Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0844-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Commercial Paint and Coating Removal Training, Certification and Limited Access Program: Methylene Chloride
Posted Date: 2019-03-27T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 27, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11466-11473]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05865]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 751

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0844; FRL-9989-30]
RIN 2070-AK48

Methylene Chloride; Commercial Paint and Coating Removal 
Training, Certification and Limited Access Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA has the 
authority to apply a suite of regulatory tools to address unreasonable 
risks from chemical substances, including authority to regulate the 
distribution in commerce for a particular use and to regulate any 
manner or method of commercial use, to the extent necessary so that the 
chemical substance no longer presents unreasonable risk. EPA is issuing 
an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit public 
input on training, certification, and limited access requirements that 
could address any unreasonable risks that EPA could potentially find to 
be presented by methylene chloride when used for commercial paint and 
coating removal. Such a program could allow access to paint and coating 
removal products containing methylene chloride only to commercial users 
who are certified as properly trained to engage in use practices that 
do not present unreasonable risks.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 28, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification 
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0844, at http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, 
comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. EPA may publish any comment 
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods (e.g., mail or hand 
delivery), the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or 
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective 
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket. The docket for this action, identified by docket 
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0844, is available at 
http://www.regulations.gov. A public version of the docket is available 
for inspection and copying between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding federal holidays, at the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center Reading Room, WJC West Building, 
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. A 
reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact: 
Niva Kramek, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention 
and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number (202) 564-4830; email 
address: kramek.niva@epa.gov.
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 
422 South Clinton Ave. Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 
554-1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

[[Page 11467]]

I. Executive Summary

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This notice is directed to stakeholders who may be interested in 
future EPA regulations on methylene chloride for commercial paint and 
coating removal. This notice may be of interest to entities that are 
manufacturing or importing or may manufacture or import methylene 
chloride (e.g., entities identified under North American Industrial 
Classification System (NAICS) codes 325 and 324110). It also may be of 
interest to processors, distributors, and users of methylene chloride 
for commercial paint and coating removal, as well as individuals with 
expertise in worker training to reduce chemical exposures, people with 
expertise to certify a level of competence in managing chemical risks, 
and those that distribute chemicals at retail or business to business 
sales outlets. Industrial hygienists, health and safety professionals, 
trade unions, medical professional, occupational health experts, and 
non-governmental organizations may have interest and expertise.
    Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not 
attempted to describe all the specific entities and corresponding NAICS 
codes for entities that may be interested in or affected by this 
action.
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this 
notice 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 that 
a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health 
or the environment under the conditions of use, EPA must by rule apply 
one or more requirements to the extent necessary so that the chemical 
substance or mixture no longer presents such risk. The determination of 
unreasonable risk is made without consideration of costs or other non-
risk factors.
    TSCA sections 6(a)(2) and (5) authorize EPA to regulate the 
distribution in commerce for a particular use and any manner or method 
of commercial use, respectively, of a chemical found to present 
unreasonable risk. Potential training, certification, and limited 
access program requirements could be promulgated under those 
authorities as part of rulemaking under the authority of TSCA section 
6(a).
    With respect to a chemical substance listed in the 2014 update to 
the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments, for which a completed risk 
assessment was published prior to the date of enactment of the Frank R. 
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, TSCA section 
26(l)(4) (15 U.S.C. 2625(l)(4)) provides that EPA as a matter of 
discretion ``may publish proposed and final rules under [TSCA section 
6(a)] that are consistent with the scope of the completed risk 
assessment for the chemical substance and consistent with other 
applicable requirements of [TSCA section 6].'' Methylene chloride is 
such a chemical substance. It is listed in the 2014 update to the TSCA 
Work Plan and the 2014 final risk assessment includes consumer and 
commercial uses of paint and coating removal (Refs. 1 and 2).

C. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is issuing this ANPRM to solicit public input on training, 
certification, and limited access requirements that could address any 
unreasonable risks that EPA could potentially find to be presented by 
methylene chloride in commercial paint and coating removal. Such a 
program could allow access to paint and coating removal products 
containing methylene chloride only to commercial users who are 
certified as properly trained to engage in use practices that ensure 
that the chemical use does not present any such unreasonable risks.

D. Why is the Agency taking this action?

    EPA is taking this action to receive public input on the 
development of training, certification, and limited access requirements 
that could address any unreasonable risks that EPA could potentially 
find to be presented by methylene chloride in commercial paint and 
coating removal under TSCA section 6(a).
    For methylene chloride in consumer paint and coating removal, EPA 
separately has made a final determination of unreasonable risk and has 
issued a final rule under TSCA section 6(a) to address those 
unreasonable risks, elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. 
For commercial paint and coating removal uses of methylene chloride, 
EPA has not finalized the proposed determination of unreasonable risk 
which published in the Federal Register of January 19, 2017 (82 FR 
7464) (FRL-9958-57). EPA continues to explore regulatory options that 
could address any commercial uses of methylene chloride in paint and 
coating removal that EPA could potentially find to present unreasonable 
risks. EPA would finalize any determination of unreasonable risk as 
part of a final regulation.

II. Background

A. Context of This ANPRM

    In 2017, EPA issued a proposed rule on methylene chloride in paint 
and coating removal uses (82 FR 7464, January 19, 2017) (FRL-9958-57). 
EPA received public comments indicating interest in a potential 
training, certification, and limited access program to address 
unreasonable risks for commercial uses of methylene chloride. Those and 
other comments received, as well as EPA's proposed and final rule and 
supporting materials, including the report of a Small Business Advocacy 
Review (SBAR) Panel, are in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0231.
    Specifically, when developing the proposed rule, EPA engaged in 
discussions with experts on and users of paint removers (Ref. 3) and 
conducted formal consultations (82 FR 7525). For example, EPA is 
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act to convene an SBAR Panel and 
seek information and advice from Small Entity Representatives (SERs), 
who are individuals that represent small entities likely to be subject 
to any final regulations. During the SBAR Panel for EPA's planned 
proposed rule for Methylene Chloride and N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP) in 
Paint Removers, a SER recommended that EPA consider and seek public 
comment on a training and certification program similar to the Lead 
Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) rule. Specifically, the comments 
from SERs during the pre-panel meeting on March 17, 2016, and the oral 
and written comments during the panel meeting on June 15, 2016, 
include: (1) A suggestion from a commercial user that in the absence of 
a ban on methylene chloride, EPA consider limiting the sale of 
methylene chloride to paint stores or to licensed painters; (2) support 
from a commercial furniture refinisher for a regulatory option that 
would restrict methylene chloride use to trained and licensed users 
while making the product unavailable to consumers; (3) the description 
from a commercial painter of how some states handle licensing for paint 
contractors. The SER stated that ``licensing could be similar to the 
Lead RRP rule. The licensing process [sic] annually could be somewhat 
costly (e.g., $400-$500), which could possibly keep the average 
homeowner at bay'' (Ref. 4).
    The proposed rule described a training and certification program 
similar to the lead-based paint RRP

[[Page 11468]]

program to reduce proposed unreasonable risks from methylene chloride 
in paint and coating removal as a regulatory option receiving limited 
evaluation. EPA asked for comments on this type of program. EPA 
received one comment in response (from the Environmental Defense Fund), 
which indicated strong opposition to the proposal due to the challenges 
the commenter cited with EPA's implementation of the RRP rule and the 
higher costs of a training and certification program than the proposed 
option that prohibited most manufacture, processing, distribution, and 
commercial use of methylene chloride for paint and coating removal 
(Ref. 5).
    In a related comment on the proposed rule, the Department of 
Defense said that EPA should adopt for methylene chloride a risk 
management approach similar to the second co-proposed regulatory option 
for another chemical used in paint and coating removal, N-
methylpyrrolidone (NMP), which, among other requirements, would have 
required use of adequate personal protective equipment and hazard 
communication for commercial users, so that the chemical would be 
removed from general consumer use yet preserved for commercial and 
industrial uses where there are no technically feasible substitutes and 
where workers can be protected using updated, properly adopted 
industrial hygiene standards (Ref. 6).
    Given these comments and information provided by the public, EPA is 
interested in soliciting additional public input, through this ANPRM, 
for a program for training, certification, and limited access for 
methylene chloride for commercial paint and coating removal.
    Furniture refinishing with methylene chloride is an example of one 
of these uses. In the proposed rule, EPA preliminarily identified 
unreasonable risks from exposures during furniture refinishing with 
methylene chloride but did not propose restrictions on this use; 
instead, EPA was interested in gathering additional information on this 
use of methylene chloride, including the availability of substitutes. 
To this end, EPA, in collaboration with the Small Business 
Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, conducted a workshop on 
furniture refinishing in Boston, MA on September 12, 2017 (82 FR 41256) 
(FRL-9966-83). A transcript of the meeting and speaker presentations 
are available in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0139. Some commenters 
and workshop participants supported a prohibition on methylene chloride 
in commercial furniture refinishing in the interest of protecting the 
health of workers, while others opposed such a restriction, stating 
that a prohibition on methylene chloride would severely affect their 
ability to do business in this sector.
    Following the close of the comment period for the proposed rule, in 
May 2018, the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, a trade 
association that represents several formulators of paint and coating 
removal products containing methylene chloride, submitted a White Paper 
through SBA to EPA. The White Paper includes a discussion of training 
and certification for methylene chloride in paint and coating removal, 
and encourages EPA to adopt a training, certification, and limited 
access program for methylene chloride in paint and coating removal 
similar to that enacted in the United Kingdom, which is discussed in 
more detail in Unit II.B (Ref. 7).

B. Other Training, Certification, and Limited Access Programs

    EPA has some experience with programs that require training, 
certification, or restricted access to chemicals. EPA has also 
identified additional regulatory or voluntary programs that members of 
the public may find useful to consider as examples when preparing their 
comments.
    1. Restricted Use Pesticides under FIFRA. Under the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), some pesticides 
are categorized as restricted use pesticides (RUPs). RUPs are not 
available for purchase or use by the general public. The classification 
restricts a product, or its uses, to use by a certified applicator or 
someone under the certified applicator's direct supervision. Federal 
law requires any person who uses or supervises the use of RUPs to be 
certified in accordance with EPA regulations and state, territorial and 
tribal laws. There are 14 federal categories of certification (40 CFR 
171.101). EPA authorizes states, territories, Tribes, and federal 
agencies to certify applicators. Applicators must be recertified 
periodically to maintain certification. This is generally accomplished 
through continuing education courses every three to five years. 
Training is primarily conducted by university extension services as 
well as by associations, industry, non-profit organizations, private 
companies, and federal and state government agencies. RUPs may only be 
purchased by certified applicators or persons purchasing for use by a 
certified applicator; dealers must maintain records of each RUP sale, 
including the identity of the buyer, the licensure of the certified 
applicator, and the identity and quantity of the RUP product sold. 
Regulation and enforcement related to RUPs is primarily by states, 
territories, and tribes, whose certification plans must meet EPA's 
standards, though they may have differing regulations regarding 
certification, use, and dealer registration. EPA's role is to establish 
minimum standards of competency for pesticide applicators that apply or 
supervise the use of RUPs; provide oversight of state, territory, 
Tribal and federal agency certification programs to ensure they meet 
certain standards; and to manage the risks of RUPs through mandatory 
label use directions and precautions established through registration 
and reregistration processes (Ref. 8).
    2. Refrigerants Certification under the Clean Air Act. EPA 
regulations under sections 608 and 609 of the Clean Air Act restrict 
the purchase of refrigerants to individuals with certifications (or 
their employees, in certain circumstances); these refrigerants are sold 
only through refrigerant distributors and wholesalers (with some 
exceptions for automotive equipment). Distributors must maintain 
records of sales. If certain requirements are met, small volumes of 
automotive refrigerants can be directly sold to consumers. Generally, 
EPA requires that anyone who maintains, services, repairs, or disposes 
of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment in a manner that could 
release refrigerants into the atmosphere must be a certified 
technician. Training is by third parties that are certified by EPA, and 
technicians are required to pass an EPA-issued test. The tests are 
specific to the type of equipment the technician seeks to work on. 
Tests must be administered by an EPA-approved certifying organization. 
There are four types of certifications under section 608 (by type of 
appliance). EPA's role is to provide exam questions and to certify 
technician certification programs. EPA does not maintain a database of 
certified technicians; instead, certification (in the form of physical 
cards) are provided by the certification provider, who maintains 
records of technicians' certification (40 CFR 82.161).
    There is also a separate technician certification program for 
anyone who services motor vehicle air conditioning for consideration. 
EPA requires training of technicians under section 609 by third parties 
that are certified by EPA. EPA reviews and approves the training 
materials. There is an exemption for consumer do-it-yourself servicing 
of motor vehicle air conditioning that does

[[Page 11469]]

not exist for servicing of stationary refrigeration and air 
conditioning equipment (40 CFR 82.161).
    3. Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) and 
Abatement Programs. EPA has extensive understanding of certification 
and training requirements from implementing the Residential Lead-based 
Paint Hazard Reduction Act. Specifically, the Lead Renovation Repair, 
and Painting Rule requires that firms performing renovation, repair, 
and painting projects that disturb lead-based paint in homes, child 
care facilities and pre-schools built before 1978 have their firm 
certified by EPA (or an EPA authorized state or Tribe), use certified 
renovators who are trained by EPA-approved training providers and 
follow lead-safe work practices. Training is by third parties who are 
accredited by EPA or by the state (in 14 states) or one Tribe. EPA or 
an authorized state or Tribe provides certification to firms or 
individuals who have completed the training course accredited by EPA or 
an EPA authorized program. Both trainers and renovators must be 
certified. Likewise, EPA's Lead Abatement Program regulations establish 
training and certification requirements for individuals and firms that 
provide lead-based paint inspection, risk assessment, project design, 
and abatement services in homes, child care facilities and pre-schools 
built before 1978. Training for this program is also provided by third 
parties that have been accredited by EPA or one of the 44 authorized 
programs in 39 states, 3 Tribes, Puerto Rico, or the District of 
Columbia (40 CFR 745 and 73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008).
    4. Asbestos Certification Program. In addition, under the Asbestos 
Hazard Emergency Response Act, EPA has established a training and 
accreditation program for asbestos professionals who conduct asbestos 
inspections or who design or conduct asbestos response actions at 
schools and public and commercial buildings. Most states are authorized 
to administer these requirements (40 CFR 763.80).
    5. European Restriction. A training, certification, and limited 
access program for methylene chloride is already in place outside the 
United States. In the European Union, the Registration, Evaluation, 
Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) restricts the sale 
and professional use of methylene chloride in paint and coating 
removal. Under the conditions of the REACH restriction, distribution to 
consumers is prohibited, but member states may allow professionals to 
use paint strippers and allow methylene chloride-containing paint 
strippers to be placed on the market for use by those professionals, 
provided that the member state establishes appropriate provisions for 
the protection of the health and safety of those professionals, 
including a certification to demonstrate proper training and competence 
to safely use paint strippers containing methylene chloride. REACH also 
requires that the training must cover, at a minimum: (a) Awareness, 
evaluation and management of risks to health, including information on 
existing substitutes or processes, which, under their conditions of 
use, would be less hazardous to the health and safety of workers; (b) 
use of adequate ventilation; and (c) use of appropriate personal 
protective equipment that complies with other regulations (Ref. 9).
    6. United Kingdom Certification Program. In the United Kingdom, 
methylene chloride is regulated through various European Union and UK 
regulations, including REACH; EU Classification, Labelling and 
Packaging Regulations; the UK REACH Enforcement Regulations; and other 
UK regulations covering workers. The United Kingdom decided to allow 
use of methylene chloride by professionals primarily to avoid hazards 
created when renovating surfaces with lead-based paint. Currently the 
United Kingdom's certification program is the only known training 
program that exists in the European Union as a derogation to the REACH 
restriction on methylene chloride in paint and coating removal. The 
Health and Safety Executive has a program that restricts use of 
methylene chloride for paint and coating removal to trained 
professionals. To purchase methylene chloride, professionals must pay a 
fee to a third-party training provider and take a four-hour course on 
safe use practices. After the training, the person must pass an 
examination to demonstrate competency, and obtain certification. 
Trained professionals can then purchase the product at specialty trade 
outlets and must demonstrate that they have obtained certification. 
Internet sales must also confirm that the purchaser has a 
certification. The UK government maintains a data base of professionals 
with a unique identifying number that provides proof of meeting the 
certification requirements. The program originated in 2016, and, to 
date, approximately 500 professionals have applied for certification. 
Consumer use of methylene chloride-containing paint strippers is not 
permitted in the United Kingdom (Ref. 10).
    7. Methylene Chloride Standard. The Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) requires employers to protect employees from 
occupational exposure to methylene chloride. OSHA's methylene chloride 
standard specifies the permissible exposure limits for methylene 
chloride and also includes provisions for, among other things, exposure 
monitoring, engineering controls, work practice controls, medical 
surveillance, respiratory protection, hazard communication, employee 
training, personal protective equipment, and recordkeeping (29 CFR 
1910.1052).
    The OSHA methylene chloride standard requires, among other 
information and training requirements, that the employer train affected 
employees as required under OSHA's hazard communication standard (29 
CFR 1910.1200, 29 CFR 1915.1200, or 29 CFR 1926.59, as appropriate). 
The training requirements of the hazard communication standard include 
at least: The methods and observations that may be used to detect the 
presence or release of a hazardous chemical in the work area; the 
hazards of the chemicals in the work area; the measures employees can 
take to protect themselves from these hazards, such as appropriate work 
practices, emergency procedures, and personal protective equipment to 
be used; and the details of the hazard communication program developed 
by the employer, including, among other things, the safety data sheet.
    The OSHA methylene chloride standard also contains, among other 
information and training requirements, provisions that are triggered 
only when an employee's exposure exceeds or can reasonably be expected 
to exceed the standard's ``action level'' of 12.5 parts per million 
(ppm) calculated as an eight (8)-hour time-weighted average (TWA). In 
such cases, for example, the employer must inform each affected 
employee of the quantity, location, manner of use, release, and storage 
of methylene chloride and the specific operations in the workplace that 
could result in exposure to methylene chloride, particularly noting 
where exposures may be above the standard's permissible exposure 
limits.
    OSHA's methylene chloride standard's respiratory protection 
provisions require respirator use during periods when an employee's 
exposure to airborne concentrations of methylene chloride exceeds the 
standard's permissible exposure limits and at other times specified in 
the standard. The standard also requires employers to implement a 
respiratory protection program in accordance with paragraph (b) through 
(m) (except paragraph (d)(1)(iii)) of OSHA's respiratory

[[Page 11470]]

protection standard, which covers each employee required by the 
standard to use a respirator. The respiratory protection standard 
specifies that: The employer must develop and implement a written 
respiratory protection program with required worksite-specific 
procedures and elements; the program requirements must be administered 
by a suitably-trained program administrator; and the program must 
include provisions for employee training, as well as respirator 
selection, fit testing, medical evaluation, respirator use, and 
respirator cleaning, maintenance, repair, and other provisions. The 
respirator standard also requires that employers ensure that employees 
required to use respirators be trained and able to demonstrate 
knowledge central to the safe use of respirators, including, for 
example, knowledge on why the respirator is necessary and how improper 
fit, usage, or maintenance can compromise the protective effect of the 
respirator.
    The OSHA standards also contain requirements on the timing and 
frequency of training (e.g., initial training, retraining, etc.). 
Please consult OSHA's methylene chloride, hazard communication, and 
respiratory protection standards for additional requirements (including 
additional information and training requirements) contained in those 
standards.

III. Training, Certification, and Limited Access for Methylene Chloride

    One regulatory approach EPA is considering is a regulation that 
could limit access to methylene chloride for commercial paint and 
coating removal by only allowing use by those individuals who have 
certified that they are able to engage in safe work practices such that 
any unreasonable risk is not present. EPA acknowledges that other, more 
restrictive regulatory approaches may be appropriate for some 
conditions of use of methylene chloride for which EPA determines 
unreasonable risk is present. Several considerations related to 
commercial uses of methylene chloride for paint and coating removal 
suggest that regulations allowing for limited access to the chemical, 
rather than a full prohibition on distribution for all commercial paint 
and coating removal, could be effective at addressing any unreasonable 
risks that EPA could potentially find to be present while allowing 
continued use. For example, workplaces that have robust environment, 
safety and health protection programs and are in compliance with OSHA's 
methylene chloride standard (which contains requirements for the use of 
engineering controls, personal protective equipment, training, and 
other requirements to protect employees from methylene chloride 
exposure) are likely to address any risks EPA could potentially find to 
be present from exposure to methylene chloride during commercial paint 
and coating removal so that they are no longer unreasonable. EPA notes 
that because more than 90 percent of methylene chloride manufactured 
(including imported) in the U.S. is estimated to be used for purposes 
other than paint and coating removal, employers and employees in those 
sectors may have considerable experience in work practices or other 
controls that could be transferred to paint and coating removal 
processes (Ref. 11).
    While all comments regarding any aspect of a training, 
certification, and limited access program for methylene chloride for 
commercial paint and coating removal are welcome, comments on the 
following key areas are requested.
    1. Is a training, certification, and limited access program an 
appropriate method for reducing any unreasonable risks that EPA could 
potentially find to be presented by commercial paint and coating 
removal with methylene chloride?
    2. Would such a program address any such unreasonable risks such 
that those risks are no longer unreasonable?
    3. What metrics should EPA consider using as part of measuring the 
effectiveness of a training, certification, and limited access program 
for methylene chloride for commercial paint and coating removal? What 
types of measurements or indicators could EPA use to evaluate how a 
training, certification, and limited access program addresses any 
unreasonable risk?
    4. Would a training, certification, and limited access program 
allow some commercial paint and coating removal with methylene chloride 
to continue? Would the program create barriers to use such that most 
commercial operations would choose not to use methylene chloride for 
paint and coating removal in favor of less restricted alternatives?
    5. Do commercial users of methylene chloride for purposes other 
than paint and coating removal have experience with work practices, 
controls, training, or other topics that EPA should consider?
    6. Should EPA consider requirements other than a training, 
certification, and limited access program for commercial uses of 
methylene chloride in paint and coating removal?

A. Training

    Training for safe work practices could be part of the requirements 
needed to obtain a certification of ability to engage in safe work 
practices for commercial paint and coating removal with methylene 
chloride. The training required could include training on: How to 
handle, use, and dispose of methylene chloride for paint and coating 
removal so that any unreasonable risks EPA could potentially find to be 
present are not present; proper use of engineering controls and 
personal protective equipment; accident prevention; emergency response; 
preparing and maintaining proper records; the hazards associated with 
use of methylene chloride for paint and coating removal; the route(s) 
of worker exposure; methods of detecting the presence of methylene 
chloride; symptoms of overexposure; medical treatment for overexposure; 
and explanation of Safety Data Sheets and labeling requirements. EPA 
could also require that the training be tailored to describe measures 
that address specific exposure scenarios for methylene chloride for 
paint and coating removal, such as those scenarios that have resulted 
in fatalities.
    While all comments regarding any aspect of training for safe work 
practices regarding methylene chloride for commercial paint and coating 
removal are welcome, comments on the following key areas are requested.
    1. Who should receive training? Individual commercial users, 
employers, or both?
    2. Who should provide training? What should EPA's role be? Training 
providers could be EPA or a third party, including states, 
manufacturers, trade associations, or others.
    3. What topics should the training include?
    4. Should EPA accredit training providers? Should EPA accept state, 
Tribal, or territorial accreditation of training providers?
    5. How should the training be delivered?
    6. How long should the training be?
    7. Should periodic refresher training or updates be required?
    8. Should there be a fee for training and/or for accreditation of 
training providers? If so, what would be an appropriate fee?
    9. Can training for commercial use of methylene chloride in paint 
and coating removal be combined with training on another topic, such as 
a chemical with similar risks or properties? Could training on 
methylene chloride be part of a larger training for a particular

[[Page 11471]]

industry sector (such as certification in automotive repair)?
    10. Should there be different training for distributors, workers, 
and employers? What should be the training for self-employed commercial 
users, or for users who may also be employee-owners?
    11. As discussed in detail earlier in this Notice, OSHA requires 
employers to protect employees from occupational exposure to methylene 
chloride. What experiences do employers or employees have complying 
with OSHA's regulatory scheme or the regulatory scheme of an OSHA-
approved State Plan? How should any training requirements EPA develops 
complement and/or supplement OSHA's regulatory scheme?
    12. Are there any examples of training programs that would be 
suitable for commercial use of methylene chloride in paint and coating 
removal?
    13. What are the metrics for evaluating whether or not training is 
successful in educating the commercial user on risks of methylene 
chloride in paint and coating removal, and how to reduce exposures so 
that those risks are addressed?
    14. Should there be a mandatory period of apprenticeship allowing 
for monitoring and observation after the training where the employer 
and/or management could interject if safe work practices are not 
properly adhered to?
    15. How can training address the needs of diverse work scenarios 
and commercial users with various levels of experience with methylene 
chloride and safe work practices?
    16. How could training ensure that workers in facilities where 
methylene chloride is used for paint and coating removal but who are 
not directly engaged in that activity are not subject to any 
unreasonable risks EPA could potentially find to be present?
    17. What would be required for successful completion of training?
    18. Are there existing best practices in training, certification, 
or accreditation programs from states, industry, or other stakeholders 
EPA should consider?
    19. What types of commercial uses of methylene chloride might be 
good or poor candidates for a training, certification, and limited 
access program?
    20. How should EPA involve stakeholders in the development of 
content for training, certification and limited access programs?

B. Certification

    This component of the program could mandate that commercial users 
be certified as able to engage in safe work practices with methylene 
chloride for paint and coating removal. In the context of this ANPRM, 
certification could provide documentation to EPA, distributors, and, 
potentially, interested members of the public that an individual is 
able to engage in safe work practices with methylene chloride for 
commercial paint and coating removal. To the extent knowledge of other 
pertinent Federal or state requirements (e.g., OSHA occupational health 
standard for methylene chloride) is considered an integral component of 
the ability to engage in safe work practices, attesting to such 
knowledge may be a prerequisite to or a part of obtaining 
certification.
    While all comments regarding any aspect of certification of ability 
to engage in safe work practices regarding methylene chloride for 
commercial paint and coating removal are welcome, comments on the 
following key areas are requested.
    1. How can commercial users demonstrate to EPA that they will be 
engaging in commercial paint and coating removal (rather than personal 
use or consumer paint and coating removal)?
    2. Who should be certified? Individual commercial users, 
workplaces/firms, or both?
    3. Who should be the certifying body? What should EPA's role be?
    4. What requirements for certification would be most effective for 
commercial users to demonstrate that they can engage in safe work 
practices for paint and coating removal with methylene chloride?
    5. Should certification be awarded upon completion of training? 
What type of training programs would be acceptable for earning 
certification? Would they need to provide specific information on 
methylene chloride, or would general safe handling and use of volatile 
chemicals be sufficient? How would interested commercial users know 
which training programs would allow them to earn the certification?
    6. If certification was awarded at the completion of training, 
should a test be required? If so, what kind (e.g., knowledge tests, 
practical demonstrations, or other types of exams)? Who should develop 
the exam: EPA or third parties? Should EPA develop a program for, 
separately, certifying testing bodies?
    7. Should certification be earned based on other criteria, such as 
evidence of exposure reduction equipment or practices already in place? 
If so, what documentation would be suitable? How recent would such 
documentation need to be? If such certification included documentation 
of a business relationship or contract with a workplace safety 
consultant, what type of credential or licensing would that consultant 
be required to have?
    8. Should certification be earned based on development of a 
workplace plan for exposure reduction, similar to the requirements of 
the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paint 
Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources 
(73 FR 1737, January 9, 2008)? Under those regulations, commercial 
users are required to notify EPA (or a delegated State authority) that 
they have developed a management plan but are not required to submit 
the plan to EPA. Instead, they must ``keep a written copy of the plan 
on site and post a placard or sign outlining the evaluation criteria 
and management techniques'' (73 FR 1742). Should similar criteria be 
required for certification of ability to engage in safe work practices 
for methylene chloride for paint and coating removal?
    9. Should certification be earned in connection with a separate but 
related credential or license? Should certification be linked to other 
expertise, such as credentials or licensing by third parties in 
chemical safety, occupational or industrial health and safety, or other 
relevant area of expertise? If so, what specific credential or licenses 
should EPA consider? How could EPA verify that those third-party 
credentials or licenses are in good standing? Similarly, should an 
entity other than EPA provide certification of ability to engage in 
safe work practices with methylene chloride for paint and coating 
removal?
    10. What information should be provided by an individual or 
employer who is seeking certification? Should EPA require personal 
information such as name and phone number, employment information such 
as name and address of employer? Should EPA require confirmation of 
status as a commercial user? If so, what documentation should be 
provided?
    11. Should individuals or employers seeking certification be 
required to submit a statement that they are able to engage in safe 
work practices with methylene chloride for commercial paint and coating 
removal?
    12. What kind of records should be required for certification? How 
long should records be kept by either individual commercial users or 
employers?
    13. EPA places particular emphasis on the public health and 
environmental conditions affecting minority populations, low-income 
populations, and indigenous peoples. Additionally,

[[Page 11472]]

under TSCA, EPA is required to consider risks to susceptible 
subpopulations such as workers. How could EPA ensure that any 
requirements for certification are clearly communicated to all 
potential certified commercial users, and that all workers are able to 
engage in safe work practices for methylene chloride in paint and 
coating removal?
    14. Should existing standards for the development of certification 
programs be considered? If so, should they be voluntary or required? 
Specifically, ASTM E2659-018 is a standard for developing and 
administering a quality certificate program. The standard includes 
requirements for the both certifying entity and for the certificate 
program for which it issues certificates. Because ASTM-E2659-18 does 
not address guidance pertaining to certification of individuals, ISO/
IEC 17024: 2012 would be used to develop and maintain a certification 
program for individuals; certification could demonstrate competency and 
the ability to use methylene chloride for paint and coating removal 
properly.
    15. How can commercial users in industry sectors that are 
prohibited from using methylene chloride in paint and coating removal 
be identified if they attempt to obtain certification?
    16. Should EPA or a third party have a centralized database of 
certified commercial users? If so, what information should be available 
internally (to EPA and other authorized regulatory entities) and 
externally (for distributors and other members of the public)?
    17. How could EPA best balance the protection of certified 
commercial users' personal information with the need for distributors 
to access some of that information? Should access to such a database be 
limited to EPA and authorized, or permitted, distributors? How could 
EPA ensure that individuals with the same or similar personal details 
(such as name or business address) can be distinguished in the 
database?
    18. If EPA should not have a centralized database of certified 
commercial users, where should the record of certification be 
maintained? How should distributors access and verify that 
certification?
    19. Should certified commercial users also receive an 
identification card or physical credential? If so, what elements would 
users find useful for demonstrating that a physical credential was 
legitimate? How could such a credential be replaced if lost?
    20. Should EPA propose to allow methylene chloride for commercial 
paint and coating removal under the supervision of a certified 
commercial user?
    21. What if a certified user changes employers? Would a new 
certification be required? Should users be required to update 
information on employment?
    22. Under what circumstances should EPA rescind certification?
    23. Should certification include a fee? If so, what would be an 
appropriate fee?
    24. Should certification expire? Would requirements for renewal be 
different from initial certification requirements? How frequently 
should certifications be renewed, if ever?

C. Limited Access to Methylene Chloride

    This component of the program could limit the sale of methylene 
chloride for paint and coating removal. This could allow for continued 
access and use of methylene chloride for specific paint and coating 
removal uses by certified commercial users or trained individuals while 
preventing access to methylene chloride-containing paint and coating 
removers by non-certified commercial users.
    While all comments regarding any aspect of a program to provide for 
limited access to methylene chloride for commercial paint and coating 
removal to certified commercial users are welcome, comments on the 
following key areas are requested.
    1. Should there be restrictions on how methylene chloride for paint 
and coating removal is distributed? Should certain types of 
distributors be prohibited from distribution of methylene chloride for 
paint and coating removal?
    2. How should distributors verify that a prospective purchaser 
(individual or commercial entity) is certified? Should there be an 
online database or examination of physical credential or both? Are 
there other methods, or combination of methods, that EPA should 
consider?
    3. How can distributors identify commercial users? Should they be 
required to do so?
    4. How could distributors identify whether the identity of the 
prospective purchaser matched the commercial user to which 
certification was awarded? Should distributors be required to check 
government-issued photo ID or verify identify in another way? Should 
distributors develop their own protocols?
    5. How could e-commerce sales be subject to a limited access 
program? For example, how at the point of sale and/or at the point of 
delivery can certification status of the purchaser be verified? How 
could online purchasers demonstrate that they were certified to 
purchase the product, and confirm their identity?
    6. A key component of a program that limits access to methylene 
chloride would be how, at the point of sale, a distributor would verify 
that a prospective purchaser is a certified commercial user of 
methylene chloride for paint and coating removal. Should EPA detail 
specific requirements for how the distributor checks those 
certifications, trains any staff that sells the products, or maintains 
records? Should distributors be responsible for developing protocols 
that would be sufficient to limit access only to certified commercial 
users?
    7. What costs do distributors estimate they would incur under a 
limited access program? Specifically, what would be the costs for: 
Equipment needed to physically restrict access to the chemical 
products; equipment and staff time for verifying certification and 
identity of the commercial user purchasing the product; training and 
staff time to understand the required procedures; and generating and 
maintaining records?
    8. Should a permit for distributors be required? If so, what should 
the cost be? What requirements would need to be met for issuance of a 
distribution permit? Should permits be required to be renewed?
    9. What records should be maintained? These could include records 
that document how certification was verified for each purchaser of 
methylene chloride for paint and coating removal, how the distributor 
ensures that only individuals with certification are able to access 
methylene chloride for paint and coating removal; and details of sales 
of the chemical for paint and coating removal, including the name and 
certification identifier of each purchaser of methylene chloride, and 
the quantity of the chemical product sold. How long should such records 
be maintained?
    10. To what extent, if any, should additional parties--such as 
states, academia, or trade associations--be involved in a limited 
access program development or implementation?
    11. What might the effects of a limited access program be on a 
small business?
    12. Should a potential future online database of certified 
commercial users be incorporated into existing EPA databases (such as 
those under CDX), or should it be a stand-alone, sole-purpose database?
    13. What experiences do manufacturers, processors, or distributors 
have with sales of methylene chloride for paint and

[[Page 11473]]

coating removal to professional users in the UK, given the requirements 
for limited access that are in place there?

IV. Request for Comment and Additional Information

    EPA is seeking comment on all information outlined in this ANPRM 
and any other information, which may not be included in this notice, 
but which you believe is important for EPA to consider.
    EPA specifically invites public comment and any additional 
information in response to the questions and issues identified in Unit 
III. Instructions for providing written comments are provided under 
ADDRESSES, including how to submit any comments that contain CBI. No 
one is obliged to respond to these questions, and anyone may submit any 
information and/or comments in response to this request, whether or not 
it responds to every question in this notice.

V. 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 referenced 
within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the 
referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For 
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the 
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. EPA. TSCA Work Plan Chemicals. http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-02/documents/work_plan_chemicals_web_final.pdf. Retrieved February 25, 2016.
2. EPA. TSCA Work Plan Chemical Risk Assessment Methylene Chloride: 
Paint Stripping Use. CASRN 75-09-2. EPA Document# 740-R1-4003. 
August 2014. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. 
Washington, DC. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/dcm_opptworkplanra_final.pdf.
3. EPA. Summary of Stakeholder Engagement, Proposed Rule Under TSCA 
Sec.  6 Methylene Chloride and NMP in Paint and Coating Removal. 
2016.
4. EPA. Final Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on 
EPA's Planned Proposed Rule on the Toxic Substances Control Act 
(TSCA) Section 6(a) as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical 
Safety for the 21st Century Act for Methylene Chloride and N-
Methylpyrrolidone (NMP) in Paint Removers. Office of Chemical Safety 
and Pollution Prevention. Washington, DC. 2016.
5. Public Comment. Comments submitted by Lindsay McCormick, 
Chemicals and Health Project Manager, on behalf of Environmental 
Defense Fund. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0231-0912.
6. Public Comment. DoD Comments on MeCl and NMP 19 Jan 17 Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking Methylene Chloride and N-Methylpyrrolidone; 
Rulemaking under TSCA Section 6(a). EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0231-0519.
7. Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance. Responsibly Regulating 
Methylene Chloride in Paint Removal Products: an Alternative 
Approach to Flawed Proposal Published by EPA on January 19, 2017.
8. EPA. How to Get Certified as a Pesticide Applicator. https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-worker-safety/how-get-certified-pesticide-applicator. Accessed December 18, 2018.
9. REACH Restriction. Annex XVII to REACH--Conditions of 
restriction. Entry 59 Dichloromethane containing Paint Strippers. 
https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/0ea58491-bb76-4a47-b1d2-36faa1e0f290 (Accessed December 18, 2018).
10. The Reach Enforcement (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/
2882). http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/2882/made.
11. EPA. Economic Analysis of Final Rule TSCA Section 6 Action on 
Methylene Chloride in Paint and Coating Removal (EPA Docket EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2016-0231; RIN 2070-AK07). Office of Pollution Prevention and 
Toxics. Washington, DC.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 
Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this action was 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any 
changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in 
the docket.
    Since this document does not impose or propose any requirements, 
and instead seeks comments and suggestions for the Agency to consider 
in possibly developing a subsequent proposed rule, the various other 
review requirements that apply when an agency imposes requirements do 
not apply to this action. Nevertheless, as part of your comments on 
this document, you may include any comments or information that you 
have regarding the various other review requirements.
    In particular, EPA is interested in any information that could help 
the Agency to assess the potential impact of a rule on small entities 
pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.); to consider voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) 
(15 U.S.C. 272 note); to consider environmental health or safety 
effects on children pursuant to Executive Order 13045, entitled 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or to consider human health or 
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations pursuant to 
Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The Agency will consider such comments during the development of 
any subsequent proposed rule as it takes appropriate steps to address 
any applicable requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 751

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Export notification, Hazardous 
substances, Import certification, Methylene chloride, Recordkeeping.

    Dated: March 15, 2019.
Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-05865 Filed 3-26-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P