examined the global warming potential of the chemical components of
likely chemical substitutes for NMP in paint and coating removal. NMP
does not present concerns for global warming and has a global warming
potential (GWP) of 0 (Ref. 3). Similarly, the GWP values of likely
substitute chemicals in paint and coating removal are: 0 GWP (benzyl
alcohol, ATM) or not assessed (caustics, dibasic esters) (Ref. 24). As
such, EPA has not identified any increased risk of global warming that
would be introduced by use of chemical products as substitutes for NMP
in paint and coating removal.
    In addition to human and environmental toxicity, other hazards
associated with chemical methods for paint and coating removal are
risks of fire due to flammability of the chemical product, and
poisoning or acute injury. Risks of fire are serious when using
solvents such as paint and coating removal chemicals. Even among
products that fall within the same general product composition
category, there is meaningful variability in the specific formulations
of paint remover products, and thus in their flammability. Furthermore,
it is impracticable for EPA to predict the specific product
formulations for which use will increase as a result of prohibitions on
NMP in paint and coating removal. It is therefore impracticable for EPA
to forecast whether the flammability of popular paint and coating
removers would generally increase or decrease as a result of the
proposed rule.
    In addition to using substitute chemical products, EPA has
identified non-chemical methods for paint and coating removal that can
be used as alternatives to NMP. These methods are already frequently in
use in various industries or by consumers for paint and coating
removal, and are described in more detail in Unit VI.E.
    EPA recognizes that all methods of paint and coating removal can
present some hazards. Most of these alternative methods are already in
frequent use, including by consumers and workers who currently use NMP
or other chemicals for some paint and coating removal. The risks
associated with each of these methods, while serious, are generally
acute, related to injury, and can be mitigated through readily
available and easy-to-implement standard safety practices; in contrast,
the acute risks presented by NMP, such as fetal death, require
specialized gloves and are not the type of hazard frequently
encountered when using household products.

E. Impacts of the Proposed and Alternative Regulatory Options

    1. First co-proposed approach: Supply-chain approach. The costs of
the first co-proposed approach are estimated to include product
reformulation costs, downstream notification costs, recordkeeping
costs, and Agency costs. The costs of paint and coating removal product
reformulations are estimated to be approximately $7,000 to $14,000 per
year (annualized at 3% over 20 years) and $9,000 to $19,000 (annualized
at 7% over 20 years). The cost for reformulation includes a variety of
factors such as identifying the appropriate substitute chemical for NMP
in the formulation, assessing the efficacy of the new formulation and
determining shelf life. The costs to users of paint and coating
removers containing NMP are (-$1,477,000) to $27,617,000 at a discount
rate of 3% and (-$1,231,000) to $27,638,000 at a discount rate of 7%
(Ref. 4). The costs of downstream notification and recordkeeping on an
annualized basis over 20 years are $100 and $100 using 3% and 7%
discount rates respectively (Ref. 4). Agency costs for enforcement are
estimated to be approximately $114,401 and $111,718 annualized over 20
years at 3% and 7%, respectively. The total cost of the proposed
approach for paint and coating removers containing NMP is estimated to
be (-$1,484,000) to $27,624,000 and (-$1,251,000) to $27,668,000
annualized over 20 years at 3% and 7%, respectively (Ref. 4).
    2. Second co-proposed approach: Reformulation, labeling, and PPE
approach. Reformulation costs are estimated to have less of an impact
than those associated with adoption of worker protection programs.
Given equipment costs and the requirements associated with establishing
a dermal and respiratory protection program which involves training,
purchase of specialized gloves, respirator fit testing and the
establishment and maintenance of a medical monitoring program, EPA
anticipates that companies would choose to switch to substitute
chemicals instead of adopting a program for PPE, including with a
performance-based option of meeting an air concentration level of 5 ppm
as an exposure limit for NMP in paint and coating removal, when these
products have a maximum concentration of 35% NMP by weight. The
estimated annualized costs to commercial and consumer users of
switching to this type of dermal and respiratory protection program are
$47,076,900 to $56,130,900 at 3% and $47,245,900 to $56,383,900 at 7%
over 20 years. In addition, there would be higher EPA administration
and enforcement costs under the second co-proposed approach than there
would be with an enforcement program under the first co-proposed
approach. Finally, this option requires that formulators of paint and
coating removal products containing NMP identify which gloves are non-
penetrable by NMP if used for an eight-hour shift; this requires that
the formulators or processors conduct testing, which can have costs of
$15,786 per product (Refs. 4 and 127).
    3. Options that exclude downstream notification. For those options
that exclude downstream notification, the options are less effective
and more to challenging to implement. The downstream notification
(e.g., via SDS) provides additional information on the prohibitions
under the proposed option for processors and distributors of NMP or
products containing NMP other than paint and coating removers, and
provides an efficient way for those entities to recognize themselves as
affected by the regulation, which contributes to a more effective
regulation (Ref. 63). In this way, the downstream notification
component of the supply chain approach contributes to the use no longer
presenting an unreasonable risk because it streamlines and aids in
compliance and implementation (Ref. 64).

F. Summary

    EPA is co-proposing these two options because the Agency believes
both deserve consideration by commenters. The first co-proposed
approach is necessary so that NMP in paint and coating removal no
longer presents an unreasonable risk to the general population or to
women of childbearing age. It is more cost effective than other
regulatory options EPA identified as potentially reducing risks so that
they are no longer unreasonable, because the proposed option achieves
the benefits of reducing the unreasonable risks so they are no longer
unreasonable for a lower cost than the second co-proposed approach. For
more information, see Section 6 in the Economic Analysis (Ref. 4). As
stated previously in this notice, the first co-proposed approach
includes:
     Prohibiting manufacturing (including import), processing,
and distribution in commerce of NMP for use in consumer and commercial
paint

and coating removal, except for specified uses critical to national
security;
     Prohibiting commercial use of NMP for paint and coating
removal, except for specified uses critical to national security;
     Requiring that any products containing NMP intended or
used for paint and coating removal be distributed in containers with a
volume no less than 5 gallons;
     Requiring downstream notification of the prohibition on
manufacturing (including import), processing, and distribution of NMP
for the prohibited uses; and
     Requiring limited recordkeeping.
    Technically and economically feasible alternatives to NMP for paint
and coating removal are reasonably available. The supply chain approach
ensures protection of consumers from the unreasonable risk by
precluding the off-label purchase of commercial products by consumers.
    The first co-proposed approach is relatively easy to enforce
because key requirements are directly placed on a small number of
suppliers and because the supply chain approach minimizes to the
greatest extent the potential for NMP products to be intentionally or
unintentionally misdirected into the prohibited uses. Enforcement under
the other options would be much more difficult since the key
requirements are directly placed on the large number of product users.
As described in a recent article on designing more effective rules and
permits, ``the government can implement rules more effectively and
efficiently when the universes of regulated sources are smaller and
better-defined. This is because, other factors being equal, governments
can more easily identify, monitor, and enforce against fewer, rather
than more, entities'' (Ref. 63). Under other options, enforcement
activities must target firms that might perform the activity where a
use of NMP is restricted or prohibited. Identifying which
establishments might use paint and coating removers is difficult
because paint and coating removal is not strictly specific to any
industry (Ref. 4).
    The second co-proposed approach would allow the continued use of
NMP in commercial and consumer paint and coating removal at up to 35
percent NMP by weight, except for exempt critical national security
uses which can be at any concentration, provided that commercial users
of NMP for paint and coating removal establish a worker protection
program for dermal and respiratory protection.
    In addition, the co-proposed approach would require formulators of
products for either commercial or consumer uses other than critical
national security uses to: Reformulate products such that paint and
coating products containing NMP do not exceed a maximum of 35 percent
NMP by weight in product formulations; test gloves for the product
formulations being processed and distributed in commerce to identify
specialized gloves that provide protection for users; label products
with information for consumers and provide information for commercial
users about reducing risks when using the product. This approach would
effectively reduce risk for workers. EPA is requesting comment on
whether this co-proposed approach would be effective at reducing risks
for consumers so that the risks are no longer unreasonable.

XVII. Costs and Monetized Benefits of the NMP Component of the Proposed
Rule, the Alternatives EPA Considered, and Comparison of Costs and
Benefits

    EPA proposes that the identified risks from NMP in paint and
coating removal are unreasonable. Apart from that proposed
determination, EPA has evaluated the potential costs and benefits of
the two co-proposed approach and their variations.

A. Costs of the First Co-Proposed Approach

    The details of the costs of the first co-proposed approach for NMP
in commercial and consumer paint and coating removal are discussed in
Unit I.E. and in the Economic Analysis (Ref. 4). Under the first co-
proposed option, costs to users of paint and coating removal products
containing NMP are (-$1,477,000) to $27,617,000 at a discount rate of
3% and (-$1,231,000) to $27,638,000 at a discount rate of 7%. Costs of
paint and coating removal product reformulations are estimated to be
approximately $7,000 to $14,000 per year (annualized at 3% over 20
years) and $9,000 to $19,000 (annualized at 7% over 20 years). Costs of
downstream notification and recordkeeping on an annualized basis over
20 years are $100 and $100 using 3% and 7% discount rates respectively.
Agency costs for enforcement are estimated to be approximately $114,401
to $111,718 annualized over 20 years at 3% and 7%, respectively (Ref.
4). Under the first proposed approach, total costs of the proposed rule
relevant to NMP in paint and coating removal are estimated to be (-
$1,484,000) to $27,624,000 and (-$1,251,000) to $27,668,000 annualized
over 20 years at 3% and 7% respectively (Ref. 4).
    EPA also found that a use prohibition alone without downstream
notification requirements would not address the unreasonable risks. EPA
estimated the costs of this option to be $5,164,000 to $30,702,000
annualized over 20 years at 3% and $5,409,000 to $30,839,000 annualized
over 20 years at 7% (Ref. 4).

B. Benefits of the First Co-Proposed Approach

    As described in Unit XVII.B., there are no monetizable benefits
from mitigating the risks from NMP in consumer and commercial paint and
coating removal. Although the alternatives considered are unlikely to
result in the same health benefits as the first co-proposed option, EPA
was unable to quantify the differences.

C. Comparison of Benefits and Costs of the First Co-Proposed Approach

    Based on the costs and benefits EPA can estimate, the monetized
subset of benefits for preventing the risks resulting from NMP in
consumer and commercial paint and coating removal do not outweigh the
estimated monetary costs. However, EPA believes that the balance of
costs and benefits of the proposed regulation of NMP cannot be fairly
described without considering the additional, substantial, non-
monetized benefits of mitigating the non-cancer adverse effects. As
discussed previously, the multitude of potential adverse effects
associated with NMP in paint and coating removal can profoundly impact
an individual's quality of life. Some of the adverse effects associated
with NMP exposure can be immediately experienced and can affect a
person from childhood throughout a lifetime (e.g., low birth weight and
associated impacts). Other adverse effects (e.g., adult immunotoxicity,
kidney and liver failure, or fetal death) can have impacts that are
experienced for a shorter portion of life, but are nevertheless
significant in nature.
    While the benefits associated with avoiding the health effects
associated with NMP exposure during paint and coating removal cannot be
monetized or quantitatively estimated, the qualitative discussion
highlights how some of these effects may be as severe as more
traditionally monetizable effects and thus just as life-altering;
therefore the benefits of avoiding these effects are substantial. These
effects include not only medical costs but also personal costs such as
emotional and mental stress that are impossible to accurately measure.
Considering only monetized benefits would significantly underestimate
the benefits of avoiding

NMP-induced adverse outcomes on a person's quality of life.
    Thus, considering costs and the benefits that cannot be quantified
and subsequently monetized (developmental effects, fetal death, adult
body weight reductions, kidney toxicity, liver toxicity, and
immunotoxicity), including benefits related to the severity of the
effects and the impacts on a person throughout a lifetime in terms of
medical costs, effects on earning power and personal costs, emotional
and psychological costs, and the disproportionate impacts on Hispanic
communities and individuals with limited English proficiency, the
benefits of preventing exposure to NMP in paint and coating removal by
an estimated 732,000 consumers and an estimated 30,300 commercial
workers outweigh the costs.

D. Impacts on the National Economy, Small Businesses, Technological
Innovation, the Environment, and Public Health of the First Co-Proposed
Approach

    As described in Unit V.B. and in the Economic Analysis, EPA
considered the anticipated effects of this proposal on the national
economy. While the impacts of this rule as a whole are described in
Unit XXIII.C. and the impacts of the NMP component of this proposal are
described in more detail in Unit XVII.A. and in Section 9.3 of the
Economic Analysis (Ref. 4), EPA does not anticipate these impacts
having an effect on the overall national economy. EPA anticipates that
a majority of small businesses will have cost impacts of less than one
percent of the annual revenue, and the majority of small business
bathtub refinishing facilities and professional contractors will have
cost impacts greater than one percent of annual revenue.
    The first co-proposed approach is anticipated to drive
technological innovation by formulators of paint and coating removal
products containing NMP, as they continue to develop substitute
products, and refine such products already available. It is also
anticipated to drive technological innovation by formulators of
chemical paint and coating removal products with different chemistries
as well as manufacturers and retailers of alternative methods of paint
and coating removal, particularly those with interest in appealing to
the consumer uses. See section 9.3 in the Economic Analysis (Ref. 4).
    The first co-proposed approach is anticipated to have a positive
impact on public health, as described in Unit XVI.C. There is not
anticipated to be a significant impact on the environment, for the
reasons described in Unit XII.D.

E. Costs of the Second Co-Proposed Approach

    The details of the costs of the second co-proposed approach for NMP
in commercial and consumer paint and coating removal are discussed in
Unit I.E. and in the supplement to the Economic Analysis (Ref. 127).
    Under the second co-proposed option, costs to users of paint and
coating removal products containing NMP are $47,076,900 to $56,130,900
(annualized at 3% over 20 years) and $47,245,900 to $56,383,900
(annualized at 7% over 20 years). Costs of paint and coating removal
product reformulations are estimated to be approximately $15,100 to
$21,100 per year (annualized at 3% over 20 years) and $20,100 to
$28,100 (annualized at 7% over 20 years). Agency costs for enforcement
are estimated to be approximately $1,024,144 and $998,711 annualized
over 20 years at 3% and 7% respectively. Under the second proposed
approach, total costs of the proposed rule relevant to NMP in paint and
coating removal are estimated to be $47,098,000 to $56,146,000 and
$47,274,000 to $56,404,000 annualized over 20 years at 3% and 7%
respectively (Ref. 127).

F. Benefits of the Second Co-Proposed Approach

    As described in Unit XVII.B., there are no monetizable benefits
from mitigating the risks from NMP in consumer and commercial paint and
coating removal. Although the second co-proposed option is unlikely to
result in the same health benefits as the first co-proposed option, EPA
was unable to quantify the differences.

G. Comparison of Benefits and Costs of the Second Co-Proposed Approach

    Based on the costs and benefits EPA can estimate, the monetized
subset of benefits for preventing the risks resulting from NMP in
consumer and commercial paint and coating removal do not outweigh the
estimated monetary costs. However, EPA believes that the balance of
costs and benefits of the proposed regulation of NMP cannot be fairly
described without considering the additional, substantial, non-
monetized benefits of mitigating the non-cancer adverse effects. As
discussed previously, the multitude of potential adverse effects
associated with NMP in paint and coating removal can profoundly impact
an individual's quality of life. Considering only monetized benefits
would significantly underestimate the benefits of avoiding NMP-induced
adverse outcomes on a person's quality of life.

H. Impacts on the National Economy, Small Businesses, Technological
Innovation, the Environment, and Public Health of the Second Co-
Proposed Approach

    As described in Unit V.B. and in the Economic Analysis, EPA
considered the anticipated effects of this proposal on the national
economy. While the impacts of this rule as a whole are described in
Unit XXIII.C. and the impacts of the NMP component of this proposal are
described in more detail in Unit XVII.A. and in the supplement to the
Economic Analysis (Ref. 127), EPA does not anticipate these impacts
having an effect on the overall national economy.
    The second co-proposed approach is anticipated to drive
technological innovation by formulators of paint and coating removal
products containing NMP, as they continue to develop substitute
products, and refine such products already available. It is also
anticipated to drive technological innovation by formulators of
chemical paint and coating removal products with different chemistries
as well as manufacturers and retailers of alternative methods of paint
and coating removal, particularly those with interest in appealing to
the consumer uses. See the supplement to the Economic Analysis (Ref.
127).
    The second co-proposed approach is anticipated to have a positive
impact on public health, as described in Unit XVI.C. There is not
anticipated to be a significant impact on the environment, for the
reasons described in Unit XII.D.

XVIII. Uses of NMP for Paint and Coating Removal Critical for National
Security

    As part of interagency collaboration with the Department of Defense
(DOD) on this proposed rule, EPA is aware that there are specific
military uses for which NMP is essential for paint and coating removal
and for which there are no technically feasible alternatives currently
available. The military readiness of DOD's warfighting capability is
paramount to ensuring national security, which includes ensuring the
maintenance and preservation of DOD's warfighting assets. DOD has
identified mission-critical uses for NMP for ensuring military aviation
and vessel readiness. These mission-critical items require the use of
NMP for the removal of coatings from mission-critical corrosion-
sensitive components on military aviation and

vessels, including safety-critical components made of specialty
metallic, nonmetallic, and composite materials. As described in this
section, EPA proposes to exempt these uses from the regulations
proposed on NMP in paint and coating removal. This exemption is
proposed for an initial ten-year period from the publication date of a
final rule. EPA will engage with DOD to identify any potential
extension that may need to be granted, by further rulemaking, after
those ten years.
    DOD continues and will continue to pursue potential substitutes for
NMP in paint and coating removal. However, for mission-critical
corrosion-sensitive components on military aviation and vessels,
including safety-critical components, DOD has found that currently
available substitute chemicals for paint and coating removal have one
or more technical limitations. These are the same technical limitations
described in Unit VIII., which outlines the proposed exemption for
methylene chloride for similar uses critical to national security.
    Under TSCA section 6(g)(1)(B), EPA may grant an exemption from a
requirement of a TSCA section 6(a) rule for a specific condition of use
of a chemical substance or mixture if compliance with the requirement
would significantly disrupt the national economy, national security, or
critical infrastructure. Based on discussions and information provided
by DOD, EPA has analyzed the need for the exemption and concurs with
DOD that compliance with the proposed regulations on the use of NMP in
paint and coating removal would significantly impact national security.
DOD has demonstrated that the reduced mission availability of aircraft
and vessels for military missions or, in the worst case, the loss of
individual military aircraft and vessels, are potential impacts to
military readiness that could result from the proposed prohibition of
NMP in paint and coating removal. Due to the importance of these
military systems for national security, EPA has determined that these
uses of NMP for removal of specialized coatings from military aviation
and vessel mission-critical corrosion-sensitive components, including
safety-critical components, is critical for national security and the
safety of personnel and assets. EPA includes in this exemption
corrosion-sensitive military aviation and vessel mission-critical
components such as landing gear, gear boxes, turbine engine parts, and
other military aircraft and vessel components composed of metallic
materials (specifically high-strength steel, aluminum, titanium, and
magnesium) and composite materials that not only require their coatings
be removed for inspection and maintenance but also would be so
negatively affected by the use of technically incompatible, substitute
paint removal chemicals or methods that the safe performance of the
vessel or aircraft could be compromised.
    EPA proposes to grant this exemption for a period of ten years from
the date of promulgation of a final rule, with a potential for
extension, by further rulemaking, after review by EPA in consultation
with DOD. The conditions for this exemption would be: (1) The use of
NMP at any concentration for coating removal by DOD or its contractors
performing this work only for DOD projects is limited to the mission-
critical corrosion-sensitive components on military aviation and
vessels, including safety-critical components; (2) this paint and
coating removal must be conducted at DOD installations, or at Federal
industrial facilities, or at DOD contractor facilities performing this
work only for DOD projects.
    This exemption granted under TSCA(6)(g)(1)(B) does not impact or
lessen any requirements for compliance with other statutes under which
the use, disposal, or emissions of NMP is regulated.
    As described in Unit XVI.B.3., under the proposed approach, any
paint and coating removal products containing NMP would be required to
be distributed in containers with a volume no less than 5 gallons, as
part of the exemption for uses identified as critical for national
security. Allowing selective use for national security purposes does
not disrupt the efficacy of the supply chain approach described in Unit
XVI.B.3.
    In addition to the exemption described in this unit, EPA will
consider granting additional time-limited exemptions, under the
authority of TSCA section 6(g). Details of EPA's request for comment on
such exemption are described in Unit VIII.

XIX. Overview of Uncertainties for NMP in Paint and Coating Removal

    A discussion of the uncertainties associated with this proposed
rule can be found in the NMP risk assessment (Ref. 3) and in the
additional analyses for NMP in commercial and consumer paint and
coating removal (Refs. 75 and 76). A summary of these uncertainties
follows.
    EPA used a number of assumptions in the NMP risk assessment and
supporting analysis to develop estimates for occupational and consumer
exposure scenarios and to develop the hazard/dose[hyphen]response and
risk characterization. EPA recognizes that the uncertainties may
underestimate or overestimate actual risks. These uncertainties include
the likelihood that exposures to NMP vary from one paint and coating
removal project to the next. EPA attempted to quantify this uncertainty
by evaluating multiple scenarios to establish a range of releases and
exposures. In estimating the risk from NMP in paint and coating
removal, there are uncertainties in the number of workers and consumers
exposed to NMP and in the model inputs and algorithms used to estimate
exposures.
    In addition to the uncertainties in the risks, there are
uncertainties in the cost and benefits. The uncertainties in the
benefits are most pronounced in estimating the benefits from preventing
the entirety of the adverse effects (described in Unit XIV.C.) because
these non-cancer benefits generally cannot be monetized due to the lack
of concentration response functions in humans leading to the ability to
estimate the number of population-level non-cancer cases and
limitations in established economic methodologies. Additional
uncertainties in benefit calculations arose from EPA's use of a
forecast from an industry expert to estimate the categories of
alternatives that users might choose to adopt and the potential risks
for adverse health effects that the alternatives may pose. While there
are no products or methods that have comparable developmental or
similar risks, these substitute products and alternative methods do
present hazards. Without information on what alternative methods or
chemicals users of NMP for paint and coating removal are likely to
switch to, and estimates of the exposures for those alternatives. EPA
is unable to quantitatively estimate any change in non-cancer risks due
to use of substitute chemicals or alternative methods instead of using
NMP for commercial or consumer paint and coating removal.
    In addition to these uncertainties related to benefits, there are
uncertainties related to the cost estimates. As noted earlier, there is
uncertainty in EPA's estimates of which chemical substitutes or
alternative methods users may adopt instead of NMP for paint and
coating removal, which in turn produces uncertainty as to the cost of
those substitutes or methods. EPA has estimated the cost of substitute
chemicals, but is not able to fully characterize or quantify the total
costs to all sectors for using substitute chemicals or alternative
products. In addition, under certain assumptions EPA's economic
analysis estimates that

some users of NMP for paint and coating removal will see a cost savings
when switching to substitutes. Standard economic theory suggests that
financially rational companies would choose technologies that maximize
profits so that regulatory outcomes would not typically result in a
cost savings for the regulated facilities. There could be several
reasons that cost savings might occur in the real world. Potential
reasons include lack of complete information or barriers to obtaining
information on the cost savings associated with alternatives as well as
investment barriers or higher interest rates faced by firms.
Additionally, there may be costs associated with these alternatives
that are not adequately accounted for in the analysis. To evaluate the
effect of this uncertainty, EPA has included a sensitivity analysis
that sets the cost savings to zero for these compliance alternatives
(Ref. 4 at Section 7). EPA also recognizes that these firms might
experience positive costs of compliance rather than zero costs, so that
the actual total costs could be higher than those in the sensitivity
analysis. However, EPA has no current basis to estimate these
potentially higher costs, since the available data appear to show that
there are lower cost substitutes available. EPA requests comments on
these assumptions.
    Additionally, there are uncertainties due to in the estimates of
the number of affected commercial and consumer users, and for numbers
of processors and distributors of NMP-containing products not
prohibited by the proposed rule who are required to provide downstream
notification and/or maintain records.
    EPA will consider additional information received during the public
comment period. This includes scientific publications and other input
submitted to EPA during the comment period.

XX. Major Provisions and Enforcement of the Proposed Rule for NMP in
Paint and Coating Removal

    This proposal relies on general provisions in the proposed Part
751, Subpart A, which can be found at 81 FR 91592 (December 16, 2016).

A. Prohibitions and Requirements

    Under the first co-proposed approach, the rule, when final, would
(1) prohibit the manufacturing, processing, and distribution in
commerce of NMP for consumer and commercial paint and coating removal,
exempting uses defined as critical for national security (see Unit
XVIII.); (2) prohibit the commercial use of NMP for paint and coating
removal, exempting for uses defined as critical for national security;
(3) require any paint and coating removal products containing NMP to be
distributed in containers with a volume no less than 5 gallons; (4)
require that any commercial use of NMP for paint and coating removal
for uses critical to national security include specific worker
protections; (5) require manufacturers, processors, and distributors of
NMP and all products containing NMP, excluding retailers, to provide
downstream notification of the prohibitions; (6) and require
recordkeeping relevant to these prohibitions. The prohibition on
manufacturing, processing, and distributing in commerce of NMP for all
consumer paint and coating removal would take effect 180 days after
publication of a final rule. Similarly, the prohibition on
manufacturing, processing, and distributing in commerce of NMP for any
paint and coating removal for uses other than those exempted as
critical for national security in volumes less than 5-gallon containers
would take effect 180 days after publication of a final rule. The
prohibition on commercial use of NMP for paint and coating removal
except for the exempted critical national security uses would take
effect 270 days after publication of a final rule. These are reasonable
transition periods because, as noted in Unit XVI.D. and by the small
businesses participating in the SBAR process, many formulators of paint
and coating removers containing NMP also manufacture products for this
use that do not contain NMP (Ref. 27). In addition, alternative paint
removal products exist at comparable expense for users to purchase. Six
months from publication of the final rule is sufficient time to allow
for existing stocks to move through the market place and to allow
manufacturers, processers and distributors and users to plan for and
implement product substitution strategies.
    Under the second co-proposed approach, formulators of paint and
coating removal products for either commercial or consumer use would be
required to: (1) Ensure that their paint and coating removal products
containing NMP do not exceed a maximum of 35 percent NMP by weight in
product formulations exempting products used for critical national
security uses (see Unit XVIII.); (2) Test gloves for the product
formulations being processed and distributed in commerce for other than
exempt critical national security uses to identify specialized gloves
that provide protection for users and keep records relevant to these
tests; (3) Label products with information for consumers about the
risks presented by products that contain NMP and how to reduce these
risks when using the products, including identifying which specialized
gloves provide protection against the specific formulation; and (4)
Provide information for commercial users about reducing risks when
using the product, via product labels, SDS, and other methods of hazard
communication. Variations of more than 1% in any component of a paint
and coating removal product containing NMP would be considered a
separate formulation.
    Under this co-proposal, commercial users of NMP for paint and
coating removal other than exempt critical national security uses would
be prohibited from using paint and coating removal products or
formulations that contain more than 35 percent by weight of NMP. They
would also be required to establish a worker protection program for
dermal and respiratory protection, including hazard communication,
training, and requirements that workers wear clothing covering most of
the body, i.e., impervious long pants and shirts with long sleeves, use
gloves specified by product formulators (described under formulator
requirements below) and a respirator with APF 10, with an alternative
air exposure limit of 5 ppm achieved through engineering controls or
ventilation.

B. Downstream Notification

    EPA has authority under TSCA section 6 of TSCA to require that a
substance or mixture or any article containing such substance or
mixture be marked with or accompanied by clear and adequate minimum
warnings and instructions with respect to its use, distribution in
commerce, or disposal or with respect to any combination of such
activities. Many manufacturers and processors of NMP are likely to
manufacture or process NMP or products containing NMP for other uses
that would not be regulated under this proposed rule. Other companies
may be strictly engaged in distribution in commerce of NMP, without any
manufacturing or processing activities, to customers for uses that are
not regulated. Under both co-proposed approaches, EPA is proposing a
requirement for downstream notification by manufacturers, processors,
and distributors of NMP for any use to ensure compliance with the
prohibition on manufacture, processing,

distribution in commerce, and commercial use of NMP for the uses
proposed for regulation. Downstream notification is necessary for
effective enforcement of the rule because it provides a record, in
writing, of notification on use restrictions throughout the supply
chain, likely via modifications to the Safety Data Sheet. Downstream
notification also increases awareness of restrictions on the use of NMP
for paint and coating removal, which is likely to decrease
unintentional uses of NMP by these entities. Downstream notification
represents minimal burden and is necessary for effective enforcement of
the rule. The estimated cost of downstream notification on an
annualized basis over 20 years is $100 and $100 using 3% and 7%
discount rates respectively (Ref. 4).
    The effective date of the requirement for this notification would
be 45 days after publication of the final rule. This is a reasonable
transition period because regulated entities would only need to provide
additional information on their SDS, which are routinely produced and
updated.

C. Enforcement

    Section 15 of TSCA makes it unlawful to fail or refuse to comply
with any provision of a rule promulgated under TSCA section 6.
Therefore, any failure to comply with this proposed rule when it
becomes effective would be a violation of section 15 of TSCA. In
addition, section 15 of TSCA makes it unlawful for any person to: (1)
Fail or refuse to establish and maintain records as required by this
rule; (2) fail or refuse to permit access to or copying of records, as
required by TSCA; or (3) fail or refuse to permit entry or inspection
as required by section 11 of TSCA.
    Violators may be subject to both civil and criminal liability.
Under the penalty provision of section 16 of TSCA, any person who
violates section 15 could be subject to a civil penalty for each
violation. Each day of operation in violation of this proposed rule
when it becomes effective could constitute a separate violation.
Knowing or willful violations of this proposed rule when it becomes
effective could lead to the imposition of criminal penalties for each
day of violation and imprisonment. In addition, other remedies are
available to EPA under TSCA.
    Individuals, as well as corporations, could be subject to
enforcement actions. Sections 15 and 16 of TSCA apply to ``any person''
who violates various provisions of TSCA. EPA may, at its discretion,
proceed against individuals as well as companies. In particular, EPA
may proceed against individuals who report false information or cause
it to be reported.

XXI. Analysis for Methylene Chloride and NMP in Paint and Coating
Removal under TSCA Section 9 and Section 26(h) Considerations

A. TSCA Section 9(a) Analysis

    Section 9(a) of TSCA provides that, if the Administrator determines
in her discretion that an unreasonable risk may be prevented or reduced
to a sufficient extent by an action taken under a Federal law not
administered by EPA, the Administrator must submit a report to the
agency administering that other law that describes the risk and the
activities that present such risk. If the other agency responds by
declaring that the activities described do not present an unreasonable
risk or if that agency initiates action under its own law to protect
against the risk within the timeframes specified by TSCA section 9(a),
EPA is precluded from acting against the risk under sections 6(a) or 7
of TSCA.
    TSCA section 9(d) instructs the Administrator to consult and
coordinate TSCA activities with other Federal agencies for the purpose
of achieving the maximum enforcement of TSCA while imposing the least
burden of duplicative requirements. For this proposed rule, EPA has
consulted with OSHA and with CPSC. Both CPSC and OHSA have provided
letters documenting this consultation (Refs. 121 and 122).
    CPSC protects the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death
associated with the use of consumer products under the agency's
jurisdiction. Though CPSC has provided guidance to consumers when using
products containing NMP, there are no CPSC regulations regarding NMP in
paint and coating removal. CPSC currently requires that household
products that can expose consumers to methylene chloride vapors must
bear appropriate warning labels (52 FR 34698, September 14, 1987). In a
letter regarding EPA's proposed rulemaking, CPSC stated that ``Some
paint removers are distributed for sale to, and use by, consumers and
thus would likely fall within CPSC's jurisdiction. However, because
TSCA gives EPA the ability to reach both occupational and consumer
uses, we recognize that EPA may address risks associated with these
chemicals in a more cohesive and coordinated manner given that CPSC
lacks authority to address occupational hazards'' (Ref. 121).
    OSHA assures safe and healthful working conditions for working men
and women by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training,
outreach, education and assistance. OSHA's methylene chloride standard,
29 CFR 1910.1052, was issued in 1997 and applies to general industry,
construction, and shipyard employment. It sets the PEL for airborne
methylene chloride to an eight-hour TWA of 25 parts per ppm. OSHA has
not set a standard for NMP. OSHA recently published a Request for
Information on approaches to updating PELs and other strategies to
managing chemicals in the workplace (79 FR 61384, October 10, 2014).
OSHA's current regulatory agenda does not include revision to the
methylene chloride PEL, establishment of a PEL for NMP, or other
regulations addressing the risks EPA has identified when methylene
chloride or NMP are used in paint and coating removal (Ref. 122).
    This proposed rule addresses risk from exposure to methylene
chloride and NMP during paint and coating removal in both workplace and
consumer settings. With the exception of TSCA, there is no Federal law
that provides authority to prevent or sufficiently reduce these cross-
cutting exposures. No other Federal regulatory authority, when
considering the exposures to the populations and within the situations
in its purview, can evaluate and address the totality of the risk that
EPA is addressing in this proposal and the prior proposal on TCE uses
(Ref. 1). For example, OSHA may set exposure limits for workers but its
authority is limited to the workplace and does not extend to consumer
uses of hazardous chemicals. Further, OSHA does not have direct
authority over state and local employees, and it has no authority at
all over the working conditions of state and local employees in states
that have no OSHA-approved State Plan under 29 U.S.C. 667. Other
Federal regulatory authorities, such as CPSC, have the authority to
only regulate pieces of the risks posed by methylene chloride and NMP,
such as when used in consumer products.
    Moreover, recent amendments to TSCA, Public Law 114-182, alter both
the manner of identifying unreasonable risk under TSCA and EPA's
authority to address unreasonable risk under TSCA, such that risk
management under TSCA is increasingly distinct from analogous
provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), the Federal
Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), or the OSH Act. These changes to TSCA
reduce the likelihood that an action under the CPSA, FHSA, or the OSH
Act

would reduce the risk of methylene chloride and NMP in paint and
coating removal so that the risks are no longer unreasonable under
TSCA. Whereas (in a TSCA section 6 rule) an unreasonable risk
determination sets the objective of the rule in a manner that excludes
cost considerations, 15 U.S.C. 2605(a)(b)(4)(A), subject to time-
limited conditional exemptions for critical chemical uses and the like,
15 U.S.C. 2605(g), a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA must
include a finding that ``the benefits expected from the rule bear a
reasonable relationship to its costs.'' 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3)(E).
Additionally, recent amendments to TSCA reflect Congressional intent to
``delete the paralyzing `least burdensome' requirement,'' 162 Cong.
Rec. S3517 (June 7, 2016). However, a consumer product safety rule
under the CPSA must impose ``the least burdensome requirement which
prevents or adequately reduces the risk of injury for which the rule is
being promulgated.'' 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3)(F). Analogous requirements,
also at variance with recent revisions to TSCA, affect the availability
of action under the FHSA relative to action under TSCA. 15 U.S.C. 1262.
Gaps also exist between OSHA's authority to set workplace standards
under the OSH Act and EPA's amended obligations to sufficiently address
chemical risks under TSCA. To set PELs for chemical exposure, OSHA must
first establish that the new standards are economically feasible and
technologically feasible. 79 FR 61387 (2014). But under TSCA, EPA's
substantive burden under TSCA section 6(a) is to demonstrate that, as
regulated, the chemical substance no longer presents an unreasonable
risk, with unreasonable risk being determined without consideration of
cost or other non-risk factors.
    TSCA is the only regulatory authority able to prevent or reduce
risks of methylene chloride or NMP exposure to a sufficient extent
across the range of uses and exposures of concern. In addition, these
risks can be addressed in a more coordinated, efficient and effective
manner under TSCA than under two or more different laws implemented by
different agencies. Furthermore, there are key differences between the
newly amended finding requirements of TSCA and those of the OSH Act,
CPSA, and the FHSA. For these reasons, in her discretion, the
Administrator does not determine that unreasonable risks from the use
of methylene chloride and NMP in paint and coating removal may be
prevented or reduced to a sufficient extent by an action taken under a
Federal law not administered by EPA. However, EPA is requesting public
comment on this issue (i.e., the sufficiency of an action taken under a
Federal law not administered by EPA).

B. TSCA Section 9(b) Analysis

    If EPA determines that actions under other Federal laws
administered in whole or in part by EPA could eliminate or sufficiently
reduce an unreasonable risk, section 9(b) of TSCA instructs EPA to use
these other authorities unless the Administrator determines in the
Administrator's discretion that it is in the public interest to protect
against such risk under TSCA. In making such a public interest finding,
TSCA section 9(b)(2) states: ``the Administrator shall consider, based
on information reasonably available to the Administrator, all relevant
aspects of the risk . . . and a comparison of the estimated costs and
efficiencies of the action to be taken under this title and an action
to be taken under such other law to protect against such risk.''
    Although several EPA statutes have been used to limit methylene
chloride or NMP exposure (Units III.A. and XII.A.), regulations under
these EPA statutes have limitations because they largely regulate
releases to the environment, rather than direct human exposure. SDWA
only applies to drinking water. CAA does not apply directly to worker
exposures or consumer settings where methylene chloride or NMP are
used. Under RCRA, methylene chloride that is discarded may be
considered a hazardous waste and subject to requirements designed to
reduce exposure from the disposal of methylene chloride to air, land
and water. RCRA does not address exposures during use of products
containing methylene chloride or NMP. Only TSCA provides EPA the
authority to regulate the manufacture (including import), processing,
and distribution in commerce, and use of chemicals substances.
    For these reasons, the Administrator does not determine that
unreasonable risks from the use of methylene chloride and NMP in paint
and coating removal could be eliminated or reduced to a sufficient
extent by actions taken under other Federal laws administered in whole
or in part by EPA.

C. Section 26(h) Considerations

    EPA has used scientific information, technical procedures,
measures, methods, protocols, methodologies, and models consistent with
the best available science. For example, EPA based its proposed
determination of unreasonable risk presented by the use of methylene
chloride and NMP in paint and coating removal on the completed risk
assessments, which each followed a peer review and public comment
process, as well as using best available science and methods (Refs. 2
and 3). Supplemental analyses were performed to better characterize the
exposed populations and estimate the effects of various control
options. These supplemental analyses were consistent with the methods
and models used in the risk assessment. These analyses were developed
for the purpose of supporting a future regulatory determination: To
determine either that particular risks are not unreasonable or that
those are risks are unreasonable. They were also developed to support
risk reduction by regulation under section 6 of TSCA, to the extent
risks were determined to be unreasonable. It is reasonable and
consistent to consider these supplemental analyses in this rulemaking
for such relevant purposes.
    The extent to which the various information, procedures, measures,
methods, protocols, methodologies or models, as applicable, used in
EPA's decision have been subject to independent verification or peer
review is adequate to justify their use, collectively, in the record
for this rule. Additional information on the peer review and public
comment process, such as the peer review plan, the peer review report,
and the Agency's response to comments, can be found on EPA's
Assessments for TSCA Work Plan Chemicals Web page at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/assessments-tsca-work-plan-chemicals.

XXII. 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 (2014). 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. TSCA Work Plan Chemical Risk Assessment N-Methylpyrrolidone:
Paint Stripping Use. CASRN 872-50-5. EPA Document # 740-R1-5002.
March 2015. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
Washington, DC https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-11/documents/nmp_ra_3_23_15_final.pdf.
4. EPA. Economic Analysis of Proposed TSCA Section 6 Action on
Methylene Chloride and N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP) in Paint and
Coating Removal (EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0231; RIN 2070-AK07).
Office of Pollution, Prevention, and Toxics. Washington, DC.
5. EPA. Toxicological Review of Methylene Chloride (CAS No.
75[hyphen]09[hyphen]2). EPA/635/R[hyphen]10/003F. Integrated Risk
Information System, Washington, DC. November 2011.
6. EPA. List of Toxics Release Inventory Chemicals, Section 313,
Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA), Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI) Program, 40 CFR 372.65, July 1, 2002.
7. Hopkins, JS. The Center for Public Integrity. ``Common solvent
keeps killing workers, consumers.'' September 21, 2015. https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/09/21/17991/common-solvent-keeps-killing-workers-consumers Accessed April 14, 2016.
8. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Public Health
Statement Methylene Chloride. September 2000. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp14-c1-b.pdf.
9. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Building
HOME: Chapter 10--Other Federal Requirements. March 2008. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=19787_ch10.pdf.
10. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pocket Guide to Chemical
Hazards. Cincinnati, OH. 2007.
11. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Hazard
Alert: Methylene Chloride Hazards for Bathtub Refinishers. January
2013. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2013-110/Accessed April 14,
2016.
12. LawAtlas. ``The Policy Surveillance Portal.'' http://lawatlas.org/. Retrieved April 4, 2016.
13. ``Proposition 65 Law and Regulations.'' Nov 14, 2016. http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/law/P65law72003.html.
14. Environment Canada. Strategic Options for the Management of
Toxic Substances--Dichloromethane: Report of Stakeholder
Consultations. June 5, 1998.
15. European Union. DECISIONS ADOPTED JOINTLY BY THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL DECISION No 455/2009/EC OF THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 6 May 2009 amending Council
Directive 76/769/EEC as regards restrictions on the marketing and
use of dichloromethane. Official Journal of the European Union. May
6, 2009. http://www.eascr.com/documents/2009.05.06%20DCM%20restriction%20455-2009.pdf.
16. United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive. Decision 455/2009/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council
Directive 76/769/EEC as regards restrictions on the marketing and
use of dichloromethane. 2009. http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/europe/euronews/dossiers/dichloromethane.htm.
17. EPA. TSCA Work Plan Chemicals: Methods Document. http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/work_plan_methods_document_web_final.pdf. Retrieved February 25,
2016.
18. EPA. A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration
Processes. EPA/630/P-02/002F. December 2002.
19. EPA. Respirator and Glove Specifications for Workers Exposed to
Methylene Chloride in Paint and Coating Removal. 2016.
20. EPA. Supplemental Consumer Exposure and Risk Estimation
Technical Report for Methylene Chloride in Paint and Coating
Removal. 2016.
21. EPA. Recommendation for an Existing Chemical Exposure
Concentration Limit (ECEL) for Occupational Use of Methylene
Chloride and Workplace Air Monitoring Methods for Methylene
Chloride. 2016.
22. EPA. Summary of Stakeholder Engagement, Proposed Rule Under TSCA
Sec.  6 Methylene Chloride and NMP in Paint and Coating Removal.
2016.
23. EPA. Regulatory Options Analysis Matrix for Methylene Chloride
in Paint and Coating Removal. 2016.
24. EPA. Regulatory Options Analysis Matrix for N-Methylpyrrolidone
in Paint and Coating Removal. 2016.
25. OSHA. ``Respiratory Protection.'' https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/respiratoryprotection/index.html. Retrieved March 16, 2016.
26. EPA. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Methylene
Chloride and N-Methylpyrrolidone; Regulation of Certain Uses Under
TSCA Section 6(a); Proposed Rule; RIN 2070-AK07. Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention. Washington, DC. 2016.
27. 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.
28. EPA. The Effectiveness of Labeling on Hazardous Chemicals and
Other Products [RIN 2070-AK07]. Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention. Washington, DC. 2016.
29. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). ``Tab B--Memorandum:
Human Factors Assessment of Strong Magnet Sets.'' Staff Briefing
Package: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Hazardous Magnet Sets.
August 18, 2012. http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/128934/magnetstd.pdf.
30. ``Paint Strippers, Types of Strippers.'' PaintPRO, Vol. 3, No.
3. June 2000. http://www.paintpro.net/Articles/PP303/PP303_strippers.cfm.
31. EPA. Options for Reducing Exposures to Workers Exposed to
Methylene Chloride and N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP) in Paint and
Coating Removal. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
Washington, DC. 2016.
32. OSHA. ``Lethal Exposure to Methylene Chloride during Bathtub
Refinishing.'' OSHA Fatal Facts. 2016. https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3883.pdf.
33. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). ``Fatal
Exposure to Methylene Chloride Among Bathtub Refinishers--United
States, 2000-2011.'' Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. February
24, 2012. Vol 61(7), p 119-122.
34. EPA. Analysis Report of Chemical Alternatives for Use of
Methylene Chloride- and N-Methylpyrrolidone-based Paint Removers:
Hazard and Exposure Concerns. 2016.
35. EPA. Consumer Paint and Coating Removers. 2016.
36. Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance Inc. Petition to Amend
the Statement of Interpretation and Enforcement Policy Regarding
Labeling of Household Products Containing Methylene Chloride issued
by the Commission Under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. July
7, 2016. Docket CPSC-2016-0019.
37. EPA. Recommendation for an Existing Chemical Exposure Limit
(ECEL) for Occupational Use of NMP and Workplace Air Monitoring
Methods for NMP. 2016.
38. EPA. TSCA Section 6(a)--Re-entry time after Methylene Chloride
Use in a Residence. 2015. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention. Washington, DC.
39. Giles, C. EPA. ``Next Generation Compliance.'' Environmental
Forum. October 2013, p 22-26. Washington, DC
40. OSHA. Accident Report Detail. Accident: 734673- Inhaled
Methylene Chloride Vapors. 1986. https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=734673.
41. Staten Island Advance. ``Jeffrey Lewis, 20.'' December 2014.
http://www.silive.com/obituaries/index.ssf/2014/12/jeffrey_lewis_20.html.
42. American Liver Foundation. ``Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver
Disease.'' January 2015. http://www.liverfoundation.org/abouttheliver/info/nafld/.
43. Bialecki, ES; Di Bisceglie, AM. ``Diagnosis of hepatocellular
carcinoma.'' 2005, Vol 7(1), p 26-34. http://

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2023919/doi: 10.1080/
13651820410024049.
44. United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) Transplant Living.
``Financing a Transplant- Costs.'' December 28, 2011. Available at
http://transplantliving.org/before-the-transplant/financing-a-transplant/the-costs/. Retrieved March 16, 2016.
45. National Cancer Institute. ``SEER Stat Fact Sheets: Non-Hodgkin
Lymphoma. Bethesda, MD.'' http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/nhl.html. Retrieved March 16, 2016.
46. Mayo Clinic. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma Risk Factors. January 28,
2016. http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/non-hodgkins-lymphoma/basics/risk-factors/con-20027792. Retrieved March 7, 2016.
47. Morton, LM; Curtis, RE; Linet, MS et al. ``Second Malignancy
Risks After Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia:
Differences by Lymphoma Subtype.'' Journal of Clinical Oncology.
2010, Vol 28(33), p 4935-4944. doi:10.1200/JCO.2010.29.1112.
48. American Cancer Society (ACS). ``Multiple Myeloma.'' http://www.cancer.org/cancer/multiplemyeloma/. Accessed on June 26, 2016.
49. Committee on Developmental Toxicology, Board on Environmental
Studies and Toxicology, Commission on Life Sciences, National
Research Council. ``Scientific Frontiers In Developmental Toxicology
and Risk Assessment.'' National Academy Press. Washington, DC.
http://www.nap.edu/read/9871/chapter/4.
50. OSHA. ``Occupational Exposure to Methylene Chloride.'' 1994, Vol
59, p 11567-11569.
51. Stevens, GHJ. Cleveland Clinic. ``Brain Tumors: Meningiomas and
Gliomas.'' August 2010. http://www.clevelandclinicmeded.com/medicalpubs/diseasemanagement/hematology-oncology/brain-tumors/.
Accessed May 17, 2016.
52. Thompson, WH. ``Bronchioloalveolar carcinoma masquerading as
pneumonia.'' Respiratory Care. November 2004, Vol 49(11), p 1349-
1353. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562552.
53. American Cancer Society. Non-Cancerous Breast Conditions. http://www.cancer.org/healthy/findcancerearly/womenshealth/non-cancerousbreastconditions/non-cancerous-breast-conditions-toc.
Accessed July 5, 2016.
54. Hartmann, Lynn C. et. al. ``Benign Breast Disease and the Risk
of Breast Cancer.'' The New England Journal of Medicine. July 31,
2005.
55. Sallm[eacute]n et al. ``Fertility and exposure to solvents among
families in the Agricultural Health Study'' Occupational
Environmental Medicine. July 2006, Vol 63(7), p 469-475. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2092515/doi:10.1136/oem.2005.021337
56. Mayo Clinic. ``Chronic Kidney Disease.'' http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/kidney-disease/basics/definition/con-20026778. January 30, 2015.
57. The Kidney Boy. ``The Cost of Dialysis.'' http://thekidneyboy.blogspot.com/2011/01/cost-of-dialysis.html. January 20,
2011.
58. Morris, M.; Wolf, K. Institute for Research and Technical
Assistance. ``Methylene Chloride Consumer Product Paint Strippers:
Low-VOC, Low Toxicity Alternatives Prepared For: Cal-EPA's
Department of Toxic Substances Control.'' May 2006. http://www.irta.us/Methylene%20Chloride%20Consumer%20Product%20Paint%20Strippers%20REPORT%20ONLY.pdf.
59. Jacobs, Molly; Bingxuan Wang, Mark Rossi. ``Alternatives to
Methylene Chloride in Paint and Varnish Strippers.'' BizNGO. (2015):
1-44. http://www.bizngo.org/resources/entry/resource-methylene.
60. European Association for Safer Coatings Removal. ``Forum Paint
Stripping Agents in Brussels (14 November 2005).'' March 2016.
http://www.eascr.com/dcmintheeu.html
61. Kelley, John, and Thomas Considine. ``Performance Evaluation of
Hap-Free Paint Strippers vs. Methylene-Chloride-Based Strippers for
Removing Army Chemical Agent Resistant Coatings (CARC).'' Army
Research Laboratory (2006): 1-42. http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=A
62. Consumer Product Safety Commission. ``What You Should Know About
Using Paint Strippers.'' 2013. http://www.cpsc.gov//Global/Safety%20Education/Home-Appliances-Maintenance-Structure/423%20Paint%20Stripper%20Publication.pdf Accessed June 27, 2016.
63. Hindin, D; Silberman, J. ``Designing More Effective Rules and
Permits.'' JEEL: George Washington Journal of Energy and
Environmental Law. 103 (2016).
64. USCANCOOP--EPA. Proceedings Report- Stakeholder Roundtables.
United States-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council: Supply Chain
Communication and the U.S. EPA's SNUR and EC/HC's SNAc Programs.
November 30, 2015.
65. Walter, KM; Sackman, VC. Material Substitution of Methylene
Chloride (MeCl)/Phenol Paint Stripper. Presented at AIHCe2016. Case
Number 75ABW-2016-0017.
66. OSHA. Citation for Violation: Choice Cabinetry. September 24,
2014. https://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/ChoiceCabinetry2014.pdf.
67. OSHA. Citation for Violation: Sterling Seating. July 1, 2015.
https://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/SterlingSeating_1017331and1046869.pdf.
68. OSHA. Regulatory Review of 29 CFR 1910.1052: Methylene Chloride,
Pursuant to Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and
Section 5 of Executive Order 12866. February 2010.
69. Mahmud, M.; Kales, SN; ``Methylene chloride poisoning in a
cabinet worker'' Environmental Health Perspectives. September 1999,
Vol 107(9), p 769-72.
70. Hall, AK; Rumack, BH, ``Methylene Chloride Exposure in
Furniture-Stripping Shops: Ventilation and Respirator Use
Practices.'' J. Occup. Med. 1990, Vol 32(1), p 33-41.
71. Estill, CF; Watkins, DS; Shulman, SA; Kurimo, RW; Kovein, RJ.
Engineering controls for furniture strippers to meet the OSHA
methylene chloride PEL. AIHA J. 2002. 63(3):326-33.
72. Swede Paint Enterprises. http://www.swedepaint.ca/spr/. Accessed
July 12, 2016.
73. Tellakula, A; Stephenson, L.D.; Kumar, A. Final Report
Technology Demonstration of a Microwave-Assisted Lead-Based Paint
Removal Process. US Army Corps of Engineers Report. December 2003.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a431144.pdf.
74. EPA Action Memorandum: Inert Reassessment: N-methylpyrrolidone
(CAS Reg. No. 872-50-4), June 2006. http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/inerts/methyl.pdf (accessed October 28, 2014)
75. EPA. Respirator and Glove Specifications for Workers and
Consumers Exposed to N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) in Paint and Coating
Removal and Estimated Fractions of Worker Population Vulnerable to
the Acute Health Effect. 2016.
76. EPA. Supplemental Consumer Exposure and Risk Estimation
Technical Report for NMP in Paint and Coating Removal. 2016.
77. Hardin, D. ``The Ultimate Paint and Body Guide Part 2- How To
Strip Paint.'' Hot Rod Network. June 1, 2007. Republished February
2009. http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/paint-body/hdrp-0606-paintstripping-basics-tips/. Accessed May 17, 2016.
78. ``Safe Lead Paint Removal.'' http://www.leadoutpaintstripper.com/diy_paint_removal Accessed December 13,
2016.
79. ``DIY: Stripping Paint, Stain, and Varnish off of Wooden
Furniture.'' http://www.doityourselfdivas.com/2010/10/diy-stripping-paint-stain-and-varnish.html. Accessed May 17, 2016.
80. Finer, LB; Zolna, MR. ``Shifts in intended and unintended
pregnancies in the United States, 2001-2008'' American Journal of
Public Health. 2014, Vol 104(S1), p S44-S48. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/ajph.2013.301416.pdf.
81. Best Start: Ontario's Maternal Newborn and Early Child
Development Resource Centre. Workplace Reproductive Health: Research
and Strategies. Toronto, Ontario. 2001. http://www.beststart.org/resources/wrkplc_health/pdf/WorkplaceDocum.pdf. Accessed May 16,
2016.
82. EPA. Guideline 44, Personal Protective Equipment. October 2004.
83. American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine's
Task Force on Reproductive Toxicology. ``Reproductive and
Developmental Hazard Management Guidance.'' Journal of Occupational
and Environmental Medicine. August 2011,

Vol 53(8), p 941-949. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0b013e318229a549
84. Cumming, G.; Klein, S.; Bolsover, D.; Lee, A.; Alexander, D.;
Maclean, M; Jurgens, J. ``The emotional burden of miscarriage for
women and their partners: trajectories of anxiety and depression
over 13 months.'' BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics &
Gynaecology, 2007, Vol 114, p 1138-1145. doi:10.1111/j.1471-
0528.2007.01452.x
85. Robertson, EB, et al. ``Previous prenatal loss as a predictor of
perinatal depression and anxiety.'' The British Journal of
Psychiatry. Apr 2011, Vol 198(5), p 373-378; DOI: 10.1192/
bjp.bp.110.083105
86. Klier, CM; Geller, PA; Ritsher, JB. ``Affective disorders in the
aftermath of miscarriage: a comprehensive review''. Archives of
Women's Mental Health. 2002, Vol 5, p 129-49.
87. Brier, N. ``Anxiety after miscarriage: a review of the empirical
literature and implications for clinical practice.'' Birth. June
2004, Vol 31(2), p 138-42.
88. Lok IH; Neugebauer R. ``Psychological morbidity following
miscarriage.'' Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics &
Gynecology. April 2007, Vol 21(2), p 229-47. DOI: 10.1016/
j.bpobgyn.2006.11.007
89. Neugebauer, R.; Kline, J.; Shrout, P, et al. ``Major Depressive
Disorder in the 6 Months After Miscarriage.'' JAMA. 1997, Vol
277(5), p 383-388. doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03540290035029.
90. National Institutes of Mental Health. Depression. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/depression/index.shtml Accessed May
16, 2016
91. Sobieraj, M.; Williams, J.; Marley, J.; Ryan, P. ``The impact of
depression on the physical health of family members.'' The British
Journal of General Practice. 1998, Vol 48(435), p 1653-1655.
92. Leis-Newman, Elizabeth. American Psychological Association
``Miscarriage and loss.'' Monitor on Psychology. June 2012, Vol
43(6), p 56. http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/06/miscarriage.aspx.
Accessed May 16, 2016.
93. Zeanah, CH; Danis, B.; Hirshberg, L.; Dietz, L. ``Initial
adaptation in mothers and fathers following perinatal loss.'' Infant
Mental Health Journal. 1995, Vol 16, p 80-93. doi: 10.1002/1097-
0355(199522)16:2<80::AID-IMHJ2280160203>3.0.CO;2-J
94. Hughes, P.; Turton, P.; Evans, CDH. ``Stillbirth as risk factor
for depression and anxiety in the subsequent pregnancy: cohort
study.'' British Medical Journal. June 26 1999, Vol 318, p 1721-
1724.
95. Heller, SS; Zeanah. CH. ``Attachment disturbances in infants
born subsequent to perinatal loss: A pilot study.'' Infant Mental
Health Journal. Vol 20(2), p 188-199.
96. Saraiya, M.; Green, CA; Berg, CJ; Hopkins, FW; Koonin, LM;
Atrash, HK. ``Spontaneous abortion-related deaths among women in the
United States--1981-1991.'' Obstetrics Gynecology. August 1999, Vol
94(2), p 172-176.
97. Chang, J. et al. ``Pregnancy-Related Mortality Surveillance --
United States, 1991--1999'' Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
February 21, 2003, Vol 52(SS02), p 1-8. http://www.cdc.gov/mmWr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5202a1.htm.
98. March of Dimes. Low Birthweight. http://www.marchofdimes.org/complications/low-birthweight.aspx. Accessed December 13, 2016
99. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ``Low Birthweight
and the Environment.'' http://ephtracking.cdc.gov/showRbLBWGrowthRetardationEnv.action. Accessed May 17, 2016
100. Johnson, RC; Schoeni, RF. ``The Influence of Early-Life Events
on Human Capital, Health Status, and Labor Market Outcomes Over the
Life Course.'' PSC Research Report 07-616. January 2007.
101. World Health Organization. ``Feto-maternal nutrition and low
birth weight.'' http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/feto_maternal/en/. Accessed May 17, 2016\
102. Boston Children's Hospital. ``Low Birthweight in Newborns:
Symptoms & Causes.'' http://www.childrenshospital.org/conditions-and-treatments/conditions/low-birthweight-in-newborns/symptoms-and-causes. Accessed May 17, 2016
103. Datar, A.; Jacknowitz, A. ``Birth weight effects on children's
mental, motor, and physical development: evidence from twins data.''
Maternal and Child Health Journal. November 2009, Vol 13(6), p 780-
94. doi: 10.1007/s10995-009-0461-6.
104. Grantham-McGregor, SM. ``Small for gestational age, term
babies, in the first six years of life.'' European Journal of
Clinical Nutrition. January 1998, Vol 52(1), p S59-64.
105. Hediger, ML; Overpeck, MD; McGlynn, A; Kuczmarski, RJ; Maurer,
KR; Davis, WW. ``Growth and fatness at three to six years of age of
children born small- or large-for-gestational age.'' Pediatrics.
September 1999, Vol 104(3), p 33.
106. O'Keeffe, MJ; O'Callaghan, M.; Williams, GM, et al. ``Learning,
cognitive, and attentional problems in adolescents born small for
gestational age.'' Pediatrics. 2003, Vol 112(2), p 301-307.
107. Veelken, N.; Stollhoff, K.; Claussen, M. ``Development and
perinatal risk factors of very low-birth-weight infants. Small
versus appropriate for gestational age.'' Neuropediatrics. April
1992, Vol 23(2), p 102-107.
108. Rucker, CJ; Schoeni, RF. ``Early-Life Origins of Adult Disease:
National Longitudinal Population-Based Study of the United States''.
American Journal of Public Health. December 2011, Vol 101(12), p
2317-2324. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300252
109. Hack, M.; Schluchter, M.; Cartar, L.; Rahman, M.; Cuttler, L.;
Borawski, E. ``Growth of Very Low Birth Weight Infants to Age 20
Years.'' Pediatrics. July 2003, Vol 112(1).
110. Vladislava, Z.; Sutherland, MR; Lim, K.; Gubhaju, L.; Zimanyi,
MA; Black, MJ. ``Low Birth Weight due to Intrauterine Growth
Restriction and/or Preterm Birth: Effects on Nephron Number and
Long-Term Renal Health,'' International Journal of Nephrology. 2012.
doi:10.1155/2012/136942
111. Linnet, KM; Wisborg, K.; Agerbo, E.; Secher, NJ; Thomsen, PH;
Henriksen, TB. ``Gestational age, birth weight, and the risk of
hyperkinetic disorder.'' Archives of Disease in Childhood. 2006, Vol
91, p 655-660 doi:10.1136/adc.2005.088872
112. Barker, DJP. University of Southampton, UK. ``The origins of
the developmental origins theory.'' Journal of Internal Medicine.
2007, Vol 261, p 412-417.
113. Smith, CJ; Ryckman, KK. Department of Epidemiology, University
of Iowa. ``Epigenetic and developmental influences on the risk of
obesity, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome.'' Diabetes, Metabolic
Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy. June 2015, Vol 8, p 295-
302.
114. Lindblom, R.; Ververis, K.; Tortorella, SM; Karagiannis, TC.
``The early life origin theory in the development of cardiovascular
disease and type 2 diabetes.'' Mol Biol Rep. 2015, Vol 42, p 791-
797.
115. Skogen, JC; Overland, S. ``The fetal origins of adult disease:
a narrative review of the epidemiological literature.'' Journal of
the Royal Society of Medicine. 2012, Vol 3. Bergen, Norway.
116. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ``The Health
Effects of Overweight and Obesity.'' 2015. http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/effects/. Accessed May 17, 2016
117. American Heart Association. ``What is Metabolic Syndrome?''
Answers by Heart. 2015.
118. Hack, M.; Klein, NK; Taylor, HG. ``Long-term developmental
outcomes of low birth weight infants.'' The Future of Children.
Spring 1995, Vol 5(1), p 176-96.
119. EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1991b. Guidelines for
Developmental Toxicity Risk Assessment. EPA/600/FR-91/001. Risk
Assessment Forum, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/DEVTOX.pdf.
120. ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). Annex XV Dossier. Proposal
for Identification of a Substance as a Category 1a or 1b CMR, PBT,
Vpvb or a Substance of an Equivalent Level of Concern, 1-Methyl-2-
Pyrrolidone. 2011. Helsinki, Finland.
121. United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Letter
to James J. Jones from Patricia H. Adkins. April 19, 2016.
122. U.S. Department of Labor- Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA). Letter to James J. Jones from David Michaels,
Ph.D., MPH. March 31, 2016.
123. EPA. Supporting Statement for an Information Collection Request
(ICR) Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). July 6, 2016.
124. EPA. Section 6(a) Rulemakings under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA)

Paint Removers & TCE Rulemakings E.O. 13132: Federalism
Consultation. May 13, 2015.
125. EPA. Notification of Consultation and Coordination on Proposed
Rulemakings under the Toxic Substances Control Act for 1) Methylene
Chloride and n-Methylpyrrolidone in Paint Removers and 2)
Trichloroethylene in Certain Uses. April 8, 2015.
126. EPA. Paint Removers: Methylene Chloride and N-
Methylpyrrolidone--Community Webinar. May 28, 2015.
127. EPA. Economic Analysis of Second Co-Proposal for N-
Methylpyrrolidone. 2016.

XXIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is an economically significant regulatory action that
was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
under Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011). Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations
have been documented in the docket. EPA prepared an economic analysis
of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action, which
is available in the docket and summarized in Units I.E., VII.B., and
XVII.B. (Refs. 4 and 127).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by the EPA has
been assigned the EPA ICR number 2556.01. You can find a copy of the
ICR in the docket for this proposed rule (Ref. 123), and it is briefly
summarized here.
    Under the proposed approach for methylene chloride and both co-
proposed approaches for NMP, the information collection activities
required under the proposed rule include a downstream notification
requirement and a recordkeeping requirement. The downstream
notification would require companies that ship methylene chloride or
NMP to notify companies downstream in the supply chain of the
prohibitions of methylene chloride or NMP in the proposed rule. The
proposed rule does not require the regulated entities to submit
information to EPA. The proposed rule also does not require
confidential or sensitive information to be submitted to EPA or
downstream companies. The recordkeeping requirement mandates companies
that ship methylene chloride or NMP to retain certain information at
the company headquarters for three years from the date of shipment.
These information collection activities are necessary in order to
enhance the prohibitions under the proposed rule by ensuring awareness
of the prohibitions throughout the methylene chloride or NMP supply
chain, and to provide EPA with information upon inspection of companies
downstream who purchased methylene chloride or NMP. EPA believes that
these information collection activities would not significantly impact
the regulated entities.
    Under the second co-proposed approach for NMP, processors of paint
and coating removal products containing NMP must test gloves for
permeability for each formulation they process. One type of gloves may
not be appropriate for all NMP paint remover formulations because the
permeability of the product will vary based on the other solvents and
chemicals used in the formulation. The testing requirements for glove
permeability and the labeling requirements mandate that processors
paint removers containing perform glove permeability testing on each
paint remover product containing NMP and update their current product
labels to contain warnings and instructions for consumers on how to
reduce exposures to NMP. Without the reporting requirements, processors
of these products might not provide information about the specific
types of protective gloves to users. Requiring that labels of paint and
coating removal products containing NMP include information about which
specific types of gloves provide dermal protection from the specific
product formulation provides information that is essential for knowing
how to reduce exposures while carrying out paint and coating removal
with NMP. Requiring additional warnings and instructions to consumers
provides information about the risks presented by the product and how
those risks can be reduced. EPA believes that these information
collection activities would not significantly impact the regulated
entities.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Methylene chloride and NMP
manufacturers, processors, and distributors; commercial users of NMP
for paint and coating removal.
    Respondent's Obligation to Respond: Respondents are not obligated
to respond or report to EPA.
    Estimated Number of Respondents for the Proposed Approach for
Methylene Chloride and the First Co-Proposed Approach for NMP: 327.
    Estimated Total Number of Potential Respondents for the Proposed
Approach for Methylene Chloride and the Second Co-Proposed Approach for
NMP: 327
    Frequency of Response: On occasion to third parties as needed.
    Total Estimated Burden for the Proposed Approach for Methylene
Chloride and the First Co-Proposed Approach for NMP: 163.5
    Estimated Total Annual Burden for the Proposed Approach for
Methylene Chloride and the Second Co-Proposed Approach for NMP: 1,084
hours.
    Total Estimated Cost for the Proposed Approach for Methylene
Chloride and the First Co-Proposed Approach for NMP: $7,904 (per year).
    Estimated Total Annual Costs for the Proposed Approach for
Methylene Chloride and the Second Co-Proposed Approach for NMP:
$924,890 (per year).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this proposed rule. You may also send your ICR-related
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Desk Officer for the
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than February 21, 2017. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., EPA
prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) (Ref. 26)
that examines the impact of the proposed rule on small entities along
with regulatory alternatives that could minimize that impact. The
complete IRFA is available for review in the docket and is summarized
here.
    1. Need for the rule. Under TSCA section 6(a) (15 U.S.C. 2605(a)),
if EPA

determines that a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or
other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially
exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant to the risk
evaluation, 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. Based on EPA's risk
assessments of methylene chloride (Ref. 2) and NMP (Ref. 3), EPA
proposes a determination that the use of methylene chloride and NMP in
paint and coating removal presents an unreasonable risk of injury to
human health. The provisions of this proposal are necessary to address
the risk so that it is no longer unreasonable.
    2. Objectives and legal basis. In part, the legal basis for this
proposal is TSCA section 6(a), which provides authority for the
Administrator to apply requirements to the extent necessary so that a
chemical substance or mixture no longer presents an unreasonable risk
of injury to health or the environment. Additional legal basis for the
proposal is found at TSCA section 26(l)(4). With respect to chemical
substances such as methylene chloride and NMP (which are listed in the
2014 update to the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments and for
which completed risk assessments were published prior to the date of
enactment of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st
Century Act) TSCA section 26(l)(4) expressly authorizes EPA to issue
rules under TSCA section 6(a) that are consistent with the scope of the
completed risk assessment and consistent with the other applicable
requirements of TSCA section 6.
    3. Small entities covered by this proposal. EPA estimates that the
proposal would affect approximately 10,300 small entities. The majority
of these entities are commercial users of methylene chloride or NMP in
paint and coating removal in a variety of occupational settings such as
bathtub refinishing, graffiti removal, autobody repair, and residential
renovations. This also includes a small number of formulators of paint
and coating removal products that contain methylene chloride and NMP,
for commercial or consumer uses (Refs. 4, 26, and 127).
    4. Compliance requirements and the professional skills needed. For
methylene chloride, EPA is proposing under TSCA section 6 to prohibit
the manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution in
commerce of methylene chloride for all consumer and many types or uses
of commercial paint and coating removal, as described in the proposed
rule. EPA is also proposing under TSCA section 6 to prohibit the use of
methylene chloride for commercial paint and coating removal in these
several specified sectors. Additionally, EPA is proposing to require
that any paint or coating removal products containing methylene
chloride that continue to be distributed be packaged in volumes no less
than 55-gallon containers, except for formulations produced
specifically for DOD. EPA is also proposing to require manufacturers
(including importers), processors, and distributors, except for
retailers, of methylene chloride for any use to provide downstream
notification of these requirements and prohibitions throughout the
supply chain; and to require limited recordkeeping. More details on
this supply chain approach are in Unit VI.C.3.
    For NMP, EPA is co-proposing two approaches. Under the first co-
proposed approach, EPA is proposing to prohibit the manufacture
(including import), processing, and distribution in commerce of NMP for
all consumer and commercial paint and coating removal, exempting uses
identified in the proposed rule as critical to national security; and
to prohibit the commercial use of NMP for paint and coating removal,
exempting uses identified as critical to national security. EPA is
proposing to require that any paint or coating removal products
containing NMP that continue to be distributed be packaged in no less
than 5-gallon containers. EPA is also proposing to require
manufacturers (including importers), processors, and distributors,
except for retailers, of NMP for any use to provide downstream
notification of these prohibitions throughout the supply chain; and to
require limited recordkeeping. For the second co-proposed approach for
NMP, commercial users would be required to implement and maintain a
detailed program for worker protection, including dermal and
respiratory protection. Additionally, product processors would be
required to carry out testing to identify gloves that are protective
against each product formulation, labeling product with that
information, and provide additional information on the label to
consumers regarding risks of using the product and instructions on how
to reduce those risks. As in the first co-proposal, EPA is also
proposing to require manufacturers (including importers), processors,
and distributors, except for retailers, of NMP for any use to provide
downstream notification of these prohibitions throughout the supply
chain; and to require limited recordkeeping. More details on these two
co-proposals are in Unit XVI.B.3.
    Under the proposed approach for methylene chloride and first co-
proposed approach for NMP, complying with the prohibitions, the
downstream notification, and the recordkeeping requirements involve no
special skills. However, implementing the use of substitute chemicals
or alternative paint and coating removal processes may involve special
skills or expertise in the sector in which the paint and coating
removal is conducted.
    For the second co-proposed approach for NMP, commercial users would
be required to implement and maintain a detailed program for worker
protection, which would involve special skills or expertise in
industrial hygiene. Similarly, product processors would be required to
carry out testing to identify gloves that are protective against each
product formulation, could involve special skills or expertise.
Labeling products to comply with new requirements would not involve
special skill, particularly since EPA proposes to identify specific
information for labels of paint and coating removal products containing
NMP. As in the first co-proposal for NMP, the downstream notification
and the recordkeeping requirements require no special skills.
    5. Other Federal regulations. Other Federal regulations that affect
the use of methylene chloride or NMP in paint and coating removal are
discussed in Units III.A. and XIII.A. While many of the statutes that
EPA and other agencies are charged with administering provide statutory
authority to address specific sources and routes of methylene chloride
exposure, none of these can address the serious human health risks from
methylene chloride exposure that EPA is proposing to address under TSCA
section 6(a). Regarding methylene chloride, because the methylene
chloride NESHAPs were developed only to regulate emissions from certain
types of paint and coating removal operations, not to address worker or
consumer exposures, they are not duplicative with this proposal.
Similarly, regulations addressing methylene chloride disposal or water
contamination do not address worker or consumer exposures when
conducting paint and coating removal. This proposed rule does not
conflict with the NESHAP (or regulations addressing methylene chloride
disposal or water contamination): it neither prohibits any action
required by such

rules, nor requires any action prohibited by such rules.
    OSHA's methylene chloride standard, 29 CFR 1910.1052, was issued in
1997 and applies to general industry, construction, and shipyard
employment. This proposal does not duplicate OSHA's methylene chloride
standard. Nor does the proposed rule conflict with the OSHA standard:
it would not prohibit actions required to meet OSHA's methylene
chloride standard and it would not require actions in violation OSHA's
methylene chloride standard.
    CPSC requires that consumer products that contain methylene
chloride be labeled with a statement regarding the cancer risks
presented by inhalation of methylene chloride fumes. This proposal does
not impose requirements that would duplicate or conflict with CPSC's
labeling requirements for methylene chloride.
    Regarding NMP, there are no OSHA or CPSC regulations. EPA's
proposal is not duplicative of other Federal rules nor does it conflict
with other Federal rules.
    6. Regulatory alternatives considered. As described in Units V.C.,
VI.C., XV.C., and XVI.B., EPA considered a wide variety of risk
reduction options. The Economic Analysis (Ref. 4) examined several
alternative analytical options. However, most of the alternatives did
not address the risks presented by methylene chloride and NMP in paint
and coating removal as necessary so that they would no longer be
unreasonable, either to the general population or (in the case of NMP)
to women of childbearing age.
    The primary alternative considered by EPA for methylene chloride in
paint and coating removal was to allow the commercial use of methylene
chloride in paint and coating removal and require a respiratory
protection program, including PPE, air monitoring, and either a
supplied-air respirator of APF 1,000 or 10,000 or an air exposure limit
achieved through engineering controls or ventilation in commercial
facilities where methylene chloride is used for paint and coating
removal. Depending on air concentrations and proximity to the paint and
coating removal, other employees in the area would also need to wear
respiratory protection equipment. While this option would address the
risks presented by methylene chloride in paint and coating removal, so
that they would no longer be unreasonable, the Economic Analysis
indicates that this option is more expensive than switching to a
substitute chemical or alternative paint and coating removal method
(Ref. 4). However, as recommended by the SBAR panel, EPA is seeking
comment on and additional information about air monitoring and the use
of supplied-air respirators in firms conducting paint and coating
removal with methylene chloride (Ref. 27).
    EPA is co-proposing two approaches to address risks presented by
NMP in commercial and consumer paint and coating removal. Those
approaches are described above. EPA considers both of these approaches
to be primary regulatory alternatives.
    As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, EPA also convened a SBAR
Panel to obtain advice and recommendations from small entity
representatives that potentially would be subject to the rule's
requirements. The SBAR Panel evaluated the assembled materials and
small-entity comments on issues related to elements of an IRFA. A copy
of the full SBAR Panel Report (Ref. 27) is available in the rulemaking
docket.
    The Panel recommended that EPA seek additional information in five
specific areas: Exposure information, regulatory options, alternatives,
cost information, and risk assessment. Specifically, the Panel
recommendations were: (1) Exposure information: EPA should request
workplace monitoring information during the comment period for worker
exposure levels from companies for methylene chloride and NMP in paint
and coating removal. EPA should request additional information
regarding the frequency of use currently of PPE, and consider that
information when weighing alternative options in the proposed
rulemaking for methylene chloride and NMP in paint and coating removal.
(2) Regulatory options: EPA should consider and seek public comments on
enhanced labeling requirements for consumer paint removal products
containing methylene chloride or NMP to reduce exposure to methylene
chloride and NMP. EPA should consider and seek public comments on a
control option such as a certification program similar to the Lead
Renovation, Repair and Painting program with increased training and
education for commercial users of paint removers. EPA should delay any
proposed regulatory action on methylene chloride for the commercial
furniture refinishing industry while it gathers additional information
to characterize the impacts on this industry of restrictions on use of
methylene chloride in paint and coating removal. EPA should request
comment on current practices in the furniture refinishing industry on
limiting exposure to methylene chloride used in paint and coating
removal. EPA should request comment on the feasibility of methylene
chloride only being sold in 30-55- gallon drums. EPA should address the
proposed regulatory actions as distinctly as possible in the one
proposed rulemaking addressing both methylene chloride and NMP in paint
and coating removal. (3) Alternatives: EPA should ensure that its
analysis of the available alternatives to methylene chloride and NMP in
paint and coating removal comply with the requirements of TSCA section
6(c)(2)(C) and include consideration, to the extent legally permissible
and practicable, of whether technically and economically feasible
alternatives that benefit health or the environment, compared to the
use being prohibited or restricted, will be reasonably available as a
substitute when the proposed requirements would take effect.
Specifically, EPA should evaluate the feasibility of using
alternatives, including the cost, relative safety, and other barriers;
and take into consideration the current and future planned regulation
of compounds the agency has listed as alternatives. (4) Cost
information: EPA should request additional information on the cost to
achieve reduced exposures in the workplace or to transition to
alternative chemicals or technologies. (5) Risk assessments: EPA should
recognize the concerns that the SERs had on the risk assessments by
referring readers to the risk assessments and the Agency's Summary of
External Peer Review and Public Comments and Disposition document for
each risk assessment, which addresses those concerns, in the preamble
of the proposed rulemaking.
    Throughout this preamble, EPA has requested information with
respect to these and other topics.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The requirements of
this action would primarily affect manufacturers, processors, and
distributors of methylene chloride or NMP. The total estimated
annualized cost of the proposed rule under the first co-proposed
approach for NMP is $4,185,000 to $23,423,000 and $4,550,000 to
$23,472,000 annualized over 20 years at 3% and 7%, respectively (Ref.
4). The total estimated annualized cost of the proposed rule under the
second co-proposed approach for NMP is $114,196,000 to $125,893,000 and
$114,658,000 to $125,438,000 annualized over 20 years

at 3% and 7%, respectively (Ref. 127), which does not exceed the
inflation-adjusted unfunded mandate threshold of $154 million.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    The EPA has concluded that this action has federalism implications,
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
because regulation under TSCA section 6(a) may preempt state law. EPA
provides the following federalism summary impact statement. The Agency
consulted with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed action to permit them to have meaningful and
timely input into its development. EPA invited the following national
organizations representing state and local elected officials to a
meeting on May 13, 2015, in Washington DC: National Governors
Association; National Conference of State Legislatures, Council of
State Governments, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of
Mayors, National Association of Counties, International City/County
Management Association, National Association of Towns and Townships,
County Executives of America, and Environmental Council of States. A
summary of the meeting with these organizations, including the views
that they expressed, is available in the docket (Ref. 124). Although
EPA provided these organizations an opportunity to provide follow-up
comments in writing, EPA received no written follow-up.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rulemaking
would not have substantial direct effects on tribal government because
methylene chloride or NMP are not manufactured, processed, or
distributed in commerce by tribes. Tribes do not regulate methylene
chloride or NMP, and this rulemaking would not impose substantial
direct compliance costs on tribal governments. Thus, EO 13175 does not
apply to this action. EPA nevertheless consulted with tribal officials
during the development of this action, consistent with the EPA Policy
on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes.
    EPA met with tribal officials in a national informational webinar
held on May 12, 2015 concerning the prospective regulation of methylene
chloride and NMP in paint and coating removal under TSCA section 6, and
in another teleconference with tribal officials on May 27, 2015 (Ref.
125). EPA also met with the National Tribal Toxics Council (NTTC) in
Washington, DC and via teleconference on April 22, 2015 (Ref. 125). In
those meetings, EPA provided background information on the proposed
rule and a summary of issues EPA explored. These officials expressed
support for EPA regulation to reduce the risks presented by methylene
chloride and NMP in paint and coating removal.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is an
economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive
Order 12866, and the EPA believes that the environmental health or
safety risk addressed by this action has a disproportionate effect on
children, specifically on the developing fetus. Accordingly, we have
evaluated the environmental health or safety effects of methylene
chloride and NMP in paint and coating removal on children. This
action's health and risk assessment of exposure by children to
methylene chloride and NMP in paint and coating removal are contained
in Units I.F., VI.C.1.c., and XVI.B.1.c. of this preamble. Supporting
information on methylene chloride and NMP exposures and the health
effects of methylene chloride or NMP exposure by children is available
in the Toxicological Review of Methylene Chloride (Ref. 5), the NMP
risk assessment (Ref. 3), and the methylene chloride risk assessment
(Ref. 2).

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution in Commerce, or Use

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect
energy supply, distribution in commerce, or use. This rulemaking is
intended to protect against risks from methylene chloride and NMP in
paint and coating removal, and does not affect the use of oil, coal, or
electricity.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards, and
is therefore not subject to considerations under NTTAA section 12(d),
15 U.S.C. 272 note. However, under one of the co-proposals for NMP
discussed in Unit XVI, EPA is proposing to require processors of paint
and coating removal products that contain NMP to identify, through
testing, gloves that provide an impervious barrier to dermal exposure
during normal and expected duration and conditions of exposure. EPA has
identified two potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards for
this process: ASTM International Standard F739, ``Standard Test Method
for Permeation of Liquids and Gases through Protective Clothing
Materials under Conditions of Continuous Contact,'' and ASTM
International F1194-99, ``Standard Guide for Documenting the Results of
Chemical Permeation Testing of Materials Used in Protective Clothing
Materials.'' EPA is not proposing specific provisions for conducting
and documenting glove testing, nor is EPA proposing to incorporate
these voluntary consensus standards by reference. EPA requests comment
on whether the regulation should include additional requirements on
glove testing for processors and, if so, how that should be
accomplished.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse health or environmental effects of their programs, policies
and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in
the U.S. Units VI.C.1.b.,VI.D.10., XVI.B.1.b., and XVI.C.6. of this
preamble address public health impacts from methylene chloride and NMP
in paint and coating removal. This proposed rule would address the
current disproportionate risk to Hispanic workers (of all races) and
foreign-born workers in the construction trades, where these two
populations are overrepresented compared to the general U.S. adult
population (Ref. 4). Though this proposed rule would eliminate risks of
exposure to NMP and methylene chloride when used in paint and coating
removal in the construction trades, because workers in these two
populations currently are overrepresented in this trade, these
populations would disproportionately benefit from this risk reduction.
The EPA places particular emphasis on the public health and
environmental conditions affecting minority populations, low-income
populations,

and indigenous peoples. In recognizing that these populations
frequently bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and
risks, EPA works to protect them from adverse public health and
environmental effects (Ref. 126).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 751

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

    Dated: January 12, 2017.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    Therefore, 40 CFR part 751, as proposed to be added at 81 FR 91592
(December 16, 2016), is proposed to be further amended as follows:

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

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

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

0
2. Add Subpart B to read as follows:
Subpart B--Methylene Chloride
Sec.
751.101 General.
751.103 Definitions.
751.105 Consumer Paint and Coating Removal.
751.107 Commercial Paint and Coating Removal in Specified Industries
or for Specified Uses.
751.109 Downstream Notification.
751.111 Recordkeeping.

Subpart B--Methylene Chloride

Sec.  751.101  General.

    This subpart sets certain restrictions on the manufacture
(including import), processing, distribution in commerce, and uses of
methylene chloride (CASRN 75-09-2) to prevent unreasonable risks to
health associated with human exposure to methylene chloride for the
specified uses.

Sec.  751.103  Definitions.

    The definitions in subpart A of this part apply to this subpart
unless otherwise specified in this section. In addition, the following
definitions apply:
    Commercial furniture stripping means furniture stripping conducted
in a commercial facility performed by an individual, government entity,
or company for which an individual, government entity, or company
receives remuneration or other form of payment.
    Commercial paint and coating removal means paint and coating
removal performed by an individual, government entity, or company, for
which an individual, government entity, or company receives
remuneration or other form of payment.
    Critical corrosion-sensitive components of military aviation and
vessels means parts that directly enable or support warfighting assets
of the Department of Defense (DOD) and include ``safety critical
items'' identified by DOD in accordance with DOD policies and
requirements for ensuring safety and performance. These include
corrosion-sensitive aviation and vessel safety-critical components such
as landing gear, gear boxes, turbine engine parts, and other military
aircraft and vessel components composed of metallic materials
(specifically high-strength steel, aluminum, titanium, and magnesium)
and composite materials that not only require their coatings be removed
for inspection and maintenance but also would be so negatively affected
by the use of paint removal chemicals or methods other than methylene
chloride that the safety of the system could be compromised.
    Distribute in commerce has the same meaning as in section 3 of the
Act, except that the term does not include retailers for purposes of
Sec.  751.109 and Sec.  751.111.
    Furniture stripping means paint and coating removal from furniture
and includes application of a chemical or use of another method to
remove, loosen, or deteriorate any paint, varnish, lacquer, graffiti,
surface protectants, or other coating from wood, metal, or other types
of furniture, doors, radiators, or cabinets. Furniture stripping
includes paint and coating removal from furniture that occurs
separately from or as part of furniture refinishing.
    Paint and coating removal means application of a chemical or use of
another method to remove, loosen, or deteriorate any paint, varnish,
lacquer, graffiti, surface protectants, or other coating from a
substrate, including objects, vehicles, architectural features, or
structures.
    Retailer means a person or business who distributes in commerce a
chemical substance, mixture, or article to consumer end users.

Sec.  751.105  Consumer Paint and Coating Removal.

    After [date 180 calendar days after the date of publication of the
final rule], all persons are prohibited from manufacturing, processing,
and distributing in commerce methylene chloride for consumer paint and
coating removal.

Sec.  751.107  Commercial Paint and Coating Removal in Specified
Industries or for Specified Uses.

    (a) After [date 180 calendar days after the date of publication of
the final rule], all persons are prohibited from manufacturing,
processing, and distributing in commerce methylene chloride for
commercial paint and coating removal except for commercial furniture
stripping or for paint and coating removal from critical corrosion-
sensitive components of military aviation and vessels as defined in
Sec.  751.103. After [date 10 years after the date of publication of
the final rule], all persons are prohibited from manufacturing,
processing, and distributing in commerce methylene chloride for paint
and coating removal from critical corrosion-sensitive components of
military aviation and vessels.
    (b) After [date 180 calendar days after the date of publication of
the final rule], all persons are prohibited from distributing in
commerce methylene chloride for paint and coating removal in containers
with a volume less than 55 gallons except for formulations specifically
manufactured for the Department of Defense, which may be distributed in
commerce in containers with a volume no less than 5 gallons.
    (c) After [date 270 calendar days after the date of publication of
the final rule], all persons are prohibited from commercial use of
methylene chloride for paint and coating removal except for commercial
furniture stripping or for paint and coating removal from critical
corrosion-sensitive components of military aviation and vessels as
defined in Sec.  751.103. After [date 10 years after the date of
publication of the final rule], all persons are prohibited from
commercial use of methylene chloride for paint and coating removal from
critical corrosion-sensitive components of military aviation and
vessels.
    (d) Any paint and coating removal from critical corrosion-sensitive
components of military aviation and vessels must be conducted under the
following restrictions:
    (1) All paint and coating removal from critical corrosion-sensitive
components of military aviation and vessels using methylene chloride
must be conducted at DOD installations, or at deployed locations under
the control of DOD organizations, or at locations of DOD contractors
performing coating removal work from corrosion-sensitive components of
military aviation and vessels for DOD.

Sec.  751.109  Downstream Notification.

    Each person who manufactures, processes, or distributes in commerce
methylene chloride for any use after [date 45 calendar days after the
date of publication of the final rule] must, prior to or concurrent
with the shipment, notify companies to whom methylene chloride is
shipped, in writing, of the restrictions described in this subpart.

Sec.  751.111  Recordkeeping.

    (a) Each person who manufactures, processes, or distributes in
commerce any methylene chloride after [date 45 calendar days after the
date of publication of final rule] must retain in one location at the
headquarters of the company documentation showing:
    (1) The name, address, contact, and telephone number of companies
to whom methylene chloride was shipped;
    (2) A copy of the notification provided under Sec.  751.109; and
    (3) The amount of methylene chloride shipped.
    (b) The documentation in (a) must be retained for 3 years from the
date of shipment.
0
3. Add Subpart C as follows:
Subpart C--N-Methylpyrrolidone.
Sec.
751.201 General.
751.203 Definitions. [option 1]
751.205 Manufacture, processing, and distribution of NMP for
consumer paint and coating removal.
751.207 Manufacture, Processing, and Distribution of NMP for
Commercial Paint and Coating Removal
751.209 Downstream Notification.
751.211 Recordkeeping. [option 2]
751.205 Paint and Coating Removal for Specified Uses.
751.209 Downstream Notification.
751.211 Recordkeeping.

Subpart C--N-Methylpyrrolidone

Sec.  751.201  General.

    This subpart sets certain restrictions on the manufacture
(including import), processing, distribution in commerce, and uses of
N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) (CASRN 872-50-4) to prevent unreasonable
risks to health associated with human exposure to NMP for the specified
uses.

Sec.  751.203  Definitions.

    The definitions in subpart A of this part apply to this subpart
unless otherwise specified in this section. In addition, the following
definitions apply:
    Commercial paint and coating removal means paint and coating
removal performed by an individual, government entity, or company, for
which an individual, government entity, or company receives
remuneration or other form of payment.
    Critical corrosion-sensitive components of military aviation and
vessels means parts that directly enable or support warfighting assets
of the Department of Defense (DOD) and include ``safety critical
items'' identified by DOD in accordance with DOD policies and
requirements for ensuring safety and performance. These include
corrosion-sensitive aviation and vessel safety-critical components such
as landing gear, gear boxes, turbine engine parts, and other military
aircraft and vessel components composed of metallic materials
(specifically high-strength steel, aluminum, titanium, and magnesium)
and composite materials that not only require their coatings be removed
for inspection and maintenance but also would be so negatively affected
by the use of paint removal chemicals or methods other than NMP that
the safety of the system could be compromised.
    Distribute in commerce has the same meaning as in section 3 of the
Act, except that the term does not include retailers for purposes of
Sec.  751.209 and Sec.  751.211.
    Formulation is a mixture of active and other ingredients.
    Paint and coating removal means application of a chemical or other
method to remove, loosen, or deteriorate any paint, varnish, lacquer,
graffiti, surface protectants, or other coatings from a substrate,
including objects, vehicles, architectural features, or structures.
    Retailer means a person or business who distributes in commerce a
chemical substance, mixture, or article to consumer end users.

[OPTION 1 PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT FOR Sec. Sec.  751.205, 751.207,
751.209, and 751.211: Co-Proposal 1: NMP--Banning the Manufacture,
Processing, Distribution, and Use Except for a Critical Use Exemption]

Sec.  751.205  Manufacture, Processing, and Distribution of NMP for
Consumer Paint and Coating Removal.

    After [date 180 calendar days after the date of publication of the
final rule], all persons are prohibited from manufacturing, processing,
and distributing in commerce NMP for consumer paint and coating
removal.

Sec.  751.207  Manufacture, Processing, and Distribution of NMP for
Commercial Paint and Coating Removal.

    (a) After [date 180 calendar days after the date of publication of
the final rule], all persons are prohibited from manufacturing,
processing, and distributing in commerce NMP for commercial paint and
coating removal except for paint and coating removal from critical
corrosion-sensitive components of military aviation and vessels as
defined in Sec.  751.203. After [date 10 years after the date of
publication of the final rule], all persons are prohibited from
manufacturing, processing, and distributing in commerce NMP for paint
and coating removal from critical corrosion-sensitive components of
military aviation and vessels.
    (b) After [date 180 calendar days after the date of publication of
the final rule], all persons are prohibited from distributing in
commerce NMP for paint and coating removal in containers with a volume
less than 55 gallons except for formulations specifically manufactured
for the Department of Defense, which may be distributed in commerce in
containers with a volume no less than 5 gallons.
    (c) After [date 270 calendar days after the date of publication of
the final rule], all persons are prohibited from commercial use of NMP
for paint and coating removal except for paint and coating removal from
critical corrosion-sensitive components of military aviation and
vessels as defined in Sec.  751.203. After [date 10 years after the
date of publication of the final rule], all persons are prohibited from
commercial use of NMP for paint and coating removal from critical
corrosion-sensitive components of military aviation and vessels.
    (d) Any paint and coating removal from critical corrosion-sensitive
components of military aviation and vessels must be conducted under the
following restrictions:
    (1) All paint and coating removal from critical corrosion-sensitive
components of military aviation and vessels using NMP must be conducted
at DOD installations; DOD owned, contractor operated locations; or
contractor owned, contractor operated locations performing paint and
coating removal from critical corrosion-sensitive components of
military aviation and vessels for DOD.
    (2) [Reserved].

Sec.  751.209  Downstream notification.

    Each person who manufactures, processes, or distributes in commerce
NMP for any use after [date 45 calendar days after the date of
publication of the final rule] must, prior to or concurrent with the
shipment, notify companies to whom NMP is shipped, in writing, of the
restrictions described in this subpart.

Sec.  751.211  Recordkeeping.

    (a) Each person who manufactures, processes, or distributes in
commerce any NMP after [date 45 calendar days after the date of
publication of final rule] must retain in one location at the
headquarters of the company documentation showing:
    (1) The name, address, contact, and telephone number of companies
to whom NMP was shipped;
    (2) A copy of the notification provided under Sec.  751.209; and
    (3) The amount of NMP shipped.
    (b) The documentation in (a) must be retained for 3 years from the
date of shipment.

[OPTION 2 PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT FOR Sec. Sec.  751.205, 751.209, and
751.211: Co-Proposal 2: NMP--Continued Use with Requirements for
Product Reformulation, Labeling, and PPE]

Sec.  751.205  Paint and Coating Removal for Specified Uses.

    (a) Processors. (1) Formulations of NMP for paint and coating
removal that contain more than 35 percent by weight of NMP must not be
manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce after [date 180
calendar days after the date of publication of the final rule], except
for product formulations destined to be used by DOD or contractors
performing work only on DOD projects for paint and coating removal from
critical corrosion-sensitive components of military aviation and
vessels as defined in Sec.  751.203 and subsection (b)(1).
    (2) Conduct glove testing for each separate formulation of NMP,
with a variation of more than 1 percent in any component of a paint and
coating removal product containing NMP considered a separate
formulation.
    (i) The processor must be able to demonstrate that the gloves
provide an impervious barrier to prevent dermal exposure during normal
and expected duration and conditions of exposure.
    (ii) The processor must subject the gloves to the expected
conditions of exposure, including the likely combinations of chemical
substances to which the gloves may be exposed in the work area.
    (3) Provide a label securely attached to each NMP paint and coating
removal product and not in the form of a booklet or other pull off type
labeling. Label information must be prominently displayed and in an
easily readable font size. Each separate NMP paint and coating removal
product must be labeled with the following information:
    (i) A notice that 40 CFR 751.205 requires commercial users of NMP
paint and coating removal products to establish an occupational dermal
and respiratory protection program, including the use of specialized
gloves and an air exposure limit or respirator.
    (ii) A warning to consumers that fetal death and other irreversible
health effects may occur as a result of using the NMP product;
    (iii) An identification of the formulation-specific gloves that
will provide protection from the NMP product and a direction to use a
new pair of those gloves for each time the NMP product is used;
    (iv) A direction for consumers to either use the product outdoors
or adequately ventilate the workspace by opening windows and adding
fans;
    (v) A warning for consumers to not apply the product as a spray;
    (vi) A direction to wear clothing that covers exposed skin;
    (vii) A direction to use a respirator with an Assigned Protection
Factor (APF) of 10. Refer to Sec.  751.205(c)(3)(ii) for respirators
having an APF of 10 or greater;
    (b) Commercial users. Each person or company engaged in any
commercial NMP paint and coating removal activities [date 180 calendar
days after the date of publication of the final rule] is prohibited
from using paint and coating removal products or formulations that
contain more than 35 percent by weight of NMP and must institute a
worker protection program that includes the requirements of Sec.
751.205(c) and (e) except for product formulations destined to be used
for paint and coating removal from critical corrosion-sensitive
components of military aviation and vessels as defined in Sec.
751.203. After [date 10 years after the date of publication of the
final rule], all persons are prohibited from using paint and coating
removal products or formulations that contain more than 35 percent by
weight of NMP and must institute a worker protection program that
includes the requirements of Sec.  751.205(c) and (e).
    (1) Any paint and coating removal from critical corrosion-sensitive
components of military aviation and vessels must be conducted under the
following restrictions:
    (i) All paint and coating removal from critical corrosion-sensitive
components of military aviation and vessels using NMP must be conducted
at DOD installations; or at government owned, contractor operated
locations; or at contractor owned and contractor operated locations
performing paint and coating removal from critical corrosion-sensitive
components of military aviation and vessels for DOD.
    (ii) [Reserved].
    (2) [Reserved].
    (c) Personal protective equipment (PPE).
    (1) General. (i) Protective equipment that is of safe design and
construction for the work to be performed must be provided, used, and
maintained in a sanitary, reliable, and undamaged condition. The
employer must select PPE that properly fits each affected employee and
communicate PPE selections to each affected employee.
    (ii) Training. The employer must provide training to each employee
required to use PPE.
    (A) Each affected employee must be trained to know at least the
following:
    (1) When PPE is necessary.
    (2) What PPE is necessary.
    (3) How to properly don, doff, adjust, and wear PPE.
    (4) The limitations of the PPE.
    (5) The proper care, maintenance, useful life and disposal of the
PPE.
    (B) Each affected employee must demonstrate an understanding of
these elements and the ability to use PPE properly before being allowed
to perform work requiring the use of PPE.
    (C) Retraining is required when previous training is rendered
obsolete, whether due to changes in the workplace or the type of PPE,
or when the employer has reason to believe that a previously-trained
employee does not have the understanding and skill required by this
subparagraph.
    (2) Dermal protective equipment. (i) General. Each person who is
reasonably likely to be dermally exposed in the work area to an NMP
paint and coating removal product through direct handling of the
substance or through contact with equipment or materials on which the
substance may exist, or because the substance becomes airborne must be
provided with, and required to wear, personal protective equipment that
provides a barrier to prevent dermal exposure to the substance in the
specific work area where it is selected for use.
    (ii) Specific dermal protective equipment. The required dermal
protective equipment includes, but is not limited to, the following
items:
    (A) Formulation-specific gloves as indicated on the NMP paint and
coating removal product label. A new pair must be supplied and worn
each time the NMP product is used.
    (B) Impervious clothing covering the exposed areas of the body
(e.g. long pants, long shirt).
    (iii) Demonstration of imperviousness. The employer must
demonstrate that each item of chemical protective clothing selected
provides an impervious barrier to prevent dermal exposure during normal
and expected

duration and conditions of exposure within the work area by any one or
a combination of the following:
    (A) Testing the material used to make the chemical protective
clothing and the construction of the clothing to establish that the
protective clothing will be impervious for the expected duration and
conditions of exposure. The testing must subject the chemical
protective clothing to the expected conditions of exposure, including
the likely combinations of chemical substances to which the clothing
may be exposed in the work area.
    (B) Evaluating the specifications from the manufacturer or supplier
of the chemical protective clothing, or of the material used in
construction of the clothing, to establish that the chemical protective
clothing will be impervious to the chemical substance alone and in
likely combination with other chemical substances in the work area.
    (3) Respiratory protection. (i) General. Each person who is
reasonably likely to be exposed in the workplace to the use of NMP in
paint and coating removal products must be provided with and is
required to wear, at a minimum, a NIOSH-certified respirator with an
APF of 10. All respirators must be issued, used, and maintained in
accordance with an appropriate written respiratory protection program
that is specific to the workplace and that includes the following:
    (A) Procedures for selecting respirators for use in the workplace.
    (B) Medical evaluations of employees required to use respirators.
    (C) Fit testing procedures.
    (D) Procedures for proper use of respirators.
    (E) Procedures and schedules for cleaning, disinfecting, storing,
inspecting, repairing, discarding, and otherwise maintaining
respirators.
    (F) Procedures to ensure adequate air quality, quantity, and flow