Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 2. Concentration limit for 2,4,6-TTBP.
EPA proposed to define 2,4,6-TTBP to mean the chemical substance 2,4,6tristert-butylphenol CASRN 73226
3 at any concentration above 0.01% by weight for the purpose of distinguishing between products which contain 2,4,6TTBP as a functional additive and those in which it may be present in low concentrations as a byproduct or impurity, noting that 2,4,6-TTBP is a coproduct and byproduct present in other alkylphenols, including other antioxidants that are potential substitutes for it.
In response to EPAs concentration proposal to distinguish between products that contain 2,4,6-TTBP as a functional additive and those with low concentrations as a byproduct or impurity, SI Group EPAHQOPPT
201900800537 provided more detailed information:
Impurity levels of 2,4,6-TTBP are typically very low, but may range up to 0.3%. SI Groups engineering staff recently conducted modeling studies of its processes and the output suggests the company is unable to decrease impurity levels of 2,4,6-TTBP with current manufacturing operations.
These models indicate there is no way to achieve a zero residual value for 2,4,6-TTBP as an impurity due to numerous factors.
The hindered phenolic antioxidant 2,6-di-tert-4-secbutylphenol contains an average 2,4,6-TTBP impurity concentration of 0.3%, the highest in SIs portfolio. This substance is the predominant antioxidant technology utilized in automotive brake fluid in the United States.
Given these detailed comments from the manufacturer of 2,4,6-TTBP, EPA
believes adopting a 0.3% concentration limit in the final regulation will better achieve the distinction between functional additives and impurities EPA
seeks to establish, and thereby avoid unintended and unassessed impacts on other alkylphenols used in products such as brake fluid. For clarity, EPA is stating this concentration limit within the prohibitions for 2,4,6-TTBP under 40 CFR 751.409a in the final regulation; EPA believes this will reduce opportunity for the concentration limit to be overlooked by readers of the regulation.
3. Compliance date for the prohibitions.
The proposed rule did not delay the compliance date beyond the rules effective date; the processing and distribution bans would come into effect 60 days after publication of the final rule notice. EPA stated in the proposed rule that at that time it had no
VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:01 Jan 05, 2021

Jkt 253001

information indicating that a compliance date of 60 days after publication of the final rule is not practicable for the activities that would be prohibited, or that additional time is needed for products to clear the channels of trade. The phrases as soon as practicable and reasonable transition period as used in TSCA
section 6d1 are undefined, and the legislative history on TSCA section 6d is limited. Given the ambiguity in the statute, for purposes of this expedited rulemaking, 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 in stakeholder dialogues. Such a presumption is consistent with the general effective date often adopted for rulemakings and ensures the compliance schedule is as soon as practicable, particularly in the context of the TSCA section 6h rules for chemicals identified as persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic, and given the expedited timeframe for issuing a TSCA section 6h 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. Such presumption also allows for submission of information from the sources most likely to have the information that will affect an EPA
determination on whether or how best to adjust the compliance deadline to ensure that the chosen final compliance deadline is both as soon as practicable and provides a reasonable transition period.
On this issue, SI Group provided comment and recommended a 5-year delay in implementation, commenting that . . . there could be significant implications to the current aftermarket fuel additives and oil/lubricant value chains with enactment of this rule and the very short time for implementation.
Complying with this rule will likely require a considerable amount of time given the requirements of Federal, State, standardization bodies, Original Equipment Manufacturers OEMs, and brand holders in reformulating and requalifying products as well as managing current inventory EPAHQ
OPPT201900800537. EPA also received comment on this issue from Gold Eagle Company, which identifies itself as the maker of the 1 selling fuel stabilizer in the United States, and produces several brands of fuel stabilizer under various brand names; it
PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

875

commented that over 100 OEMs original equipment manufacturers endorse this fuel stabilizer in their owners manual and/or sell the product in their dealerships, or buy a private label product from Gold Eagle. EPA
HQOPPT201900800533. It states that 2,4,6-TTBP is an essential component of its fuel stabilizers; that it has used the same antioxidant chemistry since 1988; that evaluated alternative antioxidant chemistries do not provide equivalent fuel stability;
and that even if an effective substitute could be found, ASTM approval would likely take about six years. EPAHQ
OPPT201900800533. Gold Eagle comments that an alternative antioxidant must be evaluated using ASTM D525 Fuel Stability test referenced in ASTM D4814, Standard Specification for Automotive SparkIgnition Engine Fuel, used to test refinery gasoline for compliance to fuel specifications for automotive use.
Overall, EPA considers these comments to have considerable merit.
EPA does not agree with Gold Eagle on the availability of substitute antioxidants for use in fuel additive products; EPA has identified alternative fuel additive products without 2,4,6TTBP as an active ingredient that are available and can be substituted for fuel additive products with 2,4,6-TTBP that will be removed from the market Ref.
3. EPA therefore concludes that it is possible for Gold Eagle to reformulate its products to remove the 2,4,6-TTBP
component and replace it with other antioxidants. However, EPA does agree with the assertion that it will take time to develop new formulations for various product lines, test them and obtain required approvals. Additionally, as a predominant supplier, Gold Eagle has a complex supply network and relationships with many other companies that supply its product, sell it under other brand names, or endorse its use in their equipment; EPA
acknowledges that Gold Eagles modifications to the formulation of its product line may require it to engage with these customers and business partners to assure them that its products provide similar performance, a process that will also take time. EPA also agrees with the comment that managing existing inventory will require time.
Like other basic automotive supplies, such as engine oil and windshield wiper fluid, aftermarket fuel additive products are widely available nationally at varied retail outlets, such as auto parts stores, hardware stores, general retail outlets, gas stations and convenience stores.
Unopened product is stable and may be
E:FRFM06JAR5.SGM

06JAR5