[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 186 (Friday, September 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57809-57811]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24456]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0579; FRL-9930-38]

Recommendations for Specifications, Environmental Performance
Standards, and Ecolabels for Federal Procurement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document describes EPA's approach for providing
recommendations to federal agencies on specifications, environmental
performance standards, and ecolabels for purchasing environmentally
preferable products and services. The federal government is one of the
world's largest purchasers. This action will help federal agencies
purchase environmentally preferable products and services in accordance
with Executive Order 13693 and reduce public health and environmental
impacts associated with the federal government's extensive supply
chain.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Holly Elwood, Chemistry, Economics, and Sustainable Strategies
Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, MC 7406M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a federal
purchaser or a vendor interested in selling to the federal government.
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 may include:
    [ssquf] Food providers (NAICS code 722310), e.g., Cafeteria Food
Services Contractors, Food Concession Contractors, etc.
    [ssquf] Renovators (NAICS code 33333), e.g., General Building
Contractors/Operative Builders, Renovation Firms, Individual
Contractors, and Special Trade Contractors like Carpenters, Painters,
Drywall Workers and Lathers, ``Home Improvement'' Contractors, etc.
    [ssquf] Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (NAICS
code 236220), e.g., Office Building Construction, Warehouse
Construction, etc.
    [ssquf] Drywall and Insulation Contractors (NAICS code 238310),
e.g., Acoustical ceiling tile and panel installation, etc.
    [ssquf] Flooring Contractors (NAICS code 238330), e.g., Carpet
Installation, Resilient Floor Tile or Sheet Installation, etc.
    [ssquf] Janitorial Services (NAICS code 541620), e.g., Office
Cleaning Services, Rest Room Cleaning Services, Washroom Sanitation
Services, etc.
    [ssquf] Electronic Computer Manufacturing (NAICS code 334111),
e.g., manufacturing machinery or equipment that incorporates electronic
computers for operation or control purposes and embedded control
applications, etc.
    [ssquf] Computer Systems Design Services (NAICS code 541512), e.g.,
selling computer hardware or software products and systems from retail-
like locations, and providing supporting services, such as customized
assembly of personal computers, etc.
    [ssquf] Consumer Electronics Repair and Maintenance (NAICS code
811211), e.g., Repairing computers and peripheral equipment, etc.
    [ssquf] Office Supplies and Stationary Stores (NAICS code 453210),
e.g., retailing stationery, school supplies, and office supplies via
electronic shopping, mail-order, or direct sale, printing business
forms, retailing new office furniture, etc.
    [ssquf] Packing and Crating (NAICS code 488991), e.g., packing and
preparing goods for shipping, etc.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-20[XX]-[insert Docket ID no.], is available at
http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20001. The Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
federal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202)
566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket available at http://www2.epa.gov/dockets.

II. What is EPA's authority?

    On March 19, 2015, the President issued Executive Order 13693,
entitled ``Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade'' (80
FR 15871) (Ref. 1). Executive Order 13693 maintains federal leadership
in sustainability and greenhouse gas emission reductions. Section 3(i)
directs federal agencies to promote sustainable acquisition and
procurement by ensuring that certain environmental performance and
sustainability factors are included to the maximum extent practicable
in the planning, award, and execution phases of agency acquisitions.
Pursuant to Section 3(i)(iii)(A) of the Executive Order, one of the
factors directs agencies to purchase environmentally preferable
products or services that meet EPA recommendations for specifications,
standards, and ecolabels for use in federal procurement. On June 10,
2015, the Office of Federal Sustainability in the White House Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued Implementing Instructions for
Executive Order 13693 (Ref. 2). The Implementing Instructions for
Executive Order 13693 call on EPA, in consultation with the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and CEQ, to provide guidance on
recommendations for specifications, standards, and ecolabels for use in
federal procurement within 90 days of the issuance of the Implementing
Instructions.
    In addition, the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) (42 U.S.C.A.
13103(b)(11)) requires EPA to ``Identify opportunities to use federal
procurement to encourage source reduction'' and section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C.
272) requires federal agencies to ``use technical standards that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using
such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or
activities.''

III. What action is the Agency taking?

    This document describes EPA's approach for providing
recommendations to federal purchasers on specifications, environmental
performance standards, and ecolabels for environmentally preferable
products and services. The federal government is one of the world's
largest purchasers. This action will help federal agencies purchase
environmentally preferable products and services and reduce public
health and environmental impacts

associated with the federal government's extensive supply chain.
    Executive Order 13693 directs federal agencies to promote
sustainable acquisition and procurement by ensuring that, to the
maximum extent practicable, agencies purchase environmentally
sustainable products and services by meeting statutory requirements
that require a procurement preference for:
    1. Recycled content products designated by the EPA;
    2. Energy and water efficient products and services, such as ENERGY
STAR[supreg] certified and Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)
designated products, identified by EPA and the Department of Energy
(DOE); and
    3. BioPreferred[supreg] and biobased products designated by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
    The Executive Order further instructs agencies to purchase
sustainable products and services identified by EPA programs including:
    1. Significant New Alternative Policy (SNAP) chemicals or other
alternatives to ozone-depleting substances and high global warming
potential hydrofluorocarbons, where feasible, as identified by SNAP;
    2. WaterSense certified products and services (water efficient
products);
    3. Safer Choice certified products (chemically intensive products
that contain safer ingredients); and
    4. SmartWay Transport partners and SmartWay products (fuel
efficient products and services).
    Federal purchasers can also purchase environmentally preferable
products or services that:
    1. Meet or exceed specifications, standards, or labels recommended
by EPA; or
    2. Meet environmental performance criteria developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies consistent with the NTTAA section
12(d) and OMB Circular A-119.
    In 2013, EPA sought comment on Draft Guidelines for Environmental
Performance Standards and Ecolabels for Voluntary Use in Federal
Procurement (Ref. 3).
    On March 19, 2015, EPA announced the availability of revised Draft
EPA Guidelines and the launch of a pilot to test the Draft EPA
Guidelines in three building product categories: Furniture; flooring;
and paints, coatings and paint removers (Ref. 4). It is expected that
the pilot will inform refinements to the Draft EPA Guidelines, and help
develop a process by which these Guidelines can be finalized and used
to assess standards and ecolabels for use in federal procurement in a
wide array of product and service categories.
    The Implementing Instructions for the Executive Order direct EPA to
prioritize application of the finalized Guidelines to product and
service categories which ``represent the largest share of procurement
spending across Agencies and potential environmental impact'' (Ref. 2,
page 56).
    Until the Draft EPA Guidelines are finalized and applied to key
product and service categories, EPA is providing interim
recommendations. Federal purchasers should utilize EPA's Interim
Recommendations to select environmentally preferable products and
services. EPA's Interim Recommendations are based on specifications,
environmental performance standards, and ecolabels evaluated and
currently utilized by federal agencies to assist in their procurement
of environmentally preferable products and services. EPA will be
initially using specifications, standards and labels information
developed by other federal agencies to identify products that have
verified sustainability attributes, are readily available in the
market, and meet cost and performance needs. EPA's recommendations and
further information about the evaluation processes used by these
federal agencies will be available at http://www.epa.gov/greenerproducts and in the General Service Administration's Green
Procurement Compilation at https://sftool.gov/greenprocurement (Ref.
5). EPA will review its recommendations periodically and update them
after considering other federal agency assessments of standards and
ecolabels when they become available. EPA's Interim Recommendations
will also be updated to integrate any EPA recommendations developed
following finalization and application of the Draft EPA Guidelines to
specific product and service categories.
    The Implementing Instructions state that ``where there is no
specification, standard, or label recommended by EPA, an agency may
elect to use other open and voluntary standards . . .'' to identify and
procure environmentally preferable products and/or services, provided
that they have conducted an assessment to ensure that the standard or
ecolabel meets the requirements stipulated in the NTTAA, OMB Circular
A-119 (Ref. 6), and Section II of the EPA Draft Guidelines or any
subsequent revisions to those Guidelines (Ref. 2, page 56). The NTTAA
requires that all agencies use standards developed by voluntary
consensus standards bodies instead of government-unique standards
unless inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. OMB
Circular A-119 provides guidance on federal use of voluntary consensus
standards and on conformity assessment. Because the NTTAA and OMB
Circular A-119 do not address environmental performance, the
Implementing Instructions point procurement officials to Section II of
the EPA Draft Guidelines on Environmental Effectiveness and any
subsequent revisions to those Guidelines (Ref. 2, pages 56-57). The
Implementing Instructions direct agencies to consult with and share
these assessments with EPA, and direct EPA to make these assessments
available on its Web site.
    Section 3(l)(i) of Executive Order 13693 includes requirements
regarding procurement of environmentally sustainable electronic
products. To meet the requirements of sections 3(i)(iii) and 3(l)(i) of
the Executive Order, the Implementing Instructions state that agencies
must acquire products that meet or exceed the specifications,
standards, or labels recommended by EPA as posted on its Web site. As
indicated in the Implementing Instructions, federal purchasers may
continue to use the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool
(EPEAT)[supreg] product registry, or other methods to identify products
that have been third-party verified as having met environmental
performance criteria developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies consistent with section 12(d) of the NTTAA and OMB
Circular A-119. However, the Implementing Instructions note that at
this time CEQ is not aware of any product registries other than EPEAT
for environmentally sustainable electronic products. It is possible
that in the future other options may be developed that align with EPA
Guidelines and support the electronic stewardship mandates of section
3(l) of Executive Order 13693. Any future tools will have to meet or
exceed current levels of sustainable and environmental performance.
    Once the EPA Draft Guidelines for Environmental Performance
Standards and Ecolabels for Voluntary Use in Federal Procurement are
finalized, EPA will apply the Guidelines to product and service
categories which ``represent the largest share of procurement spending
across agencies and potential environmental impact,'' per the
Implementing Instructions. It is expected that electronics may be in
the next group of additional product categories to which the Guidelines
could be applied. When the Guidelines are applied to the electronics
category, stakeholders will be asked to volunteer other specifications,
standards and

ecolabels to be reviewed against the Guidelines. EPA will review
additional specifications, standards and/or ecolabels to determine if
they meet or exceed the current sustainability mandate for electronics
and conform to the EPA Guidelines.

IV. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are referenced in
this document. The docket includes these documents and other
information considered by EPA, 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. The President. Executive Order 13693 of March 19, 2015; Planning
for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade. Federal Register (80
FR 15869, March 25, 2015). Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-03-25/pdf/2015-07016.pdf.
2. The White House Council on Environmental Quality, Office of
Federal Sustainability. Implementing Instructions for Executive
Order 13693 Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade.
June 10, 2015. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/eo_13693_implementing_instructions_june_10_2015.pdf.
3. EPA. Draft Guidelines for Environmental Performance Standards and
Ecolabels for Voluntary Use in Federal Procurement; Notice of
Availability and Request for Comments. Federal Register (78 FR
70938, November 27, 2013; FRL-9394-7). Available in EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2013-0579 at http://www.regulations.gov.
4. EPA. Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed
Collection and Comment Request; Assessment of Environmental
Performance Standards and Ecolabels for Federal Procurement; Notice.
Federal Register (80 FR 14372, March 19, 2015; FRL-9923-58).
Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-03-19/pdf/2015-06275.pdf.
5. General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Acquisition
Service, Green Procurement Compilation (GPC). Available at https://sftool.gov/greenprocurement.
6. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB Circular A-119
(Revised). Federal Participation in the Development and Use of
Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment
Activities. February 10, 1998. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a119/.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C.A. 13103(b)(11), 15 U.S.C. 272 note, and
Executive Order 13693 of March 19, 2015.

    Dated: September 17, 2015.
James J. Jones,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2015-24456 Filed 9-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 27, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11466-11473]
[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<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave. Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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