Je veux savoir à propos de…

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5

898

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
chemical substance and 2 reduce exposure to the substance to the extent practicable. With respect to the first requirement, that standard is distinct from the unreasonable risk standard for all other chemicals for which a section 6a rule might be issued. EPA
does not believe that TSCA section 6h contemplates a new evaluation of any kind, given that evaluations to determine risks are now addressed through the TSCA section 6b risk evaluation process and that TSCA
section 6h2 explicitly provides that no risk evaluation is required.
Moreover, it would have been impossible to prepare a meaningful evaluation under TSCA and subsequently develop a proposed rule in the time contemplated for issuance of a proposed rule under TSCA section 6h1. Although EPA does not believe the statute contemplates a new evaluation of any kind for these reasons, EPA reviewed the hazard and exposure information on the five PBT chemicals EPA had compiled. However, while this information appropriately addresses the criteria of TSCA section 6h1A and B, it did not provide a basis for EPA
to develop sufficient and scientifically robust and representative risk estimates to evaluate whether or not any of the chemicals present an identifiable risk of injury to health or the environment.
Rather than suggesting a new assessment is required, EPA reads the address risk language in TSCA
section 6h4 to contemplate reliance on an existing EPA assessment under TSCA, similar to a risk assessment that may be permissibly used under TSCA
section 26l4 to regulate the chemical under TSCA section 6a. This interpretation gives meaning to the address risk phrase, without compelling an evaluation contrary to TSCA section 6h2 and would allow use of an existing determination, or development of a new determination based on such an existing risk assessment, in the timeframe contemplated for issuance of a proposed rule under TSCA section 6h. However, there were no existing EPA assessments of risk for any of the PBT chemicals.
Thus, because EPA had no existing EPA
risk assessments or determinations of risk, the regulatory measures addressed in this final rule focus on reducing exposures to the extent practicable.
In sum, because neither the statute nor the legislative history suggests that a new evaluation is compelled to identify and thereby provide a basis for the Agency to address risks and one could not be done prior to preparation and timely issuance of a proposed rule, and no existing TSCA risk assessment
VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:01 Jan 05, 2021

Jkt 253001

exists for any of the chemicals, EPA has made no risk determination finding for any of the PBT chemicals. Instead, EPA
implements the requirement of TSCA
section 6h4 by reducing exposures of each PBT chemical to the extent practicable.
For similar reasons, EPA does not believe that TSCA section 6c2
requires a quantification of benefits, much less a specific kind of quantification. Under TSCA section 6c2Aiv, EPA must consider and publish a statement, based on reasonably available information, on the reasonably ascertainable economic consequences of the rule, but that provision does not require quantification, particularly if quantification is not possible. EPA has reasonably complied with this requirement by including a quantification of direct costs and a qualitative discussion of benefits in each of the preambles to the final rules.
EPA was unable to quantify the indirect costs associated with the rule. More discussion on these issues raised in the comments is in the Response to Comments document Ref. 5.
4. Replacement parts and articles.
In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA explained that it did not read provisions of TSCA section 6 that conflict with TSCA section 6h to apply to TSCA section 6h rules. Specifically, TSCA sections 6c2D and E require a risk finding pursuant to a TSCA
section 6b risk evaluation to regulate replacement parts and articles. Yet, TSCA section 6h neither compels nor contemplates a risk evaluation to precede or support the compelled regulatory action to address the risks. . . and reduce exposures to the substance to the extent practicable.
TSCA section 6h2 makes clear no risk evaluation is required, and the timing required for conducting a risk evaluation is not consistent with the timing compelled for issuance of a proposed rule under TSCA section 6h.
Moreover, even assuming a prior risk assessment might allow a risk determination under the TSCA section 6h4 address risk standard, such assessment would still not satisfy the requirement in TSCA section 6c2D
and E for a risk finding pursuant to a TSCA section 6b risk evaluation.
Because of the clear conflict between these provisions, EPA determined that those provisions of TSCA section 6c that assume the existence of a TSCA
section 6b risk evaluation do not apply in the context of this TSCA section 6h rulemaking. Instead, EPA resolves this conflict in these provisions by taking into account the TSCA section 6c
PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

considerations in its determinations as to what measures reduce exposure to the substance to the extent practicable.
Commenters contended that TSCA
section 6c2D and E bar a TSCA
section 6h rule in the absence of a risk evaluation, representing Congresss recognition of the special burdens associated with regulating replacement parts and articles, including the difficulty of certifying newly designed replacement parts for automobiles and aircraft, and the difficulty importers face in knowing what chemicals are present in the articles they import. As noted in this Unit and further discussed in the Response to Comment document, while EPA determined that provisions of TSCA section 6c2D and E do not apply because they conflict with the requirements of TSCA section 6h, EPA
interpreted the practicability standard in TSCA section 6h4 to reasonably contemplate the considerations embodied by TSCA section 6c2D
and E. As a result, EPA disagrees with any suggestion that the clear conflict between Congress mandates in TSCA
section 6h and TSCA section 6c2D
and E must be read to bar regulation of replacement parts and articles made with chemicals that Congress believed were worthy of expedited action under TSCA section 6h and in the absence of a risk evaluation. The statute does not clearly communicate that outcome.
Instead, Congress left ambiguous how best to address the conflict in these provisions, and EPAs approach for taking into consideration the TSCA
section 6c2D and E concepts in its TSCA section 6h4 practicability determinations is a reasonable approach. In addition, with respect to comments that TSCA section 6C2D
and E were intended to address Congresss concerns regarding burdens associated with regulation of replacement parts and articles, EPA
agrees that these concerns are relevant and takes them into account in its implementation of the TSCA section 6h4 mandate, with respect to the circumstances for each chemical.
Finally, EPA does not believe that Congress intended, through the article provisions incorporated into the TSCA
amendments, to absolve importers of the duty to know what they are importing.
Importers can and should take steps to determine whether the articles they are importing contain chemicals that are prohibited or restricted. Therefore, taking the discussion in this Federal Register document and the additional discussion in the Response to Comment document on these issues into account, EPA is continuing to interpret TSCA

E:FRFM06JAR5.SGM

06JAR5