Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) is a Washington, D.C. law firm providing chemical and chemical product stakeholders unparalleled experience, judgment, and excellence in matters relating to TSCA, and other global chemical management programs.
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

On April 24, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it would be presenting a webinar to assist processors with reporting under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Rule, published in the Federal Register on August 11, 2017.  This webinar, scheduled for May 23, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (EDT) will “include an overview of reporting requirements for processors, a demonstration of the electronic reporting application (Central Data Exchange, or CDX), and will provide time for questions and answers.”  Registration for the webinar is not required.  The webinar will be available through the following link on May 23: http://epawebconferencing.acms.com/tsca_inventory/.  A link to access the TSCA Inventory is available here.  The upcoming deadline for voluntary submission of a Notice of Activity Form A by processors is October 5, 2018.

More information on TSCA Inventory issues is available on our blog under key phrase TSCA Inventory and in our memorandum “EPA Issues Final TSCA Framework Rules.”


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

On April 24, 2018, the U.S. - Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) Stakeholder Group announced that a 2018 RCC Stakeholder Event will be held on June 4-5, 2018, in Washington, D.C. to “bring together senior regulatory officials, industry, and other members of the public on both sides of the border to provide progress reports on existing RCC work plans and to discuss new opportunities for regulatory cooperation.”  The announcement states that details regarding the 2018 RCC Stakeholder Event, including the registration process, will be forthcoming and to please contact .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) with any questions. 

More information on the existing work plans and the RCC in general is available on the Government of Canada’s Regulatory Cooperation webpage and on our blog under key word RCC.


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

On April 24, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is scheduled to publish a notice in the Federal Register that it will be adding a supplemental analysis, “Supplemental Analysis of Alternative Small Business Size Standard Definitions and their Effect on TSCA User Fee Collection,” to the rulemaking docket for the User Fees for the Administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) proposed rule published on February 26, 2018.  EPA will also be extending the comment period for the proposed rule for an additional 30 days “to give interested parties the opportunity to consider this additional analysis and prepare meaningful comments.”  Comments will be due within 30 days of publication (by May 24, 2018).  The original comment deadline was April 27, 2018.

Regarding the supplemental analysis, EPA states that it “provides additional estimates for the impact of setting the small business definition based on an employee-based threshold.”  More information on the proposed rule is available in our February 9, 2018, memorandum “Administrator Pruitt Signs TSCA User Fee Proposal.”


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

On April 19, 2018, the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) received the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule entitled “Strengthening Transparency and Validity in Regulatory Science.”  This new proposed rule, item 2080-AA14, has not been published in the regulatory agenda; the only information available concerning the content of this rule is its title.

 On April 11, 2018, OIRA received an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking from EPA entitled “Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Costs and Benefits in the Rulemaking Process.”  The OIRA 2017 Fall Regulatory Agenda for this rulemaking, item RIN 2010-AA12, states that EPA is considering “developing implementing regulations that would increase consistency across EPA divisions and offices, increase reliability to affected stakeholders, and increase transparency during the development of regulatory actions,” and that by developing implementing regulations through a notice-and-comment rulemaking process “it will provide the public with a better understanding on how EPA is evaluating costs when developing a regulatory action and allow the public to provide better feedback to EPA on potential future proposed rules.”

 More information on regulatory agenda items is available on our blog under key phrase regulatory agenda.


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) April 2018 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory is now available.  For the first time, the Inventory includes a field designating substances that are “active” in U.S. commerce based on the following:

  • Reporting from the 2012 and 2016 Chemical Data Reporting cycles;
  • Notices of Commencement received by EPA since June 21, 2006; and
  • Notice of Activity Form A’s received by EPA through the February 7, 2018, deadline, per the TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Rule.

EPA states that it “carefully processed and conducted a quality check of the data to ensure duplicate entries and confidential business information were removed” from the large number of notices received under the Active-Inactive Rule.  EPA also posted a list of substances reported in a Notice of Activity Form A from February 8 through March 30, 2018.  According to EPA, this list should assist processors in determining which of their substances on the Inventory have not yet been designated as “active” to date.  Based on our review, the Inventory lists approximately 38,303 total active substances, or about 44.5 percent.  The deadline for voluntary submission of a Notice of Activity Form A by processors is October 5, 2018.

If your company is having trouble reporting through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX), please contact Richard E. Engler, Ph.D. or Lynn L. Bergeson to obtain a copy of our comprehensive Guidance Materials for TSCA Inventory Notification Rulemaking.  Our TSCA experts would be pleased to assist you with the reporting process!

More information on the TSCA Inventory rulemaking and TSCA Inventory issues is available on our blog under the key phrase TSCA Inventory and on our TSCA Reform News & Information web page.  More information on EPA’s Final TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Rule is available in our memorandum, “EPA Issues Final TSCA Framework Rules.”  Specific information on changes in the CDX system is available in our blog item, “EPA Updates eNOA Template in CDX System.”


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), and Health Canada (HC) have released an educational primer on U.S. and Canadian regulations regarding chemical substances.  EPA states that the purpose of the primer is to compile easy-to-use information for stakeholders potentially regulated under similar U.S. and Canadian regulations -- Significant New Use Rules (SNUR) in the U.S. and Significant New Activity (SNAc) provisions in Canada.  EPA, ECCC, and HC previously collaborated in the implementation of a Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) Work Plan on Chemicals Management that focused on SNURs and SNAcs.  The primer states that an overarching issue identified during the roundtable discussions was the need for improved outreach and education, ranging from the basics of the SNUR/SNAc programs to specific requirements for various stakeholders, especially for potentially less-informed stakeholder groups, such as foreign suppliers, and small, niche companies in the U.S. and Canada.  According to EPA, information in the primer will assist the regulated community to determine how to comply and engage their supply chains to help facilitate compliance for meeting SNUR and SNAc requirements.  The primer notes that it does not substitute for any SNUR or SNAc provisions, nor is it a rule itself.  The primer does not impose legally binding requirements on the regulated community or on EPA, ECCC, or HC.


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine released a new report on April 11, 2018, that finds that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Program has made “substantial progress” in implementing recommendations outlined by the National Academies in previous reports.  According to the April 11, 2018, press release, the transformation of IRIS began several years ago, after the release of a 2011 National Academies report that provided suggestions for creating a more systematic and transparent IRIS process.  In a 2014 report, the National Academies reviewed the changes implemented by EPA since 2011 and concluded that the improvements were considerable.  Under the Program’s new leadership, EPA asked the National Academies to review again its progress toward addressing past recommendations.  The press release states that the National Academies’ latest review, Progress Toward Transforming the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Program, finds that the IRIS Program has made substantial progress in incorporating systematic-review methods into its process and assessments.  The IRIS Program has also established a systematic-review working group and engaged subject-matter experts.  According to the report, these groups should increase efficiency and consistency among assessments and improve the scientific rigor of the assessments.  Although the National Academies Committee to Review Advances Made to the IRIS Process “offers some refinements and identifies a few possibilities for further development,” the report states that “its overall conclusion is that EPA has been responsive and has made substantial progress in implementing National Academies[’] recommendations.”

 

Tags: IRIS,

 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton

On March 22, 2018, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt appointed 11 additional members to the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals.  Under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, the purpose of the Committee is to provide independent advice and expert consultation, at the request of the EPA Administrator, with respect to the scientific and technical aspects of risk assessments, methodologies, and pollution prevention measures or approaches supporting implementation of the Act.  According to EPA, these additional members “will increase the balance of scientific perspectives and add experts with experience in labor, public interest, animal protection and chemical manufacturing and processing to the committee.”  The additional 11 members -- three from non-governmental organizations (NGO), four from industry, and four from academia or governmental organizations -- will supplement the 18 expert members that were appointed on January 19, 2017.  The Committee will meet three to four times a year for two years, and its charter can be extended.  EPA has not yet scheduled the Committee’s first meeting.

Two of the members have reportedly declined the appointment.  Dr. Michael Wilson, National Director for Occupational and Environmental Health at the BlueGreen Alliance, “notified EPA that he was unable to accept the appointment,” according to a spokesperson for the BlueGreen Alliance.  Dr. Jennifer McPartland, Senior Scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, has also declined the appointment.  Ruthann Rudel, Director of Research at the Silent Spring Institute, stated that she is “collecting some advice and information” and has not decided whether to accept the appointment. 


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

On April 4, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the following management changes in its Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT):

  • Maria Doa, Ph.D., Director of the Chemical Control Division (CCD) at OPPT since 2011, will move to the Office of Research and Development’s (ORD) Office of Science Policy.  Prior to leading CCD, Dr. Doa was director of the National Program Chemicals Division (NPCD).
  • Lynn Vendinello, Deputy Division Director of the CCD since 2014, will serve as the CCD Acting Director on an interim basis.  Ms. Vendinello has held a number of management and supervisory positions in OPPT and EPA’s Office of Compliance.
  • Tanya Mottley, Acting Deputy Director of OPPT, will resume her leadership role as Director of NPCD.  Prior to leading NPCD, Ms. Mottley was the Director of OPPT’s Pollution Prevention Division (PPD).
  • Bryan Symmes will resume his duties as NPCD Deputy Director.
  • Tala Henry, Ph.D., Director of OPPT’s Risk Assessment Division (RAD) since 2013, will be the next Acting Deputy Director for OPPT.  Prior to leading RAD, Dr. Henry led NPCD after serving as a toxicologist in RAD and the Office of Water.
  • Cathy Fehrenbacher, now RAD Deputy Director, will serve as RAD Acting Director.   Ms. Fehrenbacher has held exposure assessment-related supervisory positions with OPPT; she began her career at EPA as a senior industrial hygienist.

These are significant leadership changes and are likely intended to maximize OPPT efficiency. We applaud OPPT’s continuing efforts to implement TSCA and the changes occasioned by the enactment of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act almost two years ago.


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lynn L. Bergeson, Christopher R. Bryant, and Margaret R. Graham

On March 28, 2018, the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, issued its Statement of Decision (Phase II) (Defendants’ Alternative Significant Risk Level (ASRL) Affirmative Defense) that found that the defendants failed to meet their burden of proof on their ASRL affirmative defense.  Council for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT) v. Starbucks Corporation (Starbucks), No. BC435759 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed April 13, 2010).  CERT’s (plaintiff) complaint alleged that Starbucks, along with 18 other defendants (the total later reached 91 defendants when a second action was filed (now consolidated)), that sell ready-to-drink coffee failed to provide warnings to consumers that the coffee sold contained high levels of acrylamide, a carcinogenic chemical, in violation of Proposition 65 (Prop 65).  The defendants denied the material allegations and asserted various affirmative defenses, violation of the First Amendment, and federal preemption.  According to the order, the parties did not dispute that acrylamide, listed as a carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and under Prop 65 since 1990, is listed by the State of California as a chemical believed to cause cancer; or that they failed to provide warnings to consumers that the ready to drink coffee they sold contained high levels of acrylamide.  

In Phase I of the trial, the court came to a similar conclusion, that defendants failed to meet their burden of proof by preponderance of evidence on their affirmative defenses of “no significant risk level,” First Amendment, and federal preemption to avoid the requirement of cancer warning labels as to the existence of acrylamide in brewed coffee.  The trial on Phase II of the case ran from September 2017 to November 2017 and post-trial briefs were filed in December 2017 and January 2018.  The order states that to have prevailed on their ASRL defense, defendants needed prove all of the below, which they failed to do:

  1. Establish that acrylamide is created by cooking or processing necessary to render the coffee safe or palatable (defendants only argued that acrylamide levels in coffee cannot be reduced at all without negatively affecting safety and palatability);
  2. Demonstrate that “sound considerations of public health” justify applying an alternative (less strict) risk level (defendants did not counter plaintiffs evidence that consumption of coffee increases harm to the fetus, infants, children, and adults; and the court found their proffered evidence that coffee itself confers some benefit to human health to be unpersuasive); and
  3. Present persuasive evidence of what would be an appropriate alternative risk level, taking into account the identified public health considerations (defendants did not conduct a quantitative risk assessment of the risk of cancer from exposure to acrylamide in coffee, necessary to prove an alternative risk level for acrylamide in coffee).

The ASRL affirmative defense is grounded on an exemption to the cancer hazard warning requirement under Prop 65, but as the defendants were not able to prevail on this defense, they will now be required to provide the Prop 65 warning language on their ready-to-drink coffee products, but the order does not specify any details regarding this.  The decision also exposes the defendants to liability in terms of millions in fines.  The defendants have until April 10, 2018, to file objections to the decision.


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lynn L. Bergeson, Christopher R. Bryant, and Margaret R. Graham

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) on March 20, 2018, announced that, after his intervention, representatives from the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are working to create new protocols for communicating and training with local governments and first responders.  OSHA, EPA and DHS will convene the Chemical Facility Security and Safety Working Group (Working Group), which will coordinate strategies, activities, policies, and communication to address concerns that there should be an immediate and more thorough improvement of OSHA’s coordination and communication systems to local municipalities and their respective stakeholders.  Specifically, the Working Group is moving forward with a new partnership between the agencies regarding the coordination of communication between state and local governments when there is a serious violation cited.  The protocol will address the lack of communication with local first responders, safety and training agreements, and coordination on information sharing about all the relevant agencies when a local company is cited for serious violations -- like the reported mishandling of Verla International’s (Verla) use of flammable liquids.  

The new protocol is intended to ensure that emergency response agencies are notified when a facility receives a serious health or environmental violation, so that they can proactively prevent accidents and prepare to respond when accidents and fires occur.  Specifically, the Working Group is tasked with:

  • Developing appropriate means for sharing information with first responders to enhance their ability to safely and effectively plan for and respond to incidents in their jurisdiction;
  • Developing tools, training, and resources to strengthen State Emergency Response Commissions and Local Emergency Planning Committees;
  • Coordinating with agencies beyond DHS, EPA, and OSHA by working with the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and, in this instance, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, as appropriate, to address incidents involving hazardous materials and the effects these incidents have on workers and communities;
  • Coordinating information sharing across the interagency community and with state, local, tribal, territorial, and private sector partners; and
  • Leveraging limited resources across all levels of government by conducting and facilitating cross-training to raise awareness of other programs.

In April 2017, OSHA cited Verla’s cosmetic factory in New Windsor, New York for improper storage of flammable liquids that resulted in several serious violations, and in November 2017 there was an explosion and fire at the factory where one worker was killed and 40 people, including seven firefighters, were injured -- a tragedy that may have been avoided had the first responders been notified of the violations and known better how to handle the situation.  Senator’s Schumer’s concerns about the lack of communication and notification stem from these events.  He states the new protocols “will provide technical expertise and tighter coordination with federal and regional first responder operations to try to make sure the lack of communication and awareness of preexisting issues faced by first responders back in November is a thing of the past.”


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

On February 8, 2018, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a technology assessment report to congressional requestors entitled Chemical Innovation:  Technologies to Make Processes and Products More Sustainable.  GAO states it conducted this technology assessment “to explore, among other things, the opportunities, challenges, and federal roles in sustainable chemistry.”  This report discusses (1) how stakeholders define and assess sustainable chemistry; (2) available or developing technologies to make chemical processes and products more sustainable; and (3) how the federal government, industry and others contribute to the development and use of such technologies.  GAO states it is not making recommendations in this report, but is identifying strategic implications.

As part of its assessment, GAO interviewed stakeholders from government, industry, and academia; convened a meeting of experts on sustainable chemistry technologies and approaches; and surveyed a non-generalizable sample of chemical companies.  GAO identified three categories of more sustainable chemistry technologies -- catalysts, solvents, and continuous processing -- that demonstrate both progress and potential:

  • Catalysts reduce the energy input required for a chemical process and allow for more efficient use of materials.  Stakeholders suggested future research be directed at developing less toxic or renewable catalysts, including those that are metal-free or those from earth-abundant metals such as iron. 
  • Solvents are used in many chemical processes but can create waste issues and be toxic.  Alternatives include solvents from renewable, non-petroleum raw materials and solvents such as water that are less hazardous to human health and the environment, among other qualities. 
  • An alternative to traditional batch processing is continuous processing, in which materials react as they flow along a system of channels, pipes, or tubes. Compared to batch processing, continuous processing uses materials more efficiently, generates less waste, and has a smaller physical footprint.

GAO also identified, through its interaction with stakeholders, the following strategic implications of sustainable chemistry; and potential options to address these challenges and realize the full potential of these technologies:

  • Breakthrough technologies in sustainable chemistry could transform how the industry thinks about performance, function, and synthesis.  Sustainable chemistry creates opportunities to use a different conceptual framework that allows industry to create molecules with better performance. 
  • The establishment of an organized constituency, with the involvement of both industry and government, could help make sustainable chemistry a priority.  An industry consortium, working in partnership with a key supporter at the federal level, could lead to an effective national initiative or strategy.
  • A national initiative that considers sustainable chemistry in a systematic manner could be useful.  Such an effort could encourage collaborations among industry, academia and the government, similar to other national technology Initiatives.
  • There are opportunities for the federal government to address industry-wide challenges.  Federal attention that facilitates development of standard tools for assessment and a robust definition could help clarify relevant participants in the field and improve information available for decision-makers at all levels

More information on the report and its strategic implications is available on GAO’s website.


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lynn L. Bergeson, Charles M. Auer, and Margaret R. Graham

On March 13, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released three draft guidance documents for public comment clarifying the circumstances under which EPA may disclose Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) confidential business information (CBI) with an expanded set of people.  Amended TSCA Section 14(d) expanded the categories of people to whom EPA may disclose TSCA CBI by specifically authorizing EPA to disclose TSCA CBI to state, tribal, and local governments; environmental, health, and medical professionals; and emergency responders, under certain conditions, including consistency with guidance that EPA is required to develop.  The draft guidance documents are:

EPA’s prepublication version of the notice of availability of the draft guidance states the conditions for access vary under each of the new provisions, but generally include the following: requesters must show that they have a need for the information related to their employment, professional, or legal duties; recipients of TSCA CBI are prohibited from disclosing or permitting further disclosure of the information to individuals not authorized to receive it (physicians/nurses may disclose the information to their patient); and, except in emergency situations, EPA must notify the entity that made the CBI claim at least 15 days prior to disclosing the CBI.  In addition, under these new provisions, requesters (except in some emergency situations) are required to sign an agreement and may be required to submit a statement of need to EPA.  In accordance with the requirements of TSCA section 14(c)(4)(B), each guidance document covers the content and form of the agreements and statements required under each provision and include information on where and how to submit requests to EPA.  A 30-day comment period for the draft guidance documents will open upon the notice’s publication in the Federal Register; comments can be submitted to docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0652 via www.regulations.gov.

On March 12, 2018, EPA also announced that it collecting comments on burden and other information required by the Paperwork Reduction Act related to these documents in the form of an Information Collection Request (ICR), as detailed in a separate notice.  83 Fed. Reg. 10719.  Comments on the ICR are due May 11, 2018.  EPA states that it anticipates using comments received in response to the guidance document notice and the ICR notice to inform the development of final guidance documents, which it anticipates to be released in June 2018.

Tags: CBI, EPA, guidance, TSCA

 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

On March 9, 2018, as a first step in developing a proposed rule regulating certain persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it is seeking nominations for individuals who represent small businesses, small governments, and small non-for-profit organizations to serve as Small Entity Representatives (SER) to provide input on potential impacts of PBT regulation.  EPA states the role of a SER is “to provide advice and recommendations to ensure that the Panel carefully considers small entity concerns regarding the impact of the potential rule on their organizations and to communicate with other small entities within their sector who do not serve as SERs,” and will ask the SERs to provide comments on behalf of their company, community, or organization and advise a soon to be created Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel regarding potential impacts to small businesses that could result from the regulation of certain identified PBTs.  The SBAR panel will include federal representatives from EPA, the Small Business Administration, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  After collecting input from the small entities, the panel will make recommendations to the Agency on the development of a proposed rule to regulate these PBT chemicals.

Under Section 6(h) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA is required, not later than three years after the date of enactment (June 22, 2019), to propose rules regarding the regulation of certain PBTs selected from the 2014 update of the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments that:  (1) EPA has a reasonable basis to conclude are toxic and that with respect to persistence and bioaccumulation score high for one and either high or moderate for the other have been identified; and (2) exposure to which under the conditions of use is likely to the general population or to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified by the Administrator, or the environment, on the basis of an exposure and use assessment conducted by the Administrator.  The PBT chemicals that EPA has selected are:

  • Decabromodiphenyl ethers (DecaBDE), used as a flame retardant in textiles, plastics, wiring insulation, and building and construction materials;
  • Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD), used as a solvent in the manufacture of rubber compounds and as hydraulic, heat transfer or transformer fluid;
  • Pentachlorothiophenol (PCTP), used as a mercaptan (sulfur) cross-linking agent to make rubber more pliable in industrial uses;
  • Phenol, isopropylated, phosphate (3:1), used as a flame retardant in consumer products and as lubricant, hydraulic fluid, and other industrial uses; and
  •  2,4,6-Tris(tert-butyl) phenol, an antioxidant that can be used as a fuel, oil, gasoline or lubricant additive. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to establish a SBAR panel for rules that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  EPA states that the panel process will offer “an opportunity for small businesses, small governments and small not-for-profit organizations … to provide advice and recommendations to ensure that the EPA carefully considers small entity concerns regarding the impact of the potential rule on their organizations.” 

EPA states eligible SERs are small entities that manufacture, process, distribute in commerce, use, or dispose any of the five selected PBT chemicals.  EPA is seeking self-nominations directly from entities that may be subject to the rule requirements. Other representatives, such as trade associations that exclusively or at least primarily represent potentially regulated small entities, may also serve as SERs.  Self-nominations may be submitted through the instructions outlined on EPA’s Potential SBAR Panel website and must be received by March 22, 2018.  More information about the SBAR process is available online. 


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

On March 6, 2018, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) filed its Principal Brief in the litigation case that petitions for review the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirements final rule (EDF v. EPA, No. 1701 (D.C. Cir.)).

EDF’s brief includes, among other required statements, a statement of the issues, a statement of the case, a summary of their argument, and their argument.  EDF’s arguments are as follows:

  1. The Inventory Rule withholds information on chemical substances manufactured or processed in the U.S. from the public; this information is required to be disclosed under amended TSCA; EDF has been harmed by EPA’s failure to disclose this information and to disclose unique identifiers for confidential chemicals; and the court can redress this harm.  
  2. The final rule illegally allows manufacturers and processors to assert certain new claims for nondisclosure of specific chemical identities based on other persons having asserted earlier claims, which is contrary to TSCA’s plain text and the relevant precedent governing confidentiality claims; and EPA’s rationale for its interpretation is arbitrary and capricious.
  3. The final rule violates both the substantive and procedural requirements of TSCA Section 14, Confidential Information, specifically that:  EPA refused to accept that TSCA Section 8, Reporting and Retention of Information, repeatedly incorporates Section 14 requirements for confidentiality claims; the final rule fails to implement one of the substantive requirements for confidentiality claims under Section 14; and the final rule fails to implement one of the substantive requirements for confidentiality claims under Section 14.
  4. The final rule fails to implement the unique identifier and other public information requirements in TSCA Section 8(b)(7)(B).
  5. The final rule exempts chemicals manufactured and processed solely for export from the reporting requirements, even though such chemicals are specifically not exempted from TSCA Section 8.
  6. Finally, EDF requests the court to set aside the rule in part, stating that vacatur, along with remand, is the appropriate remedy for EPA’s violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).  EDF does not seek a complete vacatur, however, stating that “a complete vacatur would postpone the release of some of the very information that EDF seeks, since it would allow EPA to postpone publishing the Inventory based on the information it has already collected.  In addition, it would impose costs on the regulated community beyond those necessary to remedy EDF’s harms [and] those manufacturers and processors who have already filed notices without claims of confidentiality should not need to refile the notices.”  The portions of the final rule that EDF requests the court to vacate are as follows:  the exclusion for export-only manufacturers (40 C.F.R. Section 710.27(a)(4)); Confidentiality Claims (40 C.F.R. Section 710.37); and certain portions of the preamble. EDF states specific instructions on how it would like the court to order EPA to promulgate the regulation on remand that include revisions to regulations on confidentiality claims, public information requirements, and notifications of activities during the lookback period.

EDF has done its usual thorough job and the brief is definitely a must read for TSCA stakeholders.  More information on this proceeding and the other challenges to the TSCA framework final rules is available on our blog under key words framework rules.


 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›