Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 12875 

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). 

VIII. Congressional Review Act 

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). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: February 17, 2022. 

Marietta Echeverria, 

Acting Director, Registration Division, Office 

of Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, for the reasons stated in the 

preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR 

chapter I as follows: 

PART 180—TOLERANCES AND 

EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE 

CHEMICAL RESIDUES IN FOOD 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. In § 180.940, amend Table 1 to 

paragraph (a) by adding in alphabetical 

order an entry for ‘‘Phosphoric Acid’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 180.940 Tolerance exemptions for active 

and inert ingredients for use in 

antimicrobial formulations (Food-contact 

surface sanitizing solutions) 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a) 

Inert ingredients CAS Reg. No. Limits 

*******

Phosphoric Acid ....................................................................................................................................................... 7664–38–2 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–04852 Filed 3–7–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 751 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021–0598; FRL–6015.6– 

02–OCSPP] 

RIN 2070–AK95 

Regulation of Persistent, 

Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals 

Under TSCA Section 6(h); Phenol, 

Isopropylated Phosphate (3:1); Further 

Compliance Date Extension 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is amending the 

regulations applicable to phenol, 

isopropylated phosphate (3:1) (PIP (3:1)) 

promulgated under the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA). 

Specifically, EPA is extending 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 

October 31, 2024, along with the 

compliance date for the associated 

recordkeeping requirements for 

manufacturers, processors, and 

distributors of PIP (3:1)-containing 

articles. This final rule follows issuance 

of a proposed rule for public comment 

on October 28, 2021; comments on the 

proposed rule are responded to in this 

action. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

March 8, 2022. For purposes of judicial 

review and 40 CFR 23.5, this rule shall 

be promulgated at 1 p.m. eastern 

standard time on March 22, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021–0598, is 

available at https://

www.regulations.gov. Due to the public 

health concerns related to COVID–19, 

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) and 

Reading Room are opened to visitors by 

appointment only. For the latest status 

information on EPA/DC services and 

docket access, visit https://

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: Cindy 

Wheeler, Existing Chemicals Risk 

Management Division, Office of 

Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 

566–0484; email address: TSCA-PBTrules@epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you manufacture 

(including import), process, distribute 

in commerce, or use phenol, 

isopropylated phosphate (3:1) (PIP 

(3:1)), or PIP (3:1)-containing articles, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
12876 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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). 

B. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

1. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 

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. 

2. Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 

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. 

C. What action is the Agency taking? 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 12877 

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). 

D. Why is the Agency taking this action? 

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 shortterm 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. 

E. What are the incremental economic 

impacts? 

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. 

II. Background 

A. The January 2021 Final Rule 

A final rule for PIP (3:1) was 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 6, 2021 (Ref. 1). EPA 

determined in the final rule that PIP 

(3:1) met the TSCA section 6(h)(1)(A) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
12878 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

B. The March 2021 Notification and 

Request for Comments and the No 

Action Assurance 

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 longerterm compliance date extension 

generally. 

C. The October 2021 Proposal 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 12879 

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 timeconsuming. 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). 

III. Comments on the October 2021 

Proposal 

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. 

A. Comments Supporting the Proposed 

Compliance Dates or Further Extensions 

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. 

1. Summary of Public Comments 

Supporting Extension of Compliance 

Dates 

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 fireretardant 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 phaseout 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
12880 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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). 

2. EPA Response 

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 ‘‘manufacturedby’’ 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. 

B. Comments Supporting Exclusions 

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. 

1. Summary of Public Comments 

Supporting Exclusions 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 12881 

EPA provide its understanding of the 

term ‘‘motor vehicle’’ in the regulatory 

text itself, or in a companion guidance 

document. 

2. EPA Response 

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. 

C. Comments Opposed to Further 

Compliance Date Extensions 

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. 

1. Summary of Public Comments 

Opposed to Further Compliance Date 

Extensions 

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). 

2. EPA Response 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
12882 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

D. Comments on Other Topics 

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. 

1. Summary of Comments on Other 

Topics 

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, firstout 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 12883 

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). 

2. EPA Response 

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. 

IV. Provisions of this Final Rule 

A. Establishing a Revised Compliance 

Date 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
12884 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

B. Compliance Dates in this Final Rule 

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. 

C. Conforming Amendments to the 

Downstream Notification Requirements 

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. 

V. References 

The following is a listing of the 

documents that are specifically 

referenced in this document. The docket 

includes these documents and other 

information considered by EPA, 

including documents that are referenced 

within the documents that are included 

in the docket, even if the referenced 

document is not physically located in 

the docket. For assistance in locating 

these other documents, please consult 

the technical person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

1. EPA. Phenol, Isopropylated Phosphate 

(3:1) (PIP (3:1)); Regulation of Persistent, 

Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals 

Under TSCA Section 6(h); Final Rule. 

Federal Register (86 FR 894, January 6, 

2021) (FRL–10018–88). 

2. EPA. Regulation of Persistent, 

Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals 

Under TSCA Section 6(h); Phenol, 

Isopropylated Phosphate (3:1); 

Compliance Date Extension. Federal 

Register (86 FR 51823, September 17, 

2021) (FRL–6015.5–03–OCSPP). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 12885 

3. Letter from the Consumer Technology 

Association (CTA) and the Information 

Technology Industry Council (ITI) to 

EPA on March 15, 2021. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2021–0202–0015. 

4. EPA. Regulation of Persistent, 

Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals 

Under TSCA Section 6(h); Phenol, 

Isopropylated Phosphate (3:1); Request 

for Comments. Federal Register (86 FR 

14398, March 16, 2021) (FRL–10021–08). 

5. 2,4,6-Tris(tert-butyl)phenol (2,4,6–TTBP); 

Regulation of Persistent, 

Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals 

Under TSCA Section 6(h); Final Rule. 

Federal Register (86 FR 866, January 6, 

2021) (FRL–10018–90). 

6. EPA. Decabromodiphenyl Ether 

(DecaBDE); Regulation of Persistent, 

Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals 

Under TSCA Section 6(h); Final Rule. 

Federal Register (86 FR 880, January 6, 

2021) (FRL–10018–87). 

7. EPA. Pentachlorothiophenol (PCTP); 

Regulation of Persistent, 

Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals 

Under TSCA Section 6(h); Final Rule. 

Federal Register (86 FR 911, January 6, 

2021) (FRL–10018–89). 

8. EPA. Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD); 

Regulation of Persistent, 

Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals 

Under TSCA Section 6(h); Final Rule. 

Federal Register (86 FR 922, January 6, 

2021) (FRL–10018–91). 

9. Comments submitted to EPA. Regulation of 

Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic 

Chemicals Under TSCA Section 6(h). 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021–0202–0001. 

10. EPA. Regulation of Persistent, 

Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals 

Under TSCA Section 6(h); Phenol, 

Isopropylated Phosphate (3:1); Further 

Compliance Date Extension. Federal 

Register (86 FR 59684, October 28, 2021) 

(FRL–6015.6–01–OCSPP). 

11. EPA. No Action Assurance Regarding 

Prohibition of Processing and 

Distribution of Phenol Isopropylated 

Phosphate (3:1), PIP (3:1) for Use in 

Articles, and PIP (3:1)-containing 

Articles under 40 CFR 751.407(a)(1). 

March 8, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/ 

assessing-and-managing-chemicalsunder-tsca/public-comment-period-pbtrules-and-no-action-assurance. 

12. Comment submitted by SEMI to EPA on 

December 22, 2021. EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2021–0598–0038. 

13. Comments submitted to EPA. Regulation 

of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and 

Toxic Chemicals Under TSCA Section 

6(h); Phenol, Isopropylated Phosphate 

(3:1); Further Compliance Date 

Extension. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021–0598– 

0001. 

14. Comment submitted by Air Conditioning, 

Refrigeration, and Heating Institute 

(AHRI) to EPA on December 21, 2021. 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021–0598–0027. 

15. Comment submitted by Consumer 

Technology Association (CTA), IPC and 

Information Technology Industry 

Council (ITI) to EPA on December 21, 

2021. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021–0598–0030. 

16. Comment submitted by the Alliance of 

Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) 

to EPA on December 23, 2021. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2021–0598–0033. 

17. Comment submitted by the National 

Electrical Manufacturers Association 

(NEMA) to EPA on December 22, 2021. 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021–0598–0031. 

18. Comment submitted by the 

Semiconductor Industry Association 

(SIA) to EPA on December 21, 2021. 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021–0598–0025. 

19. Comment submitted by Hitachi HighTech America, Inc. (HTA) to EPA on 

December 22, 2021. EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2021–0598–0041. 

20. Comment submitted by Alliance for 

Automotive Innovation and Motor & 

Equipment Manufacturers Association 

(MEMA) to EPA on December 23, 2021. 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021–0598–0046. 

21. Comment submitted by the Association of 

Equipment Manufacturers (AEM) to EPA 

on December 23, 2021. EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2021–0598–0047. 

22. Comment submitted by Truck and Engine 

Manufacturers Association (EMA) to 

EPA on December 23, 2021. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2021–0598–0044. 

23. Comment submitted by Kubota North 

America Corporation (KNA) to EPA on 

December 21, 2021. EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2021–0598–0028. 

24. Comment submitted by the Outdoor 

Power Equipment Institute (OPEI) to 

EPA on December 22, 2021. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2021–0598–0032. 

25. Comment submitted by Alaska 

Community Action on Toxics et al. to 

EPA on December 23, 2021. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2021–0598–0043. 

26. Comment submitted by National Tribal 

Toxics Council (NTTC) To EPA on 

December 27, 2021. EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2021–0598–0057. 

27. Comment submitted by Chemical Users 

Coalition (CUC) to EPA on December 22, 

2021. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021–0598–0036. 

28. Comment submitted by Air Conditioning, 

Heating, and Refrigeration Institute 

(AHRI) to EPA on December 21, 2022. 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021–0598–0027. 

29. Comment submitted by the Retail 

Industry Leaders Association (RILA) to 

EPA on December 27, 2021. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2021–0598–0055. 

30. Comment submitted by Advanced 

Medical Technology Association 

(AdvaMed) to EPA on December 17, 

2021. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021–0598–0022. 

31. Comment submitted by Thermo Fisher 

Scientific to EPA on December 24, 2021. 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021–0598–0049. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at https://www2.epa.gov/ 

lawsregulations/laws-and-executiveorders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866 (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and was 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Any 

changes made in response to OMB 

review have been reflected in the docket 

for this action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection activities or 

burden subject to OMB review and 

approval under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). OMB has previously 

approved the information collection 

activities contained in the existing 

regulations and associated burden under 

OMB Control No. 2070–0213 (EPA ICR 

No. 2599.02). An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to a collection of 

information that requires OMB approval 

under PRA, unless it has been approved 

by OMB and displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in title 40 

of the CFR, after appearing in the 

Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR 

part 9, and included on the related 

collection instrument or form, if 

applicable. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA, 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
12886 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999). It will not have substantial direct 

effects on the states, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the states, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000) because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not a ‘‘covered 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997) because it is not an economically 

significant regulatory action as defined 

by Executive Order 12866. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This is not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ as defined in Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), 

because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution or use of energy and has not 

otherwise been designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This action does not involve technical 

standards. As such, NTTAA section 

12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note, does not 

apply to this action. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

EPA believes that this action does not 

have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations, lowincome 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. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

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). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 751 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Export notification, Hazardous 

substances, Import certification, 

Reporting and recordkeeping. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

Therefore, for the reasons stated in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 751 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 751—REGULATION OF CERTAIN 

CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES AND 

MIXTURES UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE 

TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 751 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 15 U.S.C. 

2625(l)(4). 

■ 2. Amend § 751.407: 

■ a. In paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (d)(4) 

by removing ‘‘March 8, 2022’’ and 

adding ‘‘October 31, 2024’’ in its place; 

and 

■ b. By revising paragraphs (e)(3)(i) 

through (iii). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 751.407 PIP (3:1). 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) SDS Section 1(c). ‘‘The 

Environmental Protection Agency 

prohibits processing and distribution of 

this chemical/product for any use other 

than: (1) In hydraulic fluids either for 

the aviation industry or to meet military 

specifications for safety and 

performance where no alternative 

chemical is available that meets U.S. 

Department of Defense specification 

requirements, (2) lubricants and greases, 

(3) New or replacement parts for motor 

and aerospace vehicles, (4) as an 

intermediate in the manufacture of 

cyanoacrylate glue, (5) In specialized 

engine air filters for locomotive and 

marine applications, (6) In adhesives 

and sealants before January 6, 2025, 

after which use in adhesives and 

sealants is prohibited, and (7) in other 

articles before October 31, 2024, after 

which use in articles other than new or 

replacement parts for motor and 

aerospace vehicles or specialized engine 

air filters for locomotive and marine 

applications is prohibited. In addition, 

all persons are prohibited from releasing 

PIP (3:1) to water during manufacturing, 

processing, and distribution in 

commerce, and must follow all existing 

regulations and best practices to prevent 

the release of PIP (3:1) to water during 

the commercial use of PIP (3:1).’’; and 

(ii) SDS Section 15. ‘‘The 

Environmental Protection Agency 

prohibits processing and distribution of 

this chemical/product for any use other 

than: (1) In hydraulic fluids either for 

the aviation industry or to meet military 

specifications for safety and 

performance where no alternative 

chemical is available that meets U.S. 

Department of Defense specification 

requirements, (2) lubricants and greases, 

(3) new or replacement parts for motor 

and aerospace vehicles, (4) as an 

intermediate in the manufacture of 

cyanoacrylate glue, (5) In specialized 

engine air filters for locomotive and 

marine applications, (6) in adhesives 

and sealants before January 6, 2025, 

after which use in adhesives and 

sealants is prohibited, and (7) in other 

articles before October 31, 2024, after 

which use in articles other than new or 

replacement parts for motor and 

aerospace vehicles or specialized engine 

air filters for locomotive and marine 

applications is prohibited. In addition, 

all persons are prohibited from releasing 

PIP (3:1) to water during manufacturing, 

processing, and distribution in 

commerce, and must follow all existing 

regulations and best practices to prevent 

the release of PIP (3:1) to water during 

the commercial use of PIP (3:1).’’; or 

(iii) Labeling. ‘‘The Environmental 

Protection Agency prohibits processing 

and distribution of this chemical/ 

product for any use other than: (1) In 

hydraulic fluids either for the aviation 

industry or to meet military 

specifications for safety and 

performance where no alternative 

chemical is available that meets U.S. 

Department of Defense specification 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 12887 

requirements, (2) lubricants and greases, 

(3) new or replacement parts for motor 

and aerospace vehicles, (4) as an 

intermediate in the manufacture of 

cyanoacrylate glue, (5) In specialized 

engine air filters for locomotive and 

marine applications, (6) In adhesives 

and sealants before January 6, 2025, 

after which use in adhesives and 

sealants is prohibited, and (7) in other 

articles before October 31, 2024, after 

which use in articles other than new or 

replacement parts for motor and 

aerospace vehicles or specialized engine 

air filters for locomotive and marine 

applications is prohibited. In addition, 

all persons are prohibited from releasing 

PIP (3:1) to water during manufacturing, 

processing, and distribution in 

commerce, and must follow all existing 

regulations and best practices to prevent 

the release of PIP (3:1) to water during 

the commercial use of PIP (3:1).’’ 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–04945 Filed 3–7–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1