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.

Lynn L. Bergeson, Managing Partner, Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®), sat down with Dr. Richard Engler, Director of Chemistry at B&C, to bring everyone up to date on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) fee rule and how it applies to entities obligated to pay a portion of the $1,350,000 per chemical fee for preparing an EPA-initiated risk evaluation, the legal and regulatory significance of the supplemental rulemaking on long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylate (LCPFAC) chemicals and the precedent it sets for eliminating the article exemption for imported articles containing these substances, and the significance of the recently updated TSCA Chemical Inventory with regard to the fast-approaching Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) cycle.  As always, Rich is a font of information on these topics, and he does a great job of contextualizing this information for busy business people working in the chemical space.

ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW.

©2020 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
On March 17, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the availability of a final rule amending the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule.  According to EPA, the amendments are intended to reduce the burden for certain CDR reporters, improve the quality of CDR data collected, and align reporting requirements with the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act’s (Lautenberg Act) amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  EPA states that some of the key revisions include:

  • Simplifying reporting, including allowing manufacturers to use certain processing and use data codes already in use by many chemical manufacturers as part of international codes developed through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD);
     
  • Updating requirements for making confidentiality claims to align with the requirements in amended TSCA; and
     
  • Adding reporting exemptions for specific types of byproducts manufactured in certain equipment.

Additionally, EPA is extending the reporting period for CDR data submitters from September 30, 2020, to November 30, 2020, to provide additional time for the regulated community to familiarize themselves with the amendments and to allow time for reporters to familiarize themselves with an updated public version of the reporting tool.  The reporting period will still begin on June 1, 2020.  EPA will host a webinar on Tuesday, March 31, 2020, to discuss the revised reporting requirements, provide an overview of the 2020 CDR submission period, and to give an introduction to the updated e-CDRweb reporting tool.  EPA has posted pre-publication versions of the final rules amending the CDR rule and extending the reporting period.  More information will be available in a forthcoming memorandum that will be posted on our website.

Tags: CDR, Reporting

 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on October 23, 2019, that it settled with Miles Chemical Company Inc. for failing to report timely chemical substances it imported.  Under the settlement, the company will pay a $45,000 penalty.  According to EPA, between 2012 and 2015, Miles Chemical Company failed to submit timely forms to EPA documenting the import of large quantities of two chemicals.  EPA notes that under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), chemical importers and manufacturers are required to submit Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) information to EPA every four years.  This reporting allows EPA to track the chemicals being imported, assess potential human health and environmental effects of these chemicals, and make the non-confidential business information it receives available to the public.  EPA notes that chemical substances listed on the TSCA Inventory that are manufactured or imported at volumes of 25,000 pounds or greater must be reported to EPA, as required by TSCA’s CDR rule.

Tags: CDR,

 

By Lynn L. Bergeson, Kathleen M. Roberts, and Carla N. Hutton

On April 25, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed rule that would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a) Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) requirements and the TSCA Section 8(a) size standards for small manufacturers.  84 Fed. Reg. 17692.  The current CDR rule requires manufacturers (including importers) of certain chemical substances listed on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory) to report data on chemical manufacturing, processing, and use every four years.  EPA is proposing several changes to the CDR rule to make regulatory updates to align with new statutory requirements of TSCA, improve the CDR data collected as necessary to support the implementation of TSCA, and potentially reduce the burden for certain CDR reporters.  Proposed updates to the definition for small manufacturers, including a new definition for small governments, are being made in accordance with TSCA Section 8(a)(3)(C) and impact certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements for TSCA Section 8(a) rules, including CDR.  EPA states that the definitions may reduce the burden on chemical manufacturers by increasing the number of manufacturers considered small.  Overall, according to EPA, the regulatory modifications may better address EPA and public information needs by providing additional information that is currently not collected; improve the usability and reliability of the reported data; and ensure that data are available in a timely manner.  Comments are due by June 24, 2019.  More information on the proposed rule is available in our full memorandum.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson, Richard E. Engler, Ph.D., and Margaret R. Graham

On January 31, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was petitioned by the Attorneys General of 14 states (Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) and the District of Columbia under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 21(a) to issue an asbestos reporting rule to require reporting under TSCA Section 8(a) of information necessary for EPA to administer TSCA as to the manufacture (including importation), processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of asbestos.  Specifically, the petition states that the Attorneys General are petitioning EPA’s Administrator to:

  •  [‌I]nitiate a rulemaking and issue a new asbestos reporting rule to:  (i) eliminate any applicability of the “naturally occurring substance” (NOCS) exemption in the [Chemical Data Reporting (CDR)] for asbestos reporting; (ii) apply the CDR reporting requirements to processors of asbestos, as well as manufacturers, including importers, of the chemical substance; (iii) ensure that the impurities exemption in the CDR does not apply to asbestos; and (iv) require reporting with respect to imported articles that contain asbestos.

 In support of their requests in the petition, the Attorneys General state the following:

  1. NOCS Exemption:  “The identified uses of imported raw asbestos represent pathways of exposure that present risks to health and the environment that EPA must consider in conducting its risk evaluation and regulating asbestos, and accordingly EPA should promulgate an asbestos reporting rule to require reporting of such information.  Moreover, the required asbestos reporting must capture information with respect to the quantities imported, and these potential exposure pathways so this information can be made available to inform the states’ and the public’s knowledge regarding asbestos exposure risks.”
  2. Reporting from Processors:  “[T]o enable EPA to carry out its responsibility to impose requirements on processors to eliminate unreasonable risks of injury to health or the environment arising from exposures to asbestos, EPA must promulgate new regulations to apply the reporting requirements of the CDR to processors of asbestos notwithstanding that the current CDR does not expressly require such reporting.  Should EPA fail to do so, EPA would be violating TSCA, acting arbitrarily and capriciously, and abusing its discretion in implementing TSCA.”
  3. Exemptions for “Impurities” and “Articles”:  “[W]hile the CDR exempts reporting with respect to ‘impurities’ and for chemical substances imported as ‘part of an article,’ neither of these exceptions should be applied to reporting with respect to the presence of asbestos if EPA is to satisfy TSCA’s mandate to prevent unreasonable risks associated with exposures to this highly toxic chemical.”
  4. Reporting for Asbestos:  “EPA must account for the many tons of asbestos that are imported into the U.S., whether as a raw material or processed, to evaluate adequately the current and likely future risks of exposure to asbestos, and must also account for asbestos in consumer products, whether or not the asbestos is intentionally included in those products.  These data … are needed for EPA to be able to make informed technically complex decisions regarding the regulation of asbestos.  Without these data to rely on, the agency will be unable to meet its obligations under TSCA to make its decisions based on the weight of the scientific evidence and using the best available science ….  Accordingly, EPA must issue an asbestos reporting rule to ensure that the NOCS, the impurities, and the articles exemptions do not apply to asbestos, and that processors of asbestos are required to report.”

The petition cites EPA’s denial of a petition submitted by a group of non-governmental organizations (NGO) seeking similar action that the Attorneys General are requesting, but does not address the many reasons that EPA denied the first petition.  Why the Attorneys General would follow up EPA’s well-reasoned denial with a petition of their own with very similar requests and only marginal additional facts, is unclear.  More information on the NGO petition is available in our blog item "EPA Denies Section 21 Petition Seeking Increased Asbestos Reporting."


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson, Carla N. Hutton, and Margaret R. Graham

On December 21, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) Nancy B. Beck, Ph.D., signed a Federal Register document denying a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 21 petition requesting that EPA amend the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule to increase asbestos reporting, exclude asbestos from certain exemptions, and lift Confidential Business Information (CBI) claims on asbestos information reported under the CDR rule.  Due to the government shutdown, the notice has not yet been published in the Federal Register, but EPA has posted a prepublication version.  EPA’s carefully reasoned response to the request is set forth in the notice.  

The petition was filed on September 27, 2018, by the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, American Public Health Association, Center for Environmental Health, Environmental Working Group, Environmental Health Strategy Center, and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families (Petitioners).  According to EPA, Petitioners requested the following specific amendments to the existing CDR rule to collect information for the ongoing asbestos risk evaluation being conducted under TSCA Section 6(b) (required to be completed by December 22, 2019), and, if necessary, any subsequent risk management decisions under TSCA Section 6(a):

  1. Amend the CDR rule to require immediate submission, “from January 1, 2019, to April [30], 2019,” of reports on asbestos for the 2016 reporting cycle. 
  2. Amend the naturally occurring chemical substance exemption at 40 C.F.R. § 711.6(a)(3) to make the exemption inapplicable to asbestos;
  3. Amend the articles exemption at 40 C.F.R. § 711.10(b) to require reporting pursuant to the CDR rule for all imported articles in which asbestos is present at detectable levels;
  4. Amend the CDR rule to exclude asbestos from the exemption at 40 C.F.R. § 711.10(c) to require the reporting of asbestos as a byproduct or impurity;
  5. Amend the reporting threshold for CDR at 40 C.F.R. § 711.8(b) to set a reporting threshold of ten pounds for asbestos; and
  6. Amend 40 C.F.R. § 711.8 to add processors of asbestos and asbestos-containing articles as persons required to report under the CDR rule.

In addition to the above requests, Petitioners also requested that EPA use its authority under TSCA Sections 14(d)(3) and 14(d)(7) to lift CBI claims on asbestos information reported under the CDR rule.  EPA responds in detail as to why it is denying each of these requests.  A short summary is below.

  1. 2016 Reporting Cycle:  EPA states that based on the extensive research and data gathering already conducted during the asbestos risk evaluation process, EPA believes that “the requested amendments to the CDR rule would not lead to the reporting of new information that would contribute to EPA’s ongoing asbestos risk evaluation or, if needed, subsequent risk management decision(s)” and Petitioners have “failed to set forth sufficient facts to establish that it is necessary to issue the requested amendment to require immediate past reporting of the manufacturing and use of asbestos under the CDR rule for the 2016 reporting cycle.”
  2. Naturally Occurring Substances Exemption:  EPA states that removing the exemption for reporting on naturally occurring substances for asbestos would not provide any additional data to EPA “given that the purpose of domestic manufacturing or importing of raw asbestos is to make asbestos diaphragms, for which EPA already has use and exposure information” and Petitioners have “failed to set forth sufficient facts to establish that it is necessary to issue the requested amendment to lift the naturally occurring chemical substances exemption for asbestos under the CDR rule.”
  3. Articles Exemption: EPA states that it believes that lifting the articles exemption for the reporting of asbestos under the CDR rule “would not provide any new use information that would inform the ongoing risk evaluation or any subsequent risk management decisions, if needed” and that Petitioners “have failed to set forth sufficient facts to establish that it is necessary to issue the requested amendment to lift the articles exemption for asbestos under the CDR rule.”
  4. Reporting as a Byproduct or Impurity:  EPA states that it does not believe that making the requested amendment to the CDR rule would result in “reporting of asbestos as an impurity or a byproduct, for uses that are known or reasonably ascertainable,” that Petitioners “have not provided evidence that there are such known uses that are ongoing but remain outside the scope of the asbestos risk evaluation,” and “have failed to set forth sufficient facts to establish that it is necessary to issue the requested amendment to lift the byproducts and impurities exemptions for asbestos under the CDR rule.”
  5. Reporting Threshold of Ten Pounds:  EPA states that Petitioners “fail to show that lowering the reporting threshold would provide any new information to EPA” and, therefore, finds that the Petitioners “have failed to set sufficient facts to establish that it is necessary to issue the requested amendment to lower the CDR reporting threshold for asbestos.”
  6. Adding Processors to CDR:  EPA states that it does not believe that “requiring processors of asbestos under the CDR rule will provide useful information not already in its possession,” Petitioners “have failed to indicate what additional information EPA would collect by requiring asbestos processors to report under the CDR rule” and, therefore, EPA finds that the Petitioners “have failed to set forth sufficient facts to establish that it is necessary to issue the requested amendment to require processors of asbestos to report under the CDR rule.”
  7. Lifting CBI Claims:  EPA states that Petitioners’ request to lift CBI claims on asbestos information reported under the CDR rule is "not appropriate for a TSCA Section 21 petition, as a TSCA Section 21 only pertains to the “issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule under TSCA sections 4, 6, or 8, or an order under TSCA sections 4 or 5(e) or (f),” therefore, a TSCA Section 21 petition “is not a vehicle to petition EPA to initiate an action under TSCA section 14.”  Further, EPA states that it believes that “disclosure of CBI would have no practical relevance to the risk evaluation or risk determination as the CBI claims are limited and EPA retains the ability to characterize the information without revealing the actual protected data.”

Please look for the full analysis in our upcoming memorandum that will be posted on our Regulatory Developments page. 


 

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.”


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton

On August 22, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) announced that it plans to begin preliminary research to assess Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  According to OIG’s Project Notification, the specific objectives for this evaluation are to determine:  (1) how EPA is ensuring that companies are compliant with CDR requirements under TSCA; and (2) whether EPA is using CDR data to prioritize imported and manufactured chemicals for the purpose of identifying the potential for human health and environmental risks.  The Project Notification asks Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, and Lawrence Starfield, Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, to provide the following information:

  • Policies, procedures, and guidance on how CDR data are used in the prioritization of chemicals for TSCA risk evaluations and/or other assessments;
  • Policies, procedures, and guidance regarding the quality assurance/quality control of CDR data; and
  • Enforcement response policy and guidance for CDR violations.

The Project Notification states that the anticipated benefits of the project are “reduced risks to human health and the environment from the monitoring and oversight of TSCA chemicals subject to the CDR rule reporting requirements.”


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

On May 2, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it would convene a public meeting to clarify and discuss the process of negotiated rulemaking on changes to Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) requirements for inorganic byproducts.  The meeting will be held on May 9, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (EDT) and on May 10, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (EDT), in Washington, D.C. at the Capital Hilton, 1001 16th Street, N.W, in the General Session Room (South American AB). 

On December 15, 2017, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register of its intention to establish a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (NRC) under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act.  81 Fed. Reg. 90843.  The NRC will implement the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a)(6) requirement that EPA “enter into a negotiated rulemaking … to develop and publish, not later than 3 years after the date of enactment … a proposed rule providing for limiting the reporting requirements under this subsection for manufacturers of any inorganic byproducts, if the byproducts, whether by the byproduct manufacturer or by any other person, are subsequently recycled, reused, or reprocessed.”  EPA states that it is holding this public meeting prior to the establishment of that NRC to “exchange information and clarify a number of aspects of inorganic byproduct identification and reporting.”

EPA states that written comments can be submitted at any time during the negotiated rulemaking process, but is asking for written comments to be e-mailed to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) no later than May 8, 2017.  Parties interested in making an oral presentation at the meeting should submit requests by e-mail to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) no later than May 8, 2017, to be placed on the list of public speakers.  As there are many questions about the scope of the negotiated rulemaking and the process that the initiative will follow, interested stakeholders are urged to participate.

Information about attending this meeting and its agenda will be posted to the NRC website.  More information on the establishment of the NRC is available in our blog item EPA To Establish Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Under Amended TSCA.


 

On September 19, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) posted a notice on the Chemical Data Reporting website that it has amended the CDR regulations to extend the 2016 submission deadline from September 30, 2016, to October 31, 2016.  According to the pre-publication version of the Federal Register notice for the final rulemaking, EPA received a request for an extension, citing problems with certain aspects of the electronic reporting system that impact a business’s ability to submit within the required timeframe, and agreed that additional time should be afforded.  EPA clearly states, however, that the extension is a one-time extension for the 2016 reporting period only.  The action does not impact the reporting timeframe for the 2020 CDR.

Because the original reporting deadline of September 30, 2016, was imminent, EPA will utilize discretion under the Administrative Procedure Act that allows it to issue a final rule if standard public review and comments are impracticable (Section 553(b)(3)(B)) and for “good cause” (Section 553(d)).

The rulemaking will be effective upon publication in the Federal Register.


 
 1 2 >