resistant gloves, either made of supported 
polyvinyl alcohol or a multiple-layer laminated material, supplied by 
the owner or operator, for certain occupational conditions of use where 
dermal exposure is expected to result in unreasonable risk, but for 
which there is no unreasonable risk

[[Page 65099]]

from inhalation exposure. In the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP, EPA 
identified that only the use of such gloves is needed to reduce dermal 
exposures to 1-BP to address the unreasonable risk contributed by 
dermal exposures from these conditions of use. Details of the proposed 
prescriptive controls are described in more detail in Unit IV.A.
d. Self-Certification
    Since it is unlikely that all industrial or commercial facilities 
with occupational exposures engaged in one or more uses of 1-BP as 
listed in Unit IV.A.2. have the ability to implement a WCPP, EPA is 
including a point-of-sale self-certification requirement in order to 
purchase 1-BP for certain uses. EPA is proposing that this self-
certification would be required for the conditions of use, other than 
domestic manufacturing, that would be allowed to continue for regulated 
entities under the WCPP. This would allow only those entities within 
those conditions of use that could ensure that exposures remain at or 
below the ECEL and meet other requirements of the 1-BP WCPP to continue 
to process or use 1-BP for those particular conditions of use. EPA 
estimates that most, but not all, workplaces under the conditions of 
use that would be subject to the WCPP as a proposed regulatory action 
are capable of implementing the ECEL and other aspects of the WCPP as 
part of an industrial hygiene program (existing or newly established 
for 1-BP), since many of these facilities would have the ability to 
implement process changes to reduce exposures, have equipment in place 
to control ventilation rates, and have or can implement a monitoring 
program to demonstrate compliance. However, EPA does not expect that 
all workplaces would be able to implement fully all the controls and 
monitoring necessary to comply with the WCPP to reduce the risks from 
1-BP so that they are no longer unreasonable. Subjecting facilities to 
self-certification would ensure that only those facilities that are 
able to implement the ECEL and other requirements of the WCPP would be 
able to continue to purchase 1-BP for a condition of use subject to the 
1-BP WCPP.
    Under a self-certification requirement, entities would submit a 
self-certification to the distributor each time 1-BP is purchased. The 
self-certification would consist of a statement indicating that the 
facility is implementing a WCPP that would include an ECEL, PPE 
requirements, and ancillary requirements; the self-certification would 
be signed and presented to the distributor by the facility owner or 
operator or person authorized to do so. In this way, distributors of 1-
BP for the specified conditions of use would be able to identify 
clearly the entities engaging in the specified conditions of use who 
should be able to purchase 1-BP. Additionally, while not required to be 
reported to EPA, the self-certification records would be retained for 5 
years and would also provide important information to EPA during any 
verification of compliance with the WCPP.
    Details of the proposed self-certification, including ancillary 
recordkeeping requirements, requirements for demonstrating compliance 
and requirements for distributors, are described in more detail in Unit 
IV.A.
2. Alternative Regulatory Actions
    EPA acknowledges that, for two of the occupational conditions of 
use (industrial and commercial use in batch vapor degreasing--open-top 
and in-line; industrial and commercial use in batch vapor degreasing--
closed-loop) that EPA is proposing to subject to a WCPP, there may be 
some activities or facilities that could conceivably implement 
prescriptive controls to ensure that exposures remain below an ECEL. In 
some cases, they may be able to undertake more extensive risk reduction 
measures than EPA currently anticipates. As described in Unit 
IV.B.1.b., under a 1-BP WCPP owners and operators would have more 
ability to implement risk reduction measures that may be better suited 
for their facility rather than subjecting facilities to specific 
required prescriptive controls that may not be the most suitable for 
all. Therefore, as a primary alternative regulatory action, described 
in Unit IV.B., EPA is considering and requesting comment on 
prescriptive controls and the implementation of a PPE program. 
Additionally, EPA is requesting any existing monitoring data that could 
inform whether a WCPP or prescriptive controls with a PPE program is a 
more appropriate regulatory action for these two conditions of use of 
1-BP.
    EPA understands that some of the workplaces engaged in a condition 
of use may already have stringent engineering controls, administrative 
controls, and PPE in place to reduce inhalation and dermal exposures to 
1-BP, such as vapor degreasing. As part of the primary alternative 
regulatory action, EPA considered prescribed engineering controls, 
administrative controls, and PPE for the two occupational conditions of 
use. In contrast to the proposed non-prescriptive requirements of the 
WCPP where regulated entities would have flexibility to select controls 
in accordance with the hierarchy of controls to comply, EPA understands 
that requiring specific prescriptive controls for certain occupational 
conditions of use may provide greater certainty to some facilities that 
they are addressing the unreasonable risk. However, as summarized in 
this unit, EPA has uncertainty regarding the feasibility of exposure 
reductions through specified engineering controls, administrative 
controls, and/or PPE to address unreasonable risk across all workplaces 
engaged in certain conditions of use. Prescribing specific engineering 
controls, administrative controls, or PPE does not consider 
distinctions in processes, equipment, or workplace layout in all 
facilities, which may result in varying levels and types of controls 
needed to reduce inhalation exposures to below the ECEL. Additionally, 
as described in Unit V.A.1.b., there is a degree of uncertainty 
regarding applicability of respirators, including their feasibility and 
consistency of proper use, especially when exposure monitoring is not 
regularly conducted. However, as part of the primary alternative 
regulatory action, EPA is considering PPE and soliciting comment on 
prescribing specific engineering and administrative controls for some 
occupational conditions of use. In the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP, 
EPA identified PPE that could reduce exposures and therefore considered 
requiring PPE, including respiratory protection and dermal protection, 
as part of the primary alternative regulatory action for those certain 
conditions of use where the proposed regulatory action is a 1-BP WCPP. 
Turning to the use of PPE, however, does not consider other more 
preferable controls in the hierarchy of controls, including 
elimination, substitution, engineering, and administrative controls. As 
part of the primary alternative regulatory action, EPA is soliciting 
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.
    EPA also considered a prohibition as a second alternative 
regulatory option for all manufacturing (including import), processing, 
industrial and commercial use, and disposal of 1-BP, except for the use 
of 1-BP and products containing 1-BP in building/construction materials 
(insulation). EPA

[[Page 65100]]

considered determining that prohibition, as a second alternative 
regulatory option, would be suitable for all conditions of use (except 
in insulation) after taking into consideration other combinations of 
controls as described in this unit and Unit IV. Ultimately, a 
prohibition would result in elimination of unreasonable risk from the 
use of 1-BP, rather than allowing 1-BP use to continue in perpetuity.
    EPA acknowledges that, for some conditions of use for which it is 
considering prohibition under the second alternative regulatory option, 
there may be some activities or facilities that would need longer 
compliance timeframes in order to appropriately transition. Therefore, 
the second alternative regulatory action also considered providing for 
additional time under a prohibition to provide the flexibility for 
facilities to comply, for example, to account for issues affecting the 
supply chain, such as the ready availability of alternatives to 
reformulate products. In selecting among the TSCA section 6(a) 
requirements for the second alternative regulatory action for use of 1-
BP-containing products, EPA considered risk-related factors, including 
but not limited to, the population exposed and the severity of the 
hazard of 1-BP and, separately, for other alternative solvents, which 
are undergoing risk evaluation and risk management under TSCA section 
6, such as PCE (as part of a separate rulemaking). For example, there 
may be instances where PCE and 1-BP may be desired because they are 
non-flammable solvents used as cleaning agents for use in vapor 
degreasing. In these instances, additional time may be needed to 
identify an alternative chemical or process to avoid flammability 
concerns.
    Details of the primary alternative regulatory action and second 
alternative regulatory action are described in more detail in Unit 
IV.B.
3. Risk Management Requirements Considered But Not Proposed
    EPA considered but is not proposing to regulate the weight fraction 
of 1-BP in products for industrial and commercial or consumer use 
because 1-BP is the main constituent (e.g., cleaning component) of the 
majority of 1-BP-containing product formulations and EPA understands 
that decreasing the concentration of 1-BP decreases the efficacy of the 
product.
    EPA's proposed requirements to address unreasonable risk to 
workers, ONUs, and consumers and bystanders to consumer use are 
described in Unit IV.A.
Additional Considerations
    After considering the different regulatory options under TSCA 
section 6(a), alternatives (described in Unit V.B.), compliance dates, 
and other requirements under TSCA section 6(c), EPA developed the 
proposed regulatory action described in Unit IV.A. to address the 
unreasonable risk from 1-BP to the extent necessary so that the risk is 
no longer unreasonable. To ensure successful implementation of this 
proposed regulatory action, EPA considered other section 6(a) 
requirements to support compliance with the proposed regulations, such 
as requiring monitoring and recordkeeping to demonstrate compliance 
with the 1-BP WCPP and downstream notification regarding the 
prohibition on manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and 
use of 1-BP, including products containing 1-BP, for certain conditions 
of use. These proposed requirements are described in Unit IV.A.
    As required under TSCA section 6(d), any rule under TSCA section 
6(a) must specify mandatory compliance dates, which shall be as soon as 
practicable with a reasonable transition period, but no later than 5 
years after the date of promulgation of the final rule (except in the 
case of a use exempted under TSCA section 6(g) or for full 
implementation of ban or phase-out requirements). For ban or phase-out 
requirements, EPA must specify mandatory compliance dates for the start 
of ban or phase-out requirements, which must be as soon as practicable 
but no later than 5 years after the date of promulgation of the final 
rule. These compliance dates are detailed in Unit IV.A. and IV.B. EPA 
may finalize significantly shorter or longer compliance timeframes 
based on consideration of public comments. Following Panel 
recommendations in the SBAR report, and described in Unit IV., EPA 
considered reasonable compliance timeframes in response to SER input 
and other appropriate factors, such as capital costs for new equipment, 
and ongoing regulations and rulemakings, including the addition of 1-BP 
to the list of (HAPs under the Clean Air Act (January 5, 2022; 87 FR 
393) (Ref. 20). Additionally, following Panel recommendations in the 
SBAR report, EPA considered compliance timelines based on the 
availability of technically and economically feasible alternatives, as 
well as any information provided by other agencies that may set 
requirements for certification or standards relevant to degreasing, 
parts cleaning, or other uses of 1-BP. Following Panel recommendations 
in the SBAR report, EPA is requesting comment on any additional 
appropriate factors for identifying reasonable compliance timeframes 
and how to weigh the factors for degreasing and other industries, as 
well as differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables 
that account for the resources available to small entities.

B. Consideration of Alternatives in Deciding Whether To Prohibit or 
Substantially Restrict 1-BP

    Under TSCA section 6(c)(2)(C), in deciding whether to prohibit or 
restrict in a manner that substantially prevents a specific condition 
of use of a chemical substance or mixture, and in setting an 
appropriate transition period for such action, EPA must consider, to 
the extent practicable, whether technically and economically feasible 
alternatives that benefit human health or the environment, compared to 
the use so proposed to be prohibited or restricted, will be reasonably 
available as a substitute when the proposed prohibition or other 
restriction takes effect. To that end, in addition to an Economic 
Analysis (Ref. 3), EPA conducted an Alternatives Assessment, using 
reasonably available information (Ref. 35).
    For this assessment, EPA identified and analyzed alternatives to 1-
BP in products relevant to industrial, commercial, and consumer 
conditions of use proposed to be prohibited or restricted, even if such 
restrictions are not anticipated to substantially prevent the condition 
of use. Based on reasonably available information, including 
information submitted by the industry, EPA understands viable 
alternatives to 1-BP may not be available for several conditions of 
use--for example, processing 1-BP as a raw material in chemical 
reactions for the manufacturing of another chemical substance or 
product--and considered that information to the extent practicable in 
the development of the regulatory options as described in Unit III.B.3. 
For some conditions of use, EPA was unable to identify products 
currently available for sale that contain 1-BP. EPA is soliciting 
comments on whether there are products in use or available for sale 
relevant to these conditions of use that contain 1-BP at this time, so 
that EPA can ascertain whether there are alternatives that benefit 
human health or the environment as compared to such use of 1-BP. These 
conditions of use are detailed in the Alternatives Assessment (Ref. 
35).

[[Page 65101]]

    In deciding whether to propose prohibition or other significant 
restrictions on a condition of use of 1-BP and in proposing an 
appropriate transition period for any such action, EPA has therefore, 
pursuant to TSCA section 6(c)(2)(C), considered, to the extent 
practicable, whether technically and economically feasible alternatives 
that benefit human health or the environment, compared to the use 
proposed to be prohibited or restricted, would be reasonably available 
as a substitute when a proposed prohibition or other significant 
restriction would become effective. EPA is additionally requesting 
comment on the Alternatives Assessment as a whole.

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

A. Health Effects of 1-BP and the Magnitude of Human Exposure to 1-BP

    EPA's analysis of the health effects of 1-BP and the magnitude of 
human exposure to 1-BP are in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP (Ref. 
1). A summary is presented here.
    The 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP identified potential health 
effects of 1-BP including non-cancer adverse health effects such as 
liver toxicity, kidney toxicity, reproductive toxicity, developmental 
toxicity, and neurotoxicity. Relative to cancer effects, the risk 
evaluation identified cancer hazards from genotoxicity, a recognized 
mechanism of cancer, and site-specific cancers, particularly for skin, 
intestinal, and lung tumors. EPA has determined that protecting at the 
cancer endpoint would also address the risk for other acute or chronic 
non-cancer endpoints.
    For acute inhalation and dermal exposure scenarios, EPA identified 
non-cancer developmental effects as the most sensitive endpoint. For 
chronic inhalation and dermal exposure scenarios, EPA identified the 
following health effects: liver (increased hepatocellular 
vacuolization), kidney (increased pelvic mineralization), reproductive 
system (decreased seminal vesicle weight), developmental effects 
(decreased live litter size and post-implantation loss), and nervous 
system (decreased traction time) as the most sensitive endpoints. By 
the criteria presented in EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk 
Assessment (Ref. 30), 1-BP is characterized as ``likely to be 
carcinogenic to humans by all routes of exposure'' based on the 
positive findings for carcinogenicity in more than one test species, 
together with positive findings for the direct reactivity of 1-BP with 
DNA and suggestive but inconclusive evidence for genetic toxicity. In a 
two-year cancer bioassay with 1-BP exposures via the inhalation route, 
increases in the incidence of skin tumors (keratoacanthoma/squamous 
cell carcinomas) in male F344 rats, rare large intestine adenomas in 
female F344 rats, and alveolar/bronchiolar adenomas or carcinomas 
(combined) in female B6C3F1 mice were observed (Ref.1).
    Regarding the magnitude of human exposure, one factor EPA considers 
for the conditions of use that contribute to unreasonable risk is the 
size of the exposed population which, for 1-BP, EPA estimates that, 
annually, there are between approximately 4,147 and 8,131 workers and 
between 2,310 and 4,709 ONUs at between 716 and 1,627 commercial 
operations either processing or using products containing 1-BP (Ref. 
3). The number of consumers that use products containing 1-BP each year 
is likely to be few because EPA found that products containing 1-BP 
aren't typically marketed to consumers and several products that might 
have been marketed to consumers are being discontinued.
    For the conditions of use that contribute to the unreasonable risk 
for 1-BP, PESS include workers, ONUs, consumer users, and bystanders to 
consumers using products containing 1-BP. PESS also includes the 
following life stages: people of reproductive age, pregnant women, 
infants, and children.
    In addition to workers, ONUs, consumers, and bystanders to consumer 
use directly exposed to 1-BP, EPA recognizes there is exposure to the 
general population from the ambient air pathway for 1-BP, including 
fenceline communities. As mentioned in Unit II.D., EPA has separately 
conducted a screening approach to assess whether there may be potential 
risks to the general population from this exposure pathway. While the 
use of this screening approach indicates that EPA is not able to 
quantify reduced risk or find that there are no potential risks to 
fenceline communities, the screening approach was not designed to 
facilitate the making of an unreasonable risk determination for these 
communities. This unit summarizes the results of that fenceline 
analysis. EPA is not making a determination of unreasonable risk based 
on the fenceline screening analysis, however, the proposed regulatory 
action described in Unit IV., in combination with EPA's designation of 
1-BP as a HAP (87 FR 393) and subsequent CAA-required NESHAPs, 
particularly for vapor degreasing, is expected to reduce risk.
    As described in Unit II.D., EPA's fenceline analysis methodology 
was presented to the SACC peer review panel in March 2022, and EPA 
considered SACC feedback (including the SACC recommendation to EPA to 
consider multiple years of release data to estimate exposures and 
associated risks) and made decisions regarding how to assess general 
population exposures. For 1-BP, EPA recognizes that a key input into 
the fenceline analysis for the ambient air pathway was data on releases 
from the most recent Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting year and 
that the use of more than one year of data could result in different 
conclusions. Accordingly, in this unit EPA presents the results of its 
ambient air pathway fenceline analysis based on 1-BP releases reported 
to TRI over a single reporting year as well as over multiple years. 
Additionally, analysis of the facilities identified with risk show no 
co-located facilities (Ref. 36).
    EPA's fenceline analysis for the air pathway for 1-BP indicates 
that EPA is not able to conclude that there are no potential risks to 
fenceline communities, described further in this unit. Additionally, 
based on the fenceline analysis for the ambient air pathway for 1-BP, 
including the strengths, limitations, and uncertainties associated with 
the information used to inform the analysis, EPA is unable to determine 
with this analysis whether those risks contribute to the unreasonable 
risk of injury to health presented by 1-BP. 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., 
1x10-6 to 1x10-4) depending on the subpopulation 
exposed. For example, when setting standards under section 112(f)(2) of 
the CAA, 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. 37). In this screening level fenceline analysis 
for the ambient air pathway for 1-BP, estimates of risk to fenceline 
communities were calculated with reference to a 1 x 10-\6\ 
benchmark for cancer risk. While the screening fenceline analysis for 
1-BP indicates risk to fenceline communities, EPA is unable to 
determine, based on that analysis, whether risks to the general 
population contribute to the unreasonable risk (Ref. 36). The benchmark 
values are not a bright line, and the Agency considers a number of 
factors when determining unreasonable risk, such as the endpoint under

[[Page 65102]]

consideration, the reversibility of effect, and exposure-related 
considerations (e.g., duration, magnitude, or frequency of exposure, or 
size of population exposed). EPA is working on improving the fenceline 
assessment methodology for future chemicals based on feedback from SACC 
and public comments. The evolving approach for evaluating risks to 
fenceline communities was in EPA's Draft Supplement to the Risk 
Evaluation for 1,4-Dioxane, https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0238-0011.
    In this unit, EPA presents the results of its ambient air pathway 
fenceline analysis and the uncertainties associated with the analysis. 
EPA also describes how the proposal to prohibit the manufacturing 
(include importing), processing, and distribution in commerce of 1-BP 
for certain industrial and commercial use and all consumer use, and to 
prohibit some industrial and commercial use of 1-BP, is expected to 
reduce the potential risks identified in the screening analysis to 
fenceline communities close to facilities engaging in 1-BP use. This 
unit also describes how EPA believes the proposed WCPP requirements may 
reduce exposures to the general population for facilities identified in 
the fenceline analysis with expected exposures to fenceline communities 
that are associated with conditions of use EPA is not proposing to 
prohibit. EPA also believes that with the proposed prohibitions of some 
conditions of use, risk is expected to be reduced for certain fenceline 
communities. EPA therefore does not intend to revisit the air pathway 
for 1-BP as part of a supplemental risk evaluation.
    In January 2022, 1-BP was added to the HAP list under the CAA (87 
FR 393), which also requires EPA to list source categories of HAPs, set 
standards for all HAPs that are emitted from each source category, and 
review and revise these standards, if necessary, to account for 
improvements in air pollution controls and/or prevention, including 
addition of any recently added HAPs that may be applicable to the 
standard being reviewed. As NESHAPs continue to be reviewed, and as the 
majority of facilities assessed, and those which indicate potential 
risk, in the fenceline analysis were vapor degreasing facilities, the 
NESHAPs process under the CAA will assess risk to the general 
population at the fenceline and regulate as necessary.
    There are some uncertainties associated with the fenceline analysis 
for the air pathway for 1-BP. The TRI dataset used for the single- and 
the multi-year fenceline analysis and land use analysis does not 
include actual release point locations, which can affect the estimated 
concentrations of the chemical at varying distances modeled. To 
identify the release location for each facility, EPA used a local-
coordinate system based on latitude/longitude coordinates reported in 
TRI. The latitude/longitude coordinates may represent the mailing 
address location of the office building associated with a very large 
facility or some other area of the facility rather than the actual 
release location (e.g., a specific process stack). This discrepancy 
between the coordinates reported in TRI and the actual release point 
could result in an exposure concentration that does not represent the 
actual distance where fenceline communities may be exposed. The 
fenceline analysis also evaluated the most ``conservative exposure 
scenario'' that consists of a facility that operates year-round (365 
days per year, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week) in a South Coastal 
meteorologic region and a rural topography setting (Ref. 36). 
Therefore, the modeled exposures to people may be overestimated if 
there are fewer exposure days per year or hours per day. Additionally, 
the ambient air fenceline analysis organizes facilities and associated 
risks by OES and generally crosswalks each OES with the associated 
condition of use of 1-BP (Ref. 36). For some OES, EPA identified the 
associated conditions of use to the category level in the August 2020 
Risk Evaluation for 1-BP but was unable to identify the conditions of 
use to the subcategory level due to limited information on activities 
and use of 1-BP reported under TRI. Therefore, some OES indicating 
increased cancer risk from ambient air exposures to 1-BP in the air 
fenceline analysis may be associated with one or more conditions of use 
of 1-BP.
    EPA's single year fenceline analysis for the ambient air pathway, 
based on methods presented to the SACC, evaluated 1-BP releases to TRI 
over the 2019 reporting year. This single year fenceline analysis 
identified 71 facilities with some indication of releases and potential 
exposure with associated cancer risk to people within select distances 
evaluated from 5 to 1,000 meters from the respective releasing 
facility. Separately, following SACC feedback, EPA applied a slightly 
modified pre-screening methodology to evaluate 5 years of 1-BP release 
data (2016 through 2020 TRI data as well as the 5-year average of that 
data) rather than a single year of data for facilities with reported 
releases in TRI. The multi-year fenceline analysis identified 105 
facilities with some indication of releases and potential exposures and 
associated cancer risk in excess of 1 x 10-6 at a distance 
of 100 meters from the releasing facility (Ref. 36). Based on the 
multi-year fenceline analysis, 47 of these 105 facilities may have 
cancer risks above 1 x 10-6 at distances farther out than 
100 meters when compared to the single year analysis or are facilities 
that were not captured in the single-year analysis (e.g., did not 
report in 2019 TRI). Although the multi-year analysis identified 
several additional facilities whose operations may result in fenceline 
community risks above 1 x 10-6 for cancer farther out when 
compared to the single year analysis or that were not captured in the 
single-year analysis, the results of overall risk profiles (i.e., OES 
and corresponding conditions of use with risk estimates above the 
benchmark for cancer at the distances evaluated) for the single year 
and multi-year fenceline analyses are the same.
    EPA conducted a land use analysis to determine if EPA can 
reasonably expect an exposure to fenceline communities to occur within 
the modeled distances for facilities where there was an indication of 
risk in the single year or multi-year fenceline analysis. This review 
consisted of a visual analysis using aerial imagery and interpreting 
land/use zoning practices spaces are present within those radial 
distances indicating risk (as opposed to uninhabited areas), as well as 
whether the radial distances lie outside the boundaries of the 
facility. The land use analysis identified 49 facilities indicating 
risk in the single-year fenceline analysis and identified 35 out of the 
49 facilities with expected exposure to fenceline communities. The land 
use analysis of the 34 additional facilities indicating risk in the 
multi-year fenceline analysis (i.e., facilities where cancer risk 
estimates were above 1 x 10-6 at distances farther out when 
compared to the single-year analysis or facilities that were not 
captured in the single year analysis) identified 30 additional 
facilities with expected exposure to fenceline communities. Overall, 
the land use analysis identified a total of 49 facilities, associated 
with 11 conditions of use of 1-BP, with expected exposure to fenceline 
communities (Ref. 36). Those conditions of use of 1-BP are: degreasing 
(batch open-top degreasing; batch closed-loop degreasing; conveyorized 
vapor degreasing; web vapor degreasing; cold cleaning); incorporation 
into formulation, mixture, or reaction product; import; manufacturing 
(domestic manufacturing); other

[[Page 65103]]

industrial uses--cutting oils; repackaging; and recycling and disposal 
(Ref. 36).
    Under the proposed regulatory action described in Unit IV.A., most 
of the conditions of use with an indication of potential risk to 
fenceline communities would be subject to requirements of the 1-BP 
WCPP, including: manufacturing; several processing conditions of use; 
and several industrial conditions of use. EPA is also proposing to 
prohibit certain conditions of use that may be associated with 2 of the 
47 facilities analyzed with an indication of potential risk to 
fenceline communities in the fenceline analysis, including: dry 
cleaning and functional fluids. As a result, exposures to any fenceline 
communities from these facilities would be addressed under the 
prohibitions in the proposed rulemaking.
    The remaining facilities with expected exposure to fenceline 
communities may be associated with the following conditions of use that 
EPA is not proposing to prohibit: manufacturing (domestic manufacture); 
processing as a reactant; processing for incorporation into 
formulation, mixture, or reaction products; processing for 
incorporation into articles; industrial and commercial use as solvent 
for cleaning and degreasing in vapor degreaser--closed loop; industrial 
and commercial use as solvent for cleaning and degreasing in vapor 
degreaser--open-top, inline vapor degreaser; and, industrial and 
commercial use as solvent for cleaning and degreasing in cold cleaners. 
For these conditions of use that may be associated with facilities that 
indicate expected exposure to fenceline communities, the proposed rule 
would require strict workplace exposure controls via implementation of 
a WCPP as described in Unit IV.A.2. Under the proposed WCPP 
requirements, facilities would need to monitor 1-BP air concentrations 
by taking personal breathing zone air samples of potentially exposed 
persons, which would allow facilities to better understand and manage 
the total releases of 1-BP within the facility and potentially stack 
and fugitive emissions. Furthermore, as part of the proposed controls 
outlined in Unit IV., EPA is proposing to prohibit increased releases 
of 1-BP to outdoor air associated with the implementation of the WCPP 
to avoid unintended increases in exposures to people (in the workplace 
and fenceline communities) from 1-BP emissions to ambient air by 
requiring owners to attest in their WCPP exposure control plan that 
engineering controls selected do not increase emissions of 1-BP to 
ambient air outside of the workplace, keep records of that statement as 
part of the WCPP exposure control plan, and document in their exposure 
control plan whether additional equipment was installed to capture or 
otherwise prevent increased emissions of 1-BP to ambient air. EPA is 
requesting comment on best practices to remove and reduce fugitive 
emissions of 1-BP from relevant operations including, but not limited 
to, chemical manufacturing, vapor degreasing, electronics degreasing, 
cold cleaning, and adhesives manufacturing. EPA is requesting comment 
on the types and costs of technologies firms would adopt to comply with 
the prohibition on increased releases of 1-BP to outdoor air associated 
with engineering controls used in the implementation of the WCPP. In 
addition, EPA requests comment on whether and to what extent certain 
technologies, including technologies that might be implemented pursuant 
to applicable regulatory authority (such as emission standards 
resulting from possible future NESHAP requirements), would reduce 1-BP 
emissions to ambient air at facilities that adopt them below emissions 
levels that may have existed prior to implementation of the WCPP.
    Finally, in the instances where efforts to reduce exposures in the 
workplace to levels below the ECEL could lead to adoption of 
engineering controls that that may result in more 1-BP being ventilated 
outside, EPA believes this potential additional exposure would be 
limited as a result of anticipated revisions to NESHAP requirements 
following the designation of 1-BP as a HAP under the CAA.
    EPA expects that this proposed action, in combination with the 
emissions standards resulting from anticipated revisions to NESHAP 
requirements following the designation of 1-BP as a HAP, would reduce 
risk sufficiently to the general population and fenceline communities. 
EPA does not intend at this time to revisit the air pathway for 1-BP as 
part of a supplemental risk evaluation. EPA is seeking comment on its 
conclusions, and whether, consistent with TSCA section 9(b), any other 
statutory authorities administered by EPA should be used to take 
additional regulatory action identified as necessary to protect against 
such risk. EPA is also soliciting comment on whether EPA should require 
ambient air monitoring, including fenceline monitoring, at fenceline 
locations or facility emissions source monitoring to demonstrate 
compliance with the proposed requirement that engineering controls 
implemented as part of a WCPP under this rulemaking would not result in 
the ventilation of more 1-BP outside. The Agency recognizes that owners 
and operators may have difficulty distinguishing between emission 
increases due to implementation of the WCPP and emissions increases 
resulting from other factors such as increased manufacturing, 
processing, or use of 1-BP, although monitoring at both upwind and 
downwind locations could help them do so. In addition, EPA understands 
the difficulty in distinguishing between background levels of 1-BP and 
emissions from facilities. Therefore, EPA is soliciting comment on the 
need for and associated costs of ambient air monitoring at fenceline 
locations and facility emissions source monitoring, as well as 
information on the frequency and nature of air monitoring EPA should 
consider including as requirements in the final rule (such as a 
detection limit for 1-BP). EPA is also requesting comment on methods to 
inform fenceline communities of any increases of 1-BP emissions to 
ambient air. EPA is also soliciting comment on whether, if EPA does not 
finalize the proposed prohibition on increased releases of 1-BP to 
ambient air outside of the workplace associated with implementation of 
the WCPP, EPA should require monitoring to alert EPA to any increased 
emissions to ambient air associated with WCPP implementation so that 
the Agency may take appropriate action.

B. Environmental Effects of 1-BP and the Magnitude of Exposure of the 
Environment to 1-BP

    EPA's analysis of the environmental effects of 1-BP and the 
magnitude of exposure of the environment to 1-BP are in the 2020 Risk 
Evaluation for 1-BP (Ref. 1). The unreasonable risk determination for 
1-BP is based solely on risks to human health; based on the TSCA 2020 
Risk Evaluation for 1-BP, EPA determined that exposures to the 
environment did not contribute to the unreasonable risk from 1-BP. A 
summary is presented here.
    EPA considered the effects of 1-BP on aquatic, sediment dwelling, 
and terrestrial organisms. EPA found that there were no exceedances of 
benchmarks to aquatic organisms from exposures to 1-BP. Based on a 
consideration of the physical-chemical properties and uses of 1-BP, 
exposure to aquatic species is the only route of exposure to the 
environment that was quantitatively assessed in the risk evaluation. 
Risks to terrestrial and sediment-dwelling aquatic species were 
qualitatively evaluated by considering

[[Page 65104]]

physical-chemical and environmental fate properties of 1-BP, which 
indicate that there is a low potential for exposure to terrestrial and 
sediment-dwelling aquatic species. The quantitative assessment of water 
column-dwelling aquatic species was updated in the final risk 
evaluation to incorporate the Ecological Structure Activity 
Relationships (ECOSAR) modeling results for environmental hazards to 
reduce uncertainty about the limited environmental hazard data 
available for 1-BP. EPA conducted a screening-level assessment of the 
available environmental hazards and release information to calculate 
RQs to quantify potential risks to the environment from 1-BP. The RQ 
values associated with acute and chronic exposures are <0.01 and 0.12, 
respectively, based on the best available science (Risk Evaluation, 
Table 4-2) and are less than the concentrations that would cause an 
effect to organisms in the aquatic pathways. The RQ values for risks 
from acute and chronic exposure to 1-BP are <1, based on a comparison 
of all available data characterizing exposure and hazard to aquatic 
species. These values indicate that risks to the environment are not 
identified based on the conditions of use within the scope of the risk 
evaluation.
    EPA considered uncertainties in its determination of unreasonable 
risk for 1-BP to the environment. While EPA has determined that 
sufficient data are reasonably available to characterize the overall 
environmental hazards of 1-BP under the conditions of use, there are 
uncertainties regarding the available environmental hazard data for 1-
BP. High volatility (Vapor Pressure = 110 mm Hg and Henry's Law 
constant of 7.3 x 10-3 atm-m\3\/mole), and a consideration 
of the conditions of use of the chemical, indicate that 1-BP will only 
be present in terrestrial environmental compartments as a transient 
vapor. No specific conditions of use were identified that resulted in 
systematic, significant airborne exposures that overlap with 
terrestrial habitats, so this is not considered a relevant route of 
exposure for 1-BP under the conditions of use of the risk evaluation. 
Additionally, 1-BP is not expected to bioaccumulate and therefore, 
exposure to terrestrial species through ingestion of prey is 
negligible.

C. Benefits of 1-BP for Various Uses

    1-BP has a wide range of uses, including as a solvent for cleaning 
and degreasing (i.e., vapor degreasing, cold cleaning, and aerosol 
degreasing). A variety of consumer and commercial products use 1-BP as 
adhesives and sealants, in furniture care products, in dry cleaning, 
spot cleaning and other liquid, spray, and aerosol cleaners, and in 
automotive care products. 1-BP is also used in insulation for building 
and construction materials. 1-BP is subject to federal and state 
regulations and reporting requirements, as further described in Unit 
VIII. According to data collected in EPA's 2016 Chemical Data Reporting 
(CDR) Rule, 25.9 million pounds of 1-BP were manufactured in or 
imported into the United States in 2015. Data publicly reported 
indicate that there are two domestic manufacturers and eight importers 
of 1-BP in the United States. Total production volume (domestic 
manufacture plus import) of 1-BP increased from 2012 to 2015. 1-BP's 
volume has increased because it has been an alternative to ozone-
depleting substances and chlorinated solvents. Import volumes for 1-BP 
reported to the 2016 CDR are between 10 million and 25 million pounds 
per year.

D. Reasonably Ascertainable Economic Consequences of the Proposed 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 proposed 
rule include several components, all of which are described in the 
Economic Analysis for this proposed rule (Ref. 3). With respect to the 
anticipated effects of this proposed 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 proposed rule would 
range from $14.8 million annualized over 20 years at a 3% discount rate 
and $15.5 million annualized over 20 years at a 7% discount rate, EPA 
has concluded that it is highly unlikely this proposed rule would 
result in any measurable effect on the national economy (Ref. 3). In 
addition, EPA considered the employment impacts of this proposed rule, 
and found that the direction of change in employment is uncertain, but 
EPA expects the short-term and longer-term employment effects would be 
small.
    There are an estimated 931 small entities affected by the proposed 
option with a per firm and total estimated cost impact of $13 thousand 
and $12 million, respectively. Of the small businesses potentially 
impacted by this proposed rule, 88% are expected to have impacts of 
less than 1% of their firm revenues, 7% are expected to have impacts 
between 1 and 3% of their firm revenues, and 5% are expected to have 
impacts greater than 3% of their firm revenues.
    Users of 1-BP in vapor degreasing could be strongly impacted 
because they may have no economical alternative to the use of 1-BP.
    No incremental costs beyond the cost of rule familiarization are 
estimated for users of 1-BP products that are prohibited under the 
proposed rule. Users are assumed to switch to alternatives with similar 
costs and efficacy. As noted in section 7.12 of the EA, there may be 
some applications where 1-BP is more effective, reducing labor time and 
wait time, and this analysis was unable to quantify those costs. For 
example, there may be some safety-critical applications where 
alternatives would need to undergo extensive safety review and testing 
before they could replace the 1-BP products. The impact of a 
prohibition of 1-BP for these uses could potentially result in 
important negative impacts of the proposed option, but EPA was unable 
to quantify any of these potential impacts, so cost impacts to 
potentially affected small businesses could not be estimated.
    With respect to this proposed rule's effect on technological 
innovation, EPA expects this action to spur more innovation than it 
will hinder. A prohibition or significant restriction on the 
manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of 1-BP for uses 
covered in this proposed rule may increase demand for safer chemical 
substitutes. This proposed rule is not likely to have significant 
effects on the environment because 1-BP does not present an 
unreasonable risk to the environment, though this proposed rule does 
present the potential for small reductions in air emissions associated 
with improper disposal of products containing 1-BP. The effects of this 
proposed rule on public health are estimated to be positive, due to the 
reduced risk of cancer and other non-cancer endpoints from exposure to 
1-BP.

[[Page 65105]]

2. Costs and Benefits of the Proposed 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 proposed rule 
are described at length in the Economic Analysis (Ref. 3). The 
monetized costs for this proposed rule are estimated to range from 
$14.8 million annualized over 20 years at a 3% discount rate and $15.5 
million annualized over 20 years at a 7% discount rate. The monetized 
benefits are estimated to be $27.2 million annualized over 20 years at 
a 3% discount rate and $12.9 million annualized over 20 years at a 7% 
discount rate.
    EPA considered the estimated costs to regulated entities as well as 
the cost to administer and enforce alternative regulatory actions. The 
primary and second alternative regulatory actions are described in 
detail in Unit IV.B. The estimated annualized costs of the primary 
alternative regulatory action are $14.4 million at a 3% discount rate 
and $15.0 million at a 7% discount rate over 20 years (Ref. 3). The 
estimated annualized costs of the second alternative regulatory action 
are $181.2 million at a 3% discount rate and $250.1 million at a 7% 
discount rate over 20 years. The monetized benefits of the primary 
alternative action are estimated to be $27.2 million annualized over 20 
years at a 3% discount rate and $12.9 million annualized over 20 years 
at a 7% discount rate (Ref. 3). The monetized benefits of the second 
alternative action are estimated to be $27.2 million annualized over 20 
years at a 3% discount rate and $13.0 million annualized over 20 years 
at a 7% discount rate. For the proposed rule, as described in the 
Economic Analysis, EPA assumes that all vapor degreasing and batch cold 
cleaning users can comply with a WCPP. However, some users may require 
supplied air respirators to comply with the WCPP and it may be 
impractical for some workers to perform their jobs using these types of 
respirators. Since we estimate substitution away from 1-BP to be much 
more expensive than complying with a WCPP, our estimated costs could be 
several times higher than our current estimate if a WCPP is impractical 
for many users.
    This proposal 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 cancer and non-cancer adverse effects. These effects may 
include liver toxicity, kidney toxicity, reproductive effects possibly 
including reduction in fertility, developmental effects possibly 
including fetal loss and low birth weight, and neurotoxicity including 
peripheral neuropathy (Ref. 1). Peripheral neuropathy has been 
documented in workers chronically exposed to high levels of 1-BP in 
spray adhesives.
    Fetal loss, also referred to as fetal death or fetal mortality, 
includes miscarriage, spontaneous abortion, or stillbirth, depending on 
when in the pregnancy it occurs. The impacts of fetal death, including 
miscarriage or stillbirth, include mental health impacts, such as 
depression and anxiety on the woman experiencing the death of a fetus, 
and can also impact partners and spouses (Ref. 3). Mental health 
research has consistently identified both miscarriage (defined as fetal 
death occurring before the 20th week of gestation) and stillbirth 
(defined as fetal death occurring after the 20th week of gestation) as 
a significant emotional burden exhibited as anxiety and depression that 
can persist; research suggests women and men feel effects for more than 
a year, women can feel effects nearly three years following the event 
of fetal death and after the birth of a healthy child, which emphasizes 
effects can persist significantly longer beyond the event (Ref. 3).
    EPA also identified risks of reduction in fertility as an effect 
resulting from exposures to 1-BP (Ref. 1). While impacts from 1-BP 
exposure on fertility and fecundity cannot be quantified at this time 
with available data, for couples seeking treatment for infertility, 
costs of such treatment are often significant both financially and 
emotionally. The most comprehensive and appropriate value for benefit-
cost analysis is willingness to pay. There are few studies for the 
reduced risk of infertility, but a recent study estimates a willingness 
to pay of $102,000 per statistical case of infertility avoided (Ref. 
3). EPA also identified risks of low-birth weight by women of child-
bearing age exposed to 1-BP as another health effect of concern. Low 
birth weight can have significant impacts on childhood development and 
the incidence of future diseases; reduced birth weight can cause 
serious health problems for some children, as well as long-term impacts 
on their lives as adults (Ref. 3).
    The multitude of adverse effects from 1-BP 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), and VI.A. 
(discussion of the health effects), as well as the 2020 Risk Evaluation 
for 1-BP. Chronic adverse effects of 1-BP exposure include both cancer 
and the non-cancer effects addressed in Unit VI.A. Acute effects of 1-
BP 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 1-BP 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 1-BP 
adverse outcomes and therefore underestimates the benefits of this 
proposed rule. EPA requests comment on how EPA might best quantify and 
monetize non-cancer endpoints described in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 
1-BP for economic analysis.
3. Cost Effectiveness of the Proposed 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 
proposed regulatory action is to prevent unreasonable risk resulting 
from exposure to 1-BP. The proposed regulatory action would cost $3.2 
million per potential prevented cancer case while the primary 
alternative regulatory action would cost $3.1 million (using the 3% 
discount rate) and the second alternative regulatory action would cost 
$38.8 million to achieve the same goals. At a 7% discount rate, the 
proposed regulatory action would cost $3.3 million per potential 
prevented cancer case while the primary alternative regulatory action 
would cost $3.2 to million, and the second alternative regulatory 
action would cost $53.6 to million to achieve the same goals. While the 
proposed regulatory action is higher in cost compared to the primary 
alternative action, the difference is small (Ref. 3).

[[Page 65106]]

VII. TSCA Section 9 Analysis, Section 14, and Section 26 Considerations

A. TSCA Section 9(a) Analysis

    TSCA section 9(a) provides that, if the Administrator determines, 
in the Administrator's discretion, that an unreasonable risk may be 
prevented or reduced to a sufficient extent by an action taken under a 
Federal law not administered by EPA, the Administrator must submit a 
report to the agency administering that other law that describes the 
risk and the activities that present such risk. Section 9(a) describes 
additional procedures and requirements to be followed by EPA and the 
other Federal agency following submission of any such report. As 
discussed in this unit, for this proposed rule, the Administrator 
proposes to exercise discretion not to determine that the unreasonable 
risk from 1-BP 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.
    In addition, 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 burdens of duplicative requirements. For this proposed rule, 
EPA has and continues to coordinate with appropriate Federal executive 
departments and agencies including OSHA and the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission (CPSC) to, among other things, identify their respective 
authorities, jurisdictions, and existing laws with regard to 1-BP, 
which are summarized in this unit.
    OSHA requires that employers provide safe and healthful working 
conditions by setting and enforcing standards and by providing 
training, outreach, education and assistance. However, 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. 
Health standards issued under section 6(b)(5) of the OSH Act must 
reduce significant risk only ``to the extent feasible.'' 29 U.S.C. 
655(b)(5). To set PELs for chemical exposure, OSHA must first establish 
that the new standards are economically and technologically feasible 
(79 FR 61384, 61387, Oct. 10, 2014). But under TSCA section 6(a), EPA's 
substantive burden is to demonstrate that, as regulated, the chemical 
substance no longer presents an unreasonable risk, with unreasonable 
risk being determined without consideration of costs or other nonrisk 
factors. Thus, if OSHA were to initiate a new action to establish a PEL 
for 1-BP, the difference in standards between the OSH Act and TSCA may 
well result in the OSHA PEL being set at a higher level than the 
exposure limit that EPA determined would be sufficient to address the 
unreasonable risk under TSCA.
    In addition, OSHA may set exposure limits for workers, but its 
authority is limited to the workplace and does not extend to consumer 
uses of hazardous chemicals, and thus OSHA cannot address the 
unreasonable risk from 1-BP under all of its conditions of use, which 
include consumer uses. OSHA also does not have direct authority over 
State and local employees, and it has no authority over the working 
conditions of State and local employees in States that have no OSHA-
approved State Plan under 29 U.S.C. 667.
    CPSC, under authority provided to it by Congress in the CPSA, 
protects the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death 
associated with the use of consumer products. Under the CPSA, CPSC has 
the authority to regulate 1-BP in consumer products, but not in other 
sectors such as automobiles, industrial and commercial products, or 
aircraft, for example. Further, a consumer product safety rule under 
the CPSA must include a finding that ``the benefits expected from the 
rule bear a reasonable relationship to its costs,'' 15 U.S.C. 
2058(f)(3)(E), whereas EPA must apply TSCA risk management requirements 
to the extent necessary so that the chemical no longer presents 
unreasonable risk and only consider costs and benefits of the 
regulatory action to the extent practicable, 15 U.S.C. 2605(a), (c)(2). 
Additionally, the 2016 amendments to TSCA reflect Congressional intent 
to ``delete the paralyzing `least burdensome' requirement,'' 162 Cong. 
Rec. S3517 (June 7, 2016), a reference to TSCA section 6(a) as 
originally enacted, which required EPA to use ``the least burdensome 
requirements'' that protect ``adequately'' against unreasonable risk, 
15 U.S.C. 2605(a) (1976). However, a consumer product safety rule under 
the CPSA must impose ``the least burdensome requirement which prevents 
or adequately reduces the risk of injury for which the rule is being 
promulgated.'' 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3)(F). Analogous requirements, also at 
variance with recent revisions to TSCA, affect the availability of 
action CPSC may take under the Federal Hazard Substances Act (FHSA) 
relative to action EPA may take under TSCA. 15 U.S.C. 1262. EPA's 
substantive burden under TSCA section 6(a) is to apply requirements to 
the extent necessary so that the chemical substance no longer present 
the unreasonable risk that was determined in accordance with TSCA 
section 6(b)(4)(A) without consideration of cost or other non-risk 
factors.
    EPA therefore concludes that TSCA is the only regulatory authority 
able to prevent or reduce unreasonable risk of 1-BP to a sufficient 
extent across the range of conditions of use, exposures and populations 
of concern. This unreasonable risk can be addressed in a more 
coordinated, efficient and effective manner under TSCA than under 
different laws implemented by different agencies. Moreover, the 
timeframe and any exposure reduction as a result of updating OSHA or 
CPSC regulations cannot be estimated, while TSCA requires a much more 
accelerated 2-year statutory timeframe for proposing and finalizing 
regulatory requirements to address unreasonable risk. Further there are 
key differences between the finding requirements of TSCA and those of 
the OSH Act, CPSA, and FHSA. For these reasons, in the Administrator's 
discretion, the Administrator proposes not to determine that 
unreasonable risk from 1-BP may be prevented or reduced to a sufficient 
extent by an action taken under a Federal law not administered by EPA. 
However, EPA is requesting public comment on this issue (i.e., the 
sufficiency of 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 could be used to limit 1-BP exposure 
(Ref. 6), regulations under those EPA statutes would have limitations 
with respect to addressing the unreasonable risk of injury to human 
health presented by 1-BP as identified in the 2020 Risk Evaluation 
because they largely regulate

[[Page 65107]]

releases to the environment, rather than occupational or consumer 
exposures, and risk to the environment does not contribute to the 
unreasonable risk from 1-BP identified by EPA under TSCA.
    The primary exposures and unreasonable risk to consumers, 
bystanders, workers, and ONUs would be addressed by EPA's proposed 
prohibitions and restrictions under TSCA section 6(a). In January 2022, 
EPA added 1-BP to the HAP list under the CAA (87 FR 393). Section 112 
of the CAA requires that EPA identify categories of sources that emit 
HAPs and then promulgate emission standards that address the emissions 
of all HAPs emitted from the source category. Section 112 also requires 
EPA to review promulgated standards at least every 8 years and to 
revise such standards, if necessary, to account for improvements in air 
pollution controls and/or pollution prevention. Technology reviews 
typically include an evaluation of developments in HAP control 
technologies or other methods of reducing HAP emissions, adjustments to 
emissions testing and monitoring approaches, and updates to ensure that 
rules are consistent with recent court decisions and other relevant 
issues related to the CAA section 112 rulemaking program. Further, CAA 
section 112 requires EPA to conduct a residual risk review to assess 
human health and environmental risks associated with the HAP emitted 
from the source category being reviewed. It is intended to ensure that 
public health is protected with an ample margin of safety. EPA has 
generally treated the risk review as a one-time requirement for each 
source category, but EPA has authority to conduct subsequent reviews, 
and sometimes does so, for example, if new information, such as a new 
toxicological assessment showing the increased potency of a chemical, 
warrants a new residual risk assessment. As part of these reviews, the 
EPA is required to set standards for any unregulated HAPs emitted from 
the source category under review, including any newly listed HAP. Since 
the listing of 1-BP in 2022, EPA has conducted reviews of the standards 
promulgated for some source categories and has looked for potential 
emissions of 1-BP. None of these categories were found to emit 1-BP 
and, therefore, EPA has not yet promulgated standards for 1-BP under 
CAA section 112. As other NESHAP reviews continue as part of the 8-year 
review cycle, including for the halogenated solvents source category 
for vapor degreasing facilities that constitute the majority of 
facilities assessed in the 1-BP fenceline analysis, the NESHAPs process 
under the CAA will assess risk to the general population, including 
people living in near proximity to facilities in the source categories. 
These reviews are intended to provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health consistent with statutory requirements. All 
source categories will be reviewed and EPA will set CAA section 112 
standards that regulate 1-BP if it is found to be emitted from the 
source category under review. This includes the halogenated solvents 
source category. This rulemaking under TSCA is more appropriate to 
address the unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the 
environment presented by 1-BP as identified in the 2020 Risk 
Evaluation. None of EPA's other statutes (e.g., RCRA, CAA, CWA) can 
adequately address exposures to workers and ONUs related to the 
specific activities that result in occupational exposures. EPA 
therefore concludes that TSCA is the most appropriate regulatory 
authority to prevent or reduce risks of 1-BP to a sufficient extent 
across the range of conditions of use, exposures, and populations of 
concern.
    For these reasons, the Administrator does not determine that 
unreasonable risk from 1-BP under the conditions of use evaluated in 
the 2020 TSCA Risk Evaluation for 1-BP 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 that may occur 
if this action is finalized as proposed. Under TSCA section 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). If this action is finalized as proposed, then pursuant 
to TSCA section 14(b)(4)(B)(iii), the presumption against protection 
from disclosure would apply only to information about the specific 
conditions of use that this rulemaking would prohibit or phase out. 
Manufacturers or processors seeking to protect such information would 
be able to submit a request for nondisclosure as provided by TSCA 
sections 14(b)(4)(C) and 14(g)(1)(E). Any request for nondisclosure 
would need to be submitted within 30 days after receipt of notice from 
EPA under TSCA section 14(g)(2)(A). EPA anticipates providing such 
notice via the Central Data Exchange (CDX).

D. TSCA Section 26 Considerations

    In accordance with TSCA section 26(h), EPA has used scientific 
information, technical procedures, measures, methods, protocols, 
methodologies, and models consistent with the best available science. 
As in the case of the unreasonable risk determination, risk management 
decisions for this proposed rule, as discussed in Unit III.B.3. and 
Unit V., were based on a risk evaluation that was subject to public 
comment and independent, expert peer review, and was developed in a 
manner consistent with the best available science and based on the 
weight of the scientific evidence as required by TSCA sections 26(h) 
and (i) and 40 CFR 702.43 and 702.45.
    In particular, the ECEL value incorporated into the WCPP is derived 
from the analysis in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP; it likewise 
represents decisions based on the best available science and the weight 
of the scientific evidence (Refs. 12, 38, 39). The ECEL value of 0.05 
ppm as an 8-hour TWA is based on the chronic cancer inhalation unit 
risk (IUR) at a risk level of 1 x 10-4 identified in the 
2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP, which is the concentration at which an 
adult human would be unlikely to suffer adverse effects if exposed for 
a working lifetime, including susceptible subpopulations.
    The extent to which the various information, procedures, measures, 
methods, protocols, methodologies or models, as applicable, used in 
EPA's decisions have been subject to independent verification or peer 
review is adequate to justify their use, collectively, in the record 
for this rulemaking. Additional information on the peer review and 
public comment process, such as the peer review plan, the peer review 
report, and the Agency's response to comments, can be found at EPA's 
risk evaluation docket at EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0741 (Ref. 32).

VIII. Requests for Comment

    EPA is requesting public comment on all aspects of this proposal, 
including the proposed and alternative regulatory actions and all 
individual elements of these, and all supporting analysis. 
Additionally, within this proposal, the Agency is soliciting feedback 
from the public on specific issues throughout this proposed rule. For 
ease of review, this

[[Page 65108]]

section summarizes those specific requests for comment.
    1. EPA is requesting public comment on all elements of the proposed 
regulatory action and the alternative regulatory actions.
    2. EPA is requesting comment on all elements of the IRFA, and, in 
particular the flexibilities that EPA has identified following input 
from the SERs during the SBAR process.
    3. EPA is requesting public comment regarding the need for 
exemptions from the proposed requirement (and under what specific 
circumstances) pursuant to the provisions of TSCA section 6(g).
    4. EPA requests public comment on whether EPA should promulgate 
definitions for the conditions of use covered by the 2020 Risk 
Evaluation for 1-BP that would not be prohibited, and, if so, whether 
the descriptions in Unit II.B. are consistent with the conditions of 
use evaluated in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP and whether they 
provide a sufficient level of detail to improve the clarity and 
readability of the regulation if EPA were to promulgate a regulation 
that contains a list of the industrial and commercial conditions of use 
evaluated in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP. Additionally, EPA is 
requesting comment regarding the number of businesses or other entities 
that could potentially close, as well as associated costs, with a 
prohibition of 1-BP for certain industrial and commercial conditions of 
use identified in this proposed rule.
    5. EPA also requests comment on whether, rather than just excluding 
the consumer and commercial uses of 1-BP in insulation from the 
prohibitions and other requirements in this risk management rulemaking, 
EPA should more broadly exclude the use of articles under TSCA section 
6(c)(2)(E), which would also exclude the use of 1-BP in articles that 
were not specifically evaluated in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 1-BP, 
and if so, whether and how to define ``article'' for the purposes of 
this rulemaking.
    6. EPA requests comment on the proposed compliance dates for 
prohibitions of 1-BP manufacturing, processing, distribution in 
commerce, and use and whether additional time is needed, for example, 
for products to clear the channels of trade, or for implementing 
substitutes; comments should include documentation such as the specific 
use of the chemical throughout the supply chain; concrete steps taken 
to identify, test, and qualify substitutes for those uses (including 
details on the substitutes tested and the specific certifications that 
would require updating); and estimates of the time required to 
identify, test, and qualify substitutes with supporting documentation. 
EPA also requests comment on whether these are the appropriate types of 
information for use in evaluating compliance requirements, and whether 
there are other considerations that should apply.
    7. EPA would also like comment on whether it should consider a de 
minimis level of 1-BP in formulations for certain continuing industrial 
and commercial uses to account for impurities when finalizing these 
prohibitions, and, if so, what process and product formulations should 
be considered when evaluating a de minimis calculation to ensure 
exposure risk is removed.
    8. EPA is requesting comment on commercial distribution channels or 
systems that would allow for distribution to commercial users while 
preventing retailers from making these products available to consumers, 
or feasible distribution channels for commercial users that have been 
developed in analogous situations, including information on whether 
there are market barriers to such systems.
    9. EPA is soliciting comment regarding an ECEL action level that is 
lower than the ECEL and any associated provisions related to the ECEL 
action level.
    10. EPA requests comment on the feasibility of complying with and 
monitoring for an ECEL of 0.05 ppm and an ECEL action level of 0.03 
ppm, including occupational exposure monitoring and associated 
analytical methods. In particular, EPA requests comment on changes that 
may be needed in order to meet such a standard, for example changes 
related to elimination or substitution of 1-BP, engineering controls, 
process changes, or monitoring frequency. EPA is also interested in the 
information on the availability of laboratory capacity needed to meet 
the proposed standard, and the costs associated with such testing.
    11. EPA is soliciting comments regarding the timing of the initial 
exposure monitoring so that it would be representative of all tasks 
involving 1-BP where exposures may approach the ECEL.
    12. EPA requests comment on the timeframes for periodic monitoring 
outlined in Table 1 of Unit IV.A.2.
    13. EPA requests comment on workplace monitoring for implementation 
of an ECEL. EPA is soliciting information related to the frequency of 
monitoring, initial monitoring, and periodic monitoring that would be 
needed to demonstrate workplace exposure levels. Specifically, when 
this may impact the frequency of periodic monitoring where initial 
monitoring shows that employee exposures are above the level that would 
initiate requirements for compliance with the ECEL.
    14. EPA is requesting comment on the proposed timeframe of within 
30 days to conduct additional exposure monitoring 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.
    15. EPA is also requesting comment on the proposed timeframe to 
conduct additional exposure monitoring after the cleanup of the spill 
or repair of the leak, rupture or other breakdown, as outlined in Unit 
IV.A.2.
    16. EPA is requesting comment on how the proposed requirement that 
owners or operators attest that the engineering controls selected do 
not increase emissions of 1-BP to ambient air outside of the workplace 
may impact the availability, feasibility, or cost of engineering 
controls as a means to reduce workplace exposures to or below the 
proposed ECEL.
    17. EPA is soliciting comment on requiring warning signs to 
demarcate regulated areas, such as the requirements found in OSHA's 
General Industry Standard for Beryllium.
    18. EPA is requesting comment on whether there should be a 
requirement to replace cartridges or canisters after a certain number 
of hours, such as the requirements found in OSHA's General Industry 
Standard for 1,3-Butadiene, or a requirement for a minimum service life 
of non-powered air-purifying respirators such as the requirements found 
in OSHA's General Industry Standard for Benzene.
    19. EPA is requesting comment on how owners and operators can 
engage with potentially exposed persons on the development and 
implementation of an exposure control plan and PPE program. EPA is also 
requesting comment on whether EPA should include designated 
representatives who can also be permitted to observe exposure 
monitoring and have regular access to exposure-related information at 
the request of potentially exposed persons.
    20. EPA requests comment relative to the ability of owners or 
operators to conduct initial monitoring within the timeframes 
identified in this proposed rule, and anticipated timelines for any 
procedural adjustments needed to comply with the requirements outlined

[[Page 65109]]

in this proposed rule, including establishment of a respiratory 
protection program and development of an exposure control plan.
    21. EPA also requests comment on whether additional time is needed 
to implement all aspects of the WCPP or if there are available 
substitutes for these applications.
    22. EPA is soliciting comments on the requirements proposed for 
appropriate PPE selection. In addition, EPA understands that some 
workplaces rinse and reuse PPE after minimal use and is therefore 
soliciting comments on the impact on effectiveness of rinsing and 
reusing certain types of PPE, either gloves or protective clothing and 
gear. EPA also requests comment on the degree to which additional 
guidance related to use of PPE might be appropriate.
    23. EPA requests comment on establishing a self-certification 
requirement, and/or reporting requirements, for purchasing and 
continued use of 1-BP or products containing 1-BP for certain 
conditions of use. For example, EPA seeks comment on whether, in future 
rulemakings, it should require reporting to EPA of the type of records 
specified in 40 CFR 751.815.
    24. EPA requests comment on reasonable compliance timeframes for 
small businesses, including timeframes for reformulation of products or 
processes containing 1-BP; implementation of new engineering or 
administrative controls; changes to labels, SDSs, and packaging; 
implementation of new PPE requirements, including training and 
monitoring practices; and supply chain management challenges. EPA also 
requests comment on establishing differing compliance or reporting 
requirements or timetables that take into account the limited resources 
available to small entities.
    25. EPA requests comments on the appropriateness of identified 
compliance timeframes for recordkeeping and downstream notification 
requirements described in this proposed rule.
    26. EPA requests comment on the primary alternative regulatory 
action (a combination of prohibitions, requirements for a WCPP, 
prescriptive controls, self-certification, and glove use) and whether 
any elements of this primary alternative regulatory action described in 
this proposed rule should be considered as EPA develops the final 
regulatory action. In particular, EPA is soliciting comment on 
prescribing specific engineering or administrative controls that would 
reduce inhalation exposures enough to address the unreasonable risk 
across all workplaces engaged in a condition of use. EPA also requests 
comment on any advantages or drawbacks for the timelines outlined in 
Unit IV.B. compared to the timelines identified for the proposed 
regulatory action in Unit IV.A.
    27. EPA is requesting comment on the ways in which 1-BP may be used 
in the following conditions of use: manufacturing (domestic); 
processing into formulation, mixture, or reaction products; industrial 
and commercial use as solvent for cleaning and degreasing in cold 
cleaners; industrial and commercial use as solvent in aerosol spray 
degreaser/cleaner; and industrial and commercial use in other uses in 
electronic and electronic products and metal products; laboratory 
chemicals for asphalt extraction; coatings for temperature indicator, 
including whether activities may take place in a closed system and the 
degree to which users of 1-BP in these sectors could successfully 
implement an ECEL and ancillary requirements described in Unit IV.A.
    28. EPA requests comment on the second alternative regulatory 
action (prohibition of all uses of 1-BP, except for the commercial and 
consumer uses in insulation) and whether any elements of this second 
alternative regulatory action described in Unit IV.B. should be 
considered as EPA develops the final regulatory action. EPA also 
requests comment on any advantages or drawbacks for the timelines 
outlined in Unit IV.B. compared to the timelines identified for the 
proposed regulatory action in Unit IV.A.
    29. Each non-Federal owner or operator would be required to provide 
respiratory protection to all potentially exposed persons in the 
regulated area within 3 months after receipt of the results of any 
exposure monitoring or within 9 months after date of publication of the 
final rule in the Federal Register. Non-Federal regulated entities 
would be required to implement an exposure control plan within 12 
months after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register. EPA requests comment on any advantages or drawbacks for the 
timelines outlined in Unit IV.B. compared to the timelines identified 
for the proposed regulatory action in Unit IV.A.
    30. EPA requests comment on the amount of time needed, for example, 
for vapor degreasers, to transition to an alternative process or 
solvent. EPA also requests comment regarding the number of entities 
that could potentially close as identified in the proposed rule.
    31. EPA is seeking comments regarding how the requirements of 40 
CFR part 63, subpart T could be applied for 1-BP, as well as any 
additional information on how effective these requirements would be to 
reduce 1-BP air concentrations and additional controls needed to reduce 
1-BP exposure to workers to 0.05 ppm as an 8-hour time-weighted 
average.
    32. EPA is requesting comment on the second alternative regulatory 
action and whether any elements of this second alternative regulatory 
action described in this unit should be considered as EPA develops the 
final regulatory action. EPA also requests comment on any advantages or 
drawbacks for the timelines outlined in this unit compared to the 
timelines identified for the proposed regulatory action in Unit IV.A.
    33. EPA requests comment on providing an option of either complying 
with the ECEL or implementing various administrative and engineering 
controls, such as those uses employed in a closed-loop system. EPA also 
requests information on how a small business can demonstrate that such 
controls eliminate the unreasonable risk for uses of 1-BP in closed-
loop systems, or other types of vapor degreasers.
    34. EPA requests comment on all aspects of the proposal to allow 
certain conditions of use to continue under the WCPP, including the 
likelihood that the provisions of the WCPP, including exposure 
monitoring, engineering and administrative controls, PPE, and the 
exposure control plan, could be successfully implemented for the 
identified conditions of use, including, for example, the industrial 
and commercial use as a solvent for aerosol spray degreaser/cleaner.
    35. EPA is requesting comment on specific controls that would 
mitigate the unreasonable risk from 1-BP and that could be included as 
part of a prescriptive workplace controls requirement, which could be 
considered as EPA develops the final regulatory action. Specifically, 
EPA is soliciting comment on combinations of specific engineering 
controls, administrative controls, and PPE that would reduce inhalation 
exposures to at or below the ECEL of 0.05 ppm as an 8-hour TWA for all 
workplaces where such controls would be required. EPA also is 
soliciting comment on the extent to which such requirements could 
reduce inhalation exposures to at or below the ECEL of 0.05 ppm as an 
8-hour TWA. EPA is requesting comment on the compliance timeframe 
needed to implement engineering controls, administrative controls, and 
PPE that reduce inhalation exposures to at or

[[Page 65110]]

below the ECEL of 0.05 ppm as an 8-hour TWA for all regulated entities. 
Additionally, EPA is requesting any existing monitoring data that could 
inform whether a WCPP or prescriptive controls with a PPE program is a 
more appropriate regulatory action for industrial and commercial use of 
1-BP in batch vapor degreasing.
    36. EPA is soliciting comments on whether, for those product types 
relevant to industrial, commercial, and consumer conditions of use 
proposed to be prohibited or significantly restricted, where EPA was 
unable to identify products currently available for sale that contain 
1-BP, there are products in use or available for sale relevant to these 
conditions of use that contain 1-BP at this time, so that EPA can 
ascertain whether there are alternatives that benefit human health or 
the environment as compared to such use of 1-BP.
    37. EPA is requesting comment on the Alternatives Assessment as a 
whole.
    38. EPA is requesting comment on the types and costs of 
technologies firms would adopt to comply with the prohibition on 
increased releases of 1-BP to outdoor air associated with engineering 
controls used in the implementation of the WCPP. Additionally, EPA 
requests comment on whether and to what extent certain control 
technologies, including technologies that might be implemented pursuant 
to applicable regulatory authority (such as emission standards 
resulting from possible future NESHAP requirements), would reduce 1-BP 
ambient air emissions at facilities that adopt them below emissions 
levels that existed prior to implementation of the WCPP.
    39. EPA is requesting public comment on its TSCA Section 9(a) 
Analysis described in Unit VII.A., (i.e., the sufficiency of an action 
taken under a Federal law not administered by EPA).
    40. EPA is requesting comment on the need for and associated costs 
of ambient air monitoring, including fenceline monitoring, at fenceline 
locations; or facility emissions source monitoring, as well as 
information on the frequency and nature of air monitoring EPA should 
consider including as requirements in the final rule (such as a 
detection limit for 1-BP). EPA is also requesting comment on methods to 
inform fenceline communities of any increases of 1-BP emissions to 
ambient air.
    41. EPA is requesting comment on whether, if EPA does not finalize 
the proposed prohibition on increased releases of 1-BP to ambient air 
outside of the workplace associated with implementation of the WCPP, 
EPA should require monitoring to alert EPA to any increased emissions 
to ambient air associated with WCPP implementation so that the Agency 
may take appropriate action.
    42. EPA requests comment on whether owners and operators should be 
required to attest to whether and why the exposure controls they have 
selected would not result in increased releases of 1-BP to ambient air 
from the workplace, and keep records of that statement as part of the 
WCPP exposure control plan.
    43. EPA is requesting comment on best practices for controlling 
fugitive emissions and associated costs of monitoring and controlling 
facility emissions to eliminate or reduce fenceline releases. This can 
include best workplace hazard control practices that EPA should 
consider including as requirements in the final rule.
    44. EPA requests comment on how EPA might best quantify and 
monetize non-cancer endpoints described in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 
1-BP for economic analysis.
    45. Following Panel report recommendations and in response to input 
provided by SERs, EPA is requesting comment on the following topics as 
outlined in the SBAR Panel Report (Ref. 23):
     EPA requests public comment on the extent to which a 
regulation under TSCA section 6(a) could minimize requirements, such as 
testing and monitoring protocols, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements.
     EPA requests comment on the methodology and inputs for the 
ECEL value that are directly derived from the peer reviewed analysis in 
the August 2020 Risk Evaluation.
     EPA requests comment on reasonable compliance timeframes 
for small businesses.
     EPA requests comment on differing compliance or reporting 
requirements or timetables that account for the resources available to 
small entities.
     EPA requests public comment about the feasibility of 
entities complying with and monitoring for a potential ECEL of 0.05 
ppm. Specifically, EPA aims to obtain more information on potential 
costs that could be incurred using strategies to meet the requirements 
of such a standard, such as engineering, administrative, or 
prescriptive controls and how feasible it would be for entities to 
implement these strategies in their operations.
     EPA requests comment on providing an option of either 
complying with the ECEL or implementing various administrative and 
engineering controls, such as those employed in a closed-loop system, 
including information on how a small business can demonstrate that such 
controls eliminate the unreasonable risk for that use.
     EPA requests public comment about the feasibility of the 
use of alternatives to 1-BP and their availability for conditions of 
use that contribute to the unreasonable risk.
     EPA requests comment on temporary work practices to allow 
for limited circumstances, including but not limited to equipment 
failure or maintenance activity, where monitoring may not be feasible 
to comply with an ECEL. EPA requests information on the extent to which 
1-BP may be used in the same facility for TSCA and non-TSCA uses.

IX. 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 1-Bromopropane. August 2020.
    2. EPA. Final Revised Unreasonable Risk Determination for 1-
Bromopropane (1-BP) December 19, 2022.
    3. EPA. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Regulation of 1-
Bromopropane Under TSCA Section 6(a). July 2024.
    4. EPA. Chemical Data Reporting. 2016.
    5. EPA. Chemical Data Reporting. 2020.
    6. EPA. Regulatory Actions Pertaining to 1-Bromopropane. July 
2024.
    7. OSHA. Standard Interpretations: 8-hour total weight average 
(TWA) permissible exposure limit (PEL).
    8. NIOSH. Hierarchy of Controls.
    9. EPA. 1-Bromopropane (1-BP); Draft Revision to Toxic 
Substances Control Act (TSCA) Risk Determination; Notice of 
Availability and Request for Comment. Federal Register. 87 FR 43265, 
July 20, 2022 (FRL-9944-01-OCSPP).
    10. U.S. Army Public Health Command. Information Regarding 1-
Bromopropane and the Adopted Notice of Intended Change (Threshold 
Limit Value Decrease from 10 ppm to 0.1 ppm).
    11. OSHA. Enforcement Policy for Respiratory Hazards Not Covered 
by OSHA Permissible Exposure Limits. November 2, 2018.
    12. EPA. Existing Chemical Exposure Limit (ECEL) for 
Occupational Use of 1-Bromopropane (1-BP). March 2, 2021.
    13. G. Ichihara, et al. Neurologic Abnormalities in Workers of a 
1-Bromopropane Factory. Environmental Health Perspectives. 112(13): 
1319-1325.

[[Page 65111]]

September 2004. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1247523/.
    14. NIOSH. Hazard Alert. October 2014.
    15. EPA. EPA Announces Path Forward for TSCA Chemical Risk 
Evaluations. June 30, 2021.
    16. Executive Order 13985. Advancing Racial Equity and Support 
for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government. Federal 
Register (86 FR 7009, January 20, 2021).
    17. 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).
    18. Executive Order 14008. Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home 
and Abroad. Federal Register (86 FR 7619, February 1, 2021).
    19. EPA. Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals 1-Bromopropane 
Meeting Minutes and Final Report. September 10-12, 2019.
    20. EPA. Notes from Federalism Consultation on Forthcoming 
Proposed Rulemakings for Methylene Chloride and 1-Bromopropane under 
TSCA Section 6(a). October 22, 2020.
    21. EPA. Notes from Tribal Consultations on Forthcoming Proposed 
Rulemakings for Methylene Chloride and 1-Bromopropane under TSCA 
Section 6(a). November 12 & 17, 2020.
    22. EPA. Environmental Justice Consultation on Forthcoming 
Proposed Rulemakings under TSCA Section 6(a). November 16 & 19, 
2020.
    23. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. Small Business 
Advocacy Review Panel on EPA's Planned Proposed Rule under the Toxic 
Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 6(a) for 1-Bromopropane (1-
BP). December 16, 2021.
    24. EPA. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for 1-
Bromopropane; Regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act 
(TSCA); Proposed Rule; RIN 2070-AK73. August 2023.
    25. EPA. Materials for September 2020 1-Bromopropane Risk 
Management Webinar.
    26. EPA. Stakeholder Meeting List for Proposed Rulemaking for 1-
Bromopropane under TSCA Section 6(a).
    27. EPA. 2021 Policy on Children's Health. October 5, 2021.
    28. EPA. Problem Formulation of the Risk Evaluation for 1-
Bromopropane. May 2018.
    29. EPA. Supplemental Information on Occupational Exposure 
Assessment. August 2019.
    30. EPA. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. March 2005.
    31. OSHA. Occupational Exposure to Methylene Chloride. Federal 
Register. 62 FR 7, January 10, 1997.
    32. EPA. Summary of External Peer Review and Public Comments and 
Disposition for 1-Bromopropane (n-Propyl Bromide). August 2020.
    33. OSHA. Personal Protective Equipment. 2004. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/osha3151.pdf.
    34. EPA. Final Rule. Methylene Chloride; Regulation of Paint and 
Coating Removal for Consumer Use Under TSCA Section 6(a). Federal 
Register. 84 FR 11420, March 27, 2019 (FRL-9989-29).
    35. EPA. Alternatives Assessment for Use of 1-Bromopropane. July 
2023.
    36. EPA. 1-Bromopropane: Fenceline Technical Support--Ambient 
Air Pathway. June 16, 2023.
    37. EPA. Final Rule. National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants; Benzene Emissions From Maleic Anhydride Plants, 
Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene 
Equipment Leaks, and Coke ByProduct Recovery Plants. Federal 
Register. 54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989.
    38. EPA. 1-Bromopropane (1-BP): Risk Management Support 
Documents. [DATE].
    39. EPA. Risk Management for 1-Bromopropane Supplemental File: 
Consumer Risk Calculator. [DATE].
    40. EPA. Supporting Statement for an Information Collection 
Request (ICR) Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA); Regulation of 
1-Bromopropane under TSCA Section 6(a) (Proposed Rule). EPA ICR No. 
2785.01; OMB Control No. 2070-NEW. [DATE].
    41. Kevin Ashley. Harmonization of NIOSH Sampling and Analytical 
Methods with Related International Voluntary Consensus Standards. 
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. 12(7):D107-15. 
2015. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4589148/.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review

    This action is a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in 
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 OMB for Executive Order 12866 review. 
Documentation of any changes made in response to the Executive Order 
12866 review is available in the docket. EPA prepared an economic 
analysis (Ref. 3) of the potential costs and benefits associated with 
this action, which is available in the docket and is summarized in Unit 
VI.D.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have 
been submitted to OMB for review and comment under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the 
EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR Number 2785.01 (Ref. 40). You 
can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this proposed rule, and it 
is briefly summarized here.
    There are four primary provisions of the proposed 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 
would be required for manufacturers, processors, and distributors in 
commerce of 1-BP, who would provide notice to companies downstream upon 
shipment of 1-BP about the prohibitions. The information submitted to 
downstream companies through the SDS would provide knowledge and 
awareness of the restrictions to these companies. The second primary 
provision of the proposed 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 
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 documentation). The third 
primary provision of the rule that may increase burden under the PRA 
are requirements related to prescriptive controls recordkeeping and 
notification (including development and retention of records necessary 
for implementing use of prescriptive controls (e.g., gloves), providing 
workplace notification to potentially exposed persons, and serving as a 
reference for EPA or authorized entities). The fourth primary provision 
of the proposed rule that may increase burden under the PRA is self-
certification-related information generation, recordkeeping, and 
notification requirements (including development and documentation of 
those requirements under the WCPP and related recordkeeping; 
development of documentation of a self-certification statement and 
related recordkeeping; and notification of self-certification).
    Respondents/affected entities: Persons that manufacture, process, 
use, distribute in commerce, or dispose of 1-BP or products containing 
1-BP, except for the use of 1-BP and products containing 1-BP in 
building/construction materials (insulation). See also Unit I.A.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (TSCA section 6(a) 
and 40 CFR part 751).
    Estimated number of respondents: 1,143.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.

[[Page 65112]]

    Total estimated burden: 73,401hours (per year). Burden is defined 
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $8,955,764 (per year), includes $4,371,126 
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.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified 
at the beginning of this proposed rule. EPA will respond to ICR-related 
comments in the final rulemaking. You may also send your ICR-related 
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using 
the interface at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this 
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function. OMB 
must receive comments no later than September 9, 2024.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., EPA 
convened a SBAR Panel to obtain advice and recommendations from SERs 
that potentially would be subject to the rule's requirements. The SBAR 
Panel evaluated the assembled materials and small-entity comments on 
issues related to elements of an initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis (IRFA). A copy of the full SBAR Panel Report (Ref. 23) is 
available in the rulemaking docket.
    Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, EPA prepared an IRFA (Ref. 24) 
that examines the impact of the proposed rule on small entities along 
with regulatory alternatives that could minimize that impact. The 
complete IRFA is available for review in the docket and is summarized 
here.
1. Need for the Rule
    Under TSCA section 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 PESS 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. 
1-BP was the subject of a risk evaluation under TSCA section 6(b)(4)(A) 
that was issued in August 2020. In addition, in December 2022, EPA 
issued a revised unreasonable risk determination that 1-BP as a whole 
chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health 
under the conditions of use. As a result, EPA is proposing to take 
action to the extent necessary so that 1-BP no longer presents such 
risk.
2. Objectives and Legal Basis
    Under TSCA section 6(a) (15 U.S.C. 2605(a)), if EPA determines 
through a TSCA section 6(b) risk evaluation that a chemical substance 
presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, 
EPA must by rule apply one or more requirements listed in section 6(a) 
to the extent necessary so that the chemical substance or mixture no 
longer presents such risk. EPA has determined through a TSCA section 
6(b) risk evaluation that 1-BP presents an unreasonable risk under the 
conditions of use.
3. Description and Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Will 
Apply
    The proposed rule potentially affects small manufacturers 
(including importers), processors, distributors, retailers, users of 1-
BP or of products containing 1-BP, and entities engaging in disposal. 
EPA estimates that the proposal would affect approximately 931 small 
entities. End users with economic and technologically feasible 
alternatives available do not have estimated cost impacts beyond rule 
familiarization costs.
4. Projected Compliance Requirements
    To address the unreasonable risk EPA has identified, EPA is 
proposing to: prohibit the manufacture (including import), processing, 
and distribution in commerce of 1-BP for all consumer use, excluding 
the use of 1-BP in insulation; prohibit certain industrial and 
commercial uses and the manufacture (including import), processing and 
distribution in commerce of 1-BP for those uses; require a 1-BP WCPP, 
which would include requirements to meet an inhalation exposure 
concentration limit, for certain conditions of use; require self-
certification for certain occupational conditions of use; require the 
use of gloves for certain occupational conditions of use; and establish 
recordkeeping and downstream notification requirements. There are an 
estimated 931 small entities affected by the proposed option with a per 
firm cost of $13 thousand with a total estimated cost impact of $12 
million. This includes $12.0 million for WCPP use and $0.1 million for 
uses that are prohibited. No incremental costs beyond the cost of rule 
familiarization are estimated for users of 1-BP products that are 
prohibited under the proposed rule. Users are assumed to switch to 
alternatives with similar costs and efficacy. As noted in section 7.12 
of the EA, there may be some applications where 1-BP is more effective, 
reducing labor time and wait time, and this analysis was unable to 
quantify those costs. For example, there may be some safety-critical 
applications where alternatives would need to undergo extensive safety 
review and testing before they could replace the 1-BP products. The 
impact of a prohibition of 1-BP for these uses could potentially result 
in important negative impacts of the proposed option, but EPA was 
unable to quantify any of these potential impacts, so cost impacts to 
potentially affected small businesses could not be estimated.
    EPA is proposing to prohibit certain conditions of use. For most 
other conditions of use that contribute to the unreasonable risk 
determination for 1-BP, EPA proposes to address the unreasonable risk 
with a 1-BP WCPP, which would include a combination of requirements to 
address unreasonable risk contributed by inhalation. A 1-BP WCPP would 
encompass restrictions on certain occupational conditions of use and 
could include provisions for an ECEL, a PPE program, and ancillary 
requirements to support implementation of these restrictions.
    As described in Unit IV.A., the 1-BP WCPP would be non-
prescriptive, in the sense that regulated entities would not be 
required to use specific controls prescribed by EPA to achieve the 
exposure concentration limit. Rather, it would be a performance-based 
exposure limit that would enable owners or operators to determine how 
to most effectively meet the exposure limit based on conditions at 
their workplace.
    A central component of the 1-BP WCPP is the exposure limit. 
Exposures remaining at or below the ECEL would address any unreasonable 
risk of injury to health contributed by inhalation exposures for 
occupational conditions of use. EPA's proposed requirements include the 
specific exposure limits that would be 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

[[Page 65113]]

successful implementation as part of a WCPP.
    Regarding recordkeeping requirements, three primary provisions of 
the proposed 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 1-BP or products 
containing 1-BP, except for the use of 1-BP in insulation, 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 
proposed regulatory action, facilities complying with the rule through 
WCPP would be required to develop and maintain records associated with 
ECEL exposure monitoring (including measurements, compliance with Good 
Laboratory Practice Standards, and information regarding monitoring 
equipment); ECEL compliance (including the exposure control plan, PPE 
program implementation, and workplace information and training); and 
workplace participation. To support and demonstrate compliance, EPA is 
proposing that each owner or operator of a workplace subject to the 
WCPP retain compliance records for five years.
    EPA is also proposing to require self-certification for certain 
occupational conditions of use. To further support and demonstrate 
compliance, EPA is proposing to require owners or operators to self-
certify with a self-certification statement and provide that statement 
to distributors of 1-BP, as described in Unit IV.A. EPA is also 
proposing that each owner or operator of a facility subject to self-
certification, and distributors of 1-BP to such facilities, retain 
compliance records for five years.
a. 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 1-BP, including 
retailers of 1-BP for end-consumer uses.
b. Professional Skills Needed To Comply
    Entities that would be subject to this proposal that manufacture 
(including import), process, or distribute 1-BP in commerce for 
consumer use (except for the use of 1-BP in insulation) would be 
required to cease under the proposed rule. The entity would be required 
to modify their SDS to inform their customers of the prohibition on 
manufacture, processing, and distribution of 1-BP for consumer use 
(except for the consumer use of 1-BP in building/construction materials 
(insulation)). 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 proposed regulation. These are all routine business 
tasks that do not require specialized skills or training.
    Entities that use 1-BP in any industrial and commercial capacity 
that is proposed to be prohibited would be required to cease under the 
proposed rule. Restriction or prohibition of these uses will likely 
require the implementation of an alternative chemical or the cessation 
of use of 1-BP 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, industrial and 
commercial users of 1-BP may choose to contract with another entity to 
do so.
    Certain entities that would be permitted to continue to 
manufacture, process, distribute, use, or dispose of 1-BP would be 
required to implement a WCPP and would have to meet the provisions of 
the program for continued use of 1-BP. A transition to a WCPP may 
require persons with specialized skills such as an engineer or health 
and safety profession. Instead of implementing the WCPP themselves, 
entities that use 1-BP may choose to contract with another entity to do 
so. Records would have to be maintained for compliance with a WCPP, 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.
    Certain entities that would be permitted to continue to 
manufacture, process, distribute, use, or dispose of 1-BP would be 
required to self-certify and would have to meet the provisions of self-
certification for continued purchase of 1-BP. Records would have to be 
maintained for compliance with self-certification, 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, engineers, or 
other technical experts.
5. Relevant Federal Rules
    EPA has issued numerous rules and notices pertaining to 1-BP under 
its various authorities. 1-BP manufacturing (including importing), 
processing, and use information is reported under the Chemical Data 
Reporting (CDR) rule (85 FR 20122, April 9, 2020; see 40 CFR part 711). 
1-BP is also a listed substance subject to Toxics Release Inventory 
(TRI) reporting requirements pursuant to section 313 of the Emergency 
Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA), effective as of 
January 1, 2016 (40 CFR 372.65).
    Relative to releases to air, in 2010 and 2011, EPA received 
petitions from the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance and the New 
York State Department of Environmental Conservation to list 1-BP as a 
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) under Section 112(b)(1) of the Clean Air 
Act (80 FR 6676, February 6, 2015). On January 9, 2017, EPA published a 
draft notice on the rationale for granting the petitions to add 1-BP to 
the list of HAPs (82 FR 2354, January 9, 2017), and subsequently issued 
a final notice granting the petitions to add 1-BP to the list of HAPs 
contained in Section 112(b)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7412 (85 FR 36851, 
June 18, 2020). On January 5, 2022, EPA published a final rule adding 
1-BP to the list of HAPs (87 FR 393), effective February 4, 2022. In 
addition, 1-BP is listed under the National Volatile Organic Compound 
(VOC) Emission Standards for Aerosol Coatings (40 CFR part 59, subpart 
E).
    The listing of 1-BP as a HAP also triggered the addition of 1-BP as 
a hazardous substance under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (87 FR 20721, April 8, 2022), 
so that releases of 1-BP in excess of one pound must be reported (40 
CFR 302).
    Under EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program, EPA 
evaluated 1-BP as an acceptable substitute for ozone-depleting 
substances. In 2007, EPA listed 1-BP as an acceptable substitute for 
chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-113 and methyl chloroform in the solvent and 
cleaning sector of industrial equipment for metals cleaning, 
electronics cleaning, and precision cleaning. EPA recommended the use 
of personal protective equipment, including chemical goggles, flexible 
laminate protective gloves and chemical-resistant clothing when using 
1-BP (72 FR 30142, May 30, 2007). In 2007, the Agency also proposed to 
list 1-BP as an unacceptable substitute for CFC-113, 
hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)-141b

[[Page 65114]]

and methyl chloroform when used in adhesives or in aerosol solvents due 
to unacceptable risks to human health when compared with other 
available alternatives for these uses; and as an acceptable substitute 
in the coatings end use (subject to use conditions) (72 FR 30168, May 
30, 2007). This proposed rule under SNAP has not been finalized by the 
Agency.
    While OSHA has not issued a PEL for 1-BP, OSHA and NIOSH have 
issued a Hazard Alert, which indicates a recommended time-weighted 
average threshold limit value (TWA-TLV) of 10 ppm by the American 
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (Ref. 10). However, 
since then, ACGIH has recommended 0.10 ppm as the TWA-TLV value for 1-
BP (Ref. 10). The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulates 
specific bromopropanes as a hazardous material, e.g., ``UN2344, 
Bromopropanes, 3, PG II'' and ``UN2344, Bromopropanes, 3, PG III'' and 
therefore, are subject to certain requirements under the Hazardous 
Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180) such as marking, 
labeling, and placarding--among others. The HMR derives its authority 
from the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law (49 U.S.C. 5101 
et seq.). As such, section 5103(b) authorizes the Secretary of 
Transportation to prescribe regulations for the safe transportation, 
including security, of hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate, 
and foreign commerce.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
    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 
listed 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., 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 1-BP on health and the 
environment, the magnitude of exposure to 1-BP of human beings and the 
environment, the benefits of 1-BP for various uses, and the reasonably 
ascertainable economic consequences of the proposed rule. EPA also 
considered input provided by the SERs in selecting among possible TSCA 
section 6(a) requirements as part of the proposed regulatory action and 
alternative regulatory actions. Additionally, as a part of this 
analysis, EPA considered--in addition to prohibition, WCPP, and self-
certification described earlier--a wide variety of control measures to 
address the unreasonable risk from 1-BP such as weight fractions. As 
discussed in Unit V.A.3., EPA considered limiting the weight fraction 
of 1-BP in industrial/commercial and consumer products and conducted an 
analysis to estimate to what extent this would reduce risks from 
conditions of use that contribute to the unreasonable risk for 1-BP. 
EPA's analysis of these risk management approaches is detailed in Unit 
V.A.3. In general, EPA determined that this approach alone would either 
not be able to address the unreasonable risk, or would result in a 
product containing so little 1-BP that it would not be efficacious for 
the intended purpose.

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 would affect entities 
that use 1-BP. It is not expected to affect state, local, or Tribal 
governments because the use of 1-BP 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. As 
set forth in TSCA section 18(a)(1)(B), the issuance of rules under TSCA 
section 6(a) to address the unreasonable risks presented by a chemical 
substance has the potential to trigger preemption of laws, criminal 
penalties, or administrative actions by a State or political 
subdivision of a State that are: (1) Applicable to the same chemical 
substance as the rule under TSCA section 6(a); and (2) Designed to 
prohibit or otherwise restrict the manufacture, processing, or 
distribution in commerce or use of that same chemical. TSCA section 
18(c)(3) applies that preemption only to the ``hazards, exposures, 
risks, and uses or conditions of use'' of such chemical included in the 
final TSCA section 6(a) rule.
    EPA provides the following preliminary 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 October 22, 2020. EPA invited the following national 
organizations representing State and local elected officials to these 
meetings: Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, National 
Association of Clean Water Agencies, Western States Water Council, 
National Water Resources Association, American Water Works Association, 
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, Association of Clean Water 
Administrators, Environmental Council of the States, National 
Association of Counties, National League of Cities, County Executives 
of America, U.S. Conference of Mayors, and National Association of 
Attorneys General. A summary of the meeting with these organizations, 
including the views that they expressed, is available in the docket 
(Ref. 20). EPA provided an opportunity for these organizations to 
provide follow-up comments in writing but did not receive any such 
comments.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will 
not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and the Indian Tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian Tribes. This rulemaking would not have 
substantial direct effects on Tribal governments because 1-BP is not 
manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce by Tribes. 1-BP is 
not regulated by Tribes, and this rulemaking would not impose 
substantial direct compliance costs on Tribal governments. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. Nevertheless, EPA 
met 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.
    As described in Unit III.A.1., EPA met with Tribal officials via 
teleconferences on November 12, 2020, and November 17, 2020, concerning 
the prospective regulation of the 1-BP under TSCA

[[Page 65115]]

section 6. (Ref. 21). During the consultation, EPA discussed risk 
management under TSCA section 6(a), findings from the 2020 Risk 
Evaluation for 1-BP, types of information to inform risk management, 
principles for transparency during risk management, and types of 
information EPA is seeking from Tribes (Ref. 21). EPA briefed Tribal 
officials on the Agency's risk management considerations and encouraged 
Tribal officials to provide additional comments after the 
teleconferences. Tribal officials raised no related issues or concerns 
to EPA during or in follow-up to those meetings. (Ref. 21)

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. While the environmental 
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a 
disproportionate risk to children because the most sensitive adverse 
health effects are in early life stages, this action is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it is not a significant regulatory action 
under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866.
    However, EPA's Policy on Children's Health applies to this action. 
Information on how the Policy was applied is available in Units 
III.A.3., III.B.2., VI.A. and VI.B., and the 2020 Risk Evaluation for 
1-BP and the Economic Analysis for this proposed rulemaking (Refs. 1, 
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 1-
BP. Consistent with the Agency's Performance Based Measurement System 
(PBMS), the Agency proposes not to 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 
1-BP 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. 12). EPA recognizes that there may be voluntary consensus 
standards that meet the proposed criteria (Ref. 41). EPA requests 
comments on whether it should incorporate such voluntary consensus 
standards in the final rule and seeks information in support of such 
comments regarding the availability and applicability of voluntary 
consensus standards that may achieve the sampling and analytical 
requirements of the proposed rule in lieu of the PBMS approach.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and 
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to 
Environmental Justice for All

    EPA believes that the human health and environmental conditions 
that exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to 
result in disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on communities with environmental justice concerns. As 
described more fully in the Economic Analysis, 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. 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.
    EPA believes that this action is likely to reduce existing 
disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental 
justice concerns. While the regulatory options are anticipated to 
address the unreasonable risk from exposure to 1-BP to the extent 
necessary so that it is no longer unreasonable, EPA is not able to 
quantify the distribution of the change in risk across affected 
workers, communities, or demographic groups. EPA is also unable to 
quantify the changes in risks to workers, communities, and demographic 
groups from non-1-BP-using technologies or practices that firms may 
adopt in response to the regulation to determine whether any such 
changes could pose EJ concerns. Data limitations prevent EPA from 
conducting a more comprehensive analysis that would identify the 
incremental impacts of the regulatory options and assess the extent to 
which they mitigate or exacerbate any disproportionate impacts in 
communities with EJ concerns. These data limitations are summarized in 
the Economic Analysis (Ref. 3).
    EPA additionally identified and addressed EJ concerns by conducting 
outreach to advocates of communities that might be subject to 
disproportionate exposure to 1-BP, such as communities with 
environmental justice concerns. On November 16 and 19, 2020, EPA held 
public meetings as part of this consultation. (Ref. 22). See also Unit 
III.A.1.
    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 and 
fact sheets for the EJ consultations related to this rulemaking, are 
available at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/environmental-justice-consultations-methylene-chloride. 
These materials and a summary of the consultation are also available in 
the public docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 22).

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 proposes to 
amend 40 CFR part 751 as follows:

[[Page 65116]]

PART 751--REGULATION OF CERTAIN CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES AND MIXTURES 
UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT

0
1. The authority citation for part 751 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 15 U.S.C. 2625(l)(4).

0
2. Amend Sec.  751.5 by adding in alphabetical order definitions for 
``ECEL'' and ``Exposure group'', to read as follows:


Sec.  751.5  Definitions

* * * * *
    ECEL is an Existing Chemical Exposure Limit and means an airborne 
concentration generally calculated as an eight (8)-hour time-weighted 
average (TWA).
* * * * *
    Exposure group means 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.
* * * * *
0
3. Add subpart I to read as follows:
Subpart I--1-Bromopropane
751.801 General.
751.803 Definitions.
751.805 Prohibitions of manufacturing, processing, distribution in 
commerce, and use.
751.807 Workplace Chemical Protection Program (WCPP).
751.809 Prescriptive controls.
751.811 Self-certification requirements.
751.813 Downstream notification.
751.815 Recordkeeping requirements.


Sec.  751.801  General.

    This subpart establishes prohibitions and restrictions on the 
manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, 
use, and disposal of 1-bromopropane (CASRN 106-94-5), also known as n-
propyl bromide, to prevent unreasonable risks of injury to health in 
accordance with TSCA section 6(a).


Sec.  751.803  Definitions.

    The definitions in subpart A of this part apply to this subpart 
unless otherwise specified in this section. In addition, the following 
definitions apply to this subpart:
    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 
Sec. Sec.  751.813 and 751.815.
    ECEL action level means a concentration of airborne 1-bromopropane 
of 0.03 parts per million (ppm) calculated as an eight (8)-hour time-
weighted average (TWA).


Sec.  751.805  Prohibitions of manufacturing, processing, distribution 
in commerce, and use.

    (a) Applicability. The provisions of this section apply to the 
following conditions of use of 1-bromopropane as indicated in each 
paragraph of this section:
    (1) All manufacturing, processing, and distribution in commerce for 
consumer use, excluding use of 1-bromopropane in building/construction 
materials (insulation).
    (2) All manufacturing (including import), processing, and 
distribution in commerce of 1-bromopropane for industrial or commercial 
use, other than for the conditions of use addressed under Sec. Sec.  
751.807(a) and 751.809(a) of this subpart.
    (3) All commercial or industrial use of 1-bromopropane, other than 
the conditions of use addressed under Sec. Sec.  751.807(a) and 
751.809(a) of this subpart.
    (b) Prohibitions.
    (1) After [DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], all persons are prohibited from 
manufacturing (including importing) 1-bromopropane for the uses listed 
in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (2) After [DATE 9 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], all persons are prohibited from 
processing 1-bromopropane, including any 1-bromopropane-containing 
products, for the uses listed in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (3) After [DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], all persons are prohibited from 
distributing in commerce or making available 1-bromopropane, including 
any 1-bromopropane-containing products, to retailers for any use except 
in insulation.
    (4) After [DATE 15 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], all retailers are prohibited from 
distributing in commerce or making available 1-bromopropane, including 
any 1-bromopropane containing products, for any use except in 
insulation.
    (5) After [DATE 15 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], all persons are prohibited from 
distributing in commerce or making available 1-bromopropane, including 
any 1-bromopropane containing products, for the uses described in 
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (6) After [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], all persons are prohibited from 
industrial or commercial use of 1-bromopropane, including any 1-
bromopropane containing products, for the conditions of use listed in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section.


Sec.  751.807  Workplace Chemical Protection Program (WCPP).

    (a) Applicability. The provisions of this section apply to the 
following conditions of use of 1-bromopropane, unless otherwise 
indicated in this section, except to the extent the conditions of use 
are prohibited by Sec.  751.805:
    (1) Manufacturing (domestic manufacturing);
    (2) Processing into formulation, mixture or reaction products;
    (3) Industrial and commercial use as solvent for open-top and in-
line batch vapor degreasing;
    (4) Industrial and commercial use as solvent for closed-loop batch 
vapor degreasing;
    (5) Industrial and commercial use as solvent for cleaning and 
degreasing in cold cleaners;
    (6) Industrial and commercial use as solvent in aerosol spray 
degreaser/cleaner; and
    (7) Industrial and commercial uses in other uses, in electronic and 
electronic products and metal products; asphalt extraction; laboratory 
chemicals; temperature indicator--coatings
    (b) Existing chemical exposure limit (ECEL).
    (1) Eight-hour time-weighted average (TWA) ECEL. Beginning [DATE 36 
MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER] for Federal agencies and Federal contractors acting for or on 
behalf of the Federal Government, [DATE 9 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for other owners 
and operators, or beginning 4 months after introduction of 1-
bromopropane into the workplace if 1-bromopropane use commences after 
[DATE 9 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
FEDERAL REGISTER], the owner or operator must ensure that no person is 
exposed to an airborne concentration of 1-bromopropane in excess of 
0.05 parts of 1-bromopropane per million parts of air (0.05 ppm) as an

[[Page 65117]]

eight (8)-hour TWA, consistent with requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) 
and, if necessary, paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
    (2) Exposure monitoring.
    (i) General.
    (A) Owners or operators must determine each potentially exposed 
person's exposure 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 1-bromopropane exposures in that 
exposure group.
    (C) Exposure samples must be analyzed using an appropriate 
analytical method by a laboratory that complies with the Good 
Laboratory Practice 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 1-bromopropane.
    (E) Owners and operators must re-monitor within 15 working days 
after receipt of any exposure monitoring when results indicate 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.
    (ii) Initial monitoring. By [DATE 33 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for Federal 
agencies and Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal 
Government, [DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for other owners and operators, or within 
30 days of introduction of 1-bromopropane 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 [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] 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 1-
bromopropane in accordance with Table 1.

   Table 1 to Paragraph (b)(2)(iii)--Periodic Monitoring Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Air concentration condition        Periodic monitoring requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If initial exposure monitoring is below  Periodic exposure monitoring is
 ECEL action level (< 0.03 ppm 8-hour     required at least once every
 TWA).                                    five years.
If the most recent exposure monitoring   Periodic exposure monitoring is
 indicates that airborne exposure is      required within 3 months of
 above the ECEL (>0.05 ppm 8-hour TWA).   the most recent exposure
                                          monitoring.
If the most recent exposure monitoring   Periodic exposure monitoring is
 indicates that airborne exposure is at   required within 6 months of
 or above the ECEL action level but at    the most recent exposure
 or below the ECEL (>= 0.03 ppm 8-hour    monitoring.
 TWA, <= 0.05 ppm 8-hour TWA).
If the two most recent (non-initial)     Periodic exposure monitoring is
 exposure monitoring measurements,        required within 5 years of the
 taken at least seven days apart within   most recent exposure
 a 6 month period, indicate exposure is   monitoring.
 below the ECEL action level (< 0.03
 ppm 8-hour TWA).
If the owner or operator engages in a    The owner or operator may forgo
 condition of use for which the ECEL is   the next periodic monitoring
 required but does not manufacture,       event. However, documentation
 process, use, or dispose of 1-           of cessation of use of 1-
 bromopropane in that condition of use    bromopropane is required; and
 over the entirety of time since the      periodic monitoring would be
 last required monitoring event.          required immediately 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)(2)(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.
    (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)(2)(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.
    (v) Observation of monitoring.
    (A) The owner or operator must provide potentially exposed persons 
an opportunity to observe any monitoring of occupational exposure to 1-
BP that is conducted under this section and is designed to characterize 
the potentially exposed person's exposure.
    (B) When monitoring observation requires entry into a regulated 
area, the owner or operator must provide the observers with the 
required PPE in accordance with paragraph (b)(3)(iv).
    (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 of any 
represented by the monitoring of the monitoring results within 15 
working days of receipt of 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 1-
bromopropane exceeds the ECEL action level or ECEL;
    (4) If the ECEL is exceeded per paragraph (b)(2)(vi)(B) of this 
section, descriptions of any exposure controls implemented by the owner 
or operator to reduce exposures to or below the ECEL, as required by 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section;
    (5) Explanation of any respiratory protection provided in 
accordance with

[[Page 65118]]

paragraphs (b)(3)(iv), (c)(1)(ii), and (e) of this section;
    (6) Quantity of 1-bromopropane in use at the time of monitoring;
    (7) Location(s) of 1-bromopropane use at the time of monitoring;
    (8) Manner of 1-bromopropane use at the time of monitoring; and
    (9) Identified releases of 1-bromopropane.
    (C) Notice must be written, in plain language, and either provided 
to each potentially exposed person 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 non-
English language version representing the language of the largest group 
of workers who do not read English.
    (3) Regulated areas.
    (i) Establishment. By [DATE 36 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION 
OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for Federal agencies and 
Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal Government, 
[DATE 9 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
FEDERAL REGISTER] for other owners and operators, or beginning 4 months 
after introduction of 1-bromopropane into the workplace if 1-
bromopropane use commences after [DATE 9 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the owner or 
operator must establish and maintain a regulated area wherever airborne 
concentrations of 1-bromopropane exceeds 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 1-bromopropane 
within the regulated area.
    (iv) Provision of respirators.
    (A) The owner or operator must ensure that each person who enters a 
regulated area is supplied with a respirator selected in accordance 
with paragraph (e) of this section and must ensure that all persons 
within the regulated area are using the provided respirators whenever 
1-bromopropane exposures may exceed the ECEL.
    (B) An owner or operator who has implemented all feasible controls 
as required in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, and who has 
established a regulated area as required by paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and 
(iii) of this section where 1-bromopropane 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.
    (vi) The owner or operator must ensure that, within a regulated 
area, persons do not engage in non-work activities which may increase 
1-bromopropane exposure.
    (vii) 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 seal or performance.
    (c) Exposure control procedures and plan.
    (1) Methods of compliance.
    (i) By [DATE 36 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for Federal agencies and Federal 
contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal Government, or [DATE 
12 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
FEDERAL REGISTER] for other 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.
    (ii) If the feasible controls required under paragraph (c)(1)(i) 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 (e) of this section.
    (iii) Where an owner or operator cannot demonstrate that exposure 
to 1-bromopropane has been reduced to or below the ECEL through the use 
of controls required under paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 
section, and has not demonstrated that it has appropriately 
supplemented with respiratory protection that complies with the 
requirements of paragraph (e) of this section, this will constitute a 
failure to comply with the ECEL.
    (iv) For the Department of Defense and Federal contractors acting 
for or on behalf of the Department of Defense, in the event that 
ongoing or planned construction is necessary to implement the feasible 
controls required by paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section such that no 
one is exposed above the ECEL, the deadlines in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of 
this section are extended to [DATE 60 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Ongoing or 
planned construction efforts to address exposures above the ECEL must 
be documented in the exposure control plan required by paragraph (c)(2) 
of this section.
    (2) Exposure control plan. By [DATE 36 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for Federal 
agencies and Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal 
Government, or [DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for other 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 
paragraph (c)(1)(i) 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 in compliance with 
paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(C) of this section 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;
    (F) Attestation that exposure controls selected do not increase 
emissions of 1-bromopropane to ambient air outside of the workplace and 
whether additional equipment was installed to capture or

[[Page 65119]]

otherwise prevent increased emissions of 1-bromopropane to ambient air.
    (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 (c).
    (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) and (c) of this section.
    (iii) Availability of exposure control plan.
    (A) Owners or operators must make the exposure control plan and 
associated records available to potentially exposed persons.
    (B) Owners or operators must notify potentially exposed persons 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 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 non-English language 
version representing the language of the largest group of workers who 
do not read English.
    (d) Workplace information and training.
    (1) By [DATE 36 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for Federal agencies and Federal 
contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal Government, or [DATE 
9 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER] for other owners and operators, the owner or operator must 
institute a training program and ensure that persons potentially 
exposed to 1-bromopropane participate in the program according to the 
requirements of this paragraph (d).
    (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 1-
bromopropane.
    (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 1-bromopropane:
    (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 
1-bromopropane and the specific operations in the workplace that could 
result in exposure to 1-bromopropane, particularly noting where each 
regulated area is located;
    (iii) Methods and observations that may be used to detect the 
presence or release of 1-bromopropane in the workplace (such as 
monitoring conducted by the owner or operator, continuous monitoring 
devices, visual appearance or odor of 1-bromopropane when being 
released);
    (iv) The acute and chronic health hazards of 1-BP as detailed on 
relevant Safety Data Sheets; and
    (v) The principles of safe use and handling of 1-bromopropane and 
measures potentially exposed persons can take to protect themselves 
from 1-bromopropane, including specific procedures the owner or 
operator has implemented to protect potentially exposed persons from 
exposure to 1-bromopropane, such as appropriate work practices, 
emergency procedures, and personal protective equipment to be used.
    (5) The owner or operator must re-train each potentially exposed 
person annually to ensure that each such person maintains the requisite 
understanding of the principles of safe use and handling of 1-
bromopropane 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, the owner or operator must 
update the training and ensure that each potentially exposed person is 
re-trained.
    (e) Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
    (1) Respiratory protection.
    (i) Beginning [DATE 36 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for Federal agencies and Federal 
contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal Government, or [DATE 
9 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER] for other owners and operators, or within 3 months after 
receipt of any exposure monitoring that indicates exposures exceeding 
the ECEL, or that indicates non-detect or air monitoring equipment 
malfunction resulting in an unknown concentration, if an owner or 
operator is required to provide respiratory protection pursuant to 
paragraph (b)(3)(iv) or (c)(1)(ii), 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 the purposes of this paragraph (e)(1), 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 cross-referenced 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) Beginning [DATE 36 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 
THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for Federal agencies and 
Federal contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal Government, 
or [DATE 9 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 
THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for other owners and operators, or within 3 
months after receipt of any exposure monitoring that indicates 
exposures exceeding the ECEL, or that indicates non-detect or air 
monitoring equipment malfunction resulting in an unknown concentration, 
if an owner or operator is required to provide respiratory protection 
pursuant to paragraph (b)(3)(iv) or (c)(1)(ii), 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 (e)(1)(i) based on a medical evaluation 
consistent with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.134(e), 1910.134 App. 
C. If a potentially exposed person cannot use a negative-pressure 
respirator that would otherwise be required by paragraph (e)(1)(i), 
then the owner or operator must provide that person with an alternative 
respirator. The alternative respirator must have less breathing 
resistance than the negative-pressure 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

[[Page 65120]]

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 1-bromopropane, 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 0.05 ppm: 
no respiratory protection is required.
    (B) If the measured exposure concentration is above 0.05 ppm and 
less than or equal to 0.5 ppm (10 times ECEL): Any NIOSH 
Approved[supreg] air-purifying half mask respirator equipped with 
organic vapor cartridges or canisters; or any NIOSH Approved[supreg] 
Supplied-Air Respirator (SAR) or Airline Respirator operated in demand 
mode equipped with a half mask; or any NIOSH-certified Self-Contained 
Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) in demand mode equipped with a half mask 
[APF 10].
    (C) If the measured exposure concentration is above 0.5 ppm and 
less than or equal to 1.25 ppm (25 times ECEL): Any NIOSH 
Approved[supreg] 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[supreg] Supplied-Air 
Respirator (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 1.25 ppm and 
less than or equal to 2.5 ppm (50 times ECEL): Any NIOSH 
Approved[supreg] air-purifying full facepiece respirator equipped with 
organic vapor cartridges or canisters; any NIOSH Approved[supreg] 
Powered Air-Purifying Respirator (PAPR) with a half mask equipped with 
organic vapor cartridges or canisters; any NIOSH Approved[supreg] 
Supplied-Air Respirator (SAR) or Airline Respirator in a pressure-
demand or other positive pressure mode with a half mask; any NIOSH 
Approved[supreg]s Supplied-Air Respirator (SAR) or Airline Respirator 
in a continuous-flow mode equipped with a half mask; any NIOSH 
Approved[supreg] Supplied-Air Respirator (SAR) or Airline Respirator in 
a pressure-demand or other positive pressure mode with a half mask; or 
any NIOSH Approved[supreg] SCBA in demand-mode equipped with a full 
facepiece or helmet/hood [APF 50].
    (E) If the measured exposure concentration is above 2.5 ppm and 
less than or equal to 50 ppm (1,000 times ECEL): Any NIOSH 
Approved[supreg] Powered Air-Purifying Respirator (PAPR) equipped with 
a full facepiece equipped with organic vapor cartridges or canisters; 
any NIOSH Approved[supreg] Supplied-Air Respirator (SAR) or Airline 
Respirator in a continuous-flow mode equipped with full facepiece; any 
NIOSH Approved[supreg] Supplied-Air Respirator (SAR) or Airline 
Respirator in pressure-demand or other positive-pressure mode equipped 
with a full facepiece and an auxiliary self-contained air supply [APF 
1,000]; or any NIOSH Approved[supreg] Supplied-Air Respirator (SAR) or 
Airline Respirator in a continuous-flow mode equipped with a helmet or 
hood and has been tested to demonstrate performance at a level of a 
protection of APF 1,000 or greater.
    (F) If the measured exposure concentration is greater than 50 ppm 
(1,000 times ECEL): Any NIOSH Approved[supreg] 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[supreg] 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].
    (x) Owners and operators must select and provide respirators as 
required in paragraph (e)(1)(ix) 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-certified for 1-bromopropane; 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 
(e)(1)(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 (e)(1)(iii) of 
this section are being effectively implemented.
    (xiv) The respiratory protection requirements in this paragraph 
represent the minimum respiratory protection requirements, such that 
any respirator affording a higher degree of protection than the 
required respirator may be used.
    (2) Dermal protection.
    (i) Beginning [DATE 36 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for Federal agencies and Federal 
contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal Government, or [DATE 
9 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER] for other owners and operators, the owner or operator must 
provide to and ensure appropriate use of gloves by each potentially 
exposed person in accordance with Sec.  751.809(b)(1) through (3).
    (ii) The owner or operator must provide training and retraining to 
all persons required to use gloves consistent with Sec.  751.809(b)(4) 
and (5).


Sec.  751.809  Prescriptive Controls.

    (a) Applicability.
    The provisions of this section apply to workplaces engaged in the 
following conditions of use of 1-bromopropane, unless otherwise 
indicated:
    (1) Manufacturing (import);
    (2) Processing as a reactant;
    (3) Processing for incorporation into articles;
    (4) Processing as repackaging;

[[Page 65121]]

    (5) Processing as recycling; and
    (6) Disposal.
    (b) Glove requirements.
    (1) Beginning [DATE 36 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for Federal agencies and Federal 
contractors acting for or on behalf of the Federal Government, or [DATE 
6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER] for other owners and operators, the owner or operator is 
required to provide and ensure the use of gloves that are chemically-
resistant to 1-bromopropane, made of supported polyvinyl alcohol or a 
multiple-layer laminated materials, by all persons likely to be 
dermally exposed to 1-bromopropane (including products containing 1-
bromopropane).
    (2) Owners and operators must select gloves that properly fit each 
affected person and communicate glove selections to each affected 
person.
    (3) Owners and operators must provide, ensure use of, and maintain 
(in a sanitary, reliable, and undamaged condition) gloves that are of 
safe design and construction for the work to be performed.
    (4) Owners or operators must provide training in accordance with 29 
CFR 1910.132(f) to all persons required to use gloves prior to or at 
the time of initial assignment to a job involving exposure to 1-
bromopropane. For the purposes of this paragraph (b), 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.
    (5) Owners and operators must retrain each person required to use 
gloves 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 gloves, or when changes in the 
workplace or in gloves to be used render the previous training 
obsolete.


Sec.  751.811  Self-certification.

    (a) Applicability.
    The provisions of this section apply to the following conditions of 
use of 1-bromopropane, unless otherwise indicated:
    (1) Processing into a formulation, mixture, or reaction product;
    (2) Industrial and commercial use as a solvent in open-top and in-
line batch vapor degreasing;
    (3) Industrial and commercial use as a solvent in closed-loop vapor 
degreasing;
    (4) Industrial and commercial use as a solvent for cleaning and 
degreasing in cold cleaners;
    (5) Industrial and commercial use as a solvent in aerosol spray 
degreaser/cleaner; and
    (6) Industrial and commercial use in other uses in electronic and 
electronic products and metal products; laboratory chemicals; asphalt 
extraction; and coatings for temperature indicators.
    (b) Self-certification requirements.
    (1) The owner or operator purchasing 1-bromopropane for one or more 
of the conditions of use listed in (a) must comply with the 
requirements of Sec.  751.807.
    (2) The owner or operator, or authorized person, must self-certify 
each facility engaging in one or more uses listed in paragraph (a) of 
this section are in compliance with requirements of Sec.  751.807 of 
this subpart with the following written statement:

    I certify each of the following statements, under penalty of 
law., This document was prepared under my direction and supervision. 
I further certify that this facility's implementation of the 
Workplace Chemical Protection Program (WCPP) for 1-bromopropane was 
evaluated by qualified personnel with industrial hygiene 
qualifications or similar experience and that this facility has 
implemented and complies with the WCPP for 1-bromopropane. Based on 
my inquiry of the individual or individuals who manage the facility 
and/or those individuals directly responsible for implementing the 
1-bromopropane WCPP, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, the 
facility is in compliance with the 1-bromopropane WCPP, including 
the exposure control plan. 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 failing to comply with these 
requirements. If this is the first purchase of 1-bromopropane for 
this facility, I understand that this certification will serve as a 
certification that this facility will properly implement and comply 
with the WCPP for 1-bromopropane consistent with the applicable 
regulatory timelines.

    (i) The statement must include the following:
    (A) Printed name and signature, job classification, title, email 
address and phone number of the owner or operator, or authorized 
person, who is self-certifying;
    (B) Date of self-certification;
    (C) Name and address of the facility;
    (D) Lists the condition of use, (e.g., solvent for aerosol spray 
degreaser/cleaner);
    (E) Examples of the type of equipment the owner or operator plans 
to use to meet the WCPP (e.g., closed loop vapor degreaser); and
    (F) Indication of whether this is the facility's first purchase of 
1-bromopropane after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
FEDERAL REGISTER].
    (ii) Owners and operators must provide a current self-certification 
statement for each facility to the distributor from whom 1-bromopropane 
is being purchased for every purchase.
    (iii) The self-certification statement is valid for one year, 
unless the facility has changed processes or there is an indication 
that exposures to 1-BP have changed.
    (iv) Distributors of 1-bromopropane must review the self-
certification statement to ensure it is appropriately completed to 
include the owner or operator's and the facility's information, as 
required by this section.
    (v) Distributors of 1-bromopropane must have a complete and valid 
self-certification statement in accordance with this section for each 
sale of 1-bromopropane for a use described in paragraph (a) of this 
section. If the distributor obtains knowledge that the purchaser of 1-
BP has failed to comply with the WCPP for 1-BP, the distributor must 
immediately cease to supply the substance to that purchaser, and may 
only commence supplying to the purchaser upon, unless the distributor 
has received written notification from EPA that permits its 
distribution.


Sec.  751.813  Downstream notification.

    (a) Beginning on [DATE 2 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 
THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], each person who manufactures 
(including imports) 1-bromopropane for any use must, prior to or 
concurrent with the shipment, notify companies to whom 1-bromopropane 
is shipped, in writing, of the restrictions described in this subpart 
in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) Beginning on [DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 
THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], each person who processes or 
distributes in commerce 1-bromopropane or any 1-bromopropane-containing 
products for any use must, prior to or concurrent with the shipment, 
notify companies to whom 1-bromopropane 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 sections 1(c) and 
15 of the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) provided with the 1-bromopropane or 
with any product

[[Page 65122]]

containing 1-bromopropane, except for the manufacture, processing, 
distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of 1-bromopropane in 
building/construction materials (insulation):

    After [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], this chemical/product can only be 
distributed in commerce to or by retailers for the commercial and 
consumer use of 1-bromopropane in building/construction materials 
(insulation). After [DATE 21 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 
THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], this chemical/product is 
and can only be distributed in commerce to non-retailers or 
processed for the following purposes: Processing as a reactant; 
Processing into formulation, mixture, or reaction product; 
Processing for incorporation into articles; Processing for 
repackaging; Recycling; Industrial and commercial use as solvent for 
cleaning and degreasing in open-top and in-line batch vapor 
degreaser; Industrial and commercial use as solvent for cleaning and 
degreasing in closed-loop batch vapor degreaser; Industrial and 
commercial use as solvent for cleaning and degreasing in cold 
cleaners; Industrial and commercial use as solvent in aerosol spray 
degreaser/cleaner; Industrial and commercial uses in electronic and 
electronic products and metal products; asphalt extraction; 
laboratory chemicals; and temperature indicator--coatings; and 
Disposal.

Sec.  751.815  Recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) General records.
    After [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], all persons who manufacture, process, 
distribute in commerce, or engage in industrial or commercial use of 1-
bromopropane or 1-bromopropane-containing products, except for the use 
of 1-bromopropane in insulation, must maintain ordinary business 
records, such as invoices and bills-of-lading related to compliance 
with the prohibitions, restrictions, and other provisions of this 
subpart.
    (b) Workplace Chemical Protection Program (WCPP) compliance.
    (1) ECEL exposure monitoring. For each monitoring event, owners or 
operators subject to the ECEL described in Sec.  751.807(b) must retain 
records of:
    (i) Dates, duration, and results of each sample taken;
    (ii) The quantity, location(s) and manner of 1-bromopropane in use 
at the time of each monitoring event;
    (iii) All measurements that may be necessary to determine the 
conditions that may have affected the monitoring results;
    (iv) Name, workplace address, work shift, job classification, work 
area, and type of respiratory protection (if any) of 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 Sec.  751.807(b)(2)(i)(A) and (B);
    (vi) Sampling and analytical methods used as described in Sec.  
751.807(b)(2)(i)(D);
    (vii) Compliance with the Good Laboratory Practice Standards in 40 
CFR part 792, or use of a laboratory accredited by the AIHA or another 
industry-recognized program, as required by Sec.  751.807(b)(2)(i)(C);
    (viii) Information regarding air monitoring equipment, including: 
type, maintenance, calibrations, performance tests, limits of 
detection, and any malfunctions; and
    (xi) Notification of exposure monitoring results in accordance with 
Sec.  751.801(b)(2)(v).
    (2) ECEL compliance. Owners or operators subject to the ECEL 
described in Sec.  751.807(b) must retain records of:
    (i) Exposure control plan as described in Sec.  751.807(c)(2);
    (ii) Implementation of the exposure control plan described in Sec.  
751.807(c)(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 1-
bromopropane.
    (iii) Respiratory protection used by each potentially exposed 
person and PPE program implementation as described in Sec.  751.807(e), 
including:
    (A) The name, workplace address, work shift, job classification, 
and 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 PPE selection in accordance with 
Sec.  751.807(e); and
    (C) Fit testing and training in accordance with Sec.  751.807(e).
    (iv) Information and training provided as required in Sec.  
751.807(d).
    (3) Workplace participation. Owners or operators must document the 
notice to and ability of any potentially exposed person that may 
reasonably be affected by 1-bromopropane inhalation exposure to readily 
access the exposure control plans, facility exposure monitoring 
records, PPE program implementation, or any other information relevant 
to 1-bromopropane exposure in the workplace.
    (c) Dermal protection.
    Owners and operators subject to the dermal protection requirements 
described in Sec.  751.807(e)(2) or Sec.  751.809 of this subpart must 
maintain records of the following information:
    (1) Dermal protection used by each potentially exposed person and 
PPE program implementation as described in Sec.  751.809(b), including 
the name, workplace address, work shift, job classification, and work 
area of each person reasonably likely to directly handle 1-bromopropane 
or handle equipment or materials on which 1-bromopropane may present;
    (2) Appropriately sized gloves and the type of glove being used at 
the facility, either supported polyvinyl alcohol, multiple-layer 
laminates, or other gloves as provided under subsequent guidance of 
this rule; and
    (3) Training in accordance with Sec.  751.809(b)(4) and (5).
    (d) Self-certification.
    (1) Owners and operators who self-certify as required under Sec.  
751.811 must document and retain records of each self-certification 
statement for each facility that is self-certifying, including:
    (i) Printed name and signature, job classification, 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 facility; and
    (iv) All records required under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 
section.
    (2) Distributors of 1-bromopropane must collect, maintain, and 
retain records relating to self-certification statements received under 
Sec.  751.811 that include the following:
    (i) Name of facility;
    (ii) Name of owner or operator who is self-certifying;
    (iii) Date of sale;
    (iv) Quantity of 1-bromopropane being purchased; and
    (v) Self-certification statement for each purchase of 1-
bromopropane.
    (e) Retention.
    Persons required to maintain records required under this section 
must maintain the records for a period of 5 years from the date that 
such records were generated.

[FR Doc. 2024-17204 Filed 8-7-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P