protection and hazard communication will prevent occupational exposures
that are capable of causing injury from occurring. OSHA has not
established permissible exposure limits (PELs) for any of the five PBT
chemicals. However, under section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 654, each employer has a legal
obligation to furnish to each of its employees a place of employment
that are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to
cause death or serious physical harm.
    Moreover, the OSHA hazard communication regulations at 29 CFR
1910.1200 require chemical manufacturers and importers to classify the
hazards of chemicals they produce/import; and all employers to provide
information to employees about hazardous chemicals to which they may be
exposed under normal conditions of use or in foreseeable emergencies.
Specifically, manufacturers/importers are required to:
     Evaluate and classify chemicals produced in their
workplace in accordance with specified hazard categories;
     Ensure that hazardous chemicals are labeled, tagged,
marked or have another form of warning (unless the distributor fulfills
this requirement);
     Obtain or develop a safety data sheet (SDS) for each
hazardous chemical they produce or import; and
     Ensure that employers and distributors are provided an
appropriate SDS with their initial shipment, and with the first
shipment after any SDS update.
    Employers must:
     Develop, implement and maintain a written hazard
communication program at each workplace;
     Have an SDS in the workplace for each hazardous chemical
which they use;
     Maintain copies of the SDS for each hazardous chemical and
ensure that they are readily accessible to employees; and
     Provide employees with effective information and training
on hazardous chemicals in their work area.
    The OSHA regulations at 29 CFR 1910.132 through 1910.140 prescribe
certain requirements for employers regarding eye, face, respiratory,
head, foot and hand protections; electrical protective equipment; and
personal fall protection systems. In general, employers must assess a
workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are likely to be
present, which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment
(PPE). If the employer determines such hazards are present, or likely
to be present, the employer must:
     Select the types of PPE that will protect against the
identified hazards;
     Require affected employees to use that PPE;
     Communicate selection decisions to each affected employee;
and
     Select PPE that properly fits each affected employee.
    EPA expects that employers will require, and workers will use,
appropriate PPE consistent with 29 CFR 1910.132, taking into account
employer-based assessments, in a manner sufficient to prevent
occupational exposures that are capable of causing injury. Based upon
information from and discussions with industry, EPA understands that
engineering controls or PPE is routinely used in workplaces where the
PBT chemicals are being manufactured, processed, or used. For example,
one commenter, an aviation hydraulic fluid formulator, described the
precautions taken to minimize employee exposure at its facility.
Mandatory PPE includes approved latex/nitrile safety gloves, long-
sleeved, flame retardant shirts, flame retardant pants, and eye
protection. In addition, employees are instructed to handle aviation
hydraulic fluids in a closed system or where adequate exhaust
ventilation is provided (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0730-0006, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-
0730-0007). Another commenter stated that their employees are required
to use PPE consisting of nitrile gloves, chemical-resistant slicker
suits, chemical resistant boots, respirator with face shield, and a
hardhat. This commenter stated that employees were expected to be
trained and monitored in the correct use of the PPE (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-
0314-0018). Because EPA is proposing to, over time, prohibit the
manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of the PBT
chemicals for most uses, thus eliminating potential worker exposures
associated with those activities, EPA believes exposures will be
reduced to the extent practicable. EPA is not aware of any exposures to
unprotected workers for the PBT chemicals, based on information
gathered by EPA specific to these chemicals. Therefore, any additional
workplace regulations that EPA could impose are unlikely to result in
meaningful exposure reductions. Elimination of the hazardous chemical
from the workplace, however, is the most preferred and most effective
control measure identified in the recommended hierarchy of controls
(Ref. 37) to protect workers from workplace hazards.
    3. Request for comment on proposed and alternative regulatory
actions. EPA requests comment on all aspects of the proposed and
alternative regulatory actions discussed in this unit, including
comment on whether the proposed regulatory actions reduce exposures to
the extent practicable and whether there are other actions that EPA
should consider taking under TSCA section 6.
    In addition, for all of the PBT chemicals other than HCBD,
recordkeeping generally consisting of ordinary business records would
be required. EPA is proposing to require that the required records be
kept for a period of three years. EPA requests comment on whether the
recordkeeping time period is appropriate and adequate, considering the
supply chains for the PBT chemicals and regulated products and articles
made with the PBT chemicals, and the length of time that such chemicals
and products may

remain in commerce. EPA specifically requests comment on whether the
recordkeeping time period should be five years instead of three years.
The statute of limitations for violations of TSCA is five years; thus,
a five-year record retention period would require the preservation of
records for the time period that a matter could be investigated and an
enforcement action commenced.
    The proposed regulatory action for each PBT chemical is based on
the information that EPA has on the chemical. While, as previously
noted, EPA generally expects that there is compliance with Federal and
state laws, such as worker protection standards or disposal
requirements, unless case-specific facts indicate otherwise, EPA has
varying amounts of information on how compliance with these legal
obligations is accomplished. For example, for 2,4,6-TTBP, EPA received
two very informative comments on the PPE in use and the engineering and
process controls that reduce occupational and environmental exposures
(EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0734-0006; EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0314-0018). While EPA
expects that these or similar measures are being taken to control
exposures for the other 4 PBT chemicals, EPA does not have the same
detailed information for them, and therefore requests comment on the
extent to which such measures are being taken for the other four PBT
chemicals.

B. DecaBDE

    1. Description of the proposed regulatory action. EPA is proposing
to prohibit, as of 60 days after the publication date of the final
rule, the manufacture, processing and distribution in commerce of
DecaBDE, and articles and products containing DecaBDE except those
described further in this unit.
    EPA is not proposing to prohibit the processing for recycling of
plastic from articles containing DecaBDE, so long as no new DecaBDE is
added during the recycling process. EPA is also not proposing to
prohibit the distribution in commerce of such plastic, either before or
after recycling. Finally, EPA is not proposing to prohibit the
processing and distribution in commerce of DecaBDE in articles and
products that are made of plastic that was recycled from articles
containing DecaBDE, so long as no DecaBDE was added during the
production of the articles and products made of recycled plastic. EPA
is aware that many different types of articles that contain plastic are
recycled at the end of their useful life, and some of these articles,
such as electronic equipment, were originally made with a flame
retardant like DecaBDE. As EPA noted on the occasion of ``America
Recycles Day'' on November 15, 2018, EPA recognizes the importance and
impact of recycling, which contributes to American prosperity and the
protection of our environment. In addition to helping to protect the
environment by keeping valuable materials out of landfills, the U.S.
recycling industry is an important economic driver and provides more
than 757,000 jobs and $6.7 billion annually in tax revenues. EPA does
not want to create disincentives for recycling by increasing the burden
on the recycling of plastic. EPA believes that it would be overly
burdensome and not practicable to impose restrictions on the recycling
of plastics that may contain DecaBDE, or on the use of recycled plastic
in plastic articles, because the DecaBDE is typically present in such
articles at low levels (Ref. 38).
    EPA is not proposing to regulate the manufacture, processing, or
distribution in commerce of DecaBDE-containing replacement parts for
the aerospace and automotive industries. TSCA section 6(c)(2)(D) states
that replacement parts for complex durable goods and complex consumer
goods that are designed before the rule promulgation date must be
exempt from a rule issued under TSCA section 6(a), unless EPA finds
that the replacement parts contribute significantly to the risk
identified in a risk evaluation under TSCA section 6(b). TSCA section
6(h)(2) specifically provides that EPA is not required to conduct
section 6(b) risk evaluations when conducting a TSCA section 6(a)
rulemaking on PBTs. EPA notes that most of the PBT provisions in TSCA
section 6(c) apply to any rulemaking under TSCA section 6(a), but some
TSCA section 6(c) provisions cross-reference TSCA section 6(b) and
assume the existence of a risk evaluation conducted thereunder. EPA's
interpretation is that, where it has not conducted a TSCA section 6(b)
risk evaluation, those provisions of TSCA section 6(c) that assume the
existence of a TSCA section 6(b) rulemaking do not apply. Specifically,
EPA's interpretation is that the following provisions of TSCA section
6(c) do not apply to a TSCA section 6(a) rulemaking conducted to
address PBTs under TSCA section 6(h) if EPA has not conducted a TSCA
section 6(b) risk evaluation: TSCA section 6(c)(1) (setting deadlines
for TSCA section 6(a) rulemakings by reference to the date of issuance
of a TSCA section 6(b) risk evaluation), and TSCA section 6(c)(2)(D)
and (E) (addressing the regulation of replacement parts for complex
durable goods and articles by reference to the findings contained in a
risk evaluation under TSCA section 6(b)). EPA invites public comment on
this interpretation and seeks input on other possible interpretations.
    According to comments received from the Aerospace Industries
Association (AIA) (on the PBDE SNUR), interior non-metallic parts of an
airplane must meet the flammability standards in 14 CFR part 25 and in
many cases, a flame retardant such as DecaBDE has been used to meet
these standards. The aerospace industry expects to have phased out of
DecaBDE in new aircraft within three years (Ref. 39). However, because
there are many aircraft currently in use with components made with
DecaBDE, replacement parts will still be needed for decades.
    Aircraft and their replacement parts must be certified by the FAA
under 14 CFR part 21. The AIA states that a typical active service life
span of aerospace industry products such as aircraft often is 30-40
years or longer. In order to safely maintain and operate these
aircraft, certified replacement parts must be available. EPA
understands that it can take years to develop, qualify, and certify
replacement parts, although, due to the aerospace industry's ongoing
phase-out of DecaBDE, suitable alternatives to DecaBDE have likely been
identified for many replacement parts. Nevertheless, the replacement
parts must meet specified standards and go through the process of being
certified by the FAA. Due to the time and expense involved in
certifying replacement parts, the AIA asserts that it is not feasible
to change the part design and recertify the large number of replacement
parts that may contain DecaBDE for aircraft currently in use. In light
of this information, EPA believes that requiring the aerospace industry
to recertify replacement parts is not practicable, and therefore is not
proposing to regulate DecaBDE-containing replacement parts for
aerospace industry products for aircraft manufactured prior to the
effective/publication date of the rule.
    Replacement parts for the automotive industry must also meet
specified standards, though there is no similar certification process.
The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, codified at 49 CFR part
571, includes a standard for the flammability of interior materials at
49 CFR 571.302. This standard establishes a test for flammability,
including a specific test method for making the determination. EPA
understands that DecaBDE has often

been used to meet this flammability standard. While EPA expects that
the automotive industry will have phased out of DecaBDE for new
automobiles by the time a final rule would be issued and take effect
(Ref. 13), they will still have to maintain the availability of
replacement parts for vehicles manufactured prior to that date.
According to the automotive industry, there are customer and legal
requirements which generally require the automotive sector to maintain
supplies of replacement parts for 15 years, such as the requirement in
42 U.S.C. 30120(g) to provide defect remedies at no charge for a period
of 15 years after the affected vehicle was sold to its first purchaser
(Ref. 13). The automotive industry asserts that a phase out of DecaBDE
for these parts could mean that suppliers and manufacturers must
redesign, source, and validate parts for many vehicles no longer in
production, ultimately producing new sets of compliant parts (which
could require retooling production lines) while scrapping currently
retained parts (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0735-0094). Further, economic
disruption could occur if the automobile industry were required to
rapidly reformulate replacement parts for countless makes, models, and
years, especially if this resulted in a period of unavailability of key
replacement parts (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0735-0094). In light of this
information, EPA believes that requiring the automotive industry to
reformulate replacement parts for vehicles no longer being manufactured
is not practicable, and therefore is not proposing to regulate DecaBDE-
containing replacement parts for motor vehicles manufactured prior to
the effective date of the rule.
    Most importantly, any restriction on replacement parts for the
aerospace and automobile industries could increase costs and safety
concerns without meaningful exposure reductions. This is because, as
previously noted, article components containing DecaBDE for finished
products in automobiles and aircraft have limited releases. More
specifically, releases to air and water are expected to be minimal
because DecaBDE is entrained in the articles and is not expected to
volatilize or migrate readily under normal use. Additionally, releases
to land may occur from disposal of products that contain DecaBDE.
Finally, occupational exposure from dermal contact with article
components during installation is possible only if workers are
unprotected and inhalation exposure is not expected due to the low
potential for volatilization.
    EPA's proposed practicability determination is not time-limited, in
that EPA is not proposing to prohibit the manufacture, processing, and
distribution in commerce of DecaBDE for use in replacement parts, and
the replacement parts themselves after a certain period of time. As
noted, replacement parts for aerospace vehicles will be needed for
decades. The automotive industry has commented that replacement parts
are generally needed for 15 years, and EPA believes that, in most
cases, replacement parts containing DecaBDE will not be manufactured,
processed, or distributed in commerce after 15 years. EPA does not
believe it is reasonable or practicable to regulate DecaBDE-containing
replacement parts for the automotive industry after 15 years, in the
unlikely event that such parts are available or needed.
    EPA requests comment on the proposed determination that it is not
practicable to regulate DecaBDE-containing replacement parts for the
aerospace and automotive industries. EPA also requests comment on
whether, instead of a determination that it is not practicable to
regulate these parts, EPA should consider an exemption under TSCA
section 6(g) for them. EPA believes that, for both the aerospace and
automotive industries, regulation of replacement parts would result in
the disruption of critical infrastructure.
    However, EPA is proposing to prohibit the addition of DecaBDE to
products and articles, other than replacement parts for the aerospace
and automotive industries. An exploratory analysis indicated that
DecaBDE migration from articles like toys does not represent a risk
concern due to the mouthing behaviors (e.g., teething), based on the
available information (Ref. 40). EPA believes that it is practicable to
reduce exposures by prohibiting the addition of DecaBDE to these
products and articles during the production process.
    EPA is proposing a compliance date of three years for new aerospace
parts to align with the Aerospace Industries Association's voluntary
phase-out of DecaBDE, and a compliance date of 18 months for ongoing
manufacture of curtains used in the hospitality industry to allow for
the orderly transition to a replacement coating chemical. These
compliance dates are intended to allow the products to clear the
channels of trade prior to the compliance date.
    EPA has no 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, other than those for which later
compliance dates are being proposed, or that additional time is needed
for products to clear the channels of trade.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to require, as of 60 days after the
date that the final rule is published, all persons who manufacture,
process, or distribute in commerce DecaBDE for non-prohibited uses, and
non-prohibited articles and products to which DecaBDE has been added,
to maintain ordinary business records, such as invoices and bills-of-
lading, that demonstrate compliance with the prohibitions and
restrictions. These records would have to be maintained for a period of
three years from the date the record is generated. This recordkeeping
requirement does not apply to the processing and distribution in
commerce of plastic for recycling, recycled plastic, and articles and
products made with recycled plastic, so long as no DecaBDE is added to
the recycled plastic and the articles and products made with recycled
plastic.
    TSCA authorizes EPA to investigate, through inspections and the use
of administrative subpoenas, and to collect information on the imported
products and manufactured materials used to produce those products. EPA
uses these tools to help ensure compliance with regulatory requirements
for manufactured (including imported), processed, or distributed
products, including those containing DecaBDE, among other chemicals.
EPA's National Program Guidance for the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance identifies the agency's focus on monitoring the
compliance of chemical substances and articles imported into the United
Stated in coordination with U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP).
    EPA requests comment on ways that importers and others, who do not
produce articles, can ensure that they are in compliance with this
prohibition. One option would be for these entities to contract with
their suppliers to supply only goods that comply with this prohibition.
EPA could establish a requirement that persons who import, process, or
distribute articles, or certain categories of articles such as consumer
electronics, rubber wire casings and plastic children's products,
obtain and retain ordinary business records, such as invoices, and that
such records must include a written statement from the supplier that
the articles were not made with DecaBDE. Compliance with such a
recordkeeping requirement would constitute compliance with the
prohibition on the addition of DecaBDE

to products and articles. EPA requests comment on the merits of this
approach and other approaches to achieving compliance.
    2. Description of the primary alternative regulatory action
considered. EPA considered an alternative regulatory action of
prohibiting the manufacture, processing and distribution in commerce of
articles containing DecaBDE at levels above 0.1% by weight. The 0.1%
level was determined from consultations with academics and experts as a
means to differentiate between DecaBDE that was added to the article
versus DecaBDE that may have been present in the plastic from which the
article was made, and from existing state regulations on DecaBDE. This
option would be in addition to the prohibitions outlined in Unit
III.B.2 and would exclude replacement parts for the automotive and
aerospace industries. The delayed compliance dates for curtain
manufacturing and new aerospace parts would also remain for this
option. Requiring industry to meet a level of 0.1% in recycled plastic
articles would also result in a significant burden by effectively
requiring companies manufacturing (including importing) articles out of
recycled plastics to test their products for levels of DecaBDE or risk
being out of compliance (Ref. 3). In general, EPA understands that most
testing methods cannot distinguish between brominated flame retardants,
or between polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) congeners, and that
more expensive and time-consuming test methods are necessary to
determine whether DecaBDE is present (Ref. 41). Therefore, EPA does not
believe this option is practicable.
    3. Evaluation of whether the regulatory actions address the TSCA
section 6(h)(4) standard. This proposal would, over time, eliminate the
introduction of new DecaBDE into the supply chain. Cost-effective and
technically feasible substitutes are readily available for all uses of
DecaBDE (Ref. 3). However, as previously noted, EPA has determined that
it would be impracticable to use the TSCA section 6(a) regulatory tools
to address DecaBDE that is already in products in commercial use or the
disposal of products. For similar reasons, EPA is not proposing to
prohibit the recycling of plastic which may contain DecaBDE, such as
high-impact polystyrene. An element of practicability is
reasonableness. EPA does not believe it is reasonable, and thereby
practicable, to impose a large burden on society through the further
reduction or elimination of low concentrations of DecaBDE in articles
made from recycled materials. The already low content of DecaBDE in
recycled plastic would be expected to continue declining, as fewer and
fewer products are made with DecaBDE. In order to ensure that plastics
made with DecaBDE are not recycled into any new articles and products,
the incoming waste plastic would have to be sorted and tested for
articles most likely to contain DecaBDE, such as television cabinets,
electronics cases, and most types of high impact polystyrene, which
would be rejected for recycling and instead be disposed of in a
landfill, or the incoming waste could be tested for DecaBDE content.
EPA considered, as a primary alternative regulatory action to the
proposed option, a percentage limit on DecaBDE in products. While this
option may also reduce exposures in comparison to the proposed option,
EPA believes that the testing burden, including the ability to test
specifically for DecaBDE that would need to be assumed as a compliance
method by processors and distributors, could be considerable and would
make that option impracticable (Ref. 3). More information on these
testing burdens and the economic impacts of the primary alternative
regulatory action in general can be found in Unit IV.B. and in the
Economic Analysis (Ref. 3).
    With respect to the recycling of plastics that contain DecaBDE, EPA
requests comment on whether one particular situation warrants a
different approach. While it is EPA's understanding that plastic
pallets are no longer being made with DecaBDE as a flame retardant,
they are being recycled back into plastic pallets when they become
damaged and are no longer usable. The pallets were made with DecaBDE to
begin with, and the pallet producers are aware of the DecaBDE content,
which is likely to be higher than that present in general plastics
recycling streams. EPA is still proposing to determine that it is not
practicable to prohibit the recycling of plastic pallets because, as
previously noted, releases from article components are expected to be
minimal because DecaBDE is entrained in the articles and is not
expected to volatize or migrate readily under normal use. However, EPA
requests comment on this proposed determination and whether there are
actions that EPA should consider taking under TSCA section 6 with
respect to the recycling of plastic pallets.
    EPA also considered issues with compliance dates, taking into
account input from stakeholders. The aerospace industry has been
working towards the elimination of DecaBDE in new aircraft and
aerospace vehicles. However, the design and certification of new
aircraft, for instance, is a complicated and lengthy process and, as a
consequence, some additional time is necessary to ensure a reasonable
transition for this industry (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0724-0006). The
Aerospace Industries Association has volunteered to remove DecaBDE from
all new aerospace parts by 2023 (Ref. 39). Thus, EPA believes a
compliance date to begin three years from the publication date of the
final rule, rather than an a more immediate compliance date, is the
soonest practicable timeframe for the aerospace industry to comply with
a prohibition on DecaBDE in new aerospace vehicles and new parts for
such vehicles, and for products containing DecaBDE to clear the
channels of trade.
    With respect to curtains used in the hospitality industry, EPA
understands that most of the industry has moved away from using DecaBDE
as a flame retardant. However, EPA is aware of one small business that
is still using DecaBDE while it searches for a replacement flame
retardant. EPA believes that 18 months from the date of publication of
the final rule, rather than an immediate compliance date, is the
soonest practicable date for the small business to redesign or find a
substitute for the curtain production process, and for treated curtains
to clear the channels of trade.
    4. Consideration of chemical alternatives (substitutes) in deciding
whether to propose to prohibit or restrict DecaBDE. EPA believes that
there are viable substitutes for all uses of DecaBDE. In January 2014,
EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE) published an alternatives
assessment for DecaBDE (Ref. 42). EPA identified 29 potential
functional, viable alternatives to DecaBDE for use in select
polyolefins, styrenics, engineering thermoplastics, thermosets,
elastomers, or waterborne emulsions and coatings (Ref. 42).
    (i) Health and environmental effects of the chemical alternatives
or substitute methods. The human health endpoints evaluated in EPA's
DfE alternatives assessment include acute toxicity, carcinogenicity,
genotoxicity, reproductive toxicity, developmental toxicity,
neurotoxicity, repeated-dose toxicity, skin sensitization, respiratory
sensitization, eye irritation, and dermal irritation (Ref. 42). Acute
and chronic aquatic toxicity endpoints and persistence and
bioaccumulation potential were also evaluated as part of this
assessment. DecaBDE and the identified alternatives were ranked on
these endpoints according to the methodology outlined in EPA's DfE

alternatives assessment and given a hazard ranking between very low and
very high. While some of the available alternatives were found to have
hazard profiles similar to DecaBDE, there are other available
alternatives that ranked lower than DecaBDE for each hazard endpoint
(Ref. 42).
    (ii) Technical feasibility, economic feasibility, and reasonable
availability of the chemical alternatives or substitute methods.
Several potential substitutes for DecaBDE exist, specific to each use.
In total, 27 unique chemical substitutes were identified for DecaBDE
through EPA's DfE Alternatives Assessment, published in 2014. Two were
removed from the original list of 29 for the purposes of this
rulemaking since they are synergists without flame-retardant properties
and not considered alternatives. An additional six were identified
through internet research for a total of 33 substitutes (Ref. 3).
Specific substitutes may be favored by industry based on the ability to
easily replace DecaBDE, efficacy, price and availability, relative
human health or environmental concerns, or other qualities of the
substitute that may or may not impact the final product. Appropriate
substitutes for DecaBDE vary depending on the material and application
method being used to apply them. However, cost-effective and
technically feasible substitutes are generally available for all uses
of DecaBDE (Ref. 3).

C. PIP (3:1)

    1. Description of the proposed regulatory action. EPA is proposing
to prohibit the processing and distribution in commerce of PIP (3:1),
and products containing the chemical substance except for the
following:
     Processing and distribution in commerce for use in
aviation hydraulic fluid; and
     Processing and distribution in commerce for use in
lubricants and greases; and
     Processing and distribution in commerce for use in new and
replacement parts for the automotive industry, and the distribution in
commerce of the parts to which PIP (3:1) has been added.
    EPA is not proposing to regulate the processing or distribution in
commerce of PIP (3:1) or PIP (3:1)-containing products for use in new
or replacement parts for the automotive industry, or distribution in
commerce of such parts that contain PIP (3:1). EPA understands that PIP
(3:1) may be used to meet anti-flammability standards and for other
uses (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0314-0026). Economic disruption could occur if
the automotive industry were required to rapidly reformulate
replacement parts for countless makes, models, and years, especially if
this resulted in a period of unavailability of key replacement parts
(EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0735-0094). Restrictions on distribution in commerce
of replacement parts that contain PIP (3:1) would have a similar
effect. As with DecaBDE, EPA believes that requiring the automotive
industry to reformulate replacement parts for vehicles no longer being
manufactured is not practicable, and therefore is not proposing to
regulate PIP (3:1)-containing replacement parts for motor vehicles
manufactured prior to the effective date of the rule. Most importantly,
any restriction on replacement parts for the automotive industries
could increase costs and safety concerns without meaningful exposure
reductions for those same pathways described in Unit III.B.1. For these
same reasons, EPA is not proposing to regulate the processing and
distribution in commerce of PIP (3:1) or PIP (3:1)-containing products
for use in new parts containing PIP (3:1) for the automotive industry,
or distribution in commerce of such parts that contain PIP (3:1). EPA
has received information from the automotive industry indicating that
there are a number of new parts made with PIP (3:1) and that
substitutes for PIP (3:1) in these parts have not been identified and
tested (Refs. 43 and 44). EPA acknowledges the importance of PIP (3:1)
components to the automotive industry and the difficulties of
reformulation. As with replacement parts, any restriction on the
processing and distribution in commerce of new parts for the automotive
industry could increase costs and safety concerns without meaningful
exposure reductions. For this proposal, EPA considers new parts to be
newly-manufactured parts that are designed for use in automobiles and
other vehicles that will be produced for the model year beginning after
the effective date of the final rule. Replacement parts are also newly-
manufactured parts that are designed for use in automobiles and other
vehicles that will have been produced for the model year beginning
before the effective date of the final rule and earlier model years.
    In addition, EPA is not proposing to restrict the manufacture of
PIP (3:1) so that the allowable processing and distribution may
continue, but is proposing to impose recordkeeping and downstream
notification requirements on manufacturers. Manufacturing occurs in a
closed system and generally there is no waste produced in the
manufacturing, so existing best practices are expected to mitigate
potential releases to the environment (Ref. 4).
    EPA is proposing to prohibit releases to water from the processing,
distribution in commerce, and commercial use activities that are
permitted to occur, i.e., use in aviation hydraulic fluid, use in
lubricants and greases, and use in new and replacement parts for the
automotive industry. Persons manufacturing, processing, and
distributing PIP (3:1), and products containing PIP (3:1), in commerce
would be required to notify their customers of these prohibitions on
processing and distribution, and the prohibition on releases.
Additionally, EPA requests comment on additional details of how a
prohibition on releases to water could best be achieved in the aircraft
maintenance space.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to require, as of 60 days after the
date that the final rule is published, all persons who manufacture,
process, or distribute in commerce PIP (3:1) and articles and products
containing PIP (3:1) to maintain ordinary business records, such as
invoices and bills-of-lading, that demonstrate compliance with the
prohibitions and restrictions. These records would have to be
maintained for a period of three years from the date the record is
generated.
    TSCA authorizes EPA to investigate, through inspections and the use
of administrative subpoenas, and to collect information on the imported
products and manufactured materials used to produce those products. EPA
use these tools to help ensure compliance with regulatory requirements
for manufactured (including imported), processed, or distributed
products, including those containing PIP (3:1), among other chemicals.
EPA's National Program Guidance for the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance identifies the agency's focus on monitoring the
compliance of chemical substances and articles imported into the United
States in coordination with U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP).
    EPA has no 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. However, EPA requests
comment on whether additional time is needed for products to clear the
channels of trade.
    EPA acknowledges that PIP (3:1) is an important anti-wear additive
in aviation hydraulic fluid for commercial aircraft and commercial
derivative military aircraft, including for emerging

technologies such as 5,000 PSI hydraulic systems. It is the Agency's
understanding that PIP (3:1)-containing hydraulic fluids are currently
the only fluids recommended for these high-pressure hydraulic systems.
EPA is requesting comment on the degree to which alternative hydraulic
fluids without PIP (3:1) are available for aircraft operating at 3,000
PSI, and documented performance differences between phosphate ester
based hydraulic fluids with and without PIP (3:1) in the aviation
sector.
    EPA also acknowledges the degree to which PIP (3:1) is a crucial
anti-wear component for aviation lubricants and greases, which need to
perform at a wide range of temperatures and pressures. EPA has excluded
lubricants and greases for aviation and non-aviation uses from the
proposed prohibition on processing and distribution. EPA understands
there are some non-aviation uses of these lubricants and greases where
PIP (3:1) is a crucial anti-wear component, such as turbines used in
power generation or in marine settings (Ref. 23). Therefore, EPA is
proposing to determine that it is not practicable to regulate the
presence of PIP (3:1) in lubricants and greases in general. However,
EPA acknowledges that uses in non-aircraft machinery may not be subject
to these same environmental stresses or safety and performance
requirements from industry and government as uses in the aviation
sector. Therefore, EPA is requesting comment on the degree to which PIP
(3:1) is crucial to the safe and effective performance of lubricants
and greases in non-aviation industries. This includes information about
alternatives with equivalent performance (or lack thereof), safety
standards, information about standard use practices and exposure, and
any other relevant information, for lubricants and greases used in
turbines or other machinery derived from aviation but applied to a
stationary technology such as power generation, and other military or
commercial uses.
    In addition, EPA is requesting comment on the concentration by
weight of PIP (3:1) currently present in products for the excluded
uses, as well as the concentration required for critical application in
aviation and other industries, and trends in these concentrations which
may accompany changes in technology over time. EPA believes the upper
bounds of the levels present in commerce for use in aviation hydraulic
fluids to be 20% concentration by weight and aviation lubricants and
greases to be 5% concentration by weight. While EPA does not have
reason to believe that uses in excess of these levels are occurring,
EPA acknowledges that these products are of significant importance in
commercial and military aviation, including for emerging technologies
such as 5,000 PSI hydraulic systems. EPA does not want to unnecessarily
inhibit the development of more efficient aircraft, but large increases
in the concentrations of PIP (3:1) in the non-prohibited hydraulic
fluids and lubricants and greases could result in greater exposures.
EPA requests comment on whether a concentration limit should be imposed
on these non-prohibited uses. The uses of PIP (3:1) containing products
in these sectors is discussed further in Unit III.C.3.
    In addition, EPA is specifically requesting comment on the extent
to which plastic articles that contain PIP (3:1) are recycled and
whether the recycling of such plastic, and the manufacture, processing,
and distribution in commerce of plastic items made from such recycled
plastic, should be specifically excluded from this rule. The exclusion
would be similar to the exclusion discussed in Unit III.B.1. for
recycled plastics that contain DecaBDE. While EPA is aware that many of
the plastics in the recycling stream contain DecaBDE, EPA does not have
information on the content of PIP (3:1) in articles being recycled. As
noted in Unit II.D.2.i., PIP (3:1) has been identified as a possible
component in plastic products and articles, including children's
products and automotive and aerospace products. In addition, PIP (3:1)
has also been used as a component of flame retardants used in
polyurethane foam. EPA also requests comment on the extent to which
polyurethane foam that contains PIP (3:1) is recycled, the amount of
PIP (3:1) that remains in the recycled material, and whether an
exclusion should be considered for recycling of polyurethane foam.
    2. Description of the primary alternative regulatory action
considered. EPA considered an alternative regulatory action for PIP
(3:1) of prohibiting the processing and distribution in commerce of PIP
(3:1), and products containing the chemical substance except for the
following:
     Processing and distribution in commerce for use in
aviation hydraulic fluid for aircraft hydraulic systems designed to
operate at pressure equal to or greater than 3,000 pounds per square
inch (PSI) for a period of 20 years;
     Processing and distribution in commerce for use in
aviation lubricants and greases for a period of 20 years; and
     Processing and distribution in commerce for use in new and
replacement parts for the automotive industry, and the distribution in
commerce of the parts to which PIP (3:1) has been added.
    A 20-year time-limited exemption would be proposed under TSCA
section 6(g)(1)(B) for use in aviation hydraulic fluids for aircraft
hydraulic systems operating at equal to or greater than 3,000 PSI at
the currently present in commerce, and aviation lubricants and greases
at concentration currently present in commerce. Under the primary
alternative action, like with the proposed action, EPA would prohibit
releases to water from the processing, distribution in commerce, and
commercial use activities that are not prohibited. In addition, like
with the proposed action, persons manufacturing, processing, and
distributing in commerce PIP (3:1), and products containing PIP (3:1),
would be required to notify their customers of each of these
restrictions.
    The primary alternative regulatory action differs from the proposed
action in that specified allowed uses in aviation would be subject to
an exemption under TSCA section 6(g) rather than excluded from the
prohibition of uses under TSCA section 6(a). The proposed time-frame
for this exemption would be 20 years, after which time the exemption
would expire or be extended via rulemaking.
    3. Evaluation of whether the regulatory actions address the TSCA
section 6(h)(4) standard. As discussed here, there are readily
available alternatives for all uses except the specific uses described
in Unit II.D.2.i and Unit II.D.2.ii, namely in aviation hydraulic
fluids lubricants and greases. Additionally, as previously mentioned,
EPA is not proposing regulatory controls on the manufacturing of PIP
(3:1) beyond recordkeeping and downstream notification requirements. As
stated in Unit III.C.1., manufacturing occurs in a closed system and
generally there is no waste produced in the manufacturing, so existing
best practices are likely to mitigate potential releases to the
environment (Ref. 4).
    Lubricants, greases, and aviation hydraulic fluids are excluded
from the proposed regulation because they are necessary to maintain the
airworthiness of aircraft, no other substitutes are currently
available, and the burden of creating and testing new formulations
which can meet the equivalent safety and performance standards is high
(Ref. 3). Aviation fluids are approved by major aircraft manufacturers
who work closely with the FAA, and any change

in formula composition results in a full requalification process. This
process is a joint effort between the fluid manufacturer and aircraft
manufacturer, and resulting fluids are subject to extensive laboratory
and field testing. At the end of this iterative evaluation process,
there is no guarantee that a technically equivalent alternative will be
developed (Refs. 3, 23 and 24). These aviation lubricants and greases
are sometimes used for other machinery such as turbines used in power
generation. For lubricants and greases in other industries, EPA has
included a request for comment outlining additional information that
would be useful in Unit III.C.1. Thus, EPA is not proposing to prohibit
manufacture, processing, or distribution for the aviation uses
described in Unit II.D.2 because doing so is not practicable. By
prohibiting the majority of processing and distribution of the
chemical, and placing certain restrictions on processing, distribution,
and use for hydraulic fluid and lubricants and greases in aviation,
including a prohibition on release to water, the regulatory approach
reduces exposures to the extent practicable.
    Manufacturers have described alternative chemicals that are
available for the functional applications of PIP (3:1) as a
plasticizer, flame retardant, and anti-wear additive (Ref. 4). In many
sectors, this claim by manufacturers is supported by stakeholder
engagement. While possible chemical alternatives or alternative
products exist in many sectors, these alternatives lack field testing
in formulation for key uses in aviation, including emerging
technologies of high-pressure aviation hydraulic systems. (Refs. 23 and
24, and 25). Therefore, EPA believes that prohibitions on processing,
distribution, and use, including the alternative approach which could
take effect upon the expiration of an exemption, are not practicable
for certain uses of PIP (3:1) important to airworthiness in commercial
aviation and aerospace.
    4. Consideration of chemical alternatives (substitutes) in deciding
whether to prohibit or restrict PIP (3:1). Based on an analysis of
likely alternatives, EPA believes that there are viable substitutes for
all uses of PIP (3:1), except for uses in aviation hydraulic fluids and
aviation lubricants and greases.
    (i) Health and environmental effects of the chemical alternatives
or substitute methods. EPA conducted an analysis of three identified
likely substitutes for PIP (3:1) based on the process described in the
TSCA Work Plan Chemicals: Methods Document (Ref. 2). Those substitutes
all scored lower than PIP (3:1) in at least one criterion. For example,
2-ethylhexyl diphenyl phosphate ester (CAS 1241-94-7) and isodecyl,
diphenyl phosphate (CAS 29761-21-5) both scored lower than PIP (3:1) in
persistence, bioaccumulation, and human hazard. In addition, phenol,
isobutylenated, phosphate (3:1) (CAS 68937-40-6) scored lower than PIP
(3:1) in human and environmental hazard (Ref. 45).
    (ii) Technical feasibility, economic feasibility, and reasonable
availability of the chemical alternatives or substitute methods. As
discussed in Unit II.D.4, viable substitutes are available for many of
the uses of PIP (3:1). In their comment, the Israel Chemical Limited
(ICL) company stated that there are readily available alternatives for
many of the functional uses of PIP (3:1), including as a plasticizer,
flame retardant, and anti-wear additive. These alternative chemicals
could act as replacements for PIP (3:1) within formulas in various
industries. In sectors such as paints and coatings, adhesives and
sealants, and plastics, PIP (3:1) containing products represent a small
market share, and the elimination of said products would not have a
significant effect on small businesses (Ref. 3). For industrial
hydraulic fluids (excluding aviation), various alternative products to
those containing PIP (3:1) are already in commerce.
    PIP (3:1) is used in the aviation industry in hydraulic fluid to
achieve the necessary anti-wear and anti-compressibility performance
for formulas maintaining the airworthiness of commercial and military
aircraft. While alternative formulas have been identified for use in
several models of aircrafts, there are no feasible alternative formulas
for hydraulic fluid that meet the requisite performance specification
and safety standards for hydraulic systems designed to operate at
pressures equal to or greater than 5,000 PSI (Refs. 23 and 24, and 25).
Therefore, there are currently no technically feasible alternative
formulas available for some PIP (3:1)-containing hydraulic fluids in
the aviation sector for hydraulic systems designed to operate at
pressures equal to or greater than 5,000 PSI.
    Furthermore, PIP (3:1) is a component of a lubricant additive which
is used primarily for its anti-wear properties. There are also
currently no technically feasible alternative formulas available for
some PIP (3:1)-containing and lubricants and greases in the aviation
sector, which are formulated to industry and military specifications
(Refs. 22, 23, 24, 26, and 46).
    The economic feasibility of alternatives for all uses other than
these specialized aviation uses is discussed in the economic analysis
for this proposed action (Ref. 3).

D. 2,4,6-TTBP

    1. Description of the proposed regulatory action. EPA is proposing
to restrict the distribution in commerce of TTBP and products
containing 2,4,6-TTBP in containers with a volume of less than 55
gallons. This will effectively prevent use of 2,4,6-TTBP as a retail
fuel additive or fuel injector cleaner by consumers.
    Exposure to humans and the environment would be reduced by
eliminating retail uses of 2,4,6-TTBP that have a high potential for
releases. This proposal intentionally would not impact use of this
chemical in the nation's fuel supply system (i.e., at refineries and
bulk petroleum storage facilities), where the distribution, transfer,
blending, and general end use of 2,4,6-TTBP-containing blends/mixtures
is managed through highly regulated engineered controls designed to
mitigate environmental and human health exposures. EPA believes that
much, if not all use of 2,4,6-TTBP containing blends/mixtures at
refineries and petroleum storage facilities are sourced in quantities
larger than 55 gallons at a time; and are typically sourced by the
tanker or batch load in quantities over 500 gallons at a time.
    As such, EPA is also taking comment on the optimal container size
limit to impose: For instance, whether a 35-gallon container size would
impact industrial use less while also preventing the commercial and
retail sale of products with 2,4,6-TTBP. EPA would welcome information
submitted to the docket for this action that provides data or
information related to the proposed restriction on container size.
    For this regulation, EPA is proposing to define 2,4,6-TTBP to mean
the chemical substance 2,4,6-tris(tert-butyl)phenol (CASRN 732-26-3) at
any concentration above 0.01% by weight. EPA believes this
concentration limit would distinguish between products which contain
2,4,6-TTBP as a functional additive and those in which it may be
present in low concentrations as a byproduct or impurity. 2,4,6-TTBP is
a co-product and byproduct present in other alkylphenols, including
other antioxidants that are potential substitutes for it.
Significantly, this lower limit would also ensure that this prohibition
does not unintentionally apply to fuels which have been treated with
antioxidant additives containing 2,4,6-TTBP, an outcome EPA does not

intend. One commenter stated that the chemical is added to fuels at
concentrations of 5 to 50 ppm, approximately 0.0005% to 0.005%, or less
than half the concentration limit proposed by EPA (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-
0734-0006). Thus, EPA is not proposing to regulate fuel after it has
been treated with antioxidants containing 2,4,6-TTBP; EPA is only
proposing to regulate the retail additives containing 2,4,6-TTBP that
are used to treat the fuel. A regulation prohibiting the presence of
2,4,6-TTBP in gasoline and other fuels would effectively prohibit the
use of this antioxidant at refineries to treat bulk fuels, because it
would prohibit the commercial use of the treated fuel in smaller
vehicles including automobiles. As discussed in Unit II.D.3.(i) of this
notice, EPA believes this is a critical use in the nation's fuel
supply.
    EPA is also proposing to prohibit processing and distribution in
commerce of 2,4,6-TTBP for use as an additive in oils and lubricants.
There are numerous available substitutes for this use of 2,4,6-TTBP.
For clarity, EPA is proposing a definition of oil and lubricant
additive for this rule to mean any intentional additive to a product of
any viscosity intended to reduce friction between moving parts, whether
mineral oil or synthetic base, including engine crankcase oils and
bearing greases.
    EPA has no 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.
    EPA is proposing for recordkeeping that after 60 days following the
date of publication of the final rule, distributors of 2,4,6 TTBP and
products containing 2,4,6-TTBP must maintain ordinary business records,
such as invoices and bills-of-lading, that demonstrate that 2,4,6-TTBP
is not distributed in containers with a volume less than 55 gallons or
for use as an oil and lubricant additive. These records must be
maintained for a period of three years from the date the record is
generated.
    2. Description of the primary alternative regulatory action
considered. EPA considered an alternative regulatory action of
prohibiting the distribution in commerce of 2,4,6-TTBP in fuel
additives and fuel injector cleaners intended for consumer/retail use.
Like the proposed action, this approach would define 2,4,6-TTBP with a
concentration of 2,4,6-TTBP; a level of 0.01% by weight. This
alternative would include defining the end uses for which distribution
of 2,4,6-TTBP is prohibited: retail sale of fuel additives and fuel
injector cleaners. Distributors of chemical mixtures containing 2,4,6-
TTBP above the specified level would be required to notify purchasers
of the presence of 2,4,6-TTBP in the product and the prohibition on its
sale for retail use. Records of sales and notification to customers
would be maintained by distributors. Should the Agency not finalize
provisions related to the container size threshold, downstream
notification would need to be a regulatory requirement. While this
approach would achieve the same or similar exposure reduction as the
limit on container sizes proposed in this rule, EPA believes this
alternative approach would potentially impact more retail sellers and
users, be more difficult to enforce, and impose a greater compliance
burden on the regulated community for notification and recordkeeping
requirements. This approach would potentially also affect distribution
of large volumes of 2,4,6-TTBP to industrial users, such as refineries,
who are not engaged in processing and distribution of fuel additive
products for commercial and consumer sales.
    3. Evaluation of whether the regulatory actions address the TSCA
section 6(h)(4) standard. The proposed approach allows for the
processing and distribution for use in the industrial/commercial fuel
sector where prohibitions or restrictions on 2,4,6-TTBP mixtures would
not be practicable due to its essential use in the nation's fuel supply
system. As discussed in Unit II.D.3.(i) of this notice, this chemical
is a component of antioxidant mixtures that are widely used in this
country and essential for the storage and transport of fuel, and these
mixtures cannot be substituted without affecting numerous commercial
and military fuel specifications for stability and quality. Although
not quantified for this proposed rule, the expense of certifying a new
alternative fuel additive would be significant and take years,
particularly for aviation applications. In addition, as discussed in
Unit II.E.2.(iii) of this notice, the potential for exposure from the
manufacturing, processing, and distribution for commercial use and the
commercial use is significantly mitigated by use of industrial
engineering controls and safeguards. Releases of 2,4,6- TTBP from
retail additive use and disposal are more likely than in industrial
settings where engineered controls are highly likely to be in place. In
contrast, EPA believes the proposed restriction on the processing and
distribution for use of 2,4,6-TTBP in the retail products is
practicable because alternative antioxidants are readily available for
those products and can be substituted in those products without undue
burden. Thus, EPA does not believe a complete prohibition on 2,4,6-TTBP
is practicable given its essential use in the nation's fuel supply.
Furthermore, its co-production with other alkylphenols is significant,
in that prohibiting the manufacture of 2,4,6-TTBP would restrict, if
not prevent, the production of other dialkylphenol products, including
alternative antioxidants.
    4. Consideration of chemical alternatives (substitutes) in deciding
whether to propose to prohibit or restrict 2,4,6-TTBP. Based on a
screening level analysis of likely alternatives, as noted previously,
EPA believes that there are readily available substitutes for the
retail fuel additives, as well as oil and lubricant additives
containing 2,4,6-TTBP. EPA believes that the overwhelming predominance
in the marketplace of oil and lubricant products that do not contain
2,4,6-TTBP is itself sufficient evidence of the availability of those
substitute chemicals or products.
    (i) Health and environmental effects of the chemical alternatives
or substitute methods. EPA conducted a screening level analysis of two
possible substitutes for 2,4,6-TTBP based on the TSCA Work Plan
Chemicals: Methods Document (Ref. 2). One alternative antioxidant
suitable as a fuel additive is 2,4-dimethyl-6-tert-butylphenol, CASRN
1879-09-0, and the other is 2,6-di-tert-butyl-p-cresol, also known as
butylated hydroxytoluene or BHT, CASRN 128-37-0. Both chemicals have a
lower bioaccumulation potential than 2,4,6-TTBP, but equivalent or
higher scores for persistence, environmental hazard and human health
hazard (Ref. 45). However, BHT is used as a food additive: It is
approved by FDA for use as a food additive (21 CFR 172.115) and in the
European Union, its use is permitted in foods by the European Food
Safety Authority under E321 (Ref. 47). BHT is also used in personal
care products and cosmetics. EPA seeks public comment on whether the
proposed action is practicable given it could result in increased use
of alternatives to 2,4,6-TTBP with comparable persistence and hazard
scores. EPA did not assess the hazard of the chemical mixtures in
commercial products containing 2,4,6-TTBP, nor did it assess the hazard
of substitute products that do not contain 2,4,6-TTBP, so no
conclusions as to the relative hazard of product substitutes can be
drawn.

    (ii) Technical feasibility, economic feasibility, and reasonable
availability of the chemical alternatives or substitute methods.
Alternatives to fuel additives and fuel injector cleaner products
containing 2,4,6-TTBP exist. The alternative chemical 2,4-dimethyl-6-
tert-butylphenol is currently used as an antioxidant fuel additive in
jet fuels, gasolines and aviation gas, among other uses. BHT is used as
a fuel additive for its antioxidant properties, and in addition to its
uses in fuels, including jet fuels, it is also used in hydraulic
fluids, turbine and gear oils, making it a suitable substitute for such
uses of 2,4,6-TTBP in oils and lubricants that may be occurring (Ref.
48). While EPA did not identify the specific alternative chemicals used
in each product, for the Economic Analysis (Ref. 3), EPA was able to
determine 35 product substitutes for commercial fuel stabilizer
products and 15 product substitutes for commercial fuel injector
cleaner products (for purposes of the analysis, product substitutes are
considered those that serve the same purpose but do not contain 2,4,6-
TTBP). The appropriate product substitute will vary depending on type
of engine for which the use is intended.

E. HCBD

    1. Description of the proposed regulatory action. EPA is not
proposing to regulate HCBD under TSCA section 6(h) because the
potential for exposure from uses of this chemical is already addressed
by actions taken under other statutes and further measures are not
practicable. As stated elsewhere in this preamble, HCBD is regulated
under various statutes implemented by the Federal Government, such as
the CAA and RCRA, and most states. According to TRI data, most of the
HCBD manufactured in the United States is subsequently destroyed via
incineration. Of the over 9 million lbs of HCBD in waste reported to
TRI, only 2,400 lbs is released to the environment due in large part to
the high waste treatment efficiencies achieved by the chemical
manufacturers. Most of these releases to the environment are via
fugitive and stack air emissions, with little or no quantities released
to other media (Ref. 19).
    The CAA requires EPA to regulate hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
such as HCBD. CAA section 112 requires that the Agency establish
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for
the control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions of HAP that is achievable, taking into consideration the cost
of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and
environmental impacts, and energy requirements. This level of control
is commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology
(MACT). The CAA also establishes a minimum control level for MACT
standards known as the MACT ``floor.'' The MACT floor is the minimum
control level allowed for NESHAP and is defined under the CAA section
112(d)(3) (Ref. 49).
    The chemical manufacturers that produce HCBD are in NAICS group 325
and therefore fall under the NESHAP regulations for miscellaneous
organic chemical manufacturing found at 40 CFR part 63 subpart FFFF.
These regulations require facilities to treat chemicals in their waste
streams at high efficiencies. For example, emissions from process vents
must be reduced by greater than or equal to 99% by weight depending on
the chemical in the waste stream. According to TRI data, chemical
manufacturers that submit reports for HCBD are treating the chemical
via incineration at greater than 99.99% treatment efficiency with some
reporting an efficiency greater than 99.9999%.
    Under the CAA, facilities in certain industries are required to
implement a Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) program to reduce fugitive
air emissions. Included in those industries are synthetic organic
chemical manufacturers that produce HCBD. The LDAR program requires
these facilities to monitor components such as pumps, valves,
connectors and compressors for leaks. When leaks are detected, the
facility is required to repair or replace the leaking component.
    HCBD is also regulated under RCRA. The statute's implementing
regulations, among other things, list HCBD as a hazardous constituent
under 40 CFR part 261 (Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste;
specifically, under sections 261.24 and 261.33), which identifies solid
wastes which are subject to regulation as hazardous wastes under 40 CFR
parts 262 through 265, 268, and parts 270 and 271. HCBD is a hazardous
constituent under 40 CFR part 258, Appendix II (Criteria for Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills), which establishes criteria for the design and
operation of municipal solid waste landfills.
    Taking into account the many existing controls on activities that
might affect exposures to HCBD, the only meaningful further reductions
that might be achieved would be by prohibiting manufacture of HCBD.
However, prohibiting the manufacture of HCBD would effectively preclude
the manufacture of trichloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride and
perchloroethylene. EPA does not believe this would be practicable as
explained further in this Unit.
    2. Description of the primary alternative regulatory action
considered. EPA considered an alternative regulatory action of
prohibiting the manufacture of HCBD, but EPA does not believe this
would be a practicable regulatory option. HCBD is a byproduct of the
manufacture of the solvents perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and
carbon tetrachloride (Ref. 29). A prohibition on the manufacture of
HCBD would effectively prohibit the manufacture of the three solvents.
Because of the extensive use of perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene,
and carbon tetrachloride (Ref. 3), EPA believes that it is not
practicable to completely prohibit the production of these chemicals by
prohibiting the manufacture of HCBD. Additionally, these chemicals are
the subject of the risk evaluation process pursuant to TSCA section
6(b). Where unreasonable risks are identified as part of those risk
evaluations, EPA is required to take action under TSCA section 6(a) to
address unreasonable risk.
    3. Evaluation of whether the regulatory actions address the TSCA
section 6(h)(4) standard. EPA is not proposing to regulate HCBD under
TSCA section 6(h) because releases resulting in exposures have been
nearly eliminated through actions under other statues such as the CAA
and RCRA. The Agency does not believe it is practicable to reduce
exposures of HCBD further than what has already been done under other
statutes. The Agency requests comment on the practicability of further
reducing exposures of HCBD.
    4. Consideration of chemical alternatives (substitutes) in deciding
whether to prohibit or restrict HCBD. EPA has not identified any uses
of HCBD other than burning as a waste fuel. Therefore, chemical
alternatives were not considered.

F. PCTP

    1. Description of the proposed regulatory action. EPA is proposing
to prohibit the manufacturing and processing of PCTP for any use in
concentrations of above 1% by weight. PCTP can be found in zinc PCTP at
concentrations above 1% depending on the yield of the reaction used to
create the zinc PCTP (Ref. 30). As a result, this proposal would result
in lower amounts of PCTP being manufactured and processed, used or
disposed, thus

reducing exposures to human health and the environment.
    Zinc PCTP, which may contain PCTP as an impurity, is used in the
manufacture of golf balls. Zinc PCTP is sold at varying concentrations,
including at a purity of 99% (Ref. 50). According to several patents,
golf balls can be made using zinc PCTP at this purity (Ref. 32).
Manufacturing or processing zinc PCTP at 99% purity would comply with
the proposed concentration limit, as would zinc PCTP at lower purities
that contains PCTP at or below 1% concentration. Because of the
availability of zinc PCTP at a 99% purity, and the fact that it can be
used to manufacture rubber, in particular the rubber in golf balls, EPA
believes that the concentration limit for PCTP is a practicable way to
reduce exposures to the chemical. The Agency further believes that
completely prohibiting the presence of PCTP in zinc PCTP would be
overly burdensome and therefore impracticable. EPA requests comment on
the proposed concentration limit, including whether the option is
practicable, and whether further exposure reductions would be
practicable. EPA specifically requests comment on the practicability of
a lower limit on the PCTP content in zinc PCTP, and whether it is
possible to completely eliminate unreacted PCTP in the manufacture of
zinc PCTP.
    EPA has no 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.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to require, as of 60 days after the
date that the final rule is published, all persons who manufacture,
process, or distribute in commerce PCTP and articles and products
containing PCTP to maintain ordinary business records, such as invoices
and bills-of-lading, that demonstrate compliance with the prohibitions
and restrictions. These records would have to be maintained for a
period of three years from the date the record is generated.
    2. Description of the primary alternative regulatory action
considered. EPA considered an alternative regulatory action of
prohibiting manufacturers and processors from releasing the chemical to
the environment. To ensure that no releases occur, manufacturers and
processors would have to institute such measures as work practices,
emergency procedures, engineering controls, or other measures to
eliminate environmental releases. PCTP in waste would have to be
collected and destroyed. For example, PCTP in ambient air within the
facility would have to be collected and either destroyed onsite or sent
offsite for treatment. The prohibition would apply to all releases,
including accidental releases, to all environmental media. The Agency
requests comment on this alternative approach, including the measures
or performance standards that could be implemented to further reduce
exposure, and the practicability of the option.
    3. Evaluation of whether the regulatory actions address the TSCA
section 6(h)(4) standard. The proposed reduction in the concentration
of PCTP in mixtures would result in lower amounts of the chemical that
may be manufactured and processed and subsequently available for
release, resulting in a reduction in exposures.
    Historically, PCTP was used in rubber manufacturing as a peptizer,
a chemical that makes rubber more amenable to processing. While it is
likely that PCTP is no longer intentionally used as a peptizer, it can
be found as an impurity in the zinc salt of PCTP (zinc PCTP) (CASRN
117-97-5). Zinc PCTP can be manufactured by reacting PCTP with zinc
oxide. Depending on the yield of the reaction, some unreacted PCTP can
remain in the mixture as an impurity (Ref. 30). As shown by a number of
patents, zinc PCTP can be used as a peptizer in rubber manufacturing
including as an ingredient in the rubber core of golf balls (Refs. 31
and 32) to enhance certain performance characteristics of the ball such
as spin, rebound, and distance (Ref. 31). Zinc PCTP does not appear to
be manufactured domestically (Ref. 17) but rather it is imported into
the United States (Ref. 3).
    4. Consideration of chemical alternatives (substitutes) in deciding
whether to prohibit or restrict PCTP. Based on a screening level
analysis of likely alternatives based on the TSCA Work Plan Chemicals:
Methods Document (Ref. 2), EPA believes that there are viable
substitutes for PCTP in rubber manufacturing. While EPA is not
proposing to prohibit the use of PCTP at concentrations at or below 1%,
it is possible that some manufacturers and processors may choose to use
alternatives instead of using PCTP at the proposed concentration limit.
At this time, EPA does not know whether golf balls are currently being
made with halogenated organosulfur compound substitutes. Based on
information from patents, EPA believes that use of these substitutes
may be occurring in golf ball manufacturing (Refs. 31, 32, 51).
Further, only one golf ball manufacturer has confirmed that it
incorporates PCTP into its golf balls. EPA believes this limited use of
PCTP is sufficient evidence of the availability of substitutes.
    (i) Health and environmental effects of the chemical alternatives
or substitute methods. EPA conducted a screening level analysis of
several possible substitutes for PCTP based on the TSCA Work Plan
Chemicals: Methods Document (Ref. 2). The potential alternatives were
evaluated and scored on three characteristics: Hazard, exposure and the
potential for persistence and/or bioaccumulation. Two chemicals,
diphenyldisulfide and 2,2'-dibenzamidodiphenyl disulfide, scored lower
for at least one characteristic (Ref. 3). With respect to another
chemical, pentafluorothiophenol, there was not enough information
available to score each characteristic (Ref. 45).
    (ii) Technical feasibility, economic feasibility, and reasonable
availability of the chemical alternatives or substitute methods. 2,2'-
dibenzamidodiphenyl disulfide (DBD), which is considered to be less
toxic and reacts similarly, can be used in place of PCTP (Ref. 33). In
golf ball cores, other halogenated organosulfur compounds can be used
as a substitute for PCTP (Ref. 51). EPA requests comment on the extent
to which these substitutes are used in the manufacture of golf balls.

IV. Reasonably Ascertainable Economic Consequences of the Proposed Rule

A. Overview of Cost Methodology

    EPA has evaluated the potential costs of the proposed and primary
alternative regulatory actions for the PBT chemicals. Costs of the
proposed rule were estimated based on the assumption that under
regulatory limitations on the PBT chemicals, processors that use the
regulated chemical in their products would switch to available
alternative chemicals to manufacture the product, or to products that
do not contain the chemical. Approaches for the analysis of each
regulated chemical varied according to whether the focus was on
chemical substitutes or product substitutes, depending on the uses for
each chemical. For DecaBDE and PCTP, the costs were assessed based on
chemical substitutes only. For PIP (3:1) and 2,4,6-TTBP, costs were
assessed based on product substitutes where product information was
more substantial than information on chemical substitutes alone.
    Substitution costs were estimated on the industry level using the
price

differential between the cost of the chemical (or chemical product) and
identified substitutes. Costs for rule familiarization and
recordkeeping were estimated based on burdens estimated for other
similar rulemakings. Costs were annualized over a 25-year period. Other
potential costs include, but are not limited to, those associated with
testing, reformulation, release prevention, imported articles, and some
portion of potential revenue loss. However, these costs are discussed
only qualitatively, due to lack of data availability to estimate
quantified costs. More details of this analysis are presented in the
Economic Analysis (Ref. 3), which is in the public docket for this
action.

B. Estimated Costs of Proposed and Primary Alternative Regulatory
Actions

    Total quantified annualized industry costs for the proposed rule is
$43.1 million (at both 3% and 7% discount rates). Total quantified
annualized industry costs for the primary alternative regulatory action
are $414 million (at both 3% and 7% discount rates). For DecaBDE, total
quantified annualized industry costs for the proposed rule under both
the proposed and the primary alternative regulatory actions are zero.
For PIP (3:1), total quantified annualized industry costs for the
proposed rule are $34.7 million (at both 3% and 7% discount rates), and
$38.1 million (3% discount rate) or $37.6 million (7% discount rate)
for the primary alternative regulatory action. For 2,4,6-TTBP, total
quantified annualized industry costs for the proposed rule under both
the proposed and the primary alternative regulatory actions are $8.4
million (at both 3% and 7% discount rates). For HCBD, the proposed
action is not to regulate; therefore, there is no industry cost
associated. For HCBD, the annualized costs to industry associated with
the primary alternative regulatory action are estimated to total $368
million (at both 3% and 7% discount rates). For PCTP, total quantified
annualized industry costs for the proposed rule are $0.03 million (at
both 3% and 7% discount rates), and negligible for the primary
alternative regulatory action. Total annualized Agency costs associated
with implementation of the proposed rule were based on EPA's best
judgment and experience with other similar rules. For the proposed
regulatory action, EPA estimates it will require 3 FTE at $465,000 per
year. For the primary alternative regulatory option, EPA estimates 3.5
FTE at $543,000 (Ref. 3).
    Total quantified annualized social costs for the proposed rule are
$43.5 million (at both 3% and 7% discount rates). Total quantified
social costs for the proposed rule under the primary alternative
regulatory action are $415 million (at both 3% and 7% discount rates).
    As described in Unit IV.A., potential costs such as testing,
reformulation, release prevention, and imported articles, could not be
quantified due to lack of data availability to estimate quantified
costs. These costs are discussed qualitatively in the Economic Analysis
(Ref. 3), which is in the public docket for this action. EPA requests
comment on all aspects of the costs that may be incurred as a result of
this proposed action. EPA has the following specific requests for
comment on costs:
    EPA requests comment on potential costs of testing, such laboratory
testing, that manufacturers or importers may choose to undertake on
articles or components of articles to determine whether they contain
the regulated chemical substance, and at what concentration.
    EPA requests comment on potential costs of reformulation with
substitute chemicals in the uses that are proposed to be restricted or
prohibited. Such costs may be incurred by affected entities such as
processors and may be related to activities such as research and
development, laboratory testing, product re-labeling, and other
activities necessary to use substitute chemicals in formulated
products. EPA is also interested in soliciting comment on the time it
may take for reformulation that would meet the current performance
standards.
    There are specific requirements to prevent releases to the
environment for processors and distributors of PIP (3:1) under the
proposed option, and for manufacturers, processors and distributors of
PCTP under the primary alternative option. EPA requests comment on
potential costs of engineering controls, process changes, or other
measures that firms may undertake to prevent releases to the
environment for the subject PBT chemicals.
    EPA requests comment on potential costs related to ensuring
compliance for imported articles affected by the proposed rule. While
the rule does not prescribe specific steps that an importer must take
to identify specific substances in imported articles, EPA is interested
in understanding potential costs such as testing, communication with
suppliers, or other measures that may be incurred at the discretion of
any individual importer to ensure compliance.
    EPA requests comment on potential costs and firm-level impacts,
including possibility of firm closure, related to loss of revenue due
to reduced demand for the subject PBT chemicals in the uses that are
proposed to be restricted or prohibited. EPA is also interested in
information related to the extent to which affected manufacturers
(including importers) are willing and able to supply substitute
chemicals and the net financial effects for the affected firms.
    Finally, EPA requests comment on the likelihood, nature, and extent
of potential changes in the domestic and foreign composition of the
supply chain for the five PBT chemicals and continued availability for
non-restricted uses due to reduced demand in the uses that are proposed
to be restricted or prohibited by the proposed rule.

C. Benefits

    As discussed in Unit II.C., while EPA reviewed hazard and exposure
information for the PBT chemicals, this information did not provide a
basis for EPA to develop scientifically robust and representative risk
estimates to evaluate whether or not any of the chemicals present a
risk of injury to health or the environment. Benefits were not
quantified due to the lack of risk estimates. A qualitative discussion
of the potential benefits associated with the proposed and alternative
actions for each chemical is provided.
    DecaBDE is persistent and bioaccumulative and has been associated
with developmental neurological effects, developmental immunological
effects, general developmental toxicity, and thyroid and liver effects
in mammals, as well as with toxicity in aquatic organisms. Under EPA's
proposed regulatory action, persons would be prohibited from
manufacturing, processing and distributing DecaBDE in commerce and as
an intentional component of any articles, with limited compliance
delays and/or exclusions allowed for uses by certain industries (e.g.,
aerospace). Exposures to humans and the environment would thus decrease
as a result of the proposed regulatory action, and thus there would be
benefits to health and the environment.
    The primary alternative option would further reduce exposure to
DecaBDE by including the prohibition of the manufacture, processing, or
distribution in commerce of articles containing the chemical above 0.1
percent of mass weight. In effect, this would include a prohibition of
recycled materials that contain above 0.1% DecaBDE. While data on the
volume of recycled materials that contain DecaBDE above this threshold
are not available, in cases

where articles exceed this threshold, there would be an associated
reduction of the amount of exposure.
    HCBD is persistent, bioaccumulative, and a possible human
carcinogen. It is not intentionally manufactured in the United States.
Since EPA is not proposing any regulatory action for HCBD, no benefits
to health or the environment are expected as a result of the rule. The
primary alternative regulatory action considered is a prohibition on
the manufacture of HCBD. This would require reducing or eliminating
production of the chemicals for which HCBD is produced as a byproduct.
While this primary alternative option would further reduce release to
the environment, it would require substantial change to the markets for
chlorinated solvents that may not be warranted due to the low levels of
release of HCBD that have already been realized.
    PCTP is persistent, bioaccumulative, and an aquatic toxicant. There
are limited data on the potential effects of PCTP in mammals and no
data were identified on the potential effects of PCTP in humans. Under
the proposed regulatory action, manufacture and processing of PCTP
would be limited to concentrations of 1% or lower. With lower
concentrations in mixtures, the proposed regulatory action would
decrease dermal and inhalation PCTP exposures in workers involved in
the manufacture of golf balls, if the workers are unprotected, and
decrease releases of PCTP to the environment. With decreased releases
to the environment there would also eventually be a decrease of
exposures in the general population generally and as a result of
consumption of contaminated food. Thus, by reducing PCTP, the proposed
regulatory action would have benefits for the environment and potential
benefits to health for workers, if they are unprotected.
    Under the primary alternative regulatory action, EPA would prohibit
manufacturers and processors from releasing the chemical to the
environment. This would require manufacturers to implement industrial
controls that would prevent releases to air, water, or land. If the
costs to install and operate such controls are higher than the cost to
switch to substitute chemicals for ZnPCTP, then firms would likely
switch to substitute chemicals, as they would under the proposed
action, and with a similar reduction in exposure to PCTP.
    PIP (3:1) is a neurotoxicant and aquatic toxicant with high
persistence and high potential for bioaccumulation. It would be
prohibited for processing and distribution in all uses under the
proposed regulatory action, with the exception of certain uses in
aviation and automobile products. Concentrations of PIP (3:1) would be
limited in these aviation products, and releases to water as a result
of their use would be prohibited. Therefore, occupational exposures, if
workers are unprotected, and exposures to the environment would
decrease as a result of the proposed regulatory action, and thus there
would be benefits to health and the environment.
    Under the primary alternative regulatory action, remaining uses of
PIP (3:1) in aviation products would also be prohibited following a 10-
year exemption. Under this scenario, exposures to PIP (3:1) would be
expected to decrease as outlined previously, with additional decreases
in exposures for workers in the aviation sector, if they are
unprotected.
    2,4,6-TTBP is persistent and bioaccumulative, and has been
associated with liver toxicity and reproductive and developmental
effects in mammals. Under the proposed regulatory action, it would be
prohibited for distribution in containers less than 55 gallons and be
prohibited in processing and distribution as an additive to oil/
lubricants. Therefore, the rule is expected to reduce consumer
exposures to 2,4,6-TTBP and occupational exposure in certain
industries, if workers are unprotected, as well as releases to the
environment from consumer use, and thus, there would be benefits to
health and the environment.
    Under the primary alternative regulatory action, the container
requirement component would be replaced by a limit of 0.01% on the
allowable concentration of 2,4,6-TTBP in consumer/retail fuel additive
formulations. Since both actions would require reformulation of fuel
additives containing 2,4,6-TTBP, decreases in exposures to 2,4,6-TTBP
are expected to be similar in each case.

V. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and
other 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. TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments: 2014 Update.
October 2014. https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/tsca-work-plan-chemical-assessments-2014-update. Accessed
March 1, 2019.
2. 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. Accessed March 1, 2019.
3. EPA. Economic Analysis for Proposed Regulation of Persistent,
Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals under TSCA section 6(h). June
2019.
4. EPA. Exposure and Use Assessment of Five Persistent,
Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals June 2019.
5. EPA. Environmental and Human Health Hazards of Five Persistent,
Bioaccumulative and Toxic Chemicals. June 2019.
6. EPA. Preliminary Information on Manufacturing, Processing,
Distribution, Use, and Disposal: Decabromodiphenyl Ether. August
2017. (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0724-0002).
7. EPA. Preliminary Information on Manufacturing, Processing,
Distribution, Use, and Disposal: Phenol, isopropylated, phosphate
(3:1). August 2017. (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0730-0003).
8. EPA. Preliminary Information on Manufacturing, Processing,
Distribution, Use, and Disposal: 2,4,6-Tris(tert-butyl)phenol.
August 2017. (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0734-0002).
9. EPA. Preliminary Information on Manufacturing, Processing,
Distribution, Use, and Disposal: Hexachlorobutadiene. August 2017.
(EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0738-0004).
10. EPA. Preliminary Information on Manufacturing, Processing,
Distribution, Use, and Disposal: Pentachlorothiophenol. August 2017.
(EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0739-0003).
11. EPA. TSCA Work Plan Chemicals. June 2012. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-02/documents/work_plan_chemicals_web_final.pdf, accessed March 2019.
12. EPA. Letter acknowledging receipt of request for risk
evaluations under TSCA section 6(h). Wendy Cleland-Hamnett,
Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics to International
Flavors and Fragrances, Inc. September 28, Washington, DC.
13. EPA. Stakeholder Comment from Auto Alliance. February 2018.
14. EPA. Stakeholder Comment from iGPS. January 2018.
15. EPA. Certain Polybrominated Diphenylethers; Significant New Use
Rule and Test Rule. Proposed Rule. Federal Register (77 FR 19862,
April 2, 2012) (FRL-8889-3).
16. EPA. Public Database 2012 Chemical Data Reporting. Washington,
DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics.
17. EPA. Public Database 2016 Chemical Data Reporting. Washington,
DC: US

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.
18. EPA. (2016). Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Basic Plus Data
Files.
19. EPA. (2017). Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Basic Plus Data
Files.
20. EPA. Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Community Right-to-know.
Final Rule. Federal Register (53 FR 4500, February 16, 1988) (FRL-
3298-2).
21. EPA. Stakeholder Meeting with ICL. August 30, 2018. EPA Docket
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080.
22. Boeing Submission Re: Information supporting a Critical Use
Exemption Request for phenol, isopropylated, phosphate (3:1) in
Aerospace Uses (Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0730). February
12, 2019.
23. EPA. Stakeholder Meeting with Akin Gump. September 27, 2018. EPA
Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080.
24. EPA. Stakeholder Meeting with Boeing. May 2, 2018. EPA Docket
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080.
25. EPA. Stakeholder Meeting with Airbus. February 5, 2019. EPA
Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080.
26. EPA. Stakeholder Meeting with Lockheed Martin. March 25, 2019.
EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080.
27. SI Group. Comments for the economic impact of 2,4,6-tri-tert-
butylphenol (2,4,6-TTBP); letter from Kevin M. Kransler to Doug
Parsons, EPA. December 21, 2018.
28. EPA. Afton Chemical conference call with U.S. EPA, regarding
2,4,6-TTBP chemical uses. July 28, 2017.
29. United Nations Environment Program Stockholm Convention on
Persistent Organic Pollutants (2012). Risk profile on
hexachlorobutadiene. Report of the Persistent Organic Pollutants
Review Committee on the work of its eighth meeting.
30. Lucas, CR; Peach, ME. (1970). Reactions of
Pentachlorothiophenol. Canadian Journal of Chemistry. 48:1869.
31. Watanabe, Hideo; Kasashima, Atuski, Multi-piece solid golf ball.
US Patent Number US7367901B2, filed January 11, 2007, and published
May 6, 2008.
32. Kennedy III, Thomas J., Binette, Mark L., Golf ball, US Patent
Number<PHONE_NUMBER>1, filed July 20, 2004, and published January 26,
2006.
33. National Library of Medicine. ToxNet, Hazardous Substance Data
Bank. Pentachlorothiophenol: CASRN: 133-49-3. https://
toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search2/f?./temp/~ebPHHj:1 Accessed
March 4, 2019.
34. Struktol Company of America, LLC. Stow, OH. Rubber Handbook.
2004. http://www.struktol.com/pdfs/RubberHB.pdf. Accessed March 4,
2019.
35. EPA. Preliminary Assessment Information Reporting; Addition of
Certain Chemicals. Final Rule. Federal Register (66 FR 38955, July
26, 2001) (FRL-6783-6).
36. EPA. Fifty-First Report of the TSCA Interagency Testing
Committee to the Administrator; Receipt of Report and Request for
Comments. Federal Register (68 FR 8975, February 26, 2003) (FRL-
7285-7).
37. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. Recommended Practices for Safety and Health
Programs. https://www.osha.gov/shpguidelines/hazard-prevention.html.
Accessed April 16, 2019.
38. Norwegian Environmental Agency. (2015) Final Report. Literature
Study--DecaBDE in Waste Streams.
39. Aerospace Industries Association (AIA). Consultation on Products
containing PBDEs. Letter to Environment Canada. December 13, 2013.
40. EPA. Exploratory Analysis for DecaBDE in Children's Toys. April
2019.
41. Tu, Chuanhoing & Prest, Harry F., Agilent Technologies.
Determination of Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers in Polymeric
Materials Using the 6890 GC/5973N inert MSD with Electron Impact
Ionization. April 5, 2005.
42. EPA. (2014). An Alternatives Assessment for the Flame Retardant
Decabromodiphenyl Ether (DecaBDE).
43. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and Motor and Equipment
Manufacturers Association. Submission RE: Critical Use Exemption
Request for Phenol, Isopropylated, Phosphate 3:1 in Automotive Uses.
April 5, 2019.
44. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and Motor and Equipment
Manufacturers Association. Meeting on Phenol, Isopropylated,
Phosphate (3:1) (PIP) in Automotive Uses. OIRA E.O. 12866 Meeting.
June 13, 2019.
45. EPA. Persistence, Bioaccumulation, Environmental Hazard and
Human Health Hazard Ratings for Alternatives to PBT Chemicals
Proposed for Regulation. April 2019.
46. EPA. Stakeholder Meeting with Nye Lubricants. November 14, 2018.
EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080.
47. UK Food Standards Agency. (2019). EU Approved Additives and E
Numbers (E321--Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT). https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/eu-approved-additives-and-e-numbers#h_4. Accessed March 11, 2017.
48. Innospec. (2007). Fuel Additives Product Summary. http://login.innospecinc.com/assets/_files/documents/dec_07/cm__1197641587_FS_Product_Summary_US.pdf. Accessed March 18, 2019.
49. EPA. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing; Final Rule. Federal
Register (63 FR 63852, Nov. 10, 2003) (FRL-7551-3)
50. American Elements. Los Angeles, CA. Zinc Chlorothiophenolate.
https://www.americanelements.com/zinc-chlorothiophenolate-117-97-5.
Accessed March 3, 2019.
51. Voorheis PR, Rajagopalan M. Golf ball core compositions
comprising unsaturated long chain organic acids and their salts. US
Patent Number: US6762247B2, filed September 9, 2002, published July
13, 2004.
52 Keweemaw Bay Indian Community. Re: Notification of Consultation
and Coordination on a Rulemaking Under the Toxic Substances Control
Act: Regulation of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals
Under TSCA Section 6(h). September 25, 2018.
53. Harper, Barbara and Ranco, Darren, in collaboration with the
Maine Tribes. Wabanaki Traditional Cultural Lifeways Exposure
Scenario. July 9, 2009.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review for review
under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Any changes made
in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket.
The Economic Analysis (Ref. 3) is available in the docket and is
summarized in Unit IV.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is expected to be subject to the requirements for
regulatory actions specified in Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339,
February 3, 2017). Details on the estimated costs of this proposed rule
can be found in EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action (Ref. 3).

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA
prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2599.01. You can find a copy
of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized
here.
    Respondents/affected entities: The entities expected to respond are
companies that manufacture/import, process, or distribute any of the
five PBT chemicals included in this proposed rule for the uses covered
by this proposed rulemaking. A list of NAICS codes associated with
these companies is provided in Unit I.A.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory.
    Estimated number of respondents: A total of 81 companies are
expected to be impacted by the proposed option. However, these may be
underestimates due to companies that EPA is unaware would be affected.
    Frequency of response: Costs are calculated on an annual basis.
    Total estimated burden: Total estimated annual paperwork burden for
the proposed option is 50.2 hours.
    Total estimated cost: The fully loaded wage rate used to estimate
these costs is $78.63. As such, there are expected to be a total of
approximately $3,940 in annual paperwork costs associated with the
proposed rule over the three years of the ICR period.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than August 28,
2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final
rule.

D. 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, 5
U.S.C. 601, et seq. The small entities subject to the requirements of
this action are small businesses that manufacture/import, process, or
distribute the chemicals subject to this proposed rule. The Agency has
determined that 24 of the 81 entities potentially subject to the
proposed rule are small entities, including fourteen entities for
DecaBDE, zero entities for HCBD, one entity for PCTP, five entities for
PIP (3:1) and four entities for 2,4,6-TTBP. None (0%) of the small
entities for any of the chemicals assessed are expected to incur
impacts of 1% or greater. Details of this analysis are presented in the
Economic Analysis (Ref. 3), which is in the public docket for this
action.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The requirements of
this action would primarily affect manufacturers, processors, and
distributors of four PBT chemicals. The total quantified annualized
social costs for the proposed rule under the proposed option are
approximately $43.5 million (at both 3% and 7% discount rate), which
does not exceed the inflation-adjusted unfunded mandate threshold of
$160 million.

F. 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.

G. 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) because it does
not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.
    Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribes, the EPA consulted with tribal officials during the
development of this action. EPA consulted with representatives of
Tribes via teleconference on August 31, 2018, and September 6, 2018,
concerning the prospective regulation of these five PBT chemicals under
TSCA section 6(h). Tribal members were encouraged to provide additional
comments after the teleconferences. EPA received two comments from the
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community and Maine Tribes (Refs. 52 and 53). EPA
also met with the National Tribal Toxics Council (NTTC) in Washington,
DC. During the NTTC meeting, EPA provided background information on the
available regulatory options under 6(a) and a summary of the
information gathered on the five PBT chemicals. Officials from NTTC
expressed support for EPA regulations to reduce exposures to the
general population and susceptible subpopulations.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it is not an economically significant
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. As discussed,
while EPA believes that the health and environmental risks presented by
the PBT chemicals subject to this action may have a disproportionate
effect on children and that this action addresses those risks, EPA did
not perform a risk assessment or risk evaluation of these PBT
chemicals. However, the proposed requirements would reduce exposure to
these PBT chemicals for the general population and for susceptible
subpopulations such as workers and children. EPA's evaluation of the
exposure potential of these PBT chemicals (Ref. 4) and summary of the
health and environmental hazards that may be presented by these
chemical substances (Ref. 5) are in the public docket for this action.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under 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. While this action proposes to regulate a fuel additive, because
the restrictions are limited to fuel additives purchased and used by
consumers, it will not significantly affect the nation's fuel supply.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards, and is
therefore not subject to considerations under NTTAA section 12(d), 15
U.S.C. 272.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The

documentation for this decision is contained in the Economic Analysis
(Ref. 3), which is in the public docket for this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 751

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Export notification, Hazardous
substances, Import certification, Reporting and recordkeeping.

    Dated: June 21, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as
follows:

PART 751--REGULATION OF CERTAIN CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES AND MIXTURES
UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT

0
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).

0
2. Add reserved subpart D and add Subpart E, consisting of Sec. Sec.
751.401 through 751.411, to read as follows:

Subpart D--[Reserved]

Subpart E--Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals

Sec.
751.401 General.
751.403 Definitions.
751.405 DecaBDE.
751.407 PIP (3:1).
751.409 2,4,6-TTBP.
751.411 PCTP.

Sec.  751.401  General.

    This subpart establishes prohibitions and restrictions on the
following persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals in
accordance with TSCA section 6(h), 15 U.S.C. 2605(h): Decabromodiphenyl
ether; phenol, isopropylated phosphate (3:1), also known as tris(4-
isopropylphenyl) phosphate; 2,4,6-tris(tert-butyl)phenol; and
pentachlorothiophenol.

Sec.  751.403  Definitions.

    The definitions in subpart A of this part apply to this subpart
unless otherwise specified in this section.
    2,4,6-TTBP means the chemical substance 2,4,6-tris(tert-
butyl)phenol (CASRN 732-26-3) at any concentration above 0.01 percent
by weight.
    Chemical substance means any organic or inorganic substance of a
particular molecular identity.
    (1) Such term includes any combination of such substances occurring
in whole or in part as a result of a chemical reaction or occurring in
nature, and any element or uncombined radical.
    (2) Such term does not include:
    (i) Any mixture,
    (ii) Any pesticide (as defined in the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) when manufactured, processed, or
distributed in commerce for use as a pesticide,
    (iii) Tobacco or any tobacco product,
    (iv) Any source material, special nuclear material, or byproduct
material (as such terms are defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
and regulations issued under such Act),
    (v) Any article the sale of which is subject to the tax imposed by
section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (determined without
regard to any exemptions from such tax provided by section 4182 or 4221
or any other provision of such Code) and any component of such an
article (limited to shot shells, cartridges, and components of shot
shells and cartridges), and
    (vi) Any food, food additive, drug, cosmetic, or device (as such
terms are defined in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act) when manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce
for use as a food, food additive, drug, cosmetic, or device. The term
``food'' as used in this definition's paragraph (2)(vi) includes
poultry and poultry products (as defined in sections 4(e) and 4(f) of
the Poultry Products Inspection Act), meat and meat food products (as
defined in section 1(j) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act), and eggs
and egg products (as defined in section 4 of the Egg Products
Inspection Act).
    DecaBDE means the chemical substance decabromodiphenyl ether (CASRN
1163-19-5).
    Oil and lubricant additive means any additive to a product of any
viscosity intended to reduce friction between moving parts, whether
mineral oil or synthetic base, including engine crankcase and gear oils
and bearing greases.
    PCTP means the chemical substance pentachlorothiophenol (CASRN 133-
49-3)
    PIP (3:1) means the chemical substance phenol, isopropylated
phosphate (3:1), also known as tris(4-isopropylphenyl) phosphate (CASRN
68937-41-7).

Sec.  751.405  DecaBDE.

    (a) Prohibitions. After [date 60 calendar days after the date of
publication of the final rule], all persons are prohibited from
manufacturing, processing and distributing in commerce DecaBDE, or
DecaBDE-containing products or articles, except for the following:
    (1) Processing and distribution in commerce for recycling of
plastic from products or articles containing DecaBDE, where no new
DecaBDE is added during the recycling process.
    (2) Processing and distribution in commerce of DecaBDE in finished
products or articles made of plastic recycled from products or articles
containing DecaBDE, where no new DecaBDE was added during the
production of the products or articles made of recycled plastic.
    (3) Manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of
DecaBDE for use in replacement parts for automobiles and other motor
vehicles and aircraft and aerospace vehicles, and the replacement
parts, to which DecaBDE has been added, for such vehicles.
    (4) After [date 3 years after the date of publication of the final
rule], manufacture, processing and distribution in commerce of DecaBDE
for use in parts installed in and sold as part of new aerospace
vehicles, and the parts to which DecaBDE has been added for such
vehicles.
    (5) After [date 18 months after the date of publication of the
final rule], manufacture, processing and distribution in commerce of
DecaBDE for use in curtains in the hospitality industry, and the
curtains to which DecaBDE has been added.
    (b) Recordkeeping. (1) After [date 60 calendar days after the date
of publication of the final rule], persons who manufacture, process, or
distribute in commerce DecaBDE, or DecaBDE-containing products or
articles, must maintain ordinary business records, such as invoices and
bills-of-lading, that demonstrate compliance with the prohibitions,
restrictions, and other provisions of this section. These records must
be maintained for a period of three years from the date the record is
generated.
    (2) The recordkeeping requirements in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section do not apply to the activities described in paragraph (a)(1)
and (2) of this section.

Sec.  751.407  PIP (3:1).

    (a) Prohibitions. (1) After [date 60 calendar days after the date
of publication of the final rule], all persons are prohibited from
processing and distributing in commerce PIP (3:1) or PIP (3:1)-
containing products or articles, except for the following:
    (i) Processing and distribution in commerce of PIP (3:1) and PIP
(3:1)-containing products for use in aviation hydraulic fluid.

    (ii) Processing and distribution in commerce of PIP (3:1) and PIP
(3:1)-containing products for use in lubricants and greases.
    (iii) Processing and distribution in commerce of PIP (3:1) and PIP
(3:1)-containing products for use in new and replacement parts for
automobiles and other motor vehicles, and distribution in commerce of
the new and replacement parts to which PIP (3:1) has been added for
such vehicles.
    (2) After [date 60 calendar days after the date of publication of
the final rule], all persons are prohibited from releasing PIP (3:1) to
water during manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and
commercial use of PIP (3:1).
    (b) Downstream notification. Each person who manufactures,
processes, or distributes in commerce PIP (3:1) or PIP (3:1)-containing
products or articles for any use after [date 60 calendar days after the
final rule] must, prior to or concurrent with the shipment, notify
companies to whom PIP (3:1) is shipped, in writing, of the restrictions
described in this subpart. Notification must occur by inserting the
following text in the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) provided with the PIP
(3:1) or with any PIP (3:1)-containing product:
    (1) SDS Section 1.(c): ``The Environmental Protection Agency
prohibits processing and distribution of this chemical/product for any
use other than in aviation hydraulic fluid in aircraft systems
lubricants and greases, and new or replacement parts for automobiles
and other motor vehicles. In addition, all persons are prohibited from
releasing PIP (3:1) to water during manufacturing, processing,
distribution in commerce, and commercial use of PIP (3:1).''
    (2) SDS Section 15: ``The Environmental Protection Agency prohibits
processing and distribution of this chemical/product for any use other
than in aviation hydraulic fluid in aircraft, lubricants and greases,
and new or replacement parts for automobiles and other motor vehicles.
In addition, all persons are prohibited from releasing PIP (3:1) to
water during manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and
commercial use of PIP (3:1).''
    (c) Recordkeeping. Each person who manufactures, processes, or
distributes in commerce PIP (3:1) or PIP (3:1)-containing products or
articles after [date 60 calendar days after the date of publication of
the final rule] must maintain ordinary business records, such as
invoices and bills-of-lading, that demonstrate compliance with the
prohibitions, restrictions, and other provisions of this section. These
records must be maintained for a period of three years from the date
the record is generated.

Sec.  751.409  2,4,6-TTBP.

    (a) Prohibitions. (1) After [date 60 calendar days after the date
of publication of the final rule], all persons are prohibited from
distributing in commerce 2,4,6-TTBP in containers with a volume less
than 55 gallons.
    (2) After [date 60 calendar days after the date of publication of
the final rule], all persons are prohibited from processing and
distributing in commerce 2,4,6-TTBP for use as an oil and lubricant
additive.
    (b) Recordkeeping. After [date 60 calendar days after the date of
publication of the final rule], distributors of 2,4,6 TTBP must
maintain ordinary business records, such as invoices and bills-of-
lading, that demonstrate compliance with the prohibitions,
restrictions, and other provisions of this section. These records must
be maintained for a period of three years from the date the record is
generated.

Sec.  751.411  PCTP.

    (a) Prohibition. After [date 60 calendar days after the date of
publication of the final rule], all persons are prohibited from
manufacturing, processing and distributing in commerce PCTP or PCTP-
containing products or articles unless in concentrations at or below 1%
by weight.
    (b) Recordkeeping. After [date 60 calendar days after the date of
publication of the final rule], manufacturers, processors and
distributors of PCTP or PCTP-containing products or articles must
maintain ordinary business records, such as invoices and bills-of-
lading, that demonstrate compliance with the prohibitions,
restrictions, and other provisions of this section. These records must
be maintained for a period of three years from the date the record is
generated.

[FR Doc. 2019-14022 Filed 7-26-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P