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.

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton

On April 29, 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the release of a list of 390 chemicals that it states are “expected to lose their confidential status and move to the public portion of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory, furthering the agency’s commitment to data transparency.”  According to EPA, the specific identities of these chemicals were reported as non-confidential during Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) cycles from the 2012, 2016, and/or 2020 reporting periods.  In accordance with the CDR rule and with TSCA Sections 8 and 14, EPA intends to update the TSCA Inventory listings for these chemicals to list the specific chemical identities on the public portion of the Inventory.  Stakeholders should check the list of substances and ensure that none of those substances is of critical importance to maintain confidential status.  Stakeholders with interest, questions, or concerns about this change in confidential status may contact the listed EPA staff no later than May 14, 2021.  EPA expects to include the specific chemical identities of these 390 chemicals in the next routine publication of the public TSCA Inventory, anticipated in late summer 2021.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on March 15, 2021, a settlement requiring Western Reserve Chemical Corp. (WRCC) in Stow, Ohio, to pay a $357,000 civil penalty for violations of chemical data reporting regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  EPA claims that from 2012 to 2015, WRCC failed to submit data reports for 18 chemical substances as required by TSCA.  According to EPA, WRCC imports various chemicals for businesses that formulate rubber, plastics, adhesives, sealants, and coatings.  EPA states that the alleged violations “presented a potential harm to the Agency’s ability to maintain accurate and updated information regarding commercially-produced chemicals.”  EPA’s consent agreement and final order with WRCC resolves the alleged violations and requires the payment of a $357,000 civil penalty in installments within 18 months.
 
Information about chemical reporting is available on the TSCA Chemical Data Reporting web page.  EPA notes that the chemical data reports for 2016 to 2019 were due from industry manufacturers by January 29, 2021.  The Substance Registry Services web page offers a search function to find out if a specific chemical is on the TSCA Inventory.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
On March 2, 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it reached a settlement agreement with Brenntag Pacific, Inc. for violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  According to EPA, Brenntag Pacific, Inc. has corrected the violations and will pay a $128,265 fine.  EPA states that it discovered the violations following inspections at Brenntag Pacific, Inc. facilities in Fairbanks, Alaska, and in Santa Fe Springs, California.  EPA inspectors “found the company failed to submit accurate and timely reports and notification associated with the import and export of nine chemicals.”  According to EPA, between 2012 and 2015, Brenntag Pacific, Inc. failed to report properly the import production volumes and uses of five chemicals as required by the 2016 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Rule.  In addition, the company failed to produce first-time export notices for four chemicals between 2016 and 2017.  EPA notes that under TSCA, chemical importers and manufacturers are required to submit CDR information to EPA every four years.  EPA uses these data to track the chemicals being imported into the United States and to assess the potential human health and environmental effects of these chemicals.  In addition, EPA makes the non-confidential business information it receives available to the public.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will soon announce that the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) submission period has been extended from November 30, 2020, to January 29, 2021.  A Federal Register notice has been signed, and EPA expects to post a pre-publication version of the notice on its website.  To assist chemical manufacturers and processors with submitting CDR data, Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.’s (B&C®) affiliate The Acta Group (Acta®) developed CDR Cross-Check™, an ingenious and cost-efficient tool to identify whether a company’s chemicals are subject to CDR and, if so, at what reporting threshold.
 
CDR Cross-Check will identify:

  • Whether the chemical is listed as active or inactive;
  • Whether the chemical was subject to specific Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulatory actions in 2016;
  • Whether the chemical is exempt; and
  • What the reporting thresholds are based on the updated data released by EPA on May 29, 2020.

Visit the CDR Cross-Check page on the Acta website for a sample report and information on how to use CDR Cross-Check.


 

Chemical manufacturers and processors have just over four months to submit Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) data by the November 30, 2020, close of the reporting period. To assist companies in that process, Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) affiliate The Acta Group (Acta®) developed CDR Cross-Check™, an ingenious and cost-efficient tool to identify whether a company’s chemicals are subject to CDR reporting and if so, at what reporting threshold.

CDR Cross-Check will identify:

  • Whether the chemical is listed as active or inactive;
     
  • Whether the chemical was subject to specific TSCA regulatory actions in 2016;
     
  • Whether the chemical is exempt; and
     
  • What the reporting thresholds are based on the updated data released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 29, 2020.

Visit the CDR Cross-Check page on the Acta website for a sample report and information on how to use CDR Cross-Check.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton

On May 29, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released updated data collected during the 2016 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) period.  EPA notes that the updated 2016 CDR data now include information that was previously classified as confidential business information (CBI), such as aggregate production volumes and site-specific production volumes.  EPA published an initial release of the 2016 CDR data in May 2017.  The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg Act) amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) were signed into law during the 2016 CDR submission period and changed CDR CBI reporting requirements.  EPA states that as a result, it conducted “a thorough substantiation and verification process with companies that submitted 2016 CDR data.”  According to EPA, this process allowed it to determine which claims met the new legal standard and ensure that valid CBI claims remained protected.

Background

On March 17, 2020, EPA announced the availability of a final rule amending the CDR rule.  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 asserting 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.  More information is available in our March 19, 2020, memorandum, “EPA Releases Final Amendments to CDR Rule, Extends Reporting Period.”

Our May 13, 2020, blog item, “New Reporting Procedure for Co-Manufacturers under TSCA CDR Rule May Catch Certain Manufacturers Off Guard,” notes that EPA has changed the way that toll manufacturing must be reported.  In this cycle, EPA will not accept reporting from only the contracting manufacturer in situations where a company contracts with another company (i.e., a toll manufacturer) for the production of chemicals.  In 2020, EPA has stated in multiple fora that for the 2020 reporting period, EPA will only accept manufacturing details from the actual producers, even if manufacturing was contracted by another company.  This change may come as a surprise, especially to producing companies that heretofore may not have reported under the CDR rule and instead relied on the contracting company to do so.

Tags: CBI, CDR

 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will host a webinar on May 19, 2020, from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. (EDT) to provide an overview of the 2020 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) requirements.  The 2020 CDR submission period is from June 1, 2020, to November 30, 2020.  The webinar will include information about the revised reporting requirements, including:

  • New requirements for making confidential business information (CBI) claims;
  • Reporting refinements related to byproducts, including exemptions;
  • Phasing in certain processing and use data codes; and
  • Process improvements for reporting co-manufacturing.

The webinar will also introduce the updated e-CDRweb reporting tool.  EPA notes that the presentation will be similar to the webinars EPA hosted on March 31 and April 9, 2020.
 
EPA states that although registration is not required, it is preferred.  Details on how to access the webinar and slides will be sent to participants after registering via Eventbrite.com.  Participants should follow along with the webinar slides and use the following call-in number to access the audio:  (866) 609-6049; Conference ID:  2499985.  EPA will provide webinar materials, including transcripts and recordings, on its CDR website following the webinar.

Tags: CDR, Webinar, CBI

 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 

On May 12, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the signed final rule updating the definition of small manufacturers, including a new definition of what is considered a small government, used to determine reporting and recordkeeping requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  According to EPA, the updated definitions will reduce reporting burdens on chemical manufacturers and small governments while maintaining the agency’s ability to receive the information it needs to understand exposure to chemical substances manufactured in the United States.  The final rule makes a technical correction to the small manufacturer reference at 40 C.F.R. Section 704.104 for hexafluoropropylene oxide, which only includes a rule-specific small processor definition and not a small manufacturer definition.  When reviewing the small manufacturer size standards, EPA found this to be an “inadvertent error.”  The final rule also updates the current small manufacturer definition in the Preliminary Assessment Information Rule (PAIR) at 40 C.F.R. Section 712.25 to align it with the updated small manufacturer definition at 40 C.F.R. Section 704.3.
 
EPA notes that the updated definitions will apply to the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule reporting period beginning June 1, 2020, and will impact certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements for TSCA Section 8(a) rules.  EPA states that the final rule is based on 2018 dollars to ensure that the definition is as up to date as possible at the time of promulgation.  The final rule will be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.  EPA has posted the pre-publication version of the final rule on its website.
 
More information on CDR reporting is available in our May 13, 2020, blog item, “New Reporting Procedure for Co-Manufacturers under TSCA CDR Rule May Catch Certain Manufacturers Off Guard,” and our March 19, 2020, memorandum, “EPA Releases Final Amendments to CDR Rule, Extends Reporting Period.”


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Christopher R. Blunck
 
One of several changes to the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Rule, issued in final on April 9, 2020, is that in the 2020 cycle, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has changed the way that toll manufacturing must be reported.  In this cycle, EPA will not accept reporting from only the contracting manufacturer in situations where a company contracts with another company (i.e., a toll manufacturer) for the production of chemicals.  As in years’ past, EPA states in its final rule that if no report is filed, both the contracting and producing companies will be held liable if no reporting occurs.  Under past CDR cycles, EPA would accept reporting from either the contracting manufacturer or the producing (formerly referred to as “toll”) manufacturer.  In 2020, EPA has stated in multiple fora that for the 2020 reporting period, EPA will only accept manufacturing details from the actual producers, even if manufacturing was contracted by another company. This change may come as a surprise, especially to producing companies that heretofore may not have reported under the CDR Rule and instead relied on the contracting company to do so.

EPA stated in the preamble to the final CDR rule that it chose to include two different reporting methodologies for a co-manufacturing situation, indicating that the methodologies are based on a desire to reduce reporting burden and maintain flexibility for both the contracting and producing company.  EPA noted that the companies must work together to select between the methodologies for preparing their CDR methodologies.  The two methodologies for reporting, codified at 40 C.F.R. Section 711.22(c), are:

(1) The contracting company initiates the required report for that site [defined by EPA at 40 C.F.R. §711.3 as the location where the chemical substance is physically manufactured for chemical substances co-manufactured] as the primary submitter. The contracting company must indicate on the report that this is a co-manufacturing situation, notify the producing company, and record the production volume domestically co-manufactured as set forth in §711.15(b)(3) and processing and use information set forth in §711.15(b)(4). Upon notification by the contracting company, the producing company must also record the production volume domestically co-manufactured and complete the rest of the report as prompted by e-CDRweb.
(2) Upon written agreement between the contracting company and the producing company, the producing company completes the full report for the co-manufactured chemical. The contracting company supplies the information not otherwise known to or reasonably ascertainable by the producing company.
 

In both cases, the producing company (toll manufacturer) must provide the manufacturing details.  There is no mechanism for the contracting company to submit the entire Form U.
 
More information on the final CDR rule is available in our March 19, 2020, memorandum, “EPA Releases Final Amendments to CDR Rule, Extends Reporting Period.”

Tags: CDR, Reporting

 

The Acta Group (Acta®) announced today the launch of CDR Cross-Check™, an ingenious yet simple tool developed and offered by Acta to assist companies in preparing for the 2020 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). CDR Cross-Check utilizes the most recent CDR listing information publicly available provided by EPA (currently, 2016 lists) to identify whether all or some of a company’s inventory of chemical substances are subject to CDR under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and, if so, at what reporting threshold. CDR Cross-Check will make CDR reporting easier.

CDR Cross-Check will identify whether chemicals are listed on the TSCA Inventory and, if so,

  • whether they are listed as active or inactive;
     
  • whether they were subject to specific TSCA regulatory actions in 2016;
     
  • whether they are exempt; and
     
  • what the 2020 reporting thresholds would be based on the 2016 data.

Sample CDR Cross-Check™ Report:

(Click image to enlarge.)

A CDR Cross-Check report prepared at this time will be extremely useful as a preliminary check in preparation for the 2020 CDR reporting. It will confirm regulatory statuses from the 2016 reporting cycle, so for those chemicals, users will know what the reporting threshold will be for 2020 and can determine now whether reporting is needed. It will also give users time to address potential issues well before the 2020 reports are due.

To access CDR Cross-Check, a customer will upload the list of chemicals to be evaluated by the CDR Cross-Check tool and pay the appropriate fee based on the number of chemicals to be evaluated. Fees are $3.00 (USD) per chemical for the first 750 chemicals plus $2.00 (USD) per chemical for additional chemicals over 750. The minimum fee is $400 (USD).

Acta anticipates that additional chemicals will be added to the regulatory lists in June 2020 that may result in lower reporting thresholds. The CDR Cross-Check will be updated at that time to include the new lists. Customers that have already used the CDR Cross-Check prior to the 2020 updates will receive a 50% discount for an updated list.

Visit the CDR Cross-Check website, https://cdr-cross-check.actagroup.com/, for more information and to order a CDR Cross-Check report.

More information on recent CDR developments is available in Acta’s March 19, 2020, memorandum “EPA Releases Final Amendments to CDR Rule, Extends Reporting Period.”

The Acta Group is a global scientific and regulatory consulting firm that assists companies with strategic commercialization planning and complex product registration and compliance matters in North America, South America, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Acta is the consulting affiliate of Washington, D.C., law firm Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.


 
 1 2 3 >