Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 178 / Friday, September 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:31 Sep 16, 2021

Jkt 253001

date of notice by the European Union Ref. 19.
Other industries provided similarly detailed descriptions of the length of time needed to replace PIP 3:1containing 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
PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

51829

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 EPAs March 2021
notification and request for comment Ref. 3 stated that industry had been given sufficient notice of EPAs 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 6g, 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
E:FRFM17SER1.SGM

17SER1