On December 28, 2021 (86 FR 73631), the NRC published in the Federal Register a direct final rule that would have amended parts 11, 25, and 95 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations to update the access authorization fees charged to NRC licensees for work performed under the Material Access Authorization Program and the Information Access Authority Program. The direct final rule also would have made two administrative changes to revise definitions to include new naming conventions for background investigation case types and to specify the electronic process for completing security forms. The direct final rule was to become effective on March 14, 2022.

The NRC also concurrently published a companion proposed rule on December 28, 2022 (86 FR 73685). In the proposed rule, the NRC stated that if any significant adverse comments were received, then the NRC would withdraw the direct final rule by publishing a notice in the Federal Register . In that event, the direct final rule would not take effect.

The NRC received a significant adverse comment on the proposed rule that accompanied the direct final rule; therefore the NRC is withdrawing the direct final rule. The comment was submitted by the Nuclear Energy Institute, a private organization. The comment (ADAMS Accession No. ML22025A233) is available at www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID NRC-2020-0133. The comment states that the direct final rule did not provide sufficient information to explain the proposed increase in authorization fees. Specifically, the comment questions why the NRC selected the revised number and how authorization applications are becoming more complex. Additionally, the comment requests that the NRC consider phasing in the proposed fee increase and takes issue with the direct final rule's conclusion that the NRC has not adjusted its fees since 2012. The NRC considers the comment to be a significant adverse comment as defined in Section II, Rulemaking Procedure, of the direct final rule because the comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record.

As stated in the December 28, 2021, proposed rule, the NRC will address the comment in a subsequent final rule. The NRC will not initiate a second public comment period on this action.

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Garner Field Airport, Uvalde, TX, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (86 FR 70425; December 10, 2021) for Docket No. FAA-2021-0636 to amend the Class E airspace at Uvalde, TX. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Garner Field Airport, Uvalde, TX; removes the Uvalde NDB and associated extensions from the airspace legal description; removes the city associated with the airport in the header of the airspace legal description to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2N, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.

This action is the result of an airspace review due to the decommissioning of the Uvalde NDB which provided guidance to instrument procedures at this airport.

FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Olney Municipal Airport, Olney, TX, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (86 FR 71600; December 17, 2021) for Docket No. FAA-2021-1135 to amend the Class E airspace at Olney, TX. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Olney Municipal Airport, Olney, TX; removes the Olney NDB and associated extensions from the airspace legal description; removes the city associated with the airport in the header of the airspace legal description to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2N, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.

This action is the result of an airspace review due to the decommissioning of the Olney NDB which provided guidance to instrument procedures at this airport.

FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In response to Russia's February 2022 further invasion of Ukraine, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) imposed extensive sanctions on Russia under the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) (EAR) as part of the final rule, Implementation of Sanctions Against Russia Under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), effective February 24, 2022 (“Russia Sanctions rule”). 1 As described in the Russia Sanctions rule's preamble, Russia's invasion of Ukraine flagrantly violates international law, is contrary to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, and undermines global order, peace, and security, and consequently necessitated the imposition of stringent sanctions.

The export control measures implemented in this final rule build upon the policy objectives set forth in the Russian Sanctions rule by further restricting Russia's access to items that it needs to support its military capabilities.

The changes made by this rule are intended to further limit the Russian oil sector by restricting the export, reexport and transfer (in-country) of additional items needed for oil refining. Sale of gasoline produced from Russian oil is a major source of revenue for Russia. Limiting the export, reexport and transfer (in-country) of critical oil refining equipment will consequently reduce Russia's ability to generate revenue that the country needs to support its military capabilities.

As described below, this rule expands the scope of the sanctions against the Russian industry sector that were originally added to the EAR in August 2014 in response to Russia's 2014 destabilizing conduct in Ukraine and occupation of the Crimea region of Ukraine. See 79 FR 45675 (Aug. 6, 2014). The export controls in this final rule target the oil refinery sector in Russia. These new export controls under the EAR, implemented in parallel with similarly stringent measures by partner and allied countries, will further limit sources of revenue that could support the military capabilities of Russia.

This final rule amends part 746 of the EAR (Embargoes and Other Special Controls) to expand the scope of the Russian industry sector sanctions by adding a new general prohibition that will apply to additional Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)-6 codes and Schedule B numbers for all exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to or within Russia.

Under § 746.5 of the EAR (Russian industry sector sanctions), this final rule revises paragraph (a) (License requirement) to expand the scope of the general prohibition under paragraph (a)(1). Prior to this rule, this general prohibition applied to the export, reexport or transfer (in-country) of certain items in situations where a person had “knowledge,” for purposes of the EAR, that the item would be used directly or indirectly in Russia's energy sector for exploration or production from deepwater, Arctic offshore, or shale projects in Russia that have the potential to produce oil or gas, or where a person was unable to determine whether the item would be used in such projects in Russia.

This final rule adds a new paragraph (a)(1)(ii) to expand the scope of the general prohibition under this section by imposing an additional license requirement for exports, reexports or transfers (in-country) of any item subject to the EAR listed in new supplement no. 4 to part 746 to and within Russia. Unlike the existing prohibition (reordered to appear in new paragraph (a)(1)(i)), the prohibition under new paragraph (a)(1)(ii) does not include a “knowledge” requirement.

This final rule also adds new paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to provide cross-references to other EAR license requirements for Russia and guidance for submitting license applications required pursuant to this section. Additionally, this final rule adds new supplement no. 4 to part 746—HTS Codes and Schedule B Numbers that Require a License for Export, Reexport, and Transfer (in-country) to or within Russia pursuant to § 746.5(a)(1)(ii), to identify the items by HTS code and Schedule B number that will be subject to the prohibition under paragraph (a)(1)(ii). Supplement no. 4 will include four columns consisting of the HTS Code, HTS Description, Schedule B and Schedule B Description to assist exporters, reexporters, and transferors to identify the products in this supplement. There is no difference in the scope of products identified in the supplement by HTS-6 code and HTS description or by the Schedule B number and Schedule B description. The inclusion of both the HTS-6 codes and Schedule B numbers will assist exporters, reexporters, and transferors if they have difficulty in identifying a product based on either the HTS codes or Schedule B numbers alone.

Under paragraph (b) (Licensing policy), this final rule adds new paragraph (b)(1) for the text that appeared in paragraph (b) prior to this final rule, which will specify the licensing policy for the license requirements under new paragraph (a)(1)(i). This rule changes the license review policy that appeared in paragraph (b) which is now paragraph (b)(1) in this rule from a presumption of denial to the more restrictive policy of denial. This change in the license review policy is made to harmonize with the license review policy in new paragraph (b)(2) for the license requirements under paragraph (a)(1)(ii), as well as with the license review policies that have been adopted for other sanctions against Russia. This final rule adds a new paragraph (b)(2) to add the review policy, a policy of denial, that will be applicable to applications that fall within the scope of paragraph (a)(1)(ii). However, for both the license review policies in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii), this rule specifies that applications for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of items that may be necessary for health and safety reasons will be reviewed under a case-by case license review policy. This inclusion of this case-by-case license review policy is consistent with other parts of the Russia Sanctions rule, in particular, the inclusion of a case-by-case license review policy related to safety of flight and maritime safety. BIS also notes that license applicants may request emergency processing of license applications by following the procedures identified in § 748.4(h) (Emergency processing) of the EAR. Under § 748.4(h), BIS will expedite its evaluation, and attempt to expedite the evaluations of other government agencies, of a license application when, in BIS's judgment, the circumstances justify emergency processing.

BIS estimates that new license requirements under § 746.5(a)(1)(ii) will result in an additional 20 license applications being submitted to BIS annually.

Based on the foregoing changes to the EAR in § 746.5(a)(1) and the addition of supplement no. 4 to part 746, in supplement no 1 to part 738—Commerce Country Chart, this final rule also makes one conforming change to footnote 6 to the Commerce Country Chart to add a reference to new supplement no. 4 to part 746. This conforming revision is made so exporters, reexporters, and transferors are aware of the need to review supplement no. 4 to part 746 as part of their analysis of the license requirements in § 746.5(a)(1)(ii).

This rule also adds one sentence at the end of the introductory text of supplement no. 2 to part 746—Russian Industry Sector Sanction List—to provide guidance on one Schedule B number that is identified in both supplements no. 2 and no. 4 to part 746. This sentence clarifies that Schedule B number 8479.89.9850 is listed on both supplements no. 2 and 4, and that exporters, reexporters, and transferors must comply with the license requirements under both § 746.5(a)(1)(i) and (ii), as applicable, for Schedule B number 8479.89.9850.

This rule does not change the Entity List in supplement no. 4 to part 744. Seventy-five entries on the Entity List have a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR. BIS clarifies here that for purposes of the Entity List entries that reference § 746.5, the license requirements set forth on the Entity List apply when items are used in the projects specified in § 746.5(a)(1)(i), but that exporters, reexporters, or transferors must also review the transaction against the license requirements in § 746.5(a)(1)(ii), as well as all other applicable EAR license requirements.

For the changes being made in this final rule, shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR) as a result of this regulatory action that were en route aboard a carrier to a port of export, reexport, or transfer (in-country), on March 7, 2022, pursuant to actual orders for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or within a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR).

On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (codified, as amended, at 50 U.S.C. Sections 4801-4852). ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule.

1. This final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” because it “pertain[s]” to a “military or foreign affairs function of the United States” under sec. 3(d)(2) of Executive Order 12866.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number.

This rule involves the following OMB-approved collections of information subject to the PRA: 0694-0088, “Multi-Purpose Application,” which carries a burden hour estimate of 29.6 minutes for a manual or electronic submission; 0694-0096 “Five Year Records Retention Period,” which carries a burden hour estimate of less than 1 minute; and 0607-0152 “Automated Export System (AES) Program,” which carries a burden hour estimate of 3 minutes per electronic submission. This rule changes the respondent burden under these control numbers by increasing the estimated number of submissions by 20 which is not expected to exceed the current approved estimates.

3. This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

4. Pursuant to section 1762 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (50 U.S.C. 4821) (ECRA), this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date. While section 1762 of ECRA provides sufficient authority for such an exemption, this action is also independently exempt from these APA requirements because it involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)).

5. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 738 and 746 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) are amended as follows:

The Coast Guard has published numerous rulemaking documents in the Federal Register on this bridge: A temporary deviation to the regulations November 4, 2016 (81 FR 76866); NPRM November 4, 2016 (81 FR 76889); a Supplemental NPRM June 14, 2018 (83 FR 27730); and a final rule October 25, 2018 (85 FR 53810). Each rulemaking addressed changing the operating schedule to the bridge to relieve vehicle congestion along SR 22 in Madisonville, LA.

On April 23, 2021 the Town of Madisonville, LA requested that the Coast Guard revisit changing the operating schedule and close the drawbridge to vessel traffic during morning vehicle peak periods and that the bridge only open to vessels during the day on the hour. The Coast Guard published a NPRM August 31, 2021 (86 FR 48923) to solicit public comments on this proposed rule change.

The Coast Guard determined that the Town of Madisonville had provided sufficient information to relieve vehicle congestion by closing the bridge to vessel traffic from 6 a.m. to 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. and opening the bridge from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on the hour vice every half hour. This change allows vehicles to travel along SR 22 unimpeded by bridge openings for 2 two periods during the weekday morning and afternoon commutes. It also decreases the number of times that the bridge opens during the day by opening on the hour for vessels to pass 7 days a week. During the comment period that ended on November 1, 2021, we received 18 comments.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499. The Eighth Coast Guard District Commander has determined that this change to the operating schedule of the Madisonville (SR 22) swing span drawbridge across the Tchefuncta River mile 2.5, Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana allows it to remain closed to marine traffic for 2 two hour periods and to open on the hour during days is necessary and reasonable. The purpose of this rule is to alleviate vehicle congestion on SR 22 and meet the reasonable needs of vessels to use the Tchefuncta River.

As mentioned above we received 18 comments on the NPRM published August 1, 2021. Fifteen comments were in favor of the rule change. One comment was against the rule change and 2 comments addressed other issues not related to the NPRM. The commenter against the rule stated that the rule would have little impact to vehicle traffic because there are few bridge openings during weekdays, minimal openings in the afternoon peak vehicle traffic hours and there are minimal bridge openings on the weekends.

Vehicle congestion along SR 22 is well documented by other public comments, meetings, and data and information gathered during this rule change. Vehicle congestion is particularly significant during morning and evening commuting and school hours. In promulgating drawbridge rules the Coast Guard balances the needs of land transportation and vessel traffic. The bridge opens on average 8 times per day Monday through Sunday. The rule will provide a positive impact to vehicle traffic by reducing the amount of time that the bridge is required to open and will provide vessels with the reasonable ability to use the waterway.

This final rule changes the Madisonville (SR 22) swing span bridge operating schedule and allows the bridge to open on signal on the hour from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. except that on Monday through Friday the bridge will not open from 6 a.m. to 8 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. The bridge opens on signal from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. each day. This allows vehicles to travel along SR 22 near Madisonville, LA unimpeded by bridge openings at the above times. There are no other changes to the operating schedule. The regulatory text appears at the end of this document.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the bridge given advanced notice.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect 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.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges and is categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementation Procedures.

Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum for the Record are required for this rule.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

On September 29, 2021, the Office published a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) to establish procedures governing the initial stages of a proceeding before the Copyright Claims Board (“CCB”). 1 The Office is finalizing aspects of that proposed rule addressing the CCB's designated service agent directory in this partial final rule. The Office anticipates publishing another final rule in the future addressing the remainder of the proposed changes.

The Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (“CASE”) Act of 2020  2 directs the Copyright Office to establish the CCB, a voluntary tribunal within the Office comprised of three Copyright Claims Officers who have the authority to render determinations on certain copyright claims for economic recoveries under the statutory threshold. The Office issued a notification of inquiry (“NOI”) to describe the CASE Act's legislative background and regulatory scope and to ask for public input on various topics, 3 including a provision of the Act permitting corporations, partnerships, and unincorporated associations to designate agents to receive service of notices of proceedings and claims asserted against them. 4 The CASE Act provides that service upon an entity that has designated a service agent must be made by delivering a copy of the notice and claim to that agent. 5 The CASE Act also provides an alternative means for service upon corporations, partnerships, and unincorporated associations that have not designated a service agent. 6

Under the CASE Act, such entities may designate an agent “by complying with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall establish by regulation” and the Register is directed to “maintain a current directory of service agents that is available to the public for inspection, including through the internet.”  7 The Register may require designating entities to pay a fee to cover the costs of maintaining the directory. 8

In September 2021, the Office published a NPRM to establish procedures governing the initial stages of a proceeding before the CCB. 9 Among the provisions proposed in that notice were rules governing the process for designating a service agent. In both the NOI and the NPRM, the Office requested input on issues related to service of process and other papers in general as well as the designation of service agents in particular. Commenting parties were encouraged to review the Office's designated agent directory for online service providers created pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), and to discuss to what extent the Office should use that directory as a model. The Office also invited comments about how the system should indicate corporate parent-subsidiary relationships, and about fees. 10

The NPRM proposed a rule that would allow a submitter to provide the same designated agent information for multiple companies, partnerships, or unincorporated associations, but would require a separate submission for each entity. The proposal would have required that a submission include identifying information for the business, including contact information, principal place of business, and for corporations, the state of incorporation, any associated state file or registration number, and all other states in which the corporation is registered to do business. It would have permitted organizations to list up to five alternate names under which they are doing business, i.e., trade names, which would be used for indexing the designation. Submissions would also have to provide contact information for the service agent and the designating entity's consent to service by mail, with an option to elect, in addition, to accept service by email at an email address to be provided in the directory. Unlike the DMCA designated agent directory, the CCB's designated service agent directory (“DSAD”) would not have to be renewed periodically, although existing designations could be amended by the designating entity. 11

Noting that the fee for designating an agent in the DMCA designated agent directory is $6, 12 the Office proposed the same fee for submitting or amending a designation to the DSAD. 13

The NPRM addressed numerous issues concerning the initial stages of a CCB proceeding, and a final rule addressing the rest of those issues is forthcoming. Meanwhile, to facilitate the submission of service agent designations in advance of the CCB's acceptance of claims, the Office is publishing this final rule on designating service agents before publishing that forthcoming rule.

With a few exceptions discussed below, commenters generally supported the NPRM's proposed provisions on designating service agents. In response to those comments and for other reasons explained herein, the Office has revised the proposed rule to allow, under certain circumstances, inclusion of multiple affiliated entities in a single service agent designation, to increase the number of trade names that may be associated with an entity making a designation, and to make minor modifications regarding the information that must be provided in a designation. The final rule also includes some nonsubstantive technical edits to clarify the regulatory text, as well as the additional minor substantive edits described below.

The relevant proposed regulatory text in the NPRM was set forth as § 222.5(b) of the CCB regulations. For purposes of this final rule, the revised text has been removed from proposed § 222.5 (“Service”) and has become a new section, § 222.6 (“Designated service agents”). In the forthcoming final rule governing other aspects of the initial stages of CCB proceedings, proposed § 222.6 (addressing waiver of service) will be included as part of § 222.5.

The proposed rule would have permitted a qualifying entity to provide the same designated agent information for related companies, partnerships, or unincorporated associations, but would have required a separate submission for each of those related entities. The proposed rule followed the model of the Office's regulation governing the DMCA designated agent directory, which provides that “[r]elated or affiliated service providers that are separate legal entities ( e.g., corporate parents and subsidiaries) are considered separate service providers, and each must have its own separate designation.”  14

Multiple commenters urged that the final rule permit a corporate parent to designate a single designated agent for affiliated corporations as part of a single submission. One commenter summarized the position, similar to those taken by others, by noting that under the Office's proposed rule, “companies with numerous subsidiaries may find it too burdensome to provide a separate submission for each subsidiary and will simply decline to designate a service agent. That would inconvenience copyright claimants, who will presumably rely on the designated service agent directory to determine where to serve their claim.”  15 Another commenter observed that its members anticipate needing to register service agents for many more entities under CCB than under the DMCA, as the range of activities relevant to DMCA designated agents is much narrower. 16

The Office finds that the arguments advanced by proponents of permitting affiliated business entities to file a single service agent designation are persuasive. It is in the interest of entities that designate service agents to have a system that encourages them to designate agents for all of their affiliated entities. It is also in the interest of all parties in CCB proceedings to have access to a directory of service agents that is comprehensive and facilitates their ability to take advantage of the more relaxed service requirements (including service by mail and, when the designating entity has agreed, by email) that apply to designated service agents. To implement such a revision, the Office finds it necessary to modify some of the other proposed requirements for service agent designations and impose some limitations.

Because the term “related” entities may be considered ambiguous, and to offer greater guidance as to what additional entities would be permitted to be included in a single service agent designation by a corporation, partnership, or unincorporated association, the final rule uses the term “affiliated,” which connotes a closer relationship than “related.” The following elaboration has been added to the regulatory text: “Affiliated corporations, partnerships, or unincorporated associations that are separate legal entities but are under direct or indirect common control ( e.g., parent and subsidiary companies) may also be included in the same service agent designation.” The concept of direct or indirect common control among affiliated entities is common in various areas of the law. 17

Because the Office's electronic DSAD system was at an advanced stage of development at the time the comments were received, there are certain constraints on the way in which affiliated entities can currently be included within a single designation. As discussed below, the system was already being built to accommodate up to five trade names based on a single designation. It is now being adapted to permit a combination of up 50 trade names and to enable affiliated entities to be included, indexed, and searchable based on a single designation. To be included as part of a single designation, affiliated entities must have their principal place of business in the same state and, for corporations, they must have the same state of incorporation. In addition, the names and contact information of the designated service agent and of the submitter must each be the same. The Office considers information regarding the principal place of business and state of incorporation to be important for purposes of providing accurate identification of the entity and avoiding misidentification ( e.g., in cases involving entities from different states with identical or similar names), and the system can only accommodate single designations for multiple entities where that information is identical.

With respect to an entity's principal place of business, the rule has been modified to clarify that the required information pertains to the state in which the entity's principal place of business is located. This modification has been made for three reasons: (1) To clarify ambiguous text in the proposed rule; (2) to facilitate the ability to submit designations for groups of affiliated entities, since requiring that the principal place of business for all affiliated entities be at the same address would likely disqualify many affiliated entities from being included in a single designation; and (3) to conform to the design of the electronic DSAD system.

For corporations, the proposed rule also would have required that the designation provide any state file or registration numbers from the state of incorporation, as well as identification of all additional states in which the corporation is registered to do business. Because a parent corporation and its subsidiaries or other affiliated corporations are not necessarily registered to do business in the same group of states, retaining this requirement would be likely to restrict significantly the ability of affiliated corporations to be included in a single designation. Commenters observed that it is not clear what benefit would be gained by requiring corporations to include, for themselves and their subsidiaries, state file or registration numbers and information on all states in which they are registered to do business; that requiring such information would be burdensome; and that such information is already readily available elsewhere, in a form that is accurate and up to date. 18 The Office is persuaded that the time and costs involved in requiring such information outweigh the benefits, and those requirements have been removed in the final rule.

Finally, the rule requires that the following information be the same for all entities included in a single designation: Information pertaining to the designated agent; information pertaining to the person submitting the designation; and information on whether service may be made by email and mail or just mail.

The proposed rule would have permitted qualifying entities to list no more than five trade names (alternate business names or “doing business as” (d/b/a) names) under which they are doing business. Inspired by a similar provision in the DMCA designated agent regulation, this would permit persons using the DSAD to more easily identify the designated agent for companies that might do business—and be recognized by the public—under names other than their corporate names. The DMCA directory imposes no limit on the number of “alternate names” (the term used in the regulation governing that directory)  19 that an online service provider may include for indexing and search purposes. However, based on the Office's understanding of the technical limitations of the electronic DSAD that it was developing at the time the NPRM was drafted, it proposed a five-trade-name maximum.

Some commenters objected to the five-trade-name maximum, noting that if a single entity does business under different names, all such names should be included on the same designation and observing that many entities, such as record companies, operate multiple imprints or labels that are trade names that are part of the same legal entity. 20 Those comments, as well as the comments discussed above urging that the Office accept designations submitted on behalf of multiple designated entities, have persuaded the Office to raise the permitted number of trade names to 50, 21 and to permit those 50 to be either trade names or the names of affiliated entities.

Other minor substantive revisions include a duty to maintain current information in the directory by submitting amendments when the information changes and a minor revision to the provision stating what information in a designation shall not be made publicly available on the DSAD website.

Regarding the obligation to keep directory information current, one commenter noted that large corporations will have a long and frequently changing list of related or affiliated corporations as well as partnerships and other associations, and encouraged the Office to provide sufficient leniency to correct any changes to corporate information and acknowledge that yearly updates should be deemed to be reasonable compliance. 22 While the Office understands that changes may not be made instantaneously, there can be serious consequences, such as the service of claims on a person whom the designating entity no longer considers to be the correct service agent, when the directory contains out-of-date information. Therefore, any rule that would permit a business to defer an update of information in the directory as long as a year after the information has changed would be unacceptable. The final rule provides that when information that is in the directory is no longer valid, it should be updated promptly. While the Office does not believe that it is necessary to require updates on a regular basis, a requirement to update the information whenever it changes should ensure that it is kept up to date. Because there may be instances where a brief but understandable delay in updating the information results in service upon someone whom the designating entity no longer considers to be its service agent, the final rule provides that the CCB has the discretion to decide in particular cases whether service of an initial notice and claim was effective. However, an entity that has designated a service agent should be aware that if service is made upon the person who, at the time of service, appears in the directory as the respondent's designated service agent, that service is likely to be deemed effective. This should provide sufficient incentive to update the information promptly. 23

With respect to the public availability of DSAD information, the proposed rule would have provided that the business address, email, and telephone number of the corporation, partnership, or unincorporated association provided in the designation would not be publicly available on the DSAD website, but would be available to CCB staff. As revised, the entity's business address is removed from that provision. Although the Office has no present intention to include that information in the directory on the website, it recognizes that the business address of a business entity is not generally considered to be confidential information and that there may be occasions where knowledge of the business address may be helpful in determining which of two or more similarly or identically named entities is the one that a claimant needs to serve.

In the NPRM, the Office proposed a fee of $6 for designation of a service agent, payable upon the submission or amendment of a designation. The Office noted that this is the fee charged for submissions to the Office's similar DMCA designated agent directory. One comment suggested that the fee should be increased, noting that designations of agents for the DMCA directory must be updated every three years, but designations for the CCB service agent directory need not be renewed. 24 While recognizing that distinction, the Office does not believe that a higher fee is justified at this time. The DSAD offers benefits not only to the entities that take advantage of the opportunity to designate service agents, but also to claimants in CCB proceedings who can use it to identify the agents to serve on behalf of the designating entities. Because an entity designating a service agent must accept service by mail and may also accept service by email, the directory provides claimants with a simple and inexpensive means to serve initial notices of proceedings and claims upon respondents who have designated service agents.

Moreover, as previously discussed, a provision added to the final rule obligates designating entities to maintain current information in the directory by amending an existing designation (and paying an additional $6 fee) whenever an update is needed. As a practical matter, most entities with designated agents are likely to have to submit amendments from time to time.

The CASE Act requires that when a qualifying entity has designated a service agent, a claimant must serve the initial notice and claim upon that agent. 25 Many commenters requested that the regulations clarify that this is the case. 26 The Office agrees with that interpretation of the statute. Accordingly, in the interests of avoiding confusion, the Office shall address that issue in its forthcoming final rule addressing the remaining portions of the rulemaking on initiating proceedings, including § 222.5 on service.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the U.S. Copyright Office amends Chapter II, Subchapters A and B, of title 37 Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.

On May 20, 2021, the EPA proposed to approve all but paragraphs (g) and (k) of the following rule into the California SIP. 1

The April 24, 2020, SIP revision sought to remove Mecklenburg's transportation facilities rules from the Mecklenburg LIP. Specifically, this revision requested that EPA remove the MCAPCO rules in Article 2.0000— Air Pollution Control Regulations and Procedures, Section 2.0800— Transportation Facilities, comprised of Rules 2.0801— Purpose and Scope; 2.0802— Definitions; 2.0803— Highway Projects; and 2.0804— Airport Facilities. 1 EPA previously removed the State's transportation facilities rules from the North Carolina regulatory portion of the SIP on May 12, 2017. As a part of that action, EPA approved NCDAQ's September 16, 2016, SIP revision containing a demonstration showing that the repeal of the State's transportation facilities rules satisfied CAA section 110(l). Section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving a SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. North Carolina's section 110(l) demonstration was a statewide analysis that included Mecklenburg County. The section 110(l) analysis associated with the removal of the State's rules from the SIP is therefore relevant to the proposed removal of Mecklenburg's rules from the LIP.

On October 28, 2021, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to approve the April 24, 2020, SIP revision requesting removal of the transportation facilities rules from the MCAPCO rules incorporated into the LIP. See 86 FR 59678. The NPRM includes an updated 110(l) analysis and provides additional detail regarding the background and rationale for this final EPA action. Comments on the October 28, 2021, NPRM were due on or before November 29, 2021. EPA received one adverse comment on the October 28, 2021, NPRM. 2 This comment is available in the docket for this action. See the Response to Comment section of this final action for EPA's response.

As mentioned above, EPA received one adverse comment on the proposed action. EPA's comment summary and response are provided below.

Comment: The Commenter expresses concern about the protectiveness of the six criteria pollutants, also known as the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or standards). In particular, the Commenter takes issue with how the NAAQS are measured and contends that they should be revised to include more pollutants. The Commenter further adds that air quality standards should not be relaxed in metro areas and indicates that this removal would constitute a relaxation. Additionally, the Commenter notes that metro areas with documented nonattainment should not be permitted to relax previously legislated air quality control measures. Rather, the Commenter suggests that these metro areas should be subject to additional scrutiny and surveillance. Finally, the Commenter expresses a general concern about the relationship between the six criteria pollutants and indoor air pollution.

Response: To the extent that the comment refers to the protectiveness and measurement of the NAAQS, EPA notes that a review of the NAAQS is outside of the scope of this rulemaking. This rulemaking did not relate to any review or change of the NAAQS in Mecklenburg County or any other area in the nation. In this rulemaking, EPA is acting solely to remove the MCAPCO rules identified in the previous section and the October 28, 2021, NPRM.

EPA notes that the Agency has a formal process for regular review of the six criteria pollutants to determine whether the standards set for each are still protective of human health and the environment. Pursuant to CAA sections 108 and 109, EPA must thoroughly review each NAAQS every five years to account for the latest scientific knowledge regarding the effects of the air pollutant on public health and welfare. 3 EPA solicits public comment as part of each five-year review and invites the Commenter to share recent scientific discoveries and concerns regarding air pollution during those comment periods. Further, EPA refers the Commenter to EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/process-reviewing-national-ambient-air-quality-standards to learn more about EPA's process for reviewing the NAAQS.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. 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:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0214 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before May 9, 2022. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0214, by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.

• Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

In the Federal Register of May 29, 2020 (85 FR 32338) (FRL-10009-84), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (IN-11392) by Technology Sciences Group Inc., (1150 18th Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036), on behalf of the Clorox Services Company (Representing Clorox Professional Products Company) (P.O. Box 493, Pleasanton, CA 94566-0803). The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.940(a) be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of phosphoric acid when used as an inert ingredient (pH adjuster) in antimicrobial formulations applied to food-contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, food-processing equipment and utensils. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Technology Sciences Group Inc., on behalf of on behalf of the Clorox Services Company (Representing Clorox Professional Products Company), the petitioner, which is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. There were no relevant comments received in response to the notice of filing.

Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Under FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA must take into account, among other considerations, the factors in subparagraphs (C) and (D) of subsection (b)(2). Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . . .”

EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for phosphoric acid including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with phosphoric acid follows.

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by the relevant phosphoric acid as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in the document “Phosphoric Acid; Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Effects Assessment to Support Proposed Amendment to the Tolerance Exemption When Used as an Inert Ingredient in Pesticide Formulations” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0214.

The acute oral and dermal toxicities are low in rats and rabbits treated with phosphoric acid. Phosphoric acid solutions of pH <2.5 are corrosive. It is not a skin sensitizer.

Repeated dose studies show that phosphoric acid is not toxic at doses up to 500 mg/kg/day in rats. No parental, developmental, offspring, or reproduction toxicity is seen up to 500 mg/kg/day. No fetal susceptibility is observed.

There is no evidence of immunotoxicity or neurotoxicity in the available studies. Phosphoric acid is negative for mutagenicity and chromosome aberrations. No tumors or cancer are observed in studies with rats.

Phosphoric acid is absorbed by ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact and is distributed in the body as phosphate. Absorbed phosphate is filtered in the kidneys and partially reabsorbed. It is excreted mainly in the feces as calcium phosphate.

Phosphoric acid is an essential constituent of humans in the bones, teeth, and in many enzyme systems. Free phosphate ion (PO 4 3− ) is the major form in which phosphorus is absorbed from the diet. The Institute of Medicine (US) Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride evaluated phosphorus and established tolerable upper intake levels (ULs), 4,000 mg/day (approximately 57 mg/kg/day) for adults and 3,000 mg/day (approximately 200 mg/kg/day) for children 1 to 8 years of age. Furthermore, EFSA has established an acceptable daily intake (ADI) for phosphates, expressed as phosphorus, of 40 mg/kg body weight per day. Because a calculated cRfD from animal studies would result in values that are at least 8 times lower than the estimated acceptable consumption for humans (40-57 mg/kg/day), use of animal data is considered exceedingly conservative. Additionally, the adverse effects observed in animals occurred at doses well above the limit dose. Therefore, toxicity endpoints were not selected, and a qualitative risk assessment was performed for phosphoric acid.

1. Dietary exposure from drinking water, food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to phosphoric acid, EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed dietary exposures from phosphoric acid in food as follows:

Dietary exposure (food and drinking water) to phosphoric acid may occur following ingestion of foods with residues from their use in accordance with this exemption and its use as a food additive. However, a quantitative dietary exposure assessment was not conducted and is not necessary since a toxicological endpoint for risk assessment was not identified.

2. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure ( e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables). Phosphoric acid may be used in pesticide products and non-pesticide products that may be used in and around the home. Based on the discussion above regarding the lack of a toxicological endpoint for phosphoric acid, a qualitative residential exposure assessment was conducted.

3. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

Based on the lack of a toxicological endpoint, phosphoric acid and its metabolites are not expected to share a common mechanism of toxicity with other chemicals. For the purposes of this action, therefore, EPA has assumed that phosphoric acid does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

Section 408(b)(2)(C) of the FFDCA requires EPA to retain an additional tenfold margin of safety in the case of threshold effects to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. EPA has not identified any toxicological endpoints of concern and is conducting a qualitative assessment of phosphoric acid. The qualitative assessment does not use safety factors for assessing risk, and no additional safety factor is needed for assessing risk to infants and children.

Taking into consideration all available information on phosphoric acid, EPA has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm to the general population or any population subgroup, including infants and children, will result from aggregate exposure to phosphoric acid residues. Therefore, the establishment of exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.940(a) for residues of phosphoric acid when used as an inert ingredient in antimicrobial pesticide formulations applied to food-contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils is safe under FFDCA section 408.

An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

Based on the information reviewed by EPA and described above, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established in 40 CFR 180.940(a) for residues of phosphoric acid (CAS Reg. No. 7664-38-2) when used as an inert ingredient (pH adjuster) in antimicrobial formulations applied to food-contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, food-processing equipment and utensils.

This action establishes a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), nor is it considered a regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), do not apply.

This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ).

This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR chapter I as follows:

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 action 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);

• 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).

TSCA section 6(h), 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 presented and that 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. 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 F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009). Here, as explained further in Unit I.D. and Unit IV.A, based on information submitted by regulated entities, the Agency has determined that revised compliance dates are necessary to address detailed information submitted in comments demonstrating that the original compliance dates were not practicable and did not provide adequate transition time consistent with TSCA section 6(d)(1) because compliance with the original compliance date and initially extended compliance date would have caused extensive harm to the economy and public due to unavailability of critical goods and equipment.

APA section 553(d), 5 U.S.C. 553(d), provides that the publication of a substantive rule must occur no later than 30 days before its effective date, with certain exceptions. The purpose of this provision is to “give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior before the final rule takes effect.” See Omnipoint Corp. v. F.C.C., 78 F.3d 620, 630 (D.C. Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1104 (8th Cir. 1977) (quoting legislative history). Of relevance here, APA section 553(d)(1), 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), provides that final rules shall not become effective until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register “except . . . a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction.” When the agency grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction, affected parties do not need a reasonable time to adjust because the effect is not adverse. See Indep. U.S. Tanker Owners Comm. v. Skinner, 884 F.2d 587 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (upholding immediate effective date for a final rule intended to avoid disruption in domestic trade by lifting a ban on vessels participating in domestic shipping), mandate modified on other grounds, 901 F.2d 1116 (D.C. Cir. 1990). EPA has determined that this rule relieves a restriction by providing additional time for regulated entities to comply with the applicable requirements. Accordingly, EPA is making this rule effective immediately upon publication.

The January 2021 final rule for PIP (3:1) prohibits the processing and distribution in commerce 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 in commerce, 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 in commerce 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 final rule issued in September 2021 extended the compliance date applicable to the prohibition on 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 compliance date for the associated recordkeeping requirements for PIP (3:1)-containing articles (Ref. 2).

This final rule amends the regulations at 40 CFR 751.407(a)(2)(iii) and (d)(4) to further extend the phased-in prohibition, established in the September 2021 final rule, for the processing and distribution in commerce of PIP (3:1) for use in certain articles, and for the processing and distribution in commerce of certain PIP (3:1)-containing articles, from March 8, 2022, to October 31, 2024. The compliance date for the recordkeeping requirements for manufacturers, processors, and distributors of PIP (3:1)-containing articles is also extended from March 8, 2022, to October 31, 2024. 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 further extending the compliance dates applicable to the prohibition on processing and distribution in commerce of PIP (3:1) for use in certain articles, and the processing and distribution in commerce of certain PIP (3:1)-containing articles, to further address the hardships inadvertently created by the January 2021 final rule on PIP (3:1) (Ref. 1) due to impacted 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. 3). In the Federal Register of March 16, 2021 (Ref. 4), EPA requested additional comment on this specific issue, as well as on other aspects of all the TSCA section 6(h) final rules (Refs. 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8). 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 were 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. 9). In September 2021, EPA issued a final rule that extended the compliance date applicable to the prohibition on 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 compliance date for the associated recordkeeping requirements for manufacturers, processors, and distributors of PIP (3:1)-containing articles (Ref. 2). The September 2021 final rule provided a necessary short-term extension to avoid immediate and significant disruption in the supply chains for certain 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). Shortly thereafter, EPA issued a proposal to further extend the compliance dates to October 31, 2024 (Ref. 10). This final rule extending the compliance dates from March 8, 2022, until October 31, 2024, is based on the detailed information provided by several industry commenters in response to the proposal.

Pursuant to TSCA section 6(c)(2), EPA evaluated the potential incremental economic impacts of further extending the compliance deadline and determined that the changes being finalized in this action would reduce the existing burden of the March 8, 2022, compliance date. The quantified effect of this compliance date extension (from March 8, 2022, to October 31, 2024) reflects the difference between the incremental cost and benefits of the January 2021 final rule as it was originally promulgated and the incremental cost and benefits of this final rule with the new compliance date in place. This was estimated as the difference between the cost and benefits of the final rule after the compliance extension to March 8, 2022, and the cost and benefits of this final rule with an October 31, 2024, compliance date. Quantified costs for substitution and recordkeeping were estimated to be incurred later than they would have been under the January 2021 rule, assuming they will be incurred when the compliance date extension expires. In summary, extending the compliance date from March 8, 2022, to October 31, 2024, for PIP (3:1)-containing articles results 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 savings stemming from the additional 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 identified 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 for the regulated community 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 about supply chain impacts that could alleviate the necessity for chemical testing of certain articles to identify whether and where PIP (3:1) might be present in their supply chains.

With respect to benefits, pursuant to TSCA section 6(h)(2), for chemical substances that meet the criteria of TSCA section 6(h)(1), a risk evaluation is not required to be conducted for EPA to meet its obligations under TSCA section 6(h). As discussed in the January 2021 final rule, while EPA reviewed hazard and exposure information for the PBT chemicals, this information did not provide a basis for EPA to develop scientifically robust and representative risk estimates to evaluate whether or not any of the chemicals present a risk of injury to health or the environment. Benefits were not quantified due to the lack of risk estimates. Although the benefits of the January 2021 and September 2021 final rules 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 due to continued exposures. On balance, this further extension of the compliance dates is appropriate to prevent the disruptive consequences of implementing the March 8, 2022, compliance date without a further compliance extension. The economic consequences (such as loss of supply) could be severe, given the apparent extent of the chemical in commerce. Thus, EPA has determined that the cost savings and avoidance of disruption to industry outweigh the delayed realization of benefits that may accrue from reduced exposure.

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 prohibited processing and distribution in commerce of PIP (3:1), and products or articles containing the chemical substance, for all uses after March 8, 2021, 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 required manufacturers, processors, and distributors of PIP (3:1) and products containing PIP (3:1) to notify their customers of these restrictions. Finally, the rule prohibited releases to water from the remaining manufacturing, processing, and distribution in commerce activities, and required commercial users of PIP (3:1) and PIP (3:1)-containing products to follow existing regulations and best management 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 “product” (Ref. 5). “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.

Shortly after the publication of the January 2021 final rule, a wide variety of stakeholders from various sectors started raising concerns about the March 8, 2021, compliance date 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. 3). 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 (Refs. 1, 2, 4 and 10), 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.

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. 11). The NAA was written to expire on September 4, 2021, or “the effective date of a final action addressing the compliance date for the prohibition on processing and distributing in commerce of PIP (3:1), including in PIP (3:1)-containing articles, whichever occurs earlier.” In addition, shortly after the NAA was issued, EPA published in the “Proposed Rules” part of the Federal Register 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 (Ref. 4). The March 2021 Federal Register notification and request for comments is described in detail in EPA's October 2021 proposal (Ref. 10). EPA received a total of 122 comments in response to the March 2021 notification and request for comments (Ref. 9), nearly all of which addressed PIP (3:1) issues. Based on the comments received in response to the March 2021 notification and request for comments, EPA issued a final rule in September 2021, 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 (Ref. 2). While most commenters on the March 2021 notification and request for comments requested a longer compliance date extension (Ref. 9), 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 on a longer-term compliance date extension generally.

Accordingly, in October 2021, EPA proposed to further extend until October 31, 2024, the compliance dates for the prohibition on the distribution in commerce of certain PIP (3:1)-containing articles, and the PIP (3:1) used to make those articles, along with the compliance date for the associated recordkeeping requirements for manufacturers, processors, and distributors of PIP (3:1)-containing articles (Ref. 10). EPA based the October 2021 proposal on the comments received on the March 2021 notification and request for comments, as well as information EPA received from stakeholders after the January 2021 final rule was published but prior to the issuance of the March 2021 notification and request for comments.

Industry stakeholders commenting on the March 2021 notification and request for comments contended that they needed more time 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). As described in the October 2021 proposed rule, industry commenters identified a wide range of articles that may contain PIP (3:1), which generally is used as a flame retardant and plasticizer in plastic articles (Refs. 9 and 10). Commenters on the March 2021 notification and request for comments also described the challenges associated with determining whether a particular article contains PIP (3:1), especially for complex goods that contain thousands of individual parts. Some commenters stated that article manufacturers may be unable to identify or confirm the PIP (3:1) content of articles, such as supplied parts and components, without laboratory testing, which can be expensive and time-consuming. 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. However, the ability to obtain material composition data from across the supply chain may be limited (Ref. 12).

As described in the October 2021 proposal, nearly all of the industry commenters responding to EPA's March 2021 notification and request for comments stated that they needed several years to phase PIP (3:1) out of their articles (Refs. 9 and10). 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 (Ref. 9). Given the varying estimates, and the lack of detail accompanying some of those estimates, EPA proposed to further extend the compliance dates until October 31, 2024, which was consistent with the lower end of the time estimates provided by commenters. EPA reasoned that this would avoid significant disruption in the supply chains for certain articles and would provide the public with regulatory certainty while EPA determines whether any further compliance date extensions are necessary for certain industry sectors, based on information submitted in the context of revisions to the PBT rules more generally. As announced in March 2021 and in the October 2021 proposal, EPA intends to consider any additional information of this kind in the context of revisions to the final PBT rules to further reduce exposures, promote environmental justice, and better protect human health and the environment. More information on the March 2021 notification and request for comments, and a summary of the comments received in response to the notification, are in the October 2021 proposal (Ref. 10).

EPA received a total of 40 public comments on the October 2021 proposal: 38 from industry stakeholders, one from environmental, public health, children's health organizations, and one from a tribal partnership group (Ref. 13). Many of the industry commenters on this proposal also commented on the March 2021 notification and request for comments, some providing additional details about their efforts to identify PIP (3:1) in their supply chains since the earlier public comment period.

Approximately one-third of the industry commenters on the October 2021 proposal expressed qualified support for the proposed compliance date of October 31, 2024, for the prohibition on the processing and distribution in commerce of certain PIP (3:1)-containing articles and the PIP (3:1) used to make those articles.

A commenter from the heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, and refrigeration (HVACR) industry noted that their comments on the March 2021 notification and request for comments provided two scenarios for the length of time needed to eliminate PIP (3:1) in their supply chains (Ref. 14). While the first scenario resulted in an estimate of three years to complete the phase-out of PIP (3:1), the commenter noted that this was a best-case scenario, assuming that a number of potential difficulties with identifying PIP (3:1) in the supply chain and scheduling scarce laboratory time for recertifications would be eliminated. The more realistic scenario, according to this commenter, was the scenario that estimated that a period of five years would be needed to eliminate PIP (3:1) in their supply chain. This commenter reiterated concerns with the process for eliminating PIP (3:1), noting that it remains difficult to obtain information from suppliers, testing is an expensive and time-consuming alternative, and that it will be challenging to find and test substitute chemicals with the fire-retardant characteristics of PIP (3:1) for every application. The commenter further explained that the industry is dealing with a shortage of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene plastic due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic as well as a mandatory refrigerant transition. Finally, this commenter contended that the compliance date should be a “manufactured-by” date, rather than a processing and distribution in commerce prohibition, and expressed concern over the need for replacement parts for equipment that is produced before the “manufactured-by” date.

Commenters from the consumer technology sector noted that they had originally estimated in their comments on the March 2021 notification and request for comments that they would need four years to phase PIP (3:1) out of their articles, but now believe that they can achieve this by October 31, 2024 (Ref 15). They conditioned their support for the 2024 date on the date being a “manufactured-by” date, rather than a prohibition on processing and distribution in commerce, and also raised the issue of replacement parts for consumer articles produced before the “manufactured-by” date.

The home appliance industry also supported the October 2024 date, noting that their comments on the March 2021 notification and request for comments recommended a three-year extension of the compliance date. They also requested that the compliance date be applied as a “manufactured-by” date, and that there be an exclusion for spare or replacement parts (Ref. 16).

Other commenters maintained that they would need more time to complete a phase-out of PIP (3:1) from their supply chains. A commenter from the electrical manufacturing industry stated that they would need at least five years to eliminate PIP (3:1) in their articles, and eight years would be preferred (Ref. 17). The commenter described the complexity of the sector's supply chains, estimating that six to twelve months would be needed to identify PIP (3:1) in articles and two to three years would be needed to identify an alternative, after which it would be necessary to test and certify components made with the alternative. This commenter also noted that it would be very expensive to replace PIP (3:1) throughout the electrical manufacturing industry. Finally, this commenter stated that an additional three years would be needed for “sell-through,” i.e., allowing articles made with PIP (3:1) to clear the supply chain.

Several commenters from the semiconductor manufacturing industry indicated that they would need a phase-out timeline of at least fifteen years (Refs. 12, 18, and 19). One commenter noted that the same considerations that led EPA to exclude new and replacement parts for the aerospace and automotive industry from the January 2021 final rule could be applied to the semiconductor manufacturing industry and, therefore, that industry should also be excluded (Ref. 12). This commenter suggested a fifteen-year delay in the compliance date for the semiconductor manufacturing industry, which was consistent with the comments this commenter provided in May 2021. The commenter provided a chart showing the typical cycle for one part going through an engineering change under normal conditions. While the chart showed that the process could be completed in ten years, and that process steps could overlap, the commenter noted that a PIP (3:1) phase-out would involve the entire industry going through these processes for many parts at once, leading to numerous logjams. The commenter estimated that 30 months would be needed to identify PIP (3:1)-containing components in the supply chain, 20 months would be needed to identify and test alternatives, 6 to 48 months would be needed to requalify suppliers to the manufacturer's requirements, 18 months would be needed to laboratory testing and recertification, and 36 months would be needed for customer qualification (Ref. 12).

In addition to comments regarding the extension of compliance dates for prohibitions, one commenter further requested that EPA make the compliance date for recordkeeping for excluded articles, such as new and replacement automotive parts, consistent with the recordkeeping compliance date for articles that are the subject of this rulemaking (Ref. 20).

EPA notes that one-third of the commenters overall estimated that impacted industries would be able to comply with the October 2024 compliance date, albeit with some reservations related to replacement parts, the ability to sell articles produced before the compliance date, and pandemic impacts on global supply chains. EPA appreciates the efforts that many of the commenters made to provide the details requested by EPA in the October 2021 proposal as to:

• 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 appreciates the comments that provide updated estimates of needed time to comply and which provide more detailed information than was provided in response to the March 2021 notification and request for comments. Overall, EPA finds the description of concrete steps taken in some industries to identify alternatives or continue engaging in phase-outs to provide a compelling rationale for the need for an extension of the compliance date to October 31, 2024, with an expectation that in several industries this extension would be sufficient. While EPA appreciates the information submitted by some commenters to support a further compliance date extension beyond October 31, 2024, EPA also recognizes that, for many industries, the collection of this information is still ongoing. EPA does not find that the Agency has sufficient information at this time to identify an appropriate compliance date beyond October 31, 2024, or to justify extending the compliance date beyond October 31, 2024. As commenters stated, obtaining information from suppliers continues to present challenges, and EPA anticipates that additional time to investigate supply chains as well as substitute chemicals will result in more robust information regarding the need for compliance date extensions beyond October 31, 2024, including the number of years that will be needed to qualify the substitutes and distribute them throughout the supply chain. As discussed in the October 2021 proposal and in more detail in Unit IV.B., EPA will consider any additional information on this issue in the context of the broader rulemaking EPA plans to undertake for PIP (3:1) and other PBTs. As part of that broader rulemaking, EPA will also review the justifications underlying the exclusions in the January 2021 PIP (3:1) final rule to consider whether to adopt new restrictions for activities currently excluded, such as new and replacement automotive and aerospace vehicle parts, consistent with the statutory directive to reduce exposure to the extent practicable.

Regarding commenters' statements that compliance date extensions should be combined with a further regulatory change allowing for a “manufactured-by” date, rather than a processing and distribution in commerce prohibition, EPA's response is provided in Unit III.D.2.

Regarding compliance dates for recordkeeping, based on the comments received from the non-road mobile machinery and other similar industries (described in more details in comments requesting exclusions from the prohibitions), EPA understands that the scope of the exclusion for new and replacement motor vehicle parts is broader than what would strictly be considered the automotive industry, and not all suppliers eligible for the motor vehicle parts exclusion participate in the automotive industry's recordkeeping system. EPA recognizes the benefits in extending the recordkeeping compliance date in the way described by the commenter; details of the recordkeeping compliance date extension are described in Unit IV.B.

A number of commenters from the construction, agriculture, mining, forestry and utility industries, which EPA is referring to as the non-road mobile machinery industry, argued that they should be afforded the same exclusion that was provided in the January 2021 final rule for new and replacement parts for the aerospace and automotive industries.

One commenter from the non-road mobile machinery industry stated that this industry faces the same types of safety, design, manufacturing and purchasing issues experienced by the aerospace and automotive sectors (Ref. 22). According to the commenter, this leads to overlapping supply chains with the much-larger aerospace and automotive industries. As a result of these overlapping supply chains, the exclusions granted to the aerospace and automotive industries, without a similar exclusion for the non-road mobile machinery industry, greatly complicate efforts to comply with the provisions of the January 2021 final rule in that the non-road mobile machinery industry may be forced to find new suppliers to provide replacements for PIP (3:1)-containing components at a higher cost.

As an alternative to an exclusion, this commenter stated that they would need seven years to eliminate PIP (3:1)-containing components from their supply chain. The commenter provided a detailed timeline in support of this assertion, as well as an estimate of the costs that would be incurred in eliminating PIP (3:1). Other commenters supported a seven-year delayed compliance date as an alternative to their preferred approach of excluding the heavy machinery industry (Refs. 22 and 23).

Relatedly, commenters representing the automotive and similar industries, such as the non-road mobile machinery industry, requested that EPA clarify several provisions. Several commenters noted that EPA had provided its understanding of the meaning of the term “motor vehicle,” as that term is used in the January 2021 final rule, to stakeholders upon request (Ref. 20, 22, and 24). These commenters asked that EPA provide its understanding of the term “motor vehicle” in the regulatory text itself, or in a companion guidance document.

EPA appreciates the detailed estimates that several commenters provided describing the time that would be needed to identify PIP (3:1) in their supply chain, find and test alternatives, recertify and requalify parts and finished goods, and distribute them through the supply chain (Ref. 21). EPA notes that some of the articles produced by these commenters would be considered motor vehicles. As EPA has stated in response to stakeholder inquiries (Refs. 20, 22, and 24), EPA generally interprets the term “motor vehicle” to mean a transport vehicle that is propelled or drawn by mechanical power, such as cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats, and construction, agricultural, and industrial machinery. To the extent that the commenters produce motor vehicles, they are currently covered under the exclusion provided in the January 2021 final rule for new and replacement motor vehicle parts. However, as EPA announced in the March 2021 notification and request for comments and further described in the October 2021 proposal, EPA, as part of its planned future rulemaking on all five of the PBTs, will review the justifications underlying the exclusions in the January 2021 PIP (3:1) final rule to consider whether to adopt new restrictions for activities currently excluded, consistent with the statutory directive to reduce exposure to the extent practicable (Refs. 4 and 10). As noted previously, in the future rulemaking, EPA will also consider comments addressing any need for a further extension to compliance dates that have already been extended. For example, in the upcoming rulemaking, EPA intends to evaluate whether a compliance date can be established for new automotive parts that contain PIP (3:1). As part of that evaluation, EPA will consider a similar compliance date for adjacent industries, such as non-road mobile machinery, given that they share supply chains. Similarly, EPA appreciates the suggestion from the commenters regarding a definition of “motor vehicle” in the regulatory text and will consider proposing such a definition in relevant regulatory text as part of the upcoming broader rulemaking on PIP (3:1) and other PBT chemicals.

In contrast to industry commenters, commenters from environmental, public health, children's health organizations, or tribal partnership groups contended that no additional compliance date delay was warranted.

Two commenters expressed concern over the additional exposures that could result from further extensions to the compliance date, including to children, persons who are exposed to PIP (3:1) through multiple pathways, subsistence fishers and others who are likely to have higher dietary exposures than those of the general population, and persons exposed through the disposal of PIP (3:1)-containing materials at certain landfills and through open burning (Refs. 25 and 26).

One comment from several environmental, public health, and children's health organizations stated that an extension of the compliance date would perpetuate exposure to a toxic chemical contrary to the statutory requirement to take expedited action to reduce exposure to the extent practicable for the PBT chemicals (Ref. 25). The comment emphasized that a further extension of the compliance deadline would reward industry's lack of participation in the regulatory process that preceded the January 2021 final rules, and stated their position that EPA failed to justify the proposed compliance extension by dismissing its impact on exposure risks, instead focusing only on industry hardship, and that this approach contravenes Congress' intent in TSCA. The commenter cited EPA's proposed rule to note that PIP (3:1) is among the highest scoring PBT chemicals based on its scores for hazard, exposure, and persistence and bioaccumulation. The commenter also stated that, because the general prohibition against PIP (3:1) took effect within sixty days, the commenter believed that EPA had not considered whether there were steps that could be taken during a multi-year phase-in period to reduce exposure to PIP (3:1), such as public notifications and labeling of products containing PIP (3:1) or additional safeguards for the workers who manufacture, recycle, or dispose of those products (Ref. 25). Additionally, the comment cited studies in stating that the proposed extension will be especially harmful to communities where PIP (3:1) is manufactured, imported, released, and disposed of, and that multiple exposures to PIP (3:1) would have a disproportionate impact on those communities that raise environmental justice concerns. The commenter added that the proposed extension will be especially harmful to children, providing citations of industry reports of the presence of PIP (3:1) in children's products. Finally, the commenter requested that EPA initiate information gathering rulemakings under TSCA section 8(a) to prevent any future attempts by industry to evade regulatory control on the basis of ignorance of chemicals present in products and supply chains.

The National Tribal Toxics Council (NTTC), an EPA Tribal Partnership group, stated that, prior to the original compliance date, EPA had provided more than adequate advance notice as well as ample opportunities for stakeholder engagement, and thus further extensions are not warranted. The commenter emphasized that any regulatory action that pertains to PBTs has significant tribal implications, and expressed concern that the rule would result in 31 additional months of PIP (3:1) products being disposed in or near tribal lands without monitoring for environmental releases (Ref. 26).

EPA appreciates the commenters' descriptions of their concerns, their input during the current and previous rulemakings, and their support of EPA's stakeholder engagement process. EPA agrees that earlier industry stakeholder engagement during the multiple years the original PIP (3:1) regulation was under development would have been of great help to EPA in crafting practicable compliance dates for various industry sectors as is required by TSCA section 6(d)(1). EPA also acknowledges that PIP (3:1) scores high for hazard, exposure, and persistence and bioaccumulation. However, EPA finds the information industry stakeholders have provided in response to the March 2021 and October 2021 notices to be compelling justification for the necessity of extension of the relevant compliance dates to October 2024 because of the potential for significant disruption to the supply chains for important articles such as HVACR equipment and personal electronics.

EPA appreciates the recommendations for steps that could be taken to phase out PIP (3:1) or further reduce exposure, such as the public notifications or worker protections the commenter described. EPA will consider these recommendations as part of EPA's planned future rulemaking on PIP (3:1) and other PBTs, as described in the October 2021 proposal, and EPA will be seeking more detailed comments and information on issues of this kind to determine whether additional measures as proposed would be practicable. Similarly, as part of that future rulemaking, EPA will assess how environmental justice could be promoted through further exposure reduction. While EPA has taken note of the information provided by the commenters on the reports of PIP (3:1) in products used by children, as well as the potential impacts on communities near importers of PIP (3:1), EPA emphasizes that the agency has not determined at what level exposure to PIP (3:1) represents a risk to human health or the environment. In the future rulemaking on PIP (3:1) and other PBTs, EPA intends to identify whether exposure to PIP (3:1) could be further practicably reduced, including by reducing or removing current exclusions from prohibitions or by modifying compliance timeframes. EPA emphasizes that, as part of the future rulemaking, information such as that provided in the comment will be considered.

Regarding the concerns raised in both comments regarding tribes and environmental justice communities, EPA recognizes that while the compliance date extension may result in the potential for exposures that might otherwise have been precluded, EPA does not have information to suggest that such potential exposures are likely to be substantial or direct. For example, according to another commenter, the risk of exposure to PIP (3:1) to workers, consumers, and end-users is low because the PIP (3:1) is generally incorporated into the composition (polymer matrix) of the components that are internal to equipment accessible only by trained technicians (Ref. 14). In contrast, EPA does know that the use of PIP (3:1) for these articles in the near term is necessary to avoid significant disruption to the supply chains for certain important articles such as HVACR systems and personal electronic devices such as cellular telephones. Thus, an earlier compliance date would not be practicable or provide a reasonable transition period as is required by TSCA section 6(d)(1). More information on TSCA section 6(d) is provided in Unit IV.A. As EPA works to develop planned future rulemakings on PIP (3:1) and other PBTs, described in the October 2021 proposal, EPA will consider to what extent impacts to tribes and environmental justice communities could be reduced further and welcomes NTTC's interest in tribal consultation and developing a more effective process for determining whether an action is of tribal significance.

EPA agrees with commenters' concern regarding several industries' lack of information on the presence of chemicals in their supply chains, particularly in imported articles. EPA notes that the commenters' recommendation for promulgation of a rule under TSCA section 8 is outside the scope of this compliance date extension.

Commenters also provided information on other topics, including their interest in a “manufactured-by” date for articles, applicability of the rule to replacement parts, and establishment of a de minimus threshold. Additionally, a commenter requested clarification of downstream notification requirements.

Many of the industry commenters stated that the compliance date referenced in the proposal should be a “manufactured-by” date, rather than a compliance date for a prohibition on processing and distribution in commerce. By this, the commenters generally meant that any article manufactured before the “manufactured-by” date could be processed and distributed in commerce at any time in the future without restriction. One commenter noted that the only date that the industry has control over is the date by which an article is manufactured (Ref. 15). The commenter asserted that manufacturers of consumer goods and EPA could more readily determine compliance using this approach because a “manufactured-by” date can be confirmed based on unique product identifiers, such as lot or serial numbers, that are often marked on the article. According to the commenter, retailers do not have control over how quickly goods are sold and do not necessarily operate under a first-in, first-out system, which adds to the challenge of inventory management. The commenter further stated that in the absence of a “manufactured-by” compliance date, retailers would be unable to determine whether a good was compliant, i.e., does not contain PIP (3:1). This commenter stated that an “imported-by” date would present challenges for the industry, primarily due to the potential for import delays associated with the process itself as well as with shipping, which have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the commenter stated that an “imported-by” date would be more manageable for the industry than a compliance date associated with distribution in commerce.

Another commenter stated that the date of compliance should be a “manufactured-by” date for domestically produced articles, and an “imported-by” date for those articles produced abroad (Ref. 27). This commenter noted that distributors do not necessarily ship finished goods based on when they receive them, and it may be difficult for manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers to differentiate with certainty between goods that appear the same but may have different chemical compositions. This commenter further noted that a distribution in commerce prohibition is also unworkable because distribution in commerce has been very broadly interpreted by EPA to include, in some cases, any movement of a regulated product, even among facilities within the same business enterprise and its affiliates and subsidiaries.

While some commenters (Refs. 15 and 27) stated that the only compliance date should be a “manufactured-by” date, or “imported-by” date, other commenters indicated that a restriction on distribution in commerce might be workable as long as sufficient time was provided for articles manufactured before the “manufactured-by” date to move through the channels of trade to the end user. These commenters often used the phrase “sell-through” to describe the date by which sales of articles manufactured before the “manufactured-by” date must cease. Two commenters stated that a three-year “sell-through” date would be adequate (Refs. 17 and 28). One commenter representing the retail industry indicated that the minimum time needed would be 18 months, based on more-detailed information provided by a retailer of electronic products (Ref. 29). This commenter noted that more time would be needed for products that tend to sell more slowly, such as furniture.

Many of the industry commenters also expressed concern over the applicability of the January 2021 final rule's provisions only to some types of replacement parts. One commenter noted that HVACR and water-heating equipment can safely remain in operation for as long as fifty years or more and, in many cases, buildings are designed and built around such equipment, making it difficult to replace (Ref. 28). This commenter contended that to ensure that this critical HVACR and water heating equipment can still function in the future, the components and parts used in servicing the equipment must be able to be used without restriction. Another commenter stated that components or parts of articles typically are held by the manufacturer until needed for repair or replacement (Ref. 15). The commenter noted that electronic finished goods may have warranties upwards of fifteen years, meaning that components or parts of articles for repair or replacement can be kept in a manufacturer's warehouse for well over a decade. This commenter further explained that, when transitioning from one generation of an electronic finished good to the next, spare parts for the first generation are bought under a “last time buy” from the supplier to create the inventory of spare parts needed to support warranty claims. After this “last time buy”, the tooling needed to manufacture those parts is decommissioned. The commenter further noted that spare and replacement parts or articles that contain PIP (3:1) would be expected to be in inventory well past the proposed October 2024 compliance date, but the “manufactured-by” date approach would solve this problem.

A number of commenters recommended that EPA establish a de minimis threshold for PIP (3:1) regulation, particularly in articles. Commenters gave a variety of reasons for why EPA should establish a threshold level. One commenter stated that the difficulty in determining whether PIP (3:1) is present in a component article was at least partly due to potential discomfort with claiming absolute “zero” PIP (3:1) when there is ambiguity about how that will be determined or whether it is feasible to determine due to the potential for miniscule contamination (Ref. 30). This commenter contended that ambiguity in the material declaration process makes that process extremely time consuming and adds months to the process for each supplier. Other commenters also expressed concern for the potential for trace contamination and the feasibility of controlling such contamination (Refs. 15 and 31). Another commenter noted the high expense that is entailed by having to test down to the detection limit in the absence of a de minimis threshold (Ref. 21). Yet another commenter noted that other chemical regulatory programs such as REACH incorporate a de minimis threshold (Ref. 16).

One commenter requested that EPA clarify the downstream notification requirements for manufacturers, processors, and distributors of PIP (3:1) for use in certain articles, and whether those requirements would be extended along with the compliance dates for the prohibition on processing and distribution of certain PIP (3:1) containing articles (Ref. 27).

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, how long it may take to clear those PIP (3:1)-containing articles through the channels of trade, and the steps needed to phase PIP (3:1) out of articles in the supply chain. EPA will consider these comments in the context of the broader rulemaking EPA plans to undertake for PIP (3:1) and other PBT chemicals (Ref. 10). In that rulemaking, EPA plans to request public comment on the utility as well as the drawbacks of a “manufactured-by” date and the amount of time needed for articles to clear the channels of trade, the applicability of the rule to replacement parts, and a de minimis threshold in the context of reducing exposure to PIP (3:1) to the extent practicable. Regarding the request for clarification regarding downstream notification requirements, EPA is not extending the compliance date for downstream notification requirements to align with the extended compliance dates for PIP (3:1)-containing articles in this final rule. The downstream notification requirements apply only to the chemical PIP (3:1) and mixtures (products) that contain the chemical PIP (3:1); they are not applicable to PIP (3:1) containing articles. However, EPA is conforming the required downstream notification language with the compliance date extensions. Details of these amendments are in Unit IV.C.

TSCA section 6(d) includes a number of provisions relating to establishment of effective or compliance dates in rules promulgated under TSCA section 6. 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 TSCA section 6(d)(1)(D) requires EPA to specify mandatory compliance dates for full implementation of ban or phase-out requirements under a TSCA section 6(a) rule, 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) is 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 January 2021 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 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 allowed 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 was both “as soon as practicable” and provides a “reasonable transition period.”

As noted in the September 2021 final rule and the October 2021 proposal, 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 (Refs. 2 and 10). 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 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.

Based upon EPA's analysis of the comments received on the October 2021 proposal, along with the information provided in comments received on the March 2021 notification and request for comments, EPA is extending until October 31, 2024, the compliance date for the prohibition on processing and distribution in commerce of PIP (3:1)-containing articles, and the PIP (3:1) used to make those articles. As discussed in the October 2021 proposal, and in the response to comments earlier, the October 2024 compliance date is consistent with the lower end of the time estimates provided by commenters on the March 2021 notification and request for comments. As described in Unit III.A., approximately one-third of the commenters on the October 2021 proposal estimated that they would be able to comply with the October 2024 compliance date, albeit with some reservations related to replacement parts, the ability to sell articles produced before the compliance date, and COVID-19 pandemic impacts on global supply chains. EPA has determined that this further extension of the March 8, 2022 compliance date to October 31, 2024, for the prohibition on processing and distribution in commerce is necessary to avoid significant disruption in the supply chains for certain articles, such as HVACR equipment and consumer electronics, and will provide a measure of regulatory certainty while industry collects and submits additional information to inform whether a further compliance date extension may be necessary for certain industry sectors, such as the semiconductor manufacturing industry. While EPA expects that that in several industries this extension would be sufficient, EPA also recognizes the challenges described by commenters with complex supply chains and the potential need for a longer compliance date extension in certain industries. The compliance date extension to October 31, 2024, will allow EPA additional time to further evaluate the need to again extend the compliance deadlines for PIP (3:1) for certain industries such as the semiconductor manufacturing industry. As discussed in the October 2021 proposal and in more detail in Unit II.C., EPA plans to consider this information in the context of revisions to PIP (3:1) and other PBT rules more generally.

EPA is also extending the recordkeeping compliance date in 40 CFR 751.407(d) for 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, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for them to supply the required information. Additionally, as described earlier, a public comment requested that EPA make the compliance date for recordkeeping for excluded articles, such as new and replacement automotive parts, consistent with the recordkeeping compliance date for articles that are the subject of this rulemaking (Ref. 20). Based on the comments received from the non-road mobile machinery and other similar industries, EPA understands that not all suppliers eligible for the motor vehicle parts exclusion participate in the automotive industry's recordkeeping system. Therefore, EPA is extending the recordkeeping compliance dates specified in paragraphs 40 CFR 751.407 (a)(2)(iii) and (d)(4) from March 8, 2022, to October 31, 2024. However, the compliance dates specified in 40 CFR 751.407(a)(2)(ii) remain in effect.

EPA also recognizes that, for many industries, the collection of information on the presence of PIP (3:1) in their supply chains is still ongoing. As discussed in the October 2021 proposal, EPA will consider any additional information of this kind in the context of the broader rulemaking EPA plans to undertake for PIP (3:1) and other PBT chemicals (Ref. 10). In that future rulemaking, EPA also plans to consider the comments, discussed in Unit III.D., regarding a “manufactured-by” date, replacement parts, and a de minimis threshold.

In reviewing the comments received on the October 2021 proposal ( e.g., Ref. 27), EPA realized that the downstream notification requirements in the January 2021 final rule could be misleading, resulting in potential confusion for the regulated community. 40 CFR 751.407(e) requires manufacturers, processors, and distributors in commerce of PIP (3:1) and PIP (3:1)-containing products to provide notification of the restrictions on the chemical substance to their customers, either through specific mandatory language on a Safety Data Sheet (SDS) or a label. EPA notes that the notification requirements only apply to the chemical PIP (3:1) or to products containing the chemical PIP (3:1). As discussed in Unit II.A., the term “product” excludes articles. Therefore, the downstream notification requirements on 40 CFR 751.407(e) do not apply to PIP (3:1)-containing articles.

However, the mandatory language in 40 CFR 751.407(e)(3)(i) through (iii) does not reflect the fact that EPA is extending the compliance date for the prohibition on processing and distribution in commerce of certain PIP (3:1)-containing articles. Thus, purchasers of PIP (3:1) and PIP (3:1)-containing products who intend to use them in articles may be confused by the mandatory language on an SDS or a label that says that they may not use the PIP (3:1) or PIP (3:1)-containing product in this manner. Therefore, EPA is amending the mandatory language at 40 CFR 751.407(e)(3)(i) through (iii) to conform to the compliance date extension for the prohibition on processing and distribution in commerce of certain PIP (3:1)-containing articles.

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 .

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

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.

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. 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.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 751 is amended as follows: