Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

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 6g. As noted in response to similar comments on the 2019 proposed rule, TSCA section 6h4 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 6g 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 6d 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 COVID19 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 6d TSCA section 6d1A directs EPA
to specify a date on which the TSCA
section 6a rule is to take effect that is as soon as practicable. TSCA section 6d1B requires EPA to specify mandatory compliance dates for each requirement of a rule promulgated under TSCA section 6a, 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 6g. TSCA section 6d1C states that EPA must specify mandatory compliance dates for the start of ban or phase-out requirements under a TSCA section 6a 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 6g; and subsection D requires EPA to specify mandatory compliance dates for full
VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:31 Sep 16, 2021

Jkt 253001

implementation of ban or phase-out requirements, which must be as soon as practicable. Additionally, TSCA section 6d1E 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 6d1 are undefined, and the legislative history on TSCA section 6d is limited. Given the ambiguity in the statute, for purposes of the final rule under TSCA section 6h, 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 6h rules for chemicals identified as persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic, and given that 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. 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 EPAs 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
PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

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 EPAs 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
E:FRFM17SER1.SGM

17SER1