[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 206 (Thursday, October 28, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59684-59693]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23337]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 751

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0598; FRL-6015.6-01-OCSPP]
RIN 2070-AK95


Regulation of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals 
Under TSCA Section 6(h); Phenol, Isopropylated Phosphate (3:1); Further 
Compliance Date Extension

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
amend the regulations applicable to phenol, isopropylated phosphate 
(3:1) (PIP (3:1)) promulgated under the Toxic Substances Control Act 
(TSCA). Specifically, EPA is proposing to extend the compliance date 
applicable to the processing and distribution in commerce of certain 
PIP (3:1)-containing articles, and the PIP (3:1) used to make those 
articles until October 31, 2024, along with the associated 
recordkeeping requirements for manufacturers, processors, and 
distributors of PIP (3:1)-containing articles. EPA is also announcing 
its intention to commence a new rulemaking effort on PIP (3:1) and four 
other persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals that have 
been regulated under TSCA section 6(h). EPA is anticipating issuing a 
proposal to this end in 2023.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 27, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification 
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0598, using the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for 
submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Additional 
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more 
information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/about-epa-dockets.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA 
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room are closed to visitors with 
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer 
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status 
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact: 
Cindy Wheeler, Existing Chemicals Risk Management Division, Office of 
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 
(202) 566-0484; email address: [email protected].
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture 
(including import), process, distribute in commerce, or use phenol, 
isopropylated phosphate (3:1) (PIP (3:1)), or PIP (3:1)-containing 
articles, especially plastic articles that are components of 
electronics or electrical articles. The following list of North 
American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended 
to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine 
whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities 
may include:
     Petroleum Refineries (NAICS Code 324110);
     All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS Code 
325199);
     Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing (NAICS Code 
325211);
     All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation 
Manufacturing (NAICS Code 325998);
     Machinery Manufacturing (NAICS Code 333);
     Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and 
Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 
Code 333415);
     Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS Code 
334290);
     Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing (NAICS Code 
334);
     Small Electrical Appliance Manufacturing (NAICS Code 
335210);
     Major Household Appliance Manufacturing (NAICS Code 
335220);
     Motor and Generator Manufacturing (NAICS Code 335312);
     Switchgear and Switchboard Apparatus Manufacturing (NAICS 
Code 335313);
     Relay and Industrial Control Manufacturing (NAICS Code 
335314);

[[Page 59685]]

     Other Communication and Energy Wire Manufacturing (NAICS 
Code 335929);
     Current-carrying Wiring Device Manufacturing (NAICS Code 
335931);
     Transportation Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS Code 336);
     Musical Instrument Manufacturing (NAICS Code 339992);
     All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing (NAICS Code 339999);
     Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers 
(NAICS Code 424690);
     Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers (NAICS Code 441);
     All Other Home Furnishings Stores (NAICS Code 442299);
     Electronics and Appliance Stores (NAICS Code 443);
     Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies 
Dealers (NAICS Code 444);
     Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and 
Life Sciences (NAICS Code 541710).

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

    Section 6(h) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2605(h), directs EPA to take 
expedited action on certain persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic 
(PBT) chemical substances. For chemical substances that meet the 
statutory criteria, EPA is directed to issue final rules that address 
the risks of injury to health or the environment that the Administrator 
determines are present and to reduce exposure to the substance(s) to 
the extent practicable. In response to this directive, EPA identified 
PIP (3:1) as meeting the TSCA section 6(h) criteria and issued a final 
rule for PIP (3:1) on January 6, 2021 (Ref. 1).
    With the obligation to promulgate these rules, the Agency also has 
the authority to amend them if circumstances change, including in 
relation to the receipt of new information and in relation to 
compliance deadlines established under TSCA section 6(d). It is well 
settled that EPA has inherent authority to reconsider, revise, or 
repeal past decisions to the extent permitted by law so long as the 
Agency provides a reasoned explanation. See FCC v. Fox Television 
Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009). Here, as explained further in 
Unit I.D., based on information submitted by regulated entities, the 
Agency proposes that revised compliance dates are necessary to address 
comments that the original compliance dates were not practicable and 
did not provide adequate transition time because they would have caused 
extensive harm to the economy and public due to unavailability of 
critical goods and equipment.

C. What action is the Agency taking?

    The January 2021 final rule for PIP (3:1) prohibits the processing 
and distribution of PIP (3:1), PIP (3:1)-containing products, and PIP 
(3:1)-containing articles, with specified exclusions; prohibits or 
restricts the release of PIP (3:1) to water during manufacturing, 
processing, distribution, and commercial use; and requires persons 
manufacturing, processing, and distributing in commerce PIP (3:1) and 
products containing PIP (3:1) to notify their customers of these 
prohibitions and restrictions and to keep records. Several different 
compliance dates were established, the first of which was 60 days after 
publication, or March 8, 2021, after which processing and distribution 
of PIP (3:1), PIP (3:1)-containing products, and PIP (3:1)-containing 
articles were prohibited unless an alternative compliance date or 
exclusion was otherwise provided. A recently issued final rule extended 
the compliance date applicable to the processing and distribution in 
commerce of certain PIP (3:1)-containing articles, and the PIP (3:1) 
used to make those articles, from March 8, 2021 to March 8, 2022, along 
with the associated recordkeeping requirements (Ref. 2).
    EPA is proposing to amend the regulations at 40 CFR 751.407(a)(2) 
to further extend the phased-in prohibition, established in the 
September 2021 final rule, for the processing and distributing in 
commerce of PIP (3:1) for use in certain articles, and for the 
processing and distributing in commerce of certain PIP (3:1)-containing 
articles, from March 8, 2022 to October 31, 2024. This proposal would 
also extend the compliance date for the recordkeeping requirements for 
manufacturers, processors, and distributors of PIP (3:1)-containing 
articles from March 8, 2022, to October 31, 2024. EPA is seeking public 
comment on the compliance deadline. Articles covered by the phased-in 
prohibition include any article not otherwise covered by an alternative 
compliance deadline or exclusion described in 40 CFR 751.407(a)(2)(ii) 
or (b).
    EPA is also announcing its intention to commence a new rulemaking 
effort on PIP (3:1) and the other four chemicals that have been 
regulated under TSCA section 6(h), which are 2,4,6-tris(tert-
butyl)phenol (2,4,6-TTBP), decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE), 
pentachlorothiophenol (PCTP), and hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD) (Refs. 3, 
4, 5, and 6). EPA is anticipating issuing a proposal to this end in 
2023. EPA is reviewing the provisions of all five of the final rules 
issued under TSCA section 6(h), evaluating the other applicable 
provisions of amended TSCA, and determining how the Executive Orders 
and other Administration priorities (Refs. 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11) could 
be addressed, along with the additional information that has been 
provided by stakeholders in response to the March 2021 notification and 
request for comments. More information on this rulemaking can be found 
in Unit III.C.

D. Why is the Agency taking this action?

    EPA is issuing this proposal to further address the hardships 
inadvertently created by the January 2021 final rule on PIP (3:1) (Ref. 
1) due to uses and supply chain challenges that were not communicated 
to EPA until after the rule was published. Shortly after the final rule 
was published in January 2021, many stakeholders, including, for 
example, the electronics and electrical manufacturing sector and their 
customers, raised significant concerns about their ability to meet the 
March 8, 2021, compliance date for PIP (3:1)-containing articles (Ref. 
12). These stakeholders requested an extension of the compliance dates 
in order to clear the existing articles through the supply chain, find 
and certify an alternative chemical, and produce or import new articles 
that do not contain PIP (3:1). In the Federal Register of March 16, 
2021 (Ref. 13), EPA requested additional comment on this specific 
issue, as well as on other aspects of all the TSCA section 6(h) final 
rules in general (Refs. 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6). According to the comments 
received in response to the March 2021 notification and request for 
comments, a wide range of key consumer and commercial goods are 
affected by the prohibitions in the PIP (3:1) final rule such as 
cellular telephones, laptop computers, and other electronic devices and 
industrial and commercial equipment used in various sectors including 
transportation, life sciences, and semiconductor production (Ref 14). 
This proposal follows a final rule that published in the Federal 
Register of September 17, 2021, that extended the compliance date 
applicable to the processing and distribution in commerce of certain 
PIP (3:1)-containing articles, and the PIP (3:1) used to make those 
articles, until March 8, 2022, along with the associated recordkeeping 
requirements for manufacturers, processors, and distributors of PIP 
(3:1)-containing

[[Page 59686]]

articles (Ref. 2). That final rule provided a necessary short-term 
extension to avoid immediate and significant disruption in the supply 
chains for important articles, to provide the public with regulatory 
certainty in the near term, and to allow EPA additional time to further 
evaluate the need to again extend the compliance deadlines for PIP 
(3:1). EPA responded to the comments received on the March 2021 
notification that were relevant to the compliance deadline extension 
and related issues as part of the recent final rule (Ref. 2). EPA will 
respond to comments from the March 2021 notification not already 
addressed in the September 2021 final rule either as part of this 
rulemaking or as part of the subsequent rulemaking on the five PBTs. 
EPA is requesting comment on a further extension of the compliance 
dates beyond March 8, 2022 for the processing and distribution of 
certain PIP (3:1)-containing articles, and the PIP (3:1) used to make 
those articles. This proposed extension of the compliance dates until 
October 31, 2024, is based on the detailed information provided by 
several industry commenters.

E. What are the incremental economic impacts?

    EPA evaluated the potential incremental economic impacts and 
determined that these changes would reduce the existing burden of this 
action. The quantified effect of this compliance date extension 
reflects the difference between the incremental cost and benefits of 
the final rule as it was originally promulgated and the incremental 
cost and benefits of this proposed rule with the compliance date in 
place. This was estimated as the difference between the cost and 
benefits of the final rule after a compliance extension of March 8, 
2022, and the cost and benefits of this proposed rule with an October 
31, 2024, compliance date. Quantified costs for substitution and 
recordkeeping were estimated to be incurred later, assuming they will 
be incurred when the proposed compliance date extension expires. In 
summary, extending the compliance date from March 8, 2022 to October 
31, 2024 for PIP (3:1)-containing articles would result in an estimated 
annualized cost savings of $1.8 million (from $24.1 to $22.3 million) 
at a 3 percent discount rate or $2.4 million (from $23.4 to $21.0 
million) at a 7 percent discount rate over a 25-year time horizon. 
While the Agency has no data to quantify this, qualitative costs 
savings may include providing more time for manufacturers and retailers 
to sell articles prior to the prohibition deadline rather than being 
forced to dispose of them, thereby avoiding loss of revenue from those 
products. In addition to these cost savings, reformulation (which can 
include research and development, laboratory testing, and re-labeling) 
will be facilitated once an acceptable substitute is certified given 
that companies will have more time to gather information regarding the 
steps involved in the reformulation process. Cost reductions for 
reformulation are not certain, however, since the time required to 
identify viable substitutes can be complex and unpredictable. The level 
of these cost savings is dependent on complexity of achieving needed 
efficacy, length of time needed for testing and quality control, and 
the current status of development of alternatives, which may vary 
greatly by sector and end use product. Lastly, the compliance date 
extension may provide additional time for information gathering through 
the supply chain to alleviate the necessity for chemical testing of 
certain articles. Although the benefits of the final rule were not 
quantified, the extension would also postpone decreases in potential 
releases and exposures to PIP (3:1). Due to discounting, in a manner 
similar to costs, this postponement would lead to lower potential 
benefits. On balance, this proposed further extension of the compliance 
dates is appropriate to prevent the disruptive consequences of 
implementing the prohibition on March 8, 2022 without a further 
compliance extension. The economic consequences (such as loss of 
supply) could be severe, given the apparent ubiquity of the chemical in 
commerce. Thus, EPA is proposing to determine that the cost savings and 
avoidance of disruption to industry outweigh the delayed realization of 
benefits that may accrue from reduced exposure.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through 
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI in a disk or CD-ROM that 
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then 
identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific 
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version 
of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the 
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be 
submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked 
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 
40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting 
your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. Background

A. The January 2021 Final Rule

    A final rule for PIP (3:1) was published in the Federal Register on 
January 6, 2021 (Ref. 1). EPA determined in the final rule that PIP 
(3:1) met the TSCA section 6(h)(1)(A) criteria for expedited action. In 
addition, EPA determined, in accordance with TSCA section 6(h)(1)(B), 
that exposure to PIP (3:1) was likely under the conditions of use to 
the general population, to a potentially exposed or susceptible 
subpopulation, or the environment. The PIP (3:1) final rule prohibits 
processing and distribution in commerce of PIP (3:1), and products or 
articles containing the chemical substance, for all uses, except for 
the following different compliance dates or exclusions:
     Use in photographic printing articles after January 1, 
2022;
     Use in aviation hydraulic fluid in hydraulic systems and 
use in specialty hydraulic fluids for military applications;
     Use in lubricants and greases;
     Use in new and replacement parts for the aerospace and 
automotive industries;
     Use as an intermediate in the manufacture of cyanoacrylate 
glue;
     Use in specialized engine air filters for locomotive and 
marine applications;
     Use in sealants and adhesives after January 6, 2025; and
     Recycling of plastic that contained PIP (3:1) before the 
plastic was recycled, and the articles and products made from such 
recycled plastic, provided no new PIP (3:1) is added during the 
recycling or production process.
    In addition, the final rule requires manufacturers, processors, and 
distributors of PIP (3:1) and products containing PIP (3:1) to notify 
their customers of these restrictions. Finally, the rule prohibits 
releases to water from the remaining manufacturing, processing, and 
distribution in commerce activities, and requires commercial users of 
PIP (3:1) and PIP (3:1)-containing products to follow existing 
regulations and best practices to prevent releases to water during use.
    Also defined at 40 CFR 751.403 for the purposes of 40 CFR part 751, 
subpart E, which includes the PIP (3:1) final rule, are the terms 
``article'' and

[[Page 59687]]

``product'' (Ref. 3). ``Article'' is defined as a manufactured item: 
(1) Which is formed to a specific shape or design during manufacture, 
(2) Which has end use function(s) dependent in whole or in part upon 
its shape or design during end use, and (3) Which has either no change 
of chemical composition during its end use or only those changes of 
composition which have no commercial purpose separate from that of the 
article, and that result from a chemical reaction that occurs upon end 
use of other chemical substances, mixtures, or articles; except that 
fluids and particles are not considered articles regardless of shape or 
design. For example, laptop computers are articles, as are the internal 
components such as chips, wiring, and cooling fans. ``Product'' is 
defined as the chemical substance, a mixture containing the chemical 
substance, or any object that contains the chemical substance or 
mixture containing the chemical substance that is not an article. For 
example, hydraulic fluids and motor oils are products.

B. The March 2021 Notification and the No Action Assurance

    Shortly after the publication of the January 2021 final rule, a 
wide variety of stakeholders from various sectors, including the 
electronics and electrical manufacturing community and their customers, 
started raising concerns about the March 8, 2021, compliance date in 
that final rule for the prohibition on the processing and distributing 
in commerce of PIP (3:1) for use in articles and PIP (3:1)-containing 
articles (Ref. 12). These stakeholders contended that they needed 
significantly more time to identify whether and where PIP (3:1) might 
be present in articles in their supply chains, find and certify 
alternative chemicals, and produce or import new articles that do not 
contain PIP (3:1). Despite EPA's extensive outreach, most stakeholders 
contacting EPA after the rule was finalized did not comment on the 
proposal or otherwise engage with the agency on the PIP (3:1) 
rulemaking, and do not appear to have previously surveyed their supply 
chains to determine if PIP (3:1) was being used. Several indicated that 
they did not understand that articles can be regulated under TSCA, and 
that, because PIP (3:1) is not regulated by other authorities, 
including those of other countries or under international agreements, 
there was a lack of awareness relative to its presence in the supply 
chain (Ref. 14). Absent engagement and timely or specific input from 
these stakeholders that could be used as a basis for granting further 
extensions or exemptions from the proposed prohibition, in the final 
rule EPA believed that PIP (3:1) was not widely present in articles 
outside the aerospace and automotive sectors. While some commenters on 
the 2019 proposed rule indicated that PIP (3:1) may be present in 
articles, their comments were very general and did not identify 
specific uses or specific concerns with the March 8, 2021, compliance 
date.
    Based on the concerns raised by stakeholders shortly after 
publication of the final rule, EPA issued a No Action Assurance (NAA) 
on March 8, 2021, in an effort to ensure that the supply chains of 
these important articles were not interrupted while the agency 
collected the information needed to best inform subsequent regulatory 
efforts (Ref. 15). The NAA only described how the agency will exercise 
its enforcement discretion, the NAA did not change the March 8, 2021, 
compliance date.
    Shortly after the NAA was issued, EPA published in the ``Proposed 
Rules'' section of the Federal Register of March 16, 2021, a 
notification and request for comments on the five final PBT rules in 
general and, more specifically, on the compliance date issues with 
respect to PIP (3:1)-containing articles that had been raised by 
stakeholders. The Federal Register document described in particular the 
issues raised by industry stakeholders regarding the March 8, 2021, 
compliance date, including the types of articles affected, such as 
those used in a wide variety of electronics, ranging from cellular 
telephones, to robotics used to manufacture semiconductors, to 
equipment used to move COVID-19 vaccines and keep them at the 
appropriate temperature. The document further outlined the complexity 
of international supply chains described by industry stakeholders and 
how, according to those stakeholders, that complexity creates 
challenges for identifying and finding alternatives to PIP (3:1) in 
complex supply chains. In the document, EPA asked commenters to 
specifically describe the following regarding PIP (3:1)-containing 
articles:
     The articles that would need an alternative compliance 
date;
     The basis for such an alternative compliance date, taking 
into consideration the reasons supporting alternative compliance dates 
in the final rule already issued, such as the January 1, 2022, date for 
photographic printing articles and the January 6, 2025, date for 
adhesives and sealants, with supporting documentation; and
     The additional time needed for specific articles to clear 
channels of trade.
    EPA received a total of 122 comments in response to the March 2021 
notification and request for comments; 78 of these were from industry 
stakeholders, most of whom were concerned about compliance for PIP 
(3:1)-containing articles (Ref 14). Stakeholders concerned about PIP 
(3:1)-containing articles reiterated that they needed much more time, 
up to 15 years (Ref. 16), in order to identify where PIP (3:1) might be 
present in their supply chains, find and certify alternatives, and 
produce or import new articles that do not contain PIP (3:1). More 
information on the comments received can be found in the September 2021 
final rule (Ref. 2), which is further discussed in Unit. II.C.

C. The September 2021 Final Rule

    Based on the comments received in response to the March 2021 
notification and request for comments, EPA issued a final rule 
extending the compliance dates applicable to the processing and 
distribution in commerce of certain PIP (3:1)-containing articles, and 
the PIP (3:1) used to make those articles, until March 8, 2022, along 
with the associated recordkeeping requirements for manufacturers, 
processors, and distributors of PIP (3:1)-containing articles. While 
most commenters on the March 2021 notification and request for comments 
requested a longer compliance date extension, EPA determined that a 
short-term extension was necessary to ensure that the supply chains for 
these important articles continue uninterrupted in the near term while 
allowing EPA to conduct notice and comment rulemaking to provide an 
opportunity for comments in response to this proposal on a longer-term 
compliance date extension generally.

D. Comments Received in Response to the March 2021 Notification

    This Unit describes the comments received specifically on the issue 
of compliance dates for the prohibition on the processing and 
distribution in commerce of PIP (3:1)-containing articles, and the PIP 
(3:1) used to make those articles, as well as on the associated 
recordkeeping requirements. Comments received on other aspects of the 
January 2021 PIP (3:1) final rule, as well as on the final rules for 
the other four PBT chemicals, are outside of the scope of this 
rulemaking and will be addressed in a future rulemaking effort as 
described in Unit III.C.
    1. Comments on articles that contain, or potentially contain, PIP 
(3:1). During the public comment period for the March 2021 notification 
and request for comments, industry commenters identified a wide range 
of articles that

[[Page 59688]]

may contain PIP (3:1). PIP (3:1) is generally used as a flame retardant 
and plasticizer in plastic articles. Articles which have been 
identified or are being investigated for the presence of PIP (3:1) 
include polyvinyl chloride (PVC) tubes, harnesses, cables, covers, 
sleeves, and casings, which include AC power cords and USB cables for 
consumer and commercial articles such as laptops, televisions, and 
gaming consoles. According to the electrical manufacturing industry, a 
representative sample of articles made possible by the qualities unique 
to PIP (3:1) include medical devices, capacitors, inverters, 
generators, transformers, semiconductor wafers, computers, and 
electrical appliances (Ref. 17). Manufacturers of construction, 
agriculture, forestry, mining, and utility equipment have identified 
PIP (3:1) in fire prevention systems, engine emission control systems, 
electronics, wiring harnesses, hydraulic hoses, switches, fabrics, PVC 
articles, resin in fiberglass articles, paints, elastomers, foam, 
resistors, splitters, articles that are alarm components, automatic 
tire inflation equipment, and wire sleeving (Ref. 18). According to 
another commenter, in construction, agriculture, forestry, mining, and 
utility equipment, PIP (3:1) is frequently found in wire harnesses, 
starters, water pumps, motor gears, pre-wired motors, ground cables, 
and compressors (Ref. 19). The semiconductor manufacturing industry has 
identified the use of PIP (3:1) in semiconductor-related manufacturing 
equipment (as well as microelectromechanical-related, solar-related, 
and LED-related manufacturing equipment) and semiconductor fabrication 
facilities' support equipment and infrastructure, such as laboratory, 
substrate and device (e.g., die) preparation, and assembly and test 
operations, including advanced packaging (Ref. 16) as well as articles 
that are internal components of high-tech robotics and manufacturing 
equipment. Additionally, the chemical has been identified in articles 
that are components in scanning electron microscopes utilized in 
research, national laboratories, and academia (Ref. 20).
    EPA generally agrees with these commenters that PIP (3:1) is used 
in a variety of articles, especially in plastic articles that are 
components of electronics or electrical articles. Further, at the time 
the January 2021 final rule was issued, EPA did not understand the 
extent to which PIP (3:1) is used in articles beyond those articles 
specifically addressed in that final rule, which are photographic 
printing articles, new and replacement parts for aerospace and motor 
vehicles, specialized locomotive and marine engine air filters, and 
recycled plastics. EPA notes that this proposed rule would not affect 
the compliance dates established for these specific articles in the 
January 2021 final rule. EPA outlined its understanding on the use of 
PIP (3:1) in articles in responding to public comments on the January 
2021 final rule, ``[t]here is little evidence to suggest that PIP (3:1) 
is present in articles which may be available to consumers, and outside 
of activities excluded from the prohibition, little evidence to suggest 
it is necessary or present in commercial and industrial articles as 
well'' (Ref. 30).
    2. Comments on the challenges associated with determining whether 
articles contain PIP (3:1). These commenters also described in some 
detail the challenges associated with determining whether a particular 
article contains PIP (3:1), especially for complex goods that contain 
thousands of individual parts. Commenters noted that a manufacturer of 
a complex good could have upwards of 5,000 suppliers for potentially 
100,000 or more component articles across all product lines (Ref. 21). 
These commenters also noted that manufacturers do not receive a list of 
every chemical within each part or component article that ultimately 
goes into a finished electronic article because ingredient lists are 
highly proprietary and confidential. Rather, companies provide 
functionality, performance, safety and quality specifications of a part 
or component article to their supply chain, including specifications 
regarding chemical restrictions. According to these commenters, 
suppliers are provided lists of restricted chemicals on at least an 
annual basis, or more frequently if there is a triggering event, such 
as a new government restriction. Suppliers are notified of the lead 
time for the restriction of the chemical and any testing that may be 
required, which information they communicate to their own suppliers.
    According to these commenters (Ref. 21), the task of determining 
whether PIP (3:1) is used in a component article in a finished 
electronic good is further complicated by the many article 
manufacturers being unable to identify or confirm the PIP (3:1) content 
of articles, such as supplied parts, components or commercial and 
consumer goods, without laboratory testing. Laboratory testing can run 
up to $5,000 per product and take up to one (1) month. As a result, 
companies must rely on material declarations by suppliers as a more 
practicable and reliable approach to determine the usage of PIP (3:1) 
within an article.
    Other commenters echo these concerns. Comments from the heating, 
ventilation, air conditioning, and refrigeration (HVACR) industry note 
that manufacturers are currently parsing through tens of thousands of 
stock-keeping units (SKUs), each having hundreds of associated 
component articles and spare parts (Ref. 22). They contend that their 
suppliers have generally not been forthright about the presence of PIP 
(3:1) in their component articles and parts, even after receiving 
notification that the use of PIP (3:1) in component articles must be 
disclosed. According to these commenters, some suppliers continue to 
claim that they will not disclose the chemical makeup of component 
articles as the composition is confidential intellectual property. In 
response, some of the larger manufacturers have started testing 
component articles to compensate for this lack of transparency, but 
testing is time-consuming and costly and most smaller businesses do not 
have the resources to undertake testing.
    The semiconductor industry and the testing and measurement industry 
noted that their industries differ from the consumer electronics 
industry and the automotive industry, in that their industries are 
high-mix, low-volume industries, meaning that manufacturer portfolios 
are typically comprised of a large number of unique goods with 
relatively low unit sales (Refs. 16 and 23). Their equipment is 
primarily built to order and sold directly to professional and 
industrial customers by the manufacturers (Ref. 23). The semiconductor 
industry typically places only 600 to 6,000 units of semiconductor 
manufacturing and related equipment into U.S. commerce each year and it 
is not uncommon for small groups of model units to be customized to an 
end user's particular needs (Ref. 16). According to this commenter, 
this is in stark contrast to most consumer goods, in which individual 
similar model units are placed into U.S. commerce in much greater 
number, and to the automotive and aerospace sectors, in which goods are 
manufactured in lower quantities but which are quite similar from model 
unit to model unit (Ref. 16). The semiconductor industry further noted 
that their sector's ability to obtain material composition data from 
across their supply chain is limited due to three factors: (1) The 
length and complexity of the supply chain; (2) the preponderance of 
suppliers located

[[Page 59689]]

outside of the U.S.; and (3) the tens of thousands of parts 
incorporated into each article eventually manufactured or distributed 
in commerce within the U.S.
    EPA generally recognizes the challenges described by these 
commenters in determining whether and where PIP (3:1) is present in 
articles in their supply chains and how long it may take to clear those 
PIP (3:1)-containing articles through the channels of trade. As to 
comments relating to testing, as most commenters note, there are a 
number of alternative steps to testing that an importer or a domestic 
manufacturer can take to ensure that an article does not contain PIP 
(3:1). The customer can include a specification in their purchase 
contracts with suppliers that articles be made without PIP (3:1). The 
customer can also request that their suppliers provide them with a 
written statement or certification that the purchased or supplied goods 
are made without PIP (3:1). Of course, testing is always an option, but 
EPA recognizes that this may be a more expensive option.
    3. Comments on compliance date considerations for PIP (3:1)-
containing articles. Nearly all of the industry commenters responding 
to EPA's March 2021 request for comments stated that they needed 
several years to phase PIP (3:1) out of their articles (Ref. 14). Many 
commenters contended that they needed much longer, up to fifteen years 
(Refs. 16 and 20) assuming that it is even feasible to do so. Only two 
commenters, representing individual companies, indicated that they 
would need less than three years (Refs. 24 and 25). Commenters 
identified a number of steps that would be needed in order to complete 
a phase-out of PIP (3:1) in articles. These steps include: (1) 
Identifying whether and where PIP (3:1) is present; (2) identifying and 
testing substitutes; (3) re-certifying (as needed) the replacement 
article; and (4) distributing the replacement article throughout the 
supply chain. Some commenters provided detailed timelines for the steps 
needed to replace PIP (3:1).
    For example, the consumer electronics industry noted that, while 
companies had begun to survey their suppliers as soon as the final rule 
was published, because of the large number of parts and suppliers 
involved for most manufacturers, they anticipated that completing the 
survey would take between six and twelve months (Ref. 21). They also 
noted that, because PIP (3:1) is not regulated in other international 
markets, there is a general lack of awareness regarding the chemical 
throughout the supply chain and the industry expects the surveys to 
take closer to twelve months than six.
    According to the consumer electronics industry commenters, once PIP 
(3:1) is identified in a particular part by a particular supplier, the 
supplier must identify and investigate alternatives to PIP (3:1) that 
can meet regulatory requirements and manufacturer requirements with 
respect to functionality, performance, safety and quality (Ref. 21). 
Given that PIP (3:1) is typically used in electronic component articles 
to meet safety standards related to flammability, a component article 
that includes a PIP (3:1) alternative will have to be certified to the 
applicable safety standard (Ref. 21). Common safety standards that 
apply to consumer electronics, according to the commenters, include 
Underwriters Laboratory UL94, entitled ``Tests for Flammability of 
Plastic Material for Part in Devices and Applications,'' and UL498, 
entitled ``Attachment Plugs and Receptacles.'' The timeline for 
retesting and recertification of replacement component articles is 
determined by the certification organization, and consumer electronics 
manufacturers estimate that testing could take anywhere from 3 to 24 
months (Ref. 21).
    These commenters detail the next steps in replacing a PIP (3:1)-
containing component article (Ref. 21). Once the manufacturer of the 
finished consumer electronics good receives the replacement component 
article, the manufacturer will conduct its own internal quality 
assessments. The manufacturer will conduct an initial assessment on 
whether the component article works, has the correct performance 
characteristics, and maintains brand integrity. Once these basic 
parameters have been evaluated, the manufacturer will assemble the 
component article into a consumer electronics good and conduct an 
overall quality assessment, which may include smoke and ignition 
testing, current leakage testing, and temperature testing, among other 
things (Ref. 21). At that point, the reworked good is sent for third-
party certification. If the substituted component article is considered 
critical by the certification body, full retesting and recertification 
of the good may be necessary. Industry commenters anticipate that full 
retesting and recertification will be required, given the use of PIP 
(3:1) from a fire safety perspective and the fact that the types of 
component articles where PIP (3:1) is used play critical roles in the 
goods. Manufacturers anticipate that this recertification step will 
take anywhere from six to thirty months (Ref. 21). Finally, according 
to these commenters, a minimum of one year is needed to move the newly 
remanufactured goods throughout the supply chain. This commenter 
further contended that a chemical phase out in response to a 
restriction in the European Union under the Restriction on Hazardous 
Substances (RoHS) 2, a product-level compliance program for electrical 
and electronic equipment, is typically effective four years from the 
date of notice by the European Union (Ref. 21).
    The heavy equipment sector provided similarly detailed descriptions 
of the length of time needed to replace PIP (3:1)-containing component 
articles (Ref. 18). These commenters stated that their design cycles 
are typically seven years from start to finish, and that this would 
likely be the amount of time needed to identify whether and to what 
extent PIP (3:1) exists in the supply chain, confirm the function of 
PIP (3:1) for the end-use application, identify alternatives, re-design 
for the alternative rather than PIP (3:1), test the replacement 
component article for safety, regulatory, and quality requirements, and 
re-introduce the good into the market (Ref. 18). According to this 
commenter, the testing requirements often take the longest time to 
complete during a redesign because heavy-duty industrial equipment 
operates in demanding and severe operating conditions over a long 
product life cycle. Such equipment is reportedly subject to various 
fire safety and flammability regulatory requirements set by the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Flammability Test for 
Motor Vehicle Interiors, 49 CFR 571.302), the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration (Fire Protection and Prevention, 29 CFR 1926.24 
and 1926.151), the Mine Safety and Health Administration (various fire 
prevention provisions, including 30 CFR part 35 and 30 CFR 75.1100, 
75.1911, and 77.1100), and the Federal Railroad Administration (49 CFR 
parts 216, 223, 229, 231, 232, 238). Additionally, according to this 
commenter, engine emission sensors designed for off-road equipment to 
comply with the Clean Air Act currently rely on PIP (3:1) to survive 
the high-temperature environment in the engine compartment (Ref. 18).
    A unique problem reported by this commenter and several others in 
the heavy equipment sector is that their supply chains often overlap 
with much larger industries, such as the automotive and aerospace 
sectors (Refs. 18, 19, 26, 27, and 28). A recent survey by one 
commenter found that 61% of the surveyed suppliers in the heavy

[[Page 59690]]

equipment sector also provided parts and materials to the automotive 
industry (Ref. 18). According to this commenter, despite the 
significant overlap in suppliers, there are key differences in the 
product design lifecycles and volumes between the industries. Heavy-
duty, industrial professional use equipment is decidedly lower volume 
with a higher diversity of goods than those found in the consumer 
automotive market. As the automotive sector is currently excluded from 
the January 2021 PIP (3:1) final rule, the current regulations allow 
suppliers to provide automotive parts that contain PIP (3:1) to their 
automotive manufacturers. With the higher variability of goods and 
lower volume nature of the heavy-duty, industrial equipment sector, 
commenters assert that the manufacturers of this non-automotive 
equipment will need to utilize custom made parts which, if available, 
could cost between two and ten times the normal price of the automotive 
parts that they would ordinarily use (Ref. 28).
    In contrast to the industry commenters, who all stated that the 
March 8, 2021, compliance date for PIP (3:1)-containing articles was 
not practicable, a comment submitted by three environmental public 
interest groups in response to EPA's March 2021 request for comments 
stated that industry had been given sufficient notice of EPA's intent 
to regulate PIP (3:1) in articles and did not believe that EPA should 
excuse their failure to comment in a timely manner (Ref. 29). This 
commenter further noted that any exclusions or extended compliance 
dates should be considered under the stringent criteria of TSCA section 
6(g), which requires EPA to determine one of the following: (1) That 
the condition of use is a critical or essential use with no feasible 
safer alternatives; or (2) that compliance with a requirement would 
significantly disrupt the national economy, national security, or 
critical infrastructure; or (3) that the specific condition of use 
provides a substantial benefit to health, the environment, or public 
safety.
    EPA generally agrees with the industry commenters on the conceptual 
steps that may be needed to phase PIP (3:1) out of articles in their 
supply chains. Industry must first determine where PIP (3:1) is used, 
identify alternatives to PIP (3:1), and then design, test, and 
recertify, as necessary, the new articles made without PIP (3:1). Those 
new articles must then be distributed throughout the supply chain. 
However, EPA observes that these steps need not always be undertaken 
sequentially. For example, it is not necessary to identify every single 
model of smartphone that uses a power cord that contains PIP (3:1) 
before work begins to identify and test alternatives to PIP (3:1) in 
power cords for smartphones.
    Some commenters provided detailed estimates of the time needed to 
take these steps while others did not. For example, comments from the 
consumer technology sector gave estimates for completing each one of 
these steps, with the overall timeline ranging from 2.25 years to 6.5 
years (Ref. 21). Estimated timelines provided by commenters in response 
to the March 2021 notification and request for comments ranged from 
2.25 years to 15 years or more (Refs. 21 and 16). Given the varying 
estimates, and the lack of detail accompanying some of those estimates, 
EPA is proposing to further extend the compliance dates until October 
31, 2024 consistent with the lower end of the estimates provided. This 
will avoid significant disruption in the supply chains for important 
articles and will provide the public with regulatory certainty while 
industry collects and submits additional information to inform whether 
a further compliance date extension may be necessary for certain 
industry sectors. EPA will consider any additional information of this 
kind in the context of the broader rulemaking described in more detail 
in Unit III.C.
    EPA disagrees with the commenter who contended that any compliance 
date extension should be evaluated under TSCA section 6(g). As noted in 
response to similar comments on the 2019 proposed rule, ``TSCA section 
6(h)(4) directs EPA to issue regulations that reduce exposure to PBT 
chemicals `to the extent practicable,' not to regulate beyond the point 
of practicability and then issue [section 6(g)] exemptions that would 
limit the scope of those regulations'' (Ref. 30, at p. 44). EPA views 
this compliance date extension as consistent with this standard, and as 
discussed in Unit III, with the requirements of TSCA section 6(d) to 
ensure that the compliance dates are ``as soon as practicable'' and 
provide a ``reasonable transition period,'' because this action is 
necessary to avoid significant disruption in the supply chains for 
important articles, such as cellular telephones and the HVACR equipment 
used to cool people, buildings, and to transport and store COVID-19 
vaccines and keep them at the appropriate temperature, not as an excuse 
for a failure to comment earlier in this rulemaking process.

III. Provisions of This Proposed Rule

A. Establishing a Revised Compliance Date

    1. TSCA section 6(d) compliance dates and section 6(h) rules. TSCA 
section 6(d) includes a number of provisions relating to establishment 
of effective or compliance dates applicable to those rules. 
Specifically, TSCA section 6(d)(1)(A) directs EPA to specify a date on 
which the TSCA section 6(a) rule is to take effect that is ``as soon as 
practicable.'' TSCA section 6(d)(1)(B) requires EPA to specify 
mandatory compliance dates for each requirement of a rule promulgated 
under TSCA section 6(a), which must be as soon as practicable but no 
later than five years after promulgation except as provided in 
subsections (C) and (D) or in the case of a use exempted under TSCA 
section 6(g). TSCA section 6(d)(1)(C) states that EPA must specify 
mandatory compliance dates for the start of ban or phase-out 
requirements under a TSCA section 6(a) rule, which must be as soon as 
practicable but no later than five years after promulgation, except in 
the case of a use exempted under TSCA section 6(g); and subsection (D) 
requires EPA to specify mandatory compliance dates for full 
implementation of ban or phase-out requirements, which must be as soon 
as practicable. Additionally, TSCA section 6(d)(1)(E) directs EPA to 
provide for a reasonable transition period.
    As noted in the preamble to the January 2021 final rule, the term 
``practicable'' as used in the phrase ``to the extent practicable'' in 
TSCA section 6(h) are undefined, the phrases ``as soon as practicable'' 
and ``reasonable transition period'' as used in TSCA section 6(d)(1) 
are also undefined, and the legislative history on each provision is 
limited. Given the ambiguity in the statute, for purposes of the final 
rule under TSCA section 6(h), EPA presumed a 60-day compliance date was 
``as soon as practicable'' where EPA determined a prohibition or 
restriction was practicable, unless there was support for a lengthier 
period of time on the basis of reasonably available information, such 
as information submitted in comments on the Exposure and Use Assessment 
or on the proposed rule, or in stakeholder dialogues. At the time, EPA 
believed that such a presumption would ensure that the compliance 
schedule is ``as soon as practicable,'' particularly in the context of 
the TSCA section 6(h) rules for chemicals identified as persistent, 
bioaccumulative and toxic, and given that the expedited timeframe for 
issuing a TSCA section 6(h) proposed rule did

[[Page 59691]]

not allow time for collection and assessment of new information 
separate from the comment opportunities during the development of and 
in response to the proposed rule. EPA noted that this approach also 
allows for submission of information from the sources most likely to 
have the information that would impact an EPA determination on whether 
or how best to adjust the compliance deadline to ensure that the final 
compliance deadline chosen is both ``as soon as practicable'' and 
provides a ``reasonable transition period.''
    Despite significant outreach efforts, EPA did not receive timely or 
specific input from certain stakeholders during any public comment 
periods prior to issuance of the January 2021 final rule regarding the 
presence of PIP (3:1) in myriad articles. Absent this input, in the 
January 2021 final rule EPA determined that PIP (3:1) was not widely 
present in articles outside the aerospace and automotive sectors and 
that the presumption that a 60-day compliance date was practicable was 
appropriate. The comments received in response to EPA's March 2021 
notification and request for comments, and the communications received 
before that document published in the Federal Register, presented new 
information demonstrating that a 60-day compliance date was not 
practicable and did not provide a reasonable transition period for the 
full implementation of a ban or phase-out for many industries (Ref. 
14).

B. Proposed Further Compliance Date Extension

    As a result of the comments received in response to EPA's March 
2021 notification and request for comments, as well as on information 
provided during stakeholder meetings since the publication of the 
January 2021 final rule on PIP (3:1), EPA is proposing that the 
compliance date for PIP (3:1) and PIP (3:1)-containing articles, but 
not PIP (3:1)-containing products, should be further extended. EPA is 
proposing to extend the deadline adopted in the September 2021 final 
rule from March 8, 2022, to October 31, 2024. EPA has primarily based 
this proposal on the low end of the timelines provided by commenters 
and the specific, detailed timeline laid out by the consumer 
electronics sector (Ref. 21). Only two commenters, representing 
individual companies, stated that they needed less than this amount of 
time to phase out PIP (3:1) from their articles (Refs. 24 and 25). Many 
commenters suggested longer timelines, ranging from four to seven to 
fifteen years or more, although most did not provide sufficient detail 
to support these timelines. Once the use of PIP (3:1) has been 
identified in a specific article, the supplier can work with its supply 
chain to investigate and identify alternatives to the use of PIP (3:1) 
(Ref. 21). Most commenters indicated that the investigation of 
substitutes would have to wait until the specific uses are identified 
(Ref. 18). Commenters also stated that there may be considerable time 
and expense involved in recertifying commercial and consumer goods to 
applicable government requirements and industry consensus standards 
(Ref. 21). EPA is seeking public comment on the compliance deadline in 
this proposal, including information on the costs and benefits of the 
proposed compliance date extension, as well as information on exposures 
arising from PIP (3:1) in articles to improve EPA's understanding of 
the impacts of any future rulemaking.
    EPA is also considering the opportunity stakeholders will have to 
provide additional information to support any needed further compliance 
date extensions for consideration in the subsequent rulemaking activity 
discussed in Unit III.D. In particular, EPA believes that stakeholders 
will continue to increase their understanding regarding the presence of 
PIP (3:1) in articles and potential substitutes for PIP (3:1). EPA 
anticipates that it will also have more information on PIP (3:1) uses 
and substitutes, allowing EPA to better describe the kinds of 
information EPA will use in determining whether further compliance date 
extensions are warranted or whether compliance dates should be applied 
to activities currently excluded from the January 2021 final rule.
    While the consumer electronics sector and some industry commenters 
provided detailed information on the steps required to replace PIP 
(3:1) in their supply chains, along with reasonable estimates of the 
time needed to complete each of those steps, most did not. As outlined 
in the March 2021 notification and request for comments, EPA asked for 
information on:
     The specific articles that need an alternative compliance 
date;
     The basis for the alternative compliance date, taking into 
consideration the reasons supporting alternative deadlines in the 
January 2021 final rule, such as the January 1, 2022, date for 
photographic printing articles and the January 6, 2025, date for 
adhesives and sealants, with supporting documentation; and
     The additional time needed for specific articles to clear 
channels of trade.
    EPA understands that many industry sectors are still attempting to 
determine exactly where PIP (3:1) is present in their supply chains. 
Nevertheless, to the extent that any industry sector believes that it 
needs a compliance date beyond October 31, 2024, EPA invites comments 
providing specific information and documentation supporting a further 
compliance date extension. EPA will evaluate requests for extensions 
beyond the October 2024 date by evaluating the level of detail and 
documentation provided by the commenters on:
     The specific uses of PIP (3:1) in articles throughout 
their supply chains;
     Concrete steps taken to identify, test, and qualify 
substitutes for those uses, including details on the substitutes tested 
and the specific certifications that would require updating;
     Estimates of the time required to identify, test, and 
qualify substitutes with supporting documentation; and
     Documentation of the specific need for replacement parts, 
which may include the documented service life of the equipment and 
specific identification of any applicable regulatory requirements for 
the assurance of replacement parts.
    EPA also requests comment on whether these are the appropriate 
types of information for use in evaluating compliance date extensions, 
and whether there are other considerations that should apply.
    Finally, while PIP (3:1) for use in articles described in 40 CFR 
751.407(a)(ii) or (b) will continue to have recordkeeping requirements, 
EPA proposes to extend the recordkeeping compliance date in 40 CFR 
751.407(d) for certain PIP (3:1)-containing articles, until October 31, 
2024. Because industry is still in the process of identifying whether 
and where PIP (3:1) is present in many of the articles in their supply 
chains, the statement of compliance required in 40 CFR 751.407(d)(2) 
will not aid EPA in monitoring compliance with the regulation.

C. Future Rulemaking Activity on PBTs under TSCA section 6(h)

    EPA intends to commence a new rulemaking effort on PIP (3:1) and 
the other four chemical substances regulated under TSCA section 6(h) 
and anticipates issuing a proposal in 2023. As discussed in EPA's March 
2021 notification and request for comments, the Agency is reviewing the 
provisions of all five of the final rules issued under TSCA section 
6(h), evaluating the other applicable provisions of amended

[[Page 59692]]

TSCA, and determining how recent Executive Orders and other 
Administration priorities (Refs. 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11) could be 
addressed, along with the additional information provided by 
stakeholders. As part of this process, EPA will address comments 
received in response to the March 2021 notification and request for 
comments that are not addressed by the September 2021 final rule 
extending PIP (3:1) compliance dates and will consider whether 
additional exposure reductions are practicable for all five of the PBT 
chemicals. In addition, over the next year, EPA anticipates that many 
of the industries currently trying to determine whether PIP (3:1) is 
present in their articles will acquire additional detailed information 
on the presence of PIP (3:1) in articles and will have begun to 
identify potential substitutes for those uses. At the time that this 
broader proposal is issued, to the extent that any industry sector 
still believes that they will not be able to comply with the PIP (3:1) 
compliance dates established in this rulemaking, EPA plans to invite 
that industry to provide specific detailed comments and documentation 
along the lines discussed in Unit III.B. EPA also expects to solicit 
comment and information on exposures arising from PIP (3:1) in articles 
to inform EPA's understanding of the impacts of any future rulemaking.
    As part of the future proposed rulemaking, EPA also intends to 
thoroughly review the justifications underlying the exclusions in the 
January 2021 PIP (3:1) final rule and the other final rules under TSCA 
section 6(h) to determine whether to adopt new compliance dates for 
those activities currently excluded from the January 2021 final rules 
or to further extend compliance dates that have already been extended, 
consistent with the statutory directive to reduce exposure to the 
extent practicable.

IV. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically 
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and 
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are 
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even 
if the referenced document is not 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. Phenol, Isopropylated Phosphate (3:1) (PIP (3:1)); 
Regulation of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals Under 
TSCA Section 6(h); Final Rule. Federal Register (86 FR 894, January 
6, 2021) (FRL-10018-88).
2. EPA. Regulation of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic 
Chemicals Under TSCA Section 6(h); Phenol, Isopropylated Phosphate 
(3:1); Compliance Date Extension. Federal Register (86 FR 51823, 
September 17, 2021) (FRL-6015.5-03-OCSPP).
3. EPA. 2,4,6-Tris(tert-butyl)phenol (2,4,6-TTBP); Regulation of 
Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals Under TSCA Section 
6(h); Final Rule. Federal Register (86 FR 866, January 6, 2021) 
(FRL-10018-90).
4. EPA. Decabromodiphenyl Ether (DecaBDE); Regulation of Persistent, 
Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals Under TSCA Section 6(h); Final 
Rule. Federal Register (86 FR 880, January 6, 2021) (FRL-10018-87).
5. EPA. Pentachlorothiophenol (PCTP); Regulation of Persistent, 
Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals Under TSCA Section 6(h); Final 
Rule. Federal Register (86 FR 911, January 6, 2021) (FRL-10018-89).
6. EPA. Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD); Regulation of Persistent, 
Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals Under TSCA Section 6(h); Final 
Rule. Federal Register (86 FR 922, January 6, 2021) (FRL-10018-91).
7. Executive Order 13985. Advancing Racial Equity and Support for 
Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government. Federal 
Register (86 FR 7009, January 25, 2021).
8. Executive Order 13990. Protecting Public Health and the 
Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis. 
Federal Register (86 FR 7037, of January 25, 2021).
9. Executive Order 14008. Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and 
Abroad. Federal Register (86 FR 7619, February 1, 2021).
10. Presidential Memorandum. Memorandum on Restoring Trust in 
Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based 
Policymaking. Federal Register (86 FR 86 FR 8845, February 10, 
2021).
11. Fact Sheet: List of Agency Actions for Review. January 21, 2021. 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/20/fact-sheet-list-of-agency-actions-for-review/.
12. Letter from the Consumer Technology Association (CTA) and the 
Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) to EPA on March 15, 
2021. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0202-0015.
13. EPA. Regulation of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic 
Chemicals Under TSCA Section 6(h); Request for Comments. Federal 
Register (86 FR 14398, March 16, 2021) (FRL-10021-08).
14. Comments submitted to EPA. Regulation of Persistent, 
Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals Under TSCA Section 6(h). Docket 
ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0202-0001.
15. EPA. No Action Assurance Regarding Prohibition of Processing and 
Distribution of Phenol Isopropylated Phosphate (3:1), PIP (3:1) for 
Use in Articles, and PIP (3:1)-containing Articles under 40 CFR 
751.407(a)(1). March 8, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/public-comment-period-pbt-rules-and-no-action-assurance.
16. Comment submitted by SEMI and the Semiconductor Equipment 
Association of Japan (SEAJ) to EPA on May 17, 2021. EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2021-0202-0121.
17. Comment submitted by National Electrical Manufacturers 
Association (NEMA) to EPA on May 17, 2021. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0202-
0117.
18. Comment submitted by the Association of Equipment Manufacturers 
(AEM) to EPA on May 13, 2021. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0202-0053.
19. Comment submitted by CNH Industrial to EPA on May 14, 2021. EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2021-0202-0065.
20. Comment submitted by Hitachi High-Tech America Inc. to EPA on 
May 17, 2021. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0202-0093.
21. Comment submitted by the Consumer Technology Association (CTA) 
and the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) to EPA on May 
17, 2021. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0202-0148.
22. Comment submitted by the Air-Conditioning, Heating and 
Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) to EPA on May 17, 2021. EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2021-0202-0143.
23. Comment submitted by the Test & Measure Coalition (T&M) to EPA 
on May 17, 2021. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0202-0122.
24. Comment submitted by Roland DGA Corporation to EPA on May 17, 
2021. HQ-OPPT-2021-0202-0129.
25. Comment submitted by Beveridge & Diamond, P.C. to EPA on May 14, 
2021. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0202-0069.
26. Comment submitted by LBX Company, LLC to EPA on May 17, 2021. 
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0202-0082.
27. Comment submitted by Clark Equipment Company to EPA on May 17, 
2021. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0202-0095.
28. Comment submitted by Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI) to 
EPA on May 17, 2021. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0202-0125.
29. Comment submitted by Safer Chemicals Healthy Families (SCHF) et 
al. to EPA on May 17, 2021. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0202-0096.
30. EPA. Regulation of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic 
Chemicals under TSCA Section 6(h); Response to Public Comments. 
December 2020. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080-0647.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

[[Page 59693]]

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

    This action is a significant regulatory action under Executive 
Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and was submitted to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 
12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Any changes made in 
response to OMB review have been reflected in the docket for this 
action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection 
activities or burden subject to OMB review and approval under the PRA, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. However, this action defers the costs associated 
with paperwork and recordkeeping burden for an existing information 
collection because the delayed compliance date alters the time horizon 
of the collection's analysis. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b). OMB 
has previously approved the information collection activities contained 
in the existing regulations and associated burden under OMB Control No. 
2070-0213 (EPA ICR No. 2599.02). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, 
and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information 
that requires OMB approval under PRA, unless it has been approved by 
OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control 
numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing 
in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on 
the related collection instrument or form, if applicable.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In 
making this determination, EPA concludes that the impact of concern for 
this rule is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, 
and the agency is certifying that this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the 
rule relieves regulatory burden. This action would extend the 
compliance date for a prohibition on the processing and distributing in 
commerce of PIP (3:1) for use in certain articles and the processing 
and distributing in commerce of certain PIP (3:1)-containing articles, 
along with the associated recordkeeping requirements, from March 8, 
2022, to October 31, 2024. EPA has therefore concluded that this action 
would relieve regulatory burden for all directly regulated small 
entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in 
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, 
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) because it does 
not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
apply to this action.

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

    This action is not a ``covered regulatory action'' under Executive 
Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not an 
economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive 
Order 12866.

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

    This is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in Executive 
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of 
energy and has not otherwise been designated by the Administrator of 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant 
energy action.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This action does not involve technical standards. As such, NTTAA 
section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note, does not apply to this action.

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

    EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). As 
discussed in Unit II., this action is necessary to avoid widespread 
disruptions in the supply chains for a wide variety of essential goods 
and would not otherwise materially alter the final rule as published.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 751

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Export notification, Hazardous 
substances, Import certification, Reporting and recordkeeping.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to 
amend 40 CFR part 751 as follows:

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

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

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


Sec.  751.407   [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  751.407 in paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (d)(4) by removing 
``March 8, 2022'' and adding ``October 31, 2024'' in its place.

[FR Doc. 2021-23337 Filed 10-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P