Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 178 / Friday, September 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 51823 

notification of enforcement, call or 

email Lieutenant Commander John 

Santorum, Waterways Management, 

U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; 

telephone (619) 278–7656, email 

D11MarineEventsSD@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast 

Guard will enforce the special local 

regulation in 33 CFR 100.1101, Table 1 

to § 100.1101, Item No. 9, for the San 

Diego Bayfair race regulated area daily 

from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., on September 17, 

2021 through September 19, 2021. This 

action is being taken to provide for the 

safety of life on navigable waterways 

during this 3-day event. Our regulation 

for marine events within the Eleventh 

Coast Guard District, § 100.1101, Table 

1 to § 100.1101, Item No. 9, specifies the 

location of the regulated area for the San 

Diego Bayfair which encompasses the 

waters of Mission Bay to include Fiesta 

Bay, the east side of Vacation Isle, and 

Crown Point shores. Under the 

provisions of § 100.1101, persons and 

vessels are prohibited from anchoring, 

blocking, loitering, or impeding within 

this regulated area unless authorized by 

the Captain of the Port, or his 

designated representative. The Coast 

Guard may be assisted by other Federal, 

State, or local law enforcement agencies 

in enforcing this regulation. 

In addition to this notice of 

enforcement in the Federal Register, the 

Coast Guard plans to provide 

notification of this enforcement period 

via the Local Notice to Mariners and 

Marine Safety Information Broadcasting. 

If the Captain of the Port Sector San 

Diego or his designated representative 

determines that the regulated area need 

not be enforced for the full duration 

stated on this document, he or she may 

use a Safety Marine Information 

Broadcast or other communications 

coordinated with the event sponsor to 

grant general permission to enter the 

regulated area. 

Dated: September 13, 2021. 

T.J. Barelli, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port San Diego. 

[FR Doc. 2021–20097 Filed 9–16–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[Docket No. USCG–2021–0024] 

Special Local Regulation; Marine 

Events Within the Eleventh Coast 

Guard District—Swim for Special 

Operations Forces 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of 

regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce 

the special local regulation on the 

waters of San Diego Bay, San Diego, 

California during the Honor Foundation 

Swim for Special Operations Forces 

(SOF) on September 18, 2021. This 

special local regulation is necessary to 

provide for the safety of the 

participants, crew, sponsor vessels of 

the swim event, and general users of the 

waterway. During the enforcement 

period, persons and vessels are 

prohibited from entering into, transiting 

through, or anchoring within this 

regulated area unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port, or his designated 

representative. 

DATES: The regulation in 33 CFR 

100.1101, Table 1 to § 100.1101, Item 

No. 16, will be enforced from 8 a.m. 

until 12:30 p.m., on September 18, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this 

notification of enforcement, call or 

email Lieutenant Commander John 

Santorum, Waterways Management, 

U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; 

telephone (619) 278–7656, email 

D11MarineEventsSD@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast 

Guard will enforce the special local 

regulation in 33 CFR 100.1101, Table 1 

to § 100.1101, Item No. 16, from 8 a.m. 

through 12:30 p.m. on September 18, 

2021 for the Honor Foundation Swim 

for SOF in San Diego, CA. This action 

is being taken to provide for the safety 

of life on navigable waterways during 

the swim event. Our regulation for 

recurring marine events in the San 

Diego Captain of the Port Zone, 

§ 100.1101, Table 1 to § 100.1101, Item 

No. 16, specifies the location of the 

regulated area for the Honor Foundation 

Swim for SOF, CA, which encompasses 

portions of San Diego Bay. Under the 

provisions of § 100.1101, persons and 

vessels are prohibited from entering 

into, transiting through, or anchoring 

within this regulated area unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port, or 

his designated representative. The Coast 

Guard may be assisted by other Federal, 

State, or local law enforcement agencies 

in enforcing this regulation. 

In addition to this document in the 

Federal Register, the Coast Guard will 

provide the maritime community with 

advance notification of this enforcement 

period via the Local Notice to Mariners 

and marine information broadcasts. 

Dated: September 13, 2021. 

T.J. Barelli, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port San Diego. 

[FR Doc. 2021–20098 Filed 9–16–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 751 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021–0202; FRL–6015.5– 

03–OCSPP] 

RIN 2070–AK89 

Regulation of Persistent, 

Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals 

Under TSCA Section 6(h); Phenol, 

Isopropylated Phosphate (3:1); 

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 

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. For such 

articles, EPA is also extending the 

compliance date for the recordkeeping 

requirements applicable to 

manufacturers, processors, and 

distributors from March 8, 2021, to 

March 8, 2022. The articles covered by 

this amendment include a wide range of 

key consumer and commercial goods 

such as cellular telephones, laptop 

computers, and other electronic and 

electrical devices and industrial and 

commercial equipment used in various 

sectors including transportation, life 

sciences, and semiconductor 

production. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

September 17, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

51824 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 178 / Friday, September 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021–0202, 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 

closed to visitors with limited 

exceptions. The staff continue to 

provide remote customer service via 

email, phone, and webform. For the 

latest status information on EPA/DC 

services and docket access, visit https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: Cindy 

Wheeler, Existing Chemicals Risk 

Management Division, Office of 

Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 

566–0484; email address: 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, 

especially plastic articles that are 

components of electronics or electrical 

articles. The following list of North 

American Industrial Classification 

System (NAICS) codes is not intended 

to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 

guide to help readers determine whether 

this document applies to them. 

Potentially affected entities may 

include: 

• Petroleum Refineries (NAICS Code 

324110); 

• All Other Basic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing (NAICS Code 325199); 

• Plastics Material and Resin 

Manufacturing (NAICS Code 325211); 

• All Other Miscellaneous Chemical 

Product and Preparation Manufacturing 

(NAICS Code 325998); 

• Machinery Manufacturing (NAICS 

Code 333); 

• Air-Conditioning and Warm Air 

Heating Equipment and Commercial 

and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing (NAICS Code 333415); 

• Other Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing (NAICS Code 334290); 

• Computer and Electronic Product 

Manufacturing (NAICS Code 334); 

• Small Electrical Appliance 

Manufacturing (NAICS Code 335210); 

• Major Household Appliance 

Manufacturing (NAICS Code 335220); 

• Motor and Generator Manufacturing 

(NAICS Code 335312); 

• Switchgear and Switchboard 

Apparatus Manufacturing (NAICS Code 

335313); 

• Relay and Industrial Control 

Manufacturing (NAICS Code 335314); 

• 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 present 

and to reduce exposure to the 

substance(s) to the extent practicable. In 

response to this directive, EPA 

identified PIP (3:1) as meeting the TSCA 

section 6(h) criteria and issued a final 

rule for PIP (3:1) on January 6, 2021 

(Ref. 1). The January 2021 final rule 

prohibits the processing and 

distribution of PIP (3:1), PIP (3:1)- 

containing products, and PIP (3:1)- 

containing articles, with specified 

exclusions; prohibits or restricts the 

release of PIP (3:1) to water during 

manufacturing, processing, distribution, 

and commercial use; 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 

March 8, 2021, after which processing 

and distribution of PIP (3:1), PIP (3:1)- 

containing products, and PIP (3:1)- 

containing articles were prohibited 

unless an alternative compliance date or 

exclusion was otherwise provided. With 

the obligation to promulgate these rules, 

the Agency also has the authority to 

amend them if circumstances change, 

including in relation to the receipt of 

new information and in relation to 

compliance deadlines established under 

TSCA section 6(d). It is well settled that 

EPA has inherent authority to 

reconsider, revise, or repeal past 

decisions to the extent permitted by law 

so long as the Agency provides a 

reasoned explanation. See FCC v. Fox 

Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 

515 (2009). Here, as explained further in 

Unit I.D., based on information 

submitted by regulated entities since the 

publication of the final rule in January 

2021, the Agency has determined that a 

limited extension to certain PIP (3:1) 

revised compliance dates is appropriate 

and necessary to address comments that 

the original compliance dates were not 

practicable and did not provide 

adequate transition time because they 

would have caused extensive harm to 

the economy and public due to 

unavailability of critical goods and 

equipment. This limited extension to 

the referenced compliance dates is 

intended to allow EPA additional time 

to consider how best to approach the 

concerns raised in comments seeking 

longer term extensions. 

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. Fed. 

Commc’n Comm’n, 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.’’ However, when the agency 

grants or recognizes an exemption or 

relieves a restriction, affected parties do 

not need a reasonable time to adjust 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 178 / Friday, September 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 51825 

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? 

EPA is amending the regulations at 40 

CFR 751.407(a)(2) to provide for a 

phased-in prohibition for the processing 

and distributing in commerce of PIP 

(3:1) for use in certain articles and for 

the processing and distributing in 

commerce of certain PIP (3:1)- 

containing articles. Articles covered by 

this phased-in prohibition include any 

article not otherwise covered by a 

different compliance deadline or 

exclusion described in 40 CFR 

751.407(a)(2)(ii) or (b). The compliance 

date for the prohibitions on processing 

and distributing in commerce of PIP 

(3:1) for use in articles, and the 

processing and distributing in 

commerce of PIP (3:1)-containing 

articles in the final rule published on 

January 6, 2021 (Ref. 1), as well as for 

the recordkeeping requirements, was 60 

days after the date of publication, or 

March 8, 2021. With this amendment, 

EPA is extending the compliance date 

for the processing and distributing in 

commerce of PIP (3:1) for use in articles, 

and the processing and distributing in 

commerce of PIP (3:1)-containing 

articles, to March 8, 2022. With respect 

to articles covered by this final rule, 

EPA is also extending the compliance 

date from March 8, 2021, to March 8, 

2022, for the recordkeeping 

requirements applicable to 

manufacturers, processors, and 

distributors of PIP (3:1)-containing 

articles. In addition to this final 

rulemaking, EPA is planning to issue a 

separate notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) in the near future to request 

comment on a further compliance date 

extension for certain PIP (3:1)- 

containing articles, the PIP (3:1) used to 

make those articles, and the 

recordkeeping associated with PIP (3:1)- 

containing articles. 

D. Why is the Agency taking this action? 

EPA is issuing this final rule to 

address the hardships inadvertently 

created by the January 2021 final rule on 

PIP (3:1) (Ref. 1) due to uses and supply 

chain challenges that were not 

communicated to EPA until after the 

rule was published. Shortly after the 

final rule was published in January 

2021, many stakeholders, including, for 

example, the electronics and electrical 

manufacturing sector and their 

customers, raised significant concerns 

about their ability to meet the March 8, 

2021, compliance date for PIP (3:1)- 

containing articles (Ref. 2). These 

stakeholders requested an extension of 

the compliance date in order to clear the 

existing articles through the supply 

chain, find and certify an alternative 

chemical, and produce or import new 

articles that do not contain PIP (3:1). In 

the Federal Register of March 16, 2021 

(Ref. 3), EPA requested additional 

comment on this specific issue (Ref. 3), 

as well as on other aspects of all of the 

TSCA section 6(h) final rules in general 

(Refs. 4, 5, 6, 7). According to the 

comments received in response to the 

March comments solicitation, a wide 

range of key consumer and commercial 

goods are affected by the prohibitions in 

the PIP (3:1) final rule such as cellular 

telephones, laptop computers, and other 

electronic devices and industrial and 

commercial equipment used in various 

sectors including transportation, life 

sciences, and semiconductor production 

(Ref. 8). This action will ensure that the 

supply chains for these important 

articles continue uninterrupted in the 

near term while allowing EPA to take 

additional comment on a separate 

proposal for a longer-term compliance 

date extension. 

E. What are the incremental economic 

impacts? 

EPA evaluated the potential 

incremental economic impacts and 

determined that these changes reduce 

the existing burden of this action. The 

quantified effect of this compliance date 

extension reflects the difference 

between the incremental cost and 

benefits of the final rule as it was 

originally promulgated and the 

incremental cost and benefits of this 

final rule with the compliance date in 

place. Quantified costs were estimated 

for substitution and recordkeeping by 

moving the associated costs, assuming 

they will be incurred as the compliance 

date extension expires. In summary, 

extending the compliance date by one 

year for PIP (3:1)-containing articles 

would result in an estimated annualized 

cost savings of $0.9 million (from a cost 

of $23.6 million for the original rule to 

$22.7 million) at a 3 percent discount 

rate or $1.3 million (from $22.8 million 

for the original rule to $21.5 million for 

this final rule) at a 7 percent discount 

rate over a 25-year time horizon. Other 

qualitative costs savings may include 

allowance of more time for 

manufacturers and retailers to sell 

articles prior to the prohibition deadline 

rather than being forced to dispose of 

them, thereby avoiding loss of revenue 

from those products. Secondly, any 

reformulation costs (such as research 

and development, laboratory testing, 

and re-labeling) could be reduced since 

companies will have more time to 

gather information regarding the steps 

involved in the reformulation process. 

The level of these cost savings is 

dependent on complexity of achieving 

needed efficacy, length of time needed 

for testing and quality control, and the 

current status of development of 

alternatives, which may vary greatly by 

sector and end use product. Lastly, the 

compliance date extension may provide 

additional time for information 

gathering through the supply chain to 

alleviate the necessity for chemical 

testing of certain articles. Although the 

benefits of the final rule were not 

quantified, the extension would also 

postpone decreases in potential releases 

and exposures to PIP (3:1). Due to 

discounting, in a manner similar to 

costs, this postponement would lead to 

lower potential benefits. On balance, 

this rule is appropriate in light of the 

disruptive consequences of 

implementing the prohibition without 

the compliance extension. The 

economic consequences (such as loss of 

supply) could be severe, given the 

apparent ubiquity 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. History of the TSCA Rulemaking on 

PIP (3:1) 

TSCA section 6(h) requires EPA to 

take expedited regulatory action under 

TSCA section 6(a) for certain PBT 

chemicals identified in the 2014 Update 

to the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical 

Assessments (Ref. 9). More specifically, 

under TSCA section 6(h)(1)(A), the 

subject chemical substances are those 

that: 

• EPA has a reasonable basis to 

conclude are toxic and that with respect 

to persistence and bioaccumulation 

score high for one and either high or 

moderate for the other, pursuant to the 

2012 TSCA Work Plan Chemicals: 

Methods Document (Ref. 10) or a 

successor scoring system; 

• Are not a metal or a metal 

compound; and 

51826 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 178 / Friday, September 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

• Are chemical substances for which 

EPA has not completed a TSCA Work 

Plan Problem Formulation, initiated a 

review under TSCA section 5, or 

entered into a consent agreement under 

TSCA section 4, prior to June 22, 2016, 

the date that the Frank R. Lautenberg 

Chemical Safety for the 21st Century 

Act became law. 

In addition, in order for a chemical 

substance to be subject to expedited 

action, TSCA section 6(h)(1)(B) states 

that EPA must find that exposure to the 

chemical substance under the 

conditions of use is likely to the general 

population or to a potentially exposed 

or susceptible subpopulation identified 

by the Administrator, or to the 

environment on the basis of an exposure 

and use assessment conducted by EPA. 

For chemical substances subject to 

TSCA section 6(h), EPA was directed to 

issue a proposed rule by June 22, 2019, 

and a final rule no later than 18 months 

after issuance of the proposal. The 

statute further provides that the 

Administrator shall not be required to 

conduct risk evaluations on chemical 

substances that are subject to TSCA 

section 6(h)(1). 

1. June 2019 proposed rule for PBT 

chemicals under TSCA section 6(h). 

EPA issued a proposed rule for PIP (3:1) 

and four other chemical substances in 

June 2019 (Ref. 11). EPA proposed to 

determine that PIP (3:1) met the TSCA 

section 6(h)(1)(A) criteria for expedited 

action. In addition, based on an 

exposure and use assessment for PIP 

(3:1) (Ref. 12) conducted as directed by 

TSCA section 6(h)(1)(B) and which was 

subject to peer review and public 

comment, EPA also proposed to find 

that exposure to PIP (3:1) is likely. 

During the development of the 2019 

proposed rule (Ref. 11), EPA conducted 

extensive outreach to understand the 

uses of the five PBTs. Outreach 

included a public webinar, a Small 

Business Roundtable hosted by the 

Small Business Administration Office of 

Advocacy, and meetings with more than 

90 stakeholders. Based on this outreach 

as well as EPA’s practicability analysis 

for various prohibitions and restrictions, 

EPA proposed extended compliance 

dates for some uses of PIP (3:1) and 

exclusions for others. 

The public comment period on the 

proposal was open for a total of 90 days, 

closing on October 28, 2019. EPA 

received a total of 48 comments, with 

three commenters sending multiple 

submissions with attached files, for a 

total of 58 submissions on the proposal 

for all five of the PBT chemicals. This 

includes the previous request for a 

comment period extension (EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2019–0080–0526). Two 

commenters submitted confidential 

business information (CBI) or 

copyrighted documents with 

information regarding economic 

analysis and market trends. Of the 

comment submissions, 30 of the 

approximately 50 comments addressed 

EPA’s proposed regulation of PIP (3:1). 

Copies of all the non-CBI documents, or 

redacted versions without CBI, are 

available via https://

www.regulations.gov in docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2019–0080. 

2. January 2021 final rule for PIP (3:1) 

under TSCA section 6(h). The final rule 

for PIP (3:1) was published in the 

Federal Register on January 6, 2021 

(Ref. 1). EPA determined in the final 

rule that PIP (3:1) met the TSCA section 

6(h)(1)(A) criteria for expedited action. 

In addition, EPA determined, in 

accordance with TSCA section 

6(h)(1)(B), that exposure to PIP (3:1) was 

likely under the conditions of use to the 

general population, to a potentially 

exposed or susceptible subpopulation, 

or the environment. The PIP (3:1) final 

rule prohibits processing and 

distribution in commerce of PIP (3:1), 

and products or articles containing the 

chemical substance, for all uses, except 

for the following different compliance 

dates or exclusions: 

• Use in photographic printing 

articles after January 1, 2022; 

• Use in aviation hydraulic fluid in 

hydraulic systems and use in specialty 

hydraulic fluids for military 

applications; 

• Use in lubricants and greases; 

• Use in new and replacement parts 

for the aerospace and automotive 

industries; 

• Use as an intermediate in the 

manufacture of cyanoacrylate glue; 

• Use in specialized engine air filters 

for locomotive and marine applications; 

• Use in sealants and adhesives after 

January 6, 2025; and 

• Recycling of plastic that contained 

PIP (3:1) before the plastic was recycled, 

and the articles and products made from 

such recycled plastic, so long as no new 

PIP (3:1) is added during the recycling 

or production process. 

In addition, the January 2021 final 

rule requires manufacturers, processors, 

and distributors of PIP (3:1) and 

products containing PIP (3:1) to notify 

their customers of these restrictions. 

Finally, the rule prohibits releases to 

water from the remaining 

manufacturing, processing, and 

distribution in commerce activities, and 

requires commercial users of PIP (3:1) 

and PIP (3:1)-containing products to 

follow existing regulations and best 

practices to prevent releases to water 

during use. 

Also defined at 40 CFR 751.403 for 

the purposes of 40 CFR part 751, 

subpart E, which includes the January 

2021 PIP (3:1) final rule, are the terms 

‘‘article’’ and ‘‘product’’ (Ref. 1). 

‘‘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. 

The January 2021 final rule differed 

from the proposal in several ways as a 

result of the information provided 

during the public comment period. The 

exclusions that were based on 

information received during the public 

comment period are the exclusion for 

the use of PIP (3:1) in new and 

replacement parts for aerospace 

vehicles, as an intermediate in a closed 

system to produce cyanoacrylate 

adhesives, in specialized engine air 

filters for locomotive and marine 

applications, plastics recycling, and 

finished products or articles made of 

recycled plastic. The final rule also 

features delayed compliance dates for 

the use of PIP (3:1) in photographic 

printing articles and adhesives and 

sealants. 

B. The March 16, 2021 Notification and 

Request for Comments 

Shortly after the publication of the 

January 2021 final rule, a wide variety 

of stakeholders from various sectors, 

including the electronics and electrical 

manufacturing community and their 

customers, started raising concerns 

about the March 8, 2021, compliance 

date in the final rule for the prohibition 

on the processing and distributing in 

commerce of PIP (3:1) for use in articles 

and PIP (3:1)-containing articles (Ref. 2). 

These stakeholders contended that they 

needed significantly more time in order 

to identify whether and where PIP (3:1) 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 178 / Friday, September 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 51827 

might be present in articles in their 

supply chains, find and certify 

alternative chemicals, and produce or 

import new articles that do not contain 

PIP (3:1). Despite EPA’s extensive 

outreach, most stakeholders contacting 

EPA after the rule was finalized did not 

comment on the proposal or otherwise 

engage with the agency on the PIP (3:1) 

rulemaking, and do not appear to have 

previously surveyed their supply chains 

to determine if PIP (3:1) was being used. 

Several indicated that they did not 

understand that articles can be regulated 

under TSCA, and that, because PIP (3:1) 

is not regulated by other authorities, 

including those of other countries or 

under international agreements, there 

was a lack of awareness relative to its 

presence in the supply chain. Absent 

engagement and timely or specific input 

from these stakeholders that could be 

used as a basis for granting further 

extensions or exemptions from the 

proposed prohibition, in the final rule 

EPA believed that PIP (3:1) was not 

widely present in articles outside the 

aerospace and automotive sectors. 

While some commenters on the 2019 

proposed rule indicated that PIP (3:1) 

may be present in articles, their 

comments were very general and did 

not identify specific uses or specific 

concerns with the March 8, 2021, 

compliance date. 

Based on the concerns raised by 

stakeholders shortly after publication of 

the final rule, EPA issued a No Action 

Assurance (NAA) on March 8, 2021 

(Ref. 13), 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. The NAA only described how 

the agency will exercise its enforcement 

discretion; the NAA did not change the 

March 8, 2021, compliance date or the 

continued harm created by that 

compliance date. Moreover, the NAA 

did not prevent citizen suits for 

violations of the January 2021 rule. The 

NAA indicated that EPA would exercise 

its enforcement discretion to not pursue 

enforcement regarding the prohibition 

on processing and distribution of PIP 

(3:1) for use in articles, and PIP (3:1)- 

containing articles, for the following 

violations: 

Shortly after the NAA was issued, 

EPA published in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ 

section of the Federal Register a 

notification and request for specific 

comments (Ref. 3) to address the 

concerns that had been raised by 

stakeholders regarding PIP (3:1) in 

articles. While the March 2021 

notification and request for comment 

did not include a specific alternative 

compliance date for PIP (3:1)-containing 

articles and the PIP (3:1) for use in those 

articles, the document did describe in 

particular the issues raised by industry 

stakeholders regarding the March 8, 

2021, compliance date, including the 

types of articles affected, such as those 

used in a wide variety of electronics, 

ranging from cellular telephones, to 

robotics used to manufacture 

semiconductors, to equipment used to 

move COVID–19 vaccines and keep 

them at the appropriate temperature. 

The document further outlined the 

complexity of international supply 

chains described by industry 

stakeholders and how, according to 

those stakeholders, that complexity 

creates challenges for identifying and 

finding alternatives to PIP (3:1) in 

complex supply chains. Finally, EPA 

asked commenters to specifically 

describe: 

• The articles that would need an 

alternative compliance date; 

• The basis for such an alternative 

compliance date, taking into 

consideration the reasons supporting 

alternative compliance dates in the final 

rule already issued, such as the January 

1, 2022, date for photographic printing 

articles and the January 6, 2025, date for 

adhesives and sealants, with supporting 

documentation; and 

• The additional time needed for 

specific articles to clear channels of 

trade. 

EPA received a total of 122 comments 

in response to the March 2021 

notification and request for comment 

(Ref. 3); 78 of these were from industry 

stakeholders, most of whom were 

concerned about compliance for PIP 

(3:1)-containing articles (Ref. 8). 

Stakeholders concerned about PIP (3:1)- 

containing articles reiterated that they 

needed much more time, in some cases 

up to 15 years (Ref. 14), 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). 

1. Comments on articles that contain, 

or potentially contain, PIP (3:1). During 

the public comment period, several 

industry commenters identified a wide 

range of articles that may contain PIP 

(3:1). PIP (3:1) is used as a flame 

retardant and plasticizer in plastic 

articles such as polyvinyl chloride 

(PVC) wire covers and casings. Other 

articles which have been identified or 

are being investigated for the presence 

of PIP (3:1) include PVC tubes, 

harnesses, cables, covers, sleeves, and 

casings, which include AC power cords 

and USB cables for consumer and 

commercial articles such as laptops, 

televisions, and gaming consoles. 

According to the electrical 

manufacturing industry a representative 

sample of articles made possible by the 

qualities unique to PIP (3:1) include 

medical devices, capacitors, inverters, 

generators, transformers, semiconductor 

wafers, computers, and electrical 

appliances (Ref. 15). Manufacturers of 

construction, agriculture, forestry, 

mining, and utility equipment have 

identified PIP (3:1) in fire prevention 

systems, engine emission control 

systems, electronics, wiring harnesses, 

hydraulic hoses, switches, fabrics, PVC 

articles, resin in fiberglass articles, 

paints, elastomers, foam, resistors, 

splitters, articles that are alarm 

components, automatic tire inflation 

equipment, and wire sleeving (Ref. 16). 

According to another commenter, in 

construction, agriculture, forestry, 

mining, and utility equipment, PIP (3:1) 

is frequently found in wire harnesses, 

starters, water pumps, motor gears, prewired motors, ground cables, and 

compressors (Ref. 17). The 

semiconductor manufacturing industry 

has identified the use of PIP (3:1) in 

semiconductor-related manufacturing 

equipment (as well as 

microelectromechanical-related, solarrelated, and LED-related manufacturing 

equipment), as well as semiconductor 

fabrication facilities’ support equipment 

and infrastructure, such as laboratory, 

substrate and device (e.g., die) 

preparation, and assembly and test 

operations, including advanced 

packaging (Ref. 14) as well as articles 

that are internal components of hightech robotics and manufacturing 

equipment. Additionally, the chemical 

has been identified in articles that are 

components in scanning electron 

microscopes utilized in research, 

national laboratories, and academia 

(Ref. 18). 

EPA generally agrees with these 

commenters that PIP (3:1) is used in a 

variety of articles, especially in plastic 

articles that are components of 

electronics or electrical articles. Further, 

at the time the January 2021 final rule 

was issued, EPA did not understand the 

extent to which PIP (3:1) is used in 

articles beyond those articles 

specifically addressed in that final rule, 

which are photographic printing 

articles, new and replacement parts for 

aerospace and motor vehicles, 

specialized locomotive and marine 

engine air filters, and recycled plastics. 

EPA notes that this final rule does not 

affect the compliance dates established 

for these specific articles in the January 

2021 final rule. EPA outlined its 

understanding on the use of PIP (3:1) in 

51828 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 178 / Friday, September 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

articles in responding to public 

comments on the January 2021 final 

rule, ‘‘[t]here is little evidence to suggest 

that PIP (3:1) is present in articles which 

may be available to consumers, and 

outside of activities excluded from the 

prohibition, little evidence to suggest it 

is necessary or present in commercial 

and industrial articles as well’’ (Ref. 26). 

2. Comments on the challenges 

associated with determining whether 

articles contain PIP (3:1). Commenters 

described in detail the challenges 

associated with determining whether a 

particular article contains PIP (3:1), 

especially for complex goods that 

contain thousands of individual parts. 

For example, commenters from the 

consumer electronics sector noted that 

articles that are components for their 

complex goods are sourced on a 

worldwide market and a manufacturer 

may have upwards of 5,000 suppliers 

for potentially 100,000 or more 

component articles across all product 

lines (Ref. 19). These commenters note 

that manufacturers do not receive a list 

of every chemical within each part or 

component article that ultimately goes 

into a finished electronic article because 

ingredient lists are highly proprietary 

and confidential. Rather, companies 

provide functionality, performance, 

safety and quality specifications of a 

part or component article to their 

supply chain, including specifications 

regarding chemical restrictions. 

According to these commenters, 

suppliers are provided lists of restricted 

chemicals on at least an annual basis, or 

more frequently if there is a triggering 

event, such as a new government 

restriction. Suppliers are notified of the 

lead time for the restriction of the 

chemical and any testing that may be 

required, and the suppliers 

communicate that information upstream 

to their own suppliers. 

According to these commenters (Ref. 

19), the task of determining whether PIP 

(3:1) is used in a component article in 

a finished electronic good is further 

complicated by the many article 

manufacturers being unable to identify 

or confirm the PIP (3:1) content of 

articles, such as supplied parts, 

components or commercial and 

consumer goods, without laboratory 

testing. Laboratory testing can run up to 

$5,000 per product and take up to one 

(1) month. As a result, companies must 

rely on material declarations by 

suppliers as a more practicable and 

reliable approach to determine the usage 

of PIP (3:1) within an article. 

Other commenters echo these 

concerns. Comments from the heating, 

ventilation, air conditioning, and 

refrigeration industry note that 

manufacturers are currently working 

their way through tens of thousands of 

stock-keeping units (SKUs), each having 

hundreds of associated component 

articles and spare parts (Ref. 20). They 

contend that their suppliers have 

generally not been forthright about the 

presence of PIP (3:1) in their component 

articles and parts, even after receiving 

notification that the use of PIP (3:1) in 

component articles must be disclosed. 

According to these commenters, some 

suppliers continue to claim that they 

will not disclose the chemical makeup 

of component articles as the 

composition is confidential intellectual 

property. In response, some of the larger 

manufacturers have started testing 

component articles to compensate for 

this lack of transparency, but testing is 

time-consuming and costly and most 

smaller businesses do not have the 

resources to undertake testing. 

The semiconductor industry and the 

testing and measurement industry noted 

that their industries differ from the 

consumer electronics industry and the 

automotive industry, in that their 

industries are high-mix, low-volume 

industries, meaning that manufacturer 

portfolios are typically comprised of a 

large number of unique goods with 

relatively low unit sales (Refs. 14, 21). 

Their equipment is primarily custom 

built to order and sold directly to 

professional and industrial customers 

by the manufacturers (Ref. 21). The 

semiconductor industry typically places 

only 600 to 6,000 units of 

semiconductor manufacturing and 

related equipment into U.S. commerce 

each year and it is not uncommon for 

small groups of model units to be 

customized to an end user’s particular 

needs (Ref. 14). According to this 

commenter, this is in stark contrast to 

most consumer goods, in which 

individual similar model units are 

placed into U.S. commerce in much 

greater number, and to the automotive 

and aerospace sectors, in which goods 

are manufactured in lower quantities 

but which are quite similar from model 

unit to model unit (Ref. 14). The 

semiconductor industry further noted 

that their sector’s ability to obtain 

material composition data from across 

their supply chain is limited due to 

three factors: (1) The length and 

complexity of the supply chain; (2) the 

preponderance of suppliers located 

outside of the U.S.; and (3) the tens of 

thousands of parts incorporated into 

each article eventually manufactured or 

distributed in commerce within the U.S. 

EPA generally recognizes the 

challenges described by these 

commenters in determining whether 

and where PIP (3:1) is present in articles 

in their supply chains and how long it 

may take to clear those PIP (3:1)- 

containing articles through the channels 

of trade. As to comments relating to 

testing, as most commenters note, there 

are a number of alternative steps to 

testing that an importer or a domestic 

manufacturer can take to ensure that an 

article does not contain PIP (3:1). The 

customer can include a specification in 

their purchase contracts with suppliers 

that articles be made without PIP (3:1). 

The customer can also request that their 

suppliers provide them with a written 

statement or certification that the 

purchased or supplied goods are made 

without PIP (3:1). Of course, testing is 

always an option, but EPA recognizes 

that this may be a more expensive 

option. 

3. Comments on compliance date 

considerations for PIP (3:1)-containing 

articles. Nearly all of the industry 

commenters responding to EPA’s March 

2021 notification and request for 

comment (Ref. 3) stated that they 

needed several years to phase PIP (3:1) 

out of their articles. Many contended 

that they needed much longer, up to 

fifteen years (Refs. 14, 18) assuming that 

it is even feasible to do so. Commenters 

identified a number of steps that would 

be needed in order to complete a phaseout of PIP (3:1) in articles. These steps 

include: (1) Identifying where PIP (3:1) 

is present; (2) identifying and testing 

substitutes; (3) testing and re-certifying 

(as needed) the replacement article; and 

(4) distributing the replacement article 

throughout the supply chain. Many 

commenters provided detailed timelines 

for the steps needed to replace PIP (3:1). 

For example, the consumer 

electronics industry noted that, while 

companies had begun to survey their 

suppliers as soon as the final rule was 

published, because of the large number 

of parts and suppliers involved for most 

manufacturers, they anticipated that 

completing the survey would take 

between six and twelve months (Ref. 

19). They also noted that, because PIP 

(3:1) is not regulated in other 

international markets, there is a general 

lack of awareness regarding the 

chemical throughout the supply chain 

and the industry expects the surveys to 

take closer to twelve months than six. 

According to the consumer 

electronics industry commenters, once 

PIP (3:1) is identified in a particular part 

by a particular supplier, the supplier 

must identify and investigate 

alternatives to PIP (3:1) that can meet 

regulatory requirements and 

manufacturer requirements with respect 

to functionality, performance, safety and 

quality (Ref. 19). Given that PIP (3:1) is 

typically used in electronic component 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 178 / Friday, September 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 51829 

articles to meet safety standards related 

to flammability, a component article 

that includes a PIP (3:1) alternative will 

have to be certified to the applicable 

safety standard (Ref. 19). Common 

safety standards that apply to consumer 

electronics, according to the 

commenters, include Underwriters 

Laboratory UL94, entitled ‘‘Tests for 

Flammability of Plastic Material for Part 

in Devices and Applications,’’ and 

UL498, entitled ‘‘Attachment Plugs and 

Receptacles.’’ The timeline for retesting 

and recertification of replacement 

component articles is determined by the 

certification organization, and consumer 

electronics manufacturers estimate that 

testing could take anywhere from 3 to 

24 months (Ref. 19). 

The commenters detail the next steps 

in replacing a PIP (3:1)-containing 

component article (Ref. 19). Once the 

manufacturer of the finished consumer 

electronics good receives the 

replacement component article, the 

manufacturer will conduct its own 

internal quality assessments. The 

manufacturer will conduct an initial 

assessment on whether the component 

article works, has the correct 

performance characteristics, and 

maintains brand integrity. Once these 

basic parameters have been evaluated, 

the manufacturer will assemble the 

component article into a consumer 

electronics good and conduct an overall 

quality assessment, which may include 

smoke and ignition testing, current 

leakage testing, and temperature testing, 

among other things (Ref. 19). At that 

point, the reworked good is sent for 

third-party certification. If the 

substituted component article is 

considered critical by the certification 

body, full retesting and recertification of 

the good may be necessary. Industry 

commenters anticipate that full retesting 

and recertification will be required, 

given the use of PIP (3:1) from a fire 

safety perspective and the fact that the 

types of component articles where PIP 

(3:1) is used play critical roles in the 

goods. Manufacturers anticipate that 

this recertification step will take 

anywhere from six to thirty months (Ref. 

19). Finally, according to these 

commenters, a minimum of one year is 

needed to move the newlyremanufactured goods throughout the 

supply chain. This commenter further 

contended that a chemical phase out in 

response to a restriction in the European 

Union under the Restriction on 

Hazardous Substances (RoHS) 2, a 

product-level compliance program for 

electrical and electronic equipment, is 

typically effective four years from the 

date of notice by the European Union 

(Ref. 19). 

Other industries provided similarly 

detailed descriptions of the length of 

time needed to replace PIP (3:1)- 

containing component articles. The 

heavy equipment sector stated that their 

design cycles are typically seven years 

from start to finish, and that this would 

likely be the amount of time needed to 

identify whether and to what extent PIP 

(3:1) exists in the supply chain, confirm 

the function of PIP (3:1) for the end-use 

application, identify alternatives, redesign for the alternative rather than PIP 

(3:1), test the replacement component 

article for safety, regulatory, and quality 

requirements, and re-introduce the good 

into the market (Ref. 16). According to 

this commenter, the testing 

requirements often take the longest time 

to complete during a redesign because 

heavy-duty industrial equipment 

operates in demanding and severe 

operating conditions over a long 

product life cycle. Such equipment is 

reportedly subject to various fire safety 

and flammability regulatory 

requirements set by the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(Flammability Test for Motor Vehicle 

Interiors, 49 CFR 571.302), the 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (Fire Protection and 

Prevention, 29 CFR 1926.24 and 

1926.151), the Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (various fire prevention 

provisions, including 30 CFR part 35 

and 30 CFR 75.1100, 75.1911, and 

77.1100), and the Federal Railroad 

Administration (49 CFR parts 216, 223, 

229, 231, 232, 238). Additionally, 

according to this commenter, engine 

emission sensors designed for off-road 

equipment to comply with the Clean Air 

Act currently rely on PIP (3:1) to survive 

the high-temperature environment in 

the engine compartment (Ref. 16). 

A unique problem reported by this 

commenter and several others in the 

heavy equipment sector is that their 

supply chains often overlap with much 

larger industries, such as the automotive 

and aerospace sectors (Refs. 16, 17, 22, 

23, and 24). A recent survey by one 

commenter found that 61% of the 

surveyed suppliers in the heavy 

equipment sector also provided parts 

and materials to the automotive 

industry (Ref. 16). According to this 

commenter, despite the significant 

overlap in suppliers, there are key 

differences in the product design 

lifecycles and volumes between the 

industries. Heavy-duty, industrial 

professional use equipment is decidedly 

lower volume with a higher diversity of 

goods than those found in the consumer 

automotive market. As the automotive 

sector is currently excluded from the 

January 2021 PIP (3:1) final rule, the 

current regulations allow suppliers to 

provide automotive parts that contain 

PIP (3:1) to their automotive 

manufacturers. With the higher 

variability of goods and lower volume 

nature of the heavy-duty, industrial 

equipment sector, commenters assert 

that the manufacturers of this nonautomotive equipment will need to 

utilize custom made parts which, if 

available, could cost between two and 

ten times the normal price of the 

automotive parts that they would 

ordinarily use (Ref. 24). 

In contrast to the industry 

commenters, who all stated that the 

March 8, 2021, compliance date for PIP 

(3:1)-containing articles was not 

practicable, a comment submitted by 

three environmental public interest 

groups in response to EPA’s March 2021 

notification and request for comment 

(Ref. 3) stated that industry had been 

given sufficient notice of EPA’s intent to 

regulate PIP (3:1) in articles and did not 

believe that EPA should excuse their 

failure to comment in a timely manner 

(Ref. 25). This commenter further noted 

that any exclusions or extended 

compliance dates should be considered 

under the stringent criteria of TSCA 

section 6(g), which requires EPA to 

determine one of the following: (1) That 

the condition of use is a critical or 

essential use with no feasible safer 

alternatives; or (2) that compliance with 

a requirement would significantly 

disrupt the national economy, national 

security, or critical infrastructure; or (3) 

that the specific condition of use 

provides a substantial benefit to health, 

the environment, or public safety. 

EPA generally agrees with the 

industry commenters on the steps 

required to phase PIP (3:1) out of 

articles in their supply chains. Industry 

must first determine where PIP (3:1) is 

present; identify alternatives to PIP 

(3:1), and then design, test, and 

recertify, as necessary, the new articles 

made without PIP (3:1). Those new 

articles must then be distributed 

throughout the supply chain. However, 

some commenters provided detailed 

estimates of the time needed to take 

these steps while others did not. For 

example, comments from the consumer 

technology sector gave estimates for 

completing each one of these steps, with 

the overall timeline ranging from 2.25 

years to 6.5 years (Ref. 19). Estimated 

timelines provided by commenters in 

response to the March 2021 notification 

and request for comment (Ref. 3) ranged 

from 2.25 years to 15 years or more 

(Refs. 19, 14). Given the varying 

estimates, and the lack of detail 

51830 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 178 / Friday, September 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

accompanying some of those estimates, 

EPA has determined that a relatively 

short compliance date extension until 

March 8, 2022, is necessary to avoid 

immediate and significant disruption in 

the supply chains for important articles, 

to provide the public with regulatory 

certainty in the near term, and to allow 

EPA additional time to further evaluate 

the need to again extend the compliance 

deadlines for PIP (3:1). 

EPA disagrees with the commenter 

who contended that any compliance 

date extension should be evaluated 

under TSCA section 6(g). As noted in 

response to similar comments on the 

2019 proposed rule, ‘‘TSCA section 

6(h)(4) directs EPA to issue regulations 

that reduce exposure to PBT chemicals 

‘to the extent practicable,’ not to 

regulate beyond the point of 

practicability and then issue [section 

6(g)] exemptions that would limit the 

scope of those regulations’’ (Ref. 26, at 

p. 44). EPA views this compliance date 

extension as consistent with this 

standard, and as discussed in Unit III, 

with the requirements of TSCA section 

6(d) to ensure that the compliance dates 

are ‘‘as soon as practicable’’ and provide 

a ‘‘reasonable transition period,’’ 

because this action is necessary to avoid 

immediate and significant disruption in 

the supply chains for important articles, 

such as cellular telephones and the 

HVACR equipment used to cool people, 

buildings, and to transport and store 

COVID–19 vaccines and keep them at 

the appropriate temperature, not as an 

excuse for a failure to comment earlier 

in this rulemaking process. 

III. Provisions of This Final Rule 

A. Establishing a Compliance Date 

Under TSCA Section 6(d) 

TSCA section 6(d)(1)(A) directs EPA 

to specify a date on which the TSCA 

section 6(a) rule is to take effect that is 

‘‘as soon as practicable.’’ TSCA section 

6(d)(1)(B) requires EPA to specify 

mandatory compliance dates for each 

requirement of a rule promulgated 

under TSCA section 6(a), which must be 

as soon as practicable but no later than 

five years after promulgation except as 

provided in subsections (C) and (D) or 

in the case of a use exempted under 

TSCA section 6(g). TSCA section 

6(d)(1)(C) states that EPA must specify 

mandatory compliance dates for the 

start of ban or phase-out requirements 

under a TSCA section 6(a) rule, which 

must be as soon as practicable but no 

later than five years after promulgation, 

except in the case of a use exempted 

under TSCA section 6(g); and 

subsection (D) requires EPA to specify 

mandatory compliance dates for full 

implementation of ban or phase-out 

requirements, which must be as soon as 

practicable. Additionally, TSCA section 

6(d)(1)(E) directs EPA to provide for a 

reasonable transition period. 

As noted in the preamble to the 

January 2021 final rule, the phrases ‘‘as 

soon as practicable’’ and ‘‘reasonable 

transition period’’ as used in TSCA 

section 6(d)(1) are undefined, and the 

legislative history on TSCA section 6(d) 

is limited. Given the ambiguity in the 

statute, for purposes of the final rule 

under TSCA section 6(h), EPA 

presumed a 60-day compliance date was 

‘‘as soon as practicable,’’ 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 allows for submission of 

information from the sources most 

likely to have the information that 

would impact an EPA determination on 

whether or how best to adjust the 

compliance deadline to ensure that the 

final compliance deadline chosen is 

both ‘‘as soon as practicable’’ and 

provides a ‘‘reasonable transition 

period.’’ 

As previously noted, EPA did not 

receive timely or specific input from 

certain stakeholders during any public 

comment periods prior to issuance of 

the 2019 proposed rule or in response 

to the proposed rule regarding the 

presence of PIP (3:1) in myriad articles. 

Absent this input, in the 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 comment 

(Ref. 3), and the communications 

received before that document 

published in the Federal Register, 

presented new information 

demonstrating that a 60-day compliance 

date was not a reasonable transition 

period for the full implementation of a 

ban or phase-out for many industries. 

B. Compliance Date Extension 

From the comments received in 

response to EPA’s March 2021 

notification and request for comment 

(Ref. 3), as well the information 

provided during stakeholder meetings 

since the publication of the January 

2021 final rule on PIP (3:1), it is clear 

to EPA that the compliance date for PIP 

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

but not PIP (3:1)-containing products, 

must be extended. While some 

commenters provided detailed 

descriptions of the affected articles and 

detailed timelines for the phasing out of 

PIP (3:1) from these articles, most did 

not provide the specificity that EPA was 

looking for in response to the March 

2021 notification and request for 

comment (Ref. 3). In addition, many 

commenters stated that they were still 

in the early stages of identifying the 

affected articles (Ref. 19). Therefore, 

EPA has determined that a relatively 

short compliance date extension until 

March 8, 2022, is necessary to avoid 

immediate and significant disruption in 

the supply chains for important articles, 

to provide the public with regulatory 

certainty in the near term, and to allow 

EPA additional time to further evaluate 

the need to again extend the compliance 

deadlines for PIP (3:1). 

In addition to this final rule, EPA is 

planning to issue a separate NPRM in 

the near future to provide an 

opportunity for stakeholders to submit 

comments on the need for an additional 

compliance date extension for certain 

PIP (3:1)-containing articles, and the PIP 

(3:1) used to make those articles, and to 

include in their comments specific 

information detailing the necessity of 

such an extension. EPA is seeking this 

additional comment because EPA does 

not yet have sufficient information on 

which to base a decision on the length 

of time that will ultimately be needed 

for the affected industry sectors to 

comply with the prohibitions in the 

January 2021 final rule. During this 

upcoming comment period, EPA 

expects that industry will be able to 

provide more detailed information on 

the number and type of articles affected 

by the January 2021 final rule, given the 

ongoing work on the identification 

process and the additional six months 

as of the date that the comment period 

will close. 

IV. References 

The following is a listing of the 

documents that are specifically 

referenced in this document. The docket 

includes these documents and other 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 178 / Friday, September 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 51831 

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. 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. 

3. EPA. Regulation of Persistent, 

Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals 

Under TSCA Section 6(h); Proposed 

Rule; Request for Comments. Federal 

Register (86 FR 14398, March 16, 2021) 

(FRL–10021–08). 

4. EPA. 2,4,6-Tris(tert-butyl)phenol (2,4,6– 

TTBP); Regulation of Persistent, 

Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals 

Under TSCA Section 6(h); Final Rule. 

Federal Register (86 FR 866, January 6, 

2021) (FRL–10018–90). 

5. 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). 

6. 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). 

7. 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). 

8. Comments submitted to EPA. Regulation of 

Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic 

Chemicals Under TSCA Section 6(h). 

Docket ID EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021–0202– 

0001. 

9. EPA. TSCA Work Plan for Chemical 

Assessments: 2014 Update. October 

2014. https://www.epa.gov/ 

assessingandmanaging-chemicals-undertsca/tscawork-plan-chemicalassessments-2014-update. 

10. EPA. TSCA Work Plan Chemicals: 

Methods Document. February 2012. 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ 

files/2014-03/documents/work_plan_

methods_document_web_final.pdf. 

11. EPA. Regulation of Persistent, 

Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals 

Under TSCA Section 6(h); Proposed 

Rule. Federal Register (84 FR 36728, July 

29, 2019) (FRL–9995–76). 

12. EPA. Exposure and Use Assessment of 

Five Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and 

Toxic Chemicals. December 2020. 

13. 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. 

14. Comment submitted by SEMI and the 

Semiconductor Equipment Association 

of Japan (SEAJ) to EPA on May 17, 2021. 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021–0202–0121. 

15. Comment submitted by National 

Electrical Manufacturers Association 

(NEMA) to EPA on May 17, 2021. EPA– 

HQ–OPPT–2021–0202–0117. 

16. Comment submitted by the Association of 

Equipment Manufacturers (AEM) to EPA 

on May 13, 2021. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021– 

0202–0053. 

17. Comment submitted by CNH Industrial to 

EPA on May 14, 2021. EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2021–0202–0065. 

18. Comment submitted by Hitachi HighTech America Inc. to EPA on May 17, 

2021. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021–0202–0093. 

19. Comment submitted by the Consumer 

Technology Association (CTA) and the 

Information Technology Industry 

Council (ITI) to EPA on May 17, 2021. 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021–0202–0148. 

20. Comment submitted by the AirConditioning, Heating and Refrigeration 

Institute (AHRI) to EPA on May 17, 2021. 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021–0202–0143. 

21. Comment submitted by the Test & 

Measurement Coalition (T&M) to EPA on 

May 17, 2021. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021– 

0202–0122. 

22. Comment submitted by LBX Company, 

LLC to EPA on May 17, 2021. EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2021–0202–0082. 

23. Comment submitted by Clark Equipment 

Company to EPA on May 17, 2021. EPA– 

HQ–OPPT–2021–0202–0095. 

24. Comment submitted by Outdoor Power 

Equipment Institute (OPEI) to EPA on 

May 17, 2021. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021– 

0202–0125. 

25. Comment submitted by Safer Chemicals 

Healthy Families (SCHF) et al. to EPA on 

May 17, 2021. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021– 

0202–0096. 

26. EPA. Regulation of Persistent, 

Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals 

under TSCA Section 6(h); Response to 

Public Comments. December 2020. EPA– 

HQ–OPPT–2019–0080–0647. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive orders can be 

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

lawsregulations/laws-and-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. In making this 

determination, the impact of concern is 

any significant adverse economic 

impact on small entities. An agency may 

certify that a rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities if 

the rule relieves regulatory burden, has 

no net burden or otherwise has a 

positive economic effect on the small 

entities subject to the rule. This final 

rule extends 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, 2021, to March 8, 2022. 

EPA has therefore concluded that this 

action will relieve regulatory burden for 

all directly regulated small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

51832 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 178 / Friday, September 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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). This final rule will not impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

Indian tribal governments. 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 rule report 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. 

Dated: September 3, 2021. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

Therefore, for the reasons set forth 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 by adding 

paragraph (a)(2)(iii) and revising 

paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 751.407 PIP (3:1). 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) After March 8, 2022, except as 

provided in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and (b) 

of this section, all persons are 

prohibited from all processing and 

distribution in commerce of PIP (3:1) for 

use in articles and PIP (3:1)-containing 

articles. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(4) The recordkeeping requirements in 

paragraph (d) of this section do not 

apply to the activities described in 

paragraphs (b)(1)(vi) and (vii) of this 

section. The recordkeeping 

requirements in paragraph (d) of this 

section also do not apply to PIP (3:1)- 

containing articles until March 8, 2022. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–19516 Filed 9–16–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Parts 77, 78, 79, 80, 201, and 

206 

[Docket ID FEMA–2019–0011] 

RIN 1660–AA96 

FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance 

and Mitigation Planning Regulations; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: On September 10, 2021, 

FEMA published in the Federal Register 

a final rule revising the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency’s 

Hazard Mitigation Assistance and 

mitigation planning regulations to 

reflect current statutory authority and 

agency practice. This final rule corrects 

the effective date of this rule to read 

October 1, 2021. 

DATES: This correction is effective 

September 17, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

rulemaking is available for inspection 

using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov and can be 

viewed by following that website’s 

instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Katherine Fox, Assistant Administrator 

for Mitigation, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 202–646–1046, 

Katherine.Fox5@fema.dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 

2021–19186, beginning on page 50653 

in the Federal Register of Friday, 

September 10, 2021, the following 

correction is made: 

1. On page 50653, in the first column, 

‘‘DATES: This rule is effective October 

12, 2021.’’ is corrected to read ‘‘DATES: 

This rule is effective October 1, 2021.’’ 

Deanne B. Criswell, 

Administrator, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2021–20090 Filed 9–16–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–11–P