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 September 1, 2022, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announced the availability of two new resources to answer stakeholder questions regarding the revised biotechnology regulations under 7 C.F.R. Part 340:

These resources, along with other information on the revised biotechnology regulations, are available on the APHIS website. For additional questions regarding the regulation of modified microorganisms, contact APHIS at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). For questions regarding confirmation requests, contact APHIS at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) spring 2022 Unified Agenda, published on June 21, 2022, includes the following rulemakings under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) or the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).

Proposed Rule Stage

  • Tiered Data Reporting to Inform Prioritization, Risk Evaluation, and Risk Management under TSCA (2070-AK62): EPA is developing a rulemaking under TSCA Sections 8(a) and (d) to establish reporting requirements based upon a chemical’s status in the Risk Evaluation/Risk Management (RE/RM) Lifecycle and update the reporting requirements under the 40 C.F.R. Part 711 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) regulation. Specifically, EPA is seeking occupational, environmental, and consumer exposure information. EPA is developing this rule to obtain information about potential hazards and exposure pathways related to certain chemicals, particularly occupational, environmental, and consumer exposure information. According to the Unified Agenda item, EPA needs this information to inform prioritization, risk evaluation, and risk management of chemical substances under TSCA Section 6. EPA intends to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in May 2023 and a final rule in September 2024. More information on EPA’s July 27, 2021, webinar on development of the proposed rule is available in our July 29, 2021, memorandum.
  • Revisions to the TSCA Fees Rule (2070-AK64): In January 2021, EPA proposed updates and adjustments to the 2018 TSCA fees rule. EPA proposed modifications to the TSCA fees and fee categories for fiscal years (FY) 2022, 2023, and 2024 and explained the methodology by which the proposed TSCA fees were determined. EPA proposed to add three new fee categories: A Bona Fide Intent to Manufacture or Import Notice, a Notice of Commencement of Manufacture or Import, and an additional fee associated with test orders. In addition, EPA proposed exemptions for entities subject to certain fee-triggering activities, including an exemption for research and development (R&D) activities; an exemption for entities manufacturing less than 2,500 pounds of a chemical subject to an EPA-initiated risk evaluation fee; an exemption for manufacturers of chemical substances produced as a non-isolated intermediate; and exemptions for manufacturers of a chemical substance subject to an EPA-initiated risk evaluation if the chemical substance is imported in an article, produced as a byproduct, or produced or imported as an impurity. EPA updated its cost estimates for administering TSCA, relevant information management activities, and individual fee calculation methodologies. EPA proposed a volume-based fee allocation for EPA-initiated risk evaluation fees in any scenario where a consortium is not formed and is proposing to require export-only manufacturers to pay fees for EPA-initiated risk evaluations. EPA also proposed various changes to the timing of certain activities required throughout the fee payment process. In light of public comments, EPA states that it has decided to issue a supplemental NPRM in October 2022 and seek additional public comment on changes to the January 2021 proposal. More information on the proposed rule is available in our December 30, 2020, memorandum.
  • New Chemicals Procedural Regulations to Reflect the 2016 Amendments to TSCA (2070-AK65): On June 22, 2016, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg Act) was signed into law, amending TSCA and impacting how EPA reviews and makes determinations on new chemical notices under TSCA Section 5. EPA states that as a result of these increased responsibilities, it has become more challenging to complete reviews within 90 days. This rulemaking seeks to revise the new chemicals procedural regulations in 40 C.F.R. Part 720 to improve the efficiency of EPA’s review process and to align its processes and procedures with the new statutory requirements. This rulemaking seeks to increase the quality of information initially submitted in new chemicals notices and improve EPA’s processes to reduce unnecessary rework in the risk assessment and, ultimately, the length of time that new chemicals are under review. EPA intends to publish an NPRM in February 2023.
  • Confidential Business Information (CBI) Claims under TSCA (2070-AK68): EPA is considering proposing new and amended rules concerning the assertion and maintenance of claims of CBI under TSCA. Amendments to TSCA in 2016 included several new provisions concerning the assertion and EPA review and treatment of confidentiality claims. EPA states that it is considering procedures for submitting and supporting such claims in TSCA submissions, including substantiation requirements, exemptions, electronic reporting enhancements, and maintenance or withdrawal of confidentiality claims. EPA is also considering whether the proposed rule should also elaborate on EPA’s procedures for reviewing and communicating with TSCA submitters about confidentiality claims. EPA expects the proposed rule to include new provisions, as well as revisions to existing rules on asserting confidentiality claims to conform to the 2016 amendments to TSCA. As reported in our May 17 and May 18, 2022, memoranda, EPA issued a proposed rule on May 12, 2022. EPA intends to issue a final rule in May 2023.
  • Chemical-Specific Rulemakings under TSCA Section 6(a): TSCA Section 6 requires EPA to address unreasonable risks of injury to health or the environment that the Administrator has determined are presented by a chemical substance under the conditions of use. Following risk evaluations for the following chemicals carried out under the authority of TSCA Section 6, EPA initiated rulemakings to address unreasonable risks of injury to health identified in the final risk evaluations:
    • Methylene Chloride (2070-AK70): EPA’s risk evaluation for methylene chloride, describing the conditions of use and presenting EPA’s determinations of unreasonable risk, is in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0437, with additional information in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0742. EPA intends to issue an NPRM in February 2023 and a final rule in August 2024. More information on EPA’s draft revision to its risk determination for methylene chloride will be available in a forthcoming memorandum;
    • 1-Bromopropane (2070-AK73): EPA’s risk evaluation for 1-bromopropane, describing the conditions of use and presenting EPA’s determinations of unreasonable risk, is in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0235, with additional information in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0741. EPA intends to publish an NPRM in May 2023 and a final rule in August 2024;
    • Carbon Tetrachloride (2070-AK82): EPA’s risk evaluation, describing the conditions of use and presenting EPA’s determinations of unreasonable risk, is in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0499, with additional information in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0733. EPA intends to publish an NPRM in April 2023 and a final rule in August 2024;
    • Trichloroethylene (TCE) (2070-AK83): EPA’s risk evaluation for TCE, describing the conditions of use and presenting EPA’s determinations of unreasonable risk, is in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0500, with additional information in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0737. EPA intends to publish an NPRM in March 2023 and a final rule in August 2024. More information on EPA’s draft revision to its risk determination for TCE will be available in a forthcoming memorandum;
    • Perchloroethylene (PCE) (2070-AK84): EPA’s risk evaluation for PCE, describing the conditions of use and presenting EPA’s determinations of unreasonable risk, is in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0502, with additional information in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0732. EPA intends to publish an NPRM in February 2023 and a final rule in August 2024. More information on EPA’s draft revision to its risk determination for PCE will be available in a forthcoming memorandum;
    • N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP) (2070-AK85): EPA’s risk evaluation for NMP, describing the conditions of use and presenting EPA’s determinations of unreasonable risk, is in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0236, with additional information in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0743. EPA intends to publish an NPRM in May 2023 and a final rule in August 2024. More information on EPA’s draft revision to its risk determination for NMP will be available in a forthcoming memorandum; and
    • Asbestos (Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos) (2070-AK86): EPA’s risk evaluation for chrysotile asbestos, describing the conditions of use and presenting EPA’s determinations of unreasonable risk, is in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0501, with additional information in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0736. More information on EPA’s proposed rule to prohibit ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos is available in our April 7, 2022, memorandum. EPA intends to publish a final rule in November 2023.
  • Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation under TSCA (2070-AK90): As required under TSCA Section 6(b)(4), EPA published a final rule on July 20, 2017, that established a process for conducting risk evaluations to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation, under the conditions of use. This process incorporates the science requirements of the amended statute, including best available science and weight of the scientific evidence. The final rule established the steps of a risk evaluation process, including: scope, hazard assessment, exposure assessment, risk characterization, and risk determination. EPA states that it is now considering revisions to that final rule and will solicit public comment through an NPRM. EPA intends to publish the NPRM in September 2022. More information on EPA’s 2017 rule is available in our June 26, 2017, memorandum.
  • Asbestos; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements under TSCA (2070-AK99): This rulemaking, under the authority of TSCA Section 8(a), would require certain persons that manufactured (including imported) or processed asbestos and asbestos-containing articles (including as an impurity) to report certain exposure-related information, including quantities of asbestos and asbestos-containing articles manufactured (including imported) or processed, types of asbestos used, and employee data. Reported information would be used by EPA and other federal agencies in considering the regulation of asbestos. EPA notes that this rulemaking is the result of a settlement agreement stemming from litigation pursuant to TSCA Section 21. See Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization v. EPA, No. 19-CV-00871; State of California et al. v. EPA, No. 19-CV-03807. More information on EPA’s proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements is available in our May 6, 2022, memorandum. EPA intends to publish a final rule in November 2022.
  • Other Chemical Substances Undergoing TSCA Section 6 Risk Evaluation; Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) for Certain Non-Ongoing Uses (2070-AL05): EPA is developing TSCA Section 5(a)(2) SNURs on conditions of use identified as not currently ongoing in the final scope documents for the high-priority substances undergoing TSCA Section 6 risk evaluations. EPA states that it will use the SNURs to require notice to EPA before chemical substances and mixtures are used in new ways that might create concerns. Persons subject to a SNUR who intend to manufacture (including import) or process the chemical substance for the significant new use must notify EPA at least 90 days prior to initiating activities via a significant new use notice (SNUN). EPA intends to publish an NPRM in December 2022 and a final rule in May 2024.
  • The Unified Agenda includes the following chemical-specific SNURs for certain non-ongoing uses:
    • Phthalates; SNUR for Certain Non-Ongoing Uses (2070-AL06): EPA intends to publish an NPRM in November 2022 and a final rule in May 2024;
    • Flame Retardants; SNUR for Certain Non-Ongoing Uses (2070-AL07): EPA intends to publish an NPRM in December 2022 and a final rule in November 2023; and
    • Certain Solvents; SNUR for Certain Non-Ongoing Uses (2070-AL08): EPA intends to publish an NPRM in December 2022 and a final rule in May 2024.
  • Inactive Inventory Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) SNUR (2070-AL10): EPA is developing a SNUR under TSCA Section 5(a)(2) for certain uses of Inactive Inventory PFAS. Persons subject to the Inactive Inventory PFAS SNUR would be required to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing manufacture or processing for any use that EPA has determined is a significant new use. The required notifications would initiate EPA’s evaluation of the intended use within the applicable review period. Manufacture and processing for the significant new use would be unable to commence until EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and taken such actions as are required in association with that determination. EPA intends to publish an NPRM in September 2022 and a final rule in June 2023.
  • TRI; Response to Petition to Add Diisononyl Phthalate (DINP) to the TRI List of Toxic Chemicals (2025-AA17): According to EPA, this action arises from a petition received by EPA to add DINP to the list of toxic chemicals reportable under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA). In response to the petition, EPA initiated a rulemaking on September 5, 2000, proposing to add DINP to the TRI list. On June 14, 2005, EPA issued a notice of data availability seeking comments on EPA’s revised hazard assessment for DINP in further support of EPA’s proposal to add DINP to the TRI list. EPA states that the addition of DINP to the TRI list would make it subject to all the reporting requirements under the Toxic Chemical Release Reporting Rule. EPA intends to publish a supplemental NPRM in July 2022 and a final rule in May 2023;
  • Changes to Reporting Requirements for PFAS; Community Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting (2070-AK97): EPA is developing a proposal to add PFAS subject to reporting under EPCRA Section 313 and Section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) to the list of Lower Thresholds for Chemicals of Special Concern (Chemicals of Special Concern). EPA states that the addition of the PFAS to the Chemicals of Special Concern list will eliminate the use of the de minimis exemption, eliminate the option to use Form A, and limit the use of range reporting. In addition, EPA is proposing to eliminate the use of the de minimis exemption under the Supplier Notification Requirements for facilities that manufacture or process all chemicals included on the Chemicals of Special Concern list. According to EPA, Chemicals of Special Concern may be found in products below de minimis levels; this is especially true for PFAS that are used at low concentrations in many products. Because of the widespread use of PFAS and their (or their degradants) persistence in the environment, however, even concentrations below de minimis levels can contribute significantly to environmental loading. The elimination of the de minimis exemption for supplier notification purposes will help facilities to identify potential sources of PFAS and other Chemicals of Special Concern. EPA believes that the elimination of the de minimis exemption under the Supplier Notification Requirements for PFAS and other Chemicals of Special Concern will result in a more complete picture of the releases and waste management quantities for these chemicals. EPA intends to publish an NPRM in September 2022 and a final rule in November 2023.
  • Addition of Certain PFAS to the TRI (2070-AL03): EPA is developing a rulemaking to add certain PFAS to the list of chemicals reportable under EPCRA Section 313. EPA states that the addition of these PFAS is in direct response to a statutory mandate under Section 7321(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (NDAA). Under Section 7321(d), EPA was required to evaluate whether certain specific PFAS meet the EPCRA Section 313 listing criteria by December 2021 and is required to add any PFAS that EPA determines meet the listing criteria by December 2023. EPA intends to publish an NPRM in February 2023 and a final rule in November 2023.
  • Community Right-to-Know; Adopting 2022 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes for TRI Reporting (2070-AL09): EPA is developing a proposed rule to incorporate the revised 2022 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes for TRI reporting purposes. According to EPA, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) updates the NAICS codes every five years. OMB approved the 2022 NAICS codes on December 21, 2021 (86 Fed. Reg. 72277), with an effective date of January 1, 2022. EPA currently uses 2017 NAICS codes, and with this proposed rule would implement the 2022 codes for TRI Reporting Year 2022. Facilities reporting to the TRI would be required to use 2022 NAICS codes on reports that are due to EPA by July 1, 2023. This rule also proposed to update the C.F.R. to clarify the scope of facilities required to report to the TRI. According to EPA, the actual data required by a TRI form would not change as a result of this rulemaking, nor would the rule affect the universe of TRI reporting facilities that are required to submit reports to EPA under EPCRA Section 313. EPA intended to publish an NPRM in June 2022 and a final rule in November 2022.

Final Rule Stage

  • Significant New Uses of Chemical Substances; Updates to the Hazard Communication Program and Regulatory Framework; Minor Amendments to Reporting Requirements for Premanufacture Notices (PMN) (2070-AJ94): In 2016, EPA proposed changes to the existing regulations governing significant new uses of chemical substances under TSCA (40 C.F.R. Part 721, specifically “Protection in the Workplace” (40 C.F.R. Section 721.63) and “Hazard Communication Program” (40 C.F.R. Section 721.72)) to align these regulations with revisions to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Hazard Communications Standard (HCS) (29 C.F.R. Section 1910.1200), which are proposed to be cross referenced, and with changes to the OSHA Respiratory Protection Standard and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) respirator certification requirements pertaining to respiratory protection of workers from exposure to chemicals. EPA also proposed changes to the significant new uses of chemical substance regulations based on issues that have been identified by EPA and issues raised by public commenters for SNURs previously proposed and issued under these regulations. Additionally, EPA proposed a minor change to reporting requirements for PMNs and other TSCA Section 5 notices. EPA states that it expects these changes to have minimal impacts on the costs and burdens of complying, while updating the significant new use reporting requirements to assist in addressing any potential effects to human health and the environment. EPA is reviewing the comments received and is planning to issue a final rule. EPA intends to issue a final rule in October 2022. More information on the proposed rule is available in our July 29, 2016, memorandum.
  • Reporting and Recordkeeping for PFAS under TSCA Section 8(a)(7) (2070-AK67): EPA published a proposed rule on June 28, 2021, addressing reporting and recordkeeping requirements for PFAS under TSCA Section 8(a)(7). In accordance with obligations under TSCA Section 8(a), as amended by NDAA Section 7351, persons that manufacture (including import) or have manufactured these chemical substances in any year since January 1, 2011, would be subject to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements. In addition to fulfilling statutory obligations under TSCA, EPA states that it expects that the proposed rule would enable it to characterize better the sources and quantities of manufactured PFAS in the United States. EPA intends to publish a final rule in December 2022. More information on EPA’s proposed rule is available in our June 11, 2021, memorandum.
  • TRI; Response to Petition from the Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI) to Add 25 Chemicals (2070-AK26): The Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI) submitted a petition under EPCRA Section 313(e)(1) to add 25 chemicals to the EPCRA Section 313 list of toxic chemicals subject to reporting under the TRI. Three of the 25 chemicals were added to the EPCRA Section 313 list through actions unrelated to the petition. EPA states that it evaluated the remaining 22 chemicals to determine if they met the listing criteria of EPCRA Section 313(d)(2). EPA proposed the addition of 12 of the 22 chemicals that were determined to meet the EPCRA Section 313(d)(2) criteria and for which reports were expected to be filed. EPA is reviewing the comments received and is planning to issue a final rule. EPA intends to issue a final rule in November 2022.
  • Parent Company Definition for TRI Reporting (2070-AK42): In 2021, EPA proposed to codify the definition of “parent company” for purposes of reporting to the TRI. Although the existing regulation requires facilities reporting to the TRI to identify their parent company in annual reporting forms, no codified definition of this data element exists. Among the facilities reporting to the TRI are those with complicated corporate ownership structures. As such, effort is required each year by reporting facilities and EPA to clarify how the parent company data element should be represented on the form. According to EPA, a codified definition of parent company would allow EPA to address various corporate ownership scenarios explicitly and reduce the reporting burden caused by regulatory uncertainty. EPA states that the proposed rule would clarify existing regulations to reporting facilities and add a foreign parent company data element, if applicable, while improving EPA’s data quality. EPA is reviewing the comments received and is determining next steps. EPA intends to publish a final rule in October 2022.
  • NDAA Mandated Addition of Certain PFAS to the TRI for Reporting Year 2022 (2070-AL04): According to EPA, NDAA Section 7321 provides a framework for PFAS to be added automatically to the TRI list on January 1 of the year following certain EPA actions. In December 2021, EPA announced the statutory addition of the PFAS chemicals covered by the NDAA to the list of chemical substances subject to reporting for the TRI. This regulatory action amends the EPCRA regulations in 40 C.F.R. Part 372 to reflect this statutory addition. EPA intended to publish a final rule in June 2022.

 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
On June 6, 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the winners of the 2022 Green Chemistry Challenge Awards. EPA states that green chemistry “is the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the generation and use of hazardous substances.” According to EPA, the winners “have developed new and innovative green chemistry technologies that provide solutions to significant environmental challenges and spur innovation and economic development.” In support of the Biden Administration’s commitment to tackle the climate crisis, EPA added a new award category recognizing technology that reduces or eliminates greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The 2022 winners include:

  • Professor Song Lin of Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, for developing a new, more efficient process to create large and complicated molecules that are widely used in the pharmaceutical industry. EPA states that the new technology avoids using hazardous materials and has the potential to reduce both energy use and wasteful byproducts.
     
  • Merck, Rahway, New Jersey, for developing a greener way to make LAGEVRIO™ (molnupiravir), an antiviral treatment for COVID-19. According to EPA, Merck significantly improved the manufacturing process for this antiviral drug in a short time, producing ingredients more efficiently and greatly reducing solvent waste and energy use.
     
  • Amgen, Thousand Oaks, California, for an improved manufacturing process for LUMAKRAS™ (sotorasib), a novel drug for the treatment of certain non-small cell lung cancers. EPA states that Amgen’s innovation decreased manufacturing time, lowered the amount of solvent waste generated, and established a recycling process for a high-value waste stream.
     
  • Provivi, Santa Monica, California, for creating ProviviFAW®, a biological pheromone-based product that controls the fall armyworm, a destructive pest of corn. The product’s pheromone active ingredients are produced through innovative green chemistry using renewable plant oils. According to EPA, ProviviFAW™ can reduce the need for conventional pesticides, which can be harmful to beneficial insects, such as pollinators.
     
  • Professor Mark Mascal of the University of California, Davis, California, in partnership with Origin Materials, for a technology that reduces GHG emissions by producing chemicals for making polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic from biomass derived from sugar fructose rather than petroleum. EPA states that this novel chemistry could have significant climate impacts by replacing fossil-based products with carbon-neutral, biobased products, especially when the technology is scaled to an entire industry.

EPA recognized the winners during the American Chemical Society Green Chemistry & Engineering Conference. EPA states that since 1996, EPA and the American Chemical Society, which co-sponsor the awards, have received more than 1,800 nominations and presented awards to 133 technologies that decrease hazardous chemicals and resources, reduce costs, protect public health, and spur economic growth. According to EPA, winning technologies are responsible for reducing the use or generation of nearly one billion pounds of hazardous chemicals, saving over 20 billion gallons of water, and eliminating nearly eight billion pounds of carbon dioxide equivalents released to the air.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
On May 27, 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requested nominations for technical experts to serve as special government employees (SGE) to participate in the review of the New Chemicals Collaborative Research Program with the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), a federal advisory committee to EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD). 87 Fed. Reg. 32161. BOSC will be evaluating ORD’s draft Strategic Research Action Plans Fiscal Years 2023-2026 in fall 2022. According to EPA, the fall 2022 meeting will provide a more in-depth evaluation of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) New Chemicals Collaborative Research Program and associated research plan. EPA states that it will provide an additional draft document that summarizes technical details of the research plan. ORD, in partnership with the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), proposes to develop and implement a multi-year collaborative research program focused on approaches for performing risk assessments on new chemical substances under TSCA.

EPA will consider nominees from industry, business, public and private research institutes or organizations, academia, government (federal, state, local, and Tribal), non-governmental organizations, and other relevant interest areas. EPA notes that it values and welcomes diversity. EPA encourages all qualified candidates to apply regardless of gender, race, disability, or ethnicity.

EPA invites nominations of individuals to serve as SGEs with expertise or extensive experience in the following scientific disciplines and topic areas as they relate to human health and the environment:

  • Using data to develop predictive models and use of predictive models in data-poor environments:
    • Read across and analogue selection;
    • Chemical structures and cheminformatics; and
    • Quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR);
  • Development, implementation, and validation of new approach methods (NAM). Relevant expertise may include:
    • Veterinary pathology or comparative physiology for perspective on relevance of laboratory animals for predicting human outcomes; and
    • Reference data curation to support validation;
  • Computational modeling, bioinformatics, and/or statistics;
  • Toxicokinetics, physiologically based pharmacokinetic models (PBPK), and in vitro to in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE);
  • Systems biology;
  • Human health and ecological risk assessment;
  • Exposure modeling and/or assessment, including near-field and far-field sources;
  • Knowledge of TSCA; and
  • Environmental fate of chemicals.

Nominations are due June 30, 2022. More information on EPA’s Draft Document on “Modernizing the Process and Bringing Innovative Science to Evaluate New Chemicals Under TSCA” is available in our March 14, 2022, memorandum.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) announced the availability of its fiscal year (FY) 2022 oversight plan on December 14, 2021. According to OIG, the plan reflects the priority work that the OIG believes is necessary to keep EPA, the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), and Congress fully informed about issues relating to the administration of EPA programs and operations. The planned oversight projects concerning Ensuring the Safe Use of Chemicals include:

  • Audit of EPA’s Management of New Chemical Risk Assessments Conducted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): Determine the extent to which EPA is using and complying with applicable records-management and quality-assurance requirements and employee performance standards to review and approve new chemicals under TSCA to manage human health and environmental risks;
     
  • Evaluation of EPA Regions’ Oversight Responsibilities for State and Tribal Drinking Water Certification Programs: Determine whether select EPA regions are fulfilling oversight responsibilities for drinking water certification programs in states and tribal nations;
     
  • Evaluation of EPA’s Use of Pesticide Incident-Reporting Data: Determine whether EPA uses pesticide incident-reporting data to prevent unreasonable adverse effects on human health and the environment;
     
  • Evaluation of Implementation of EPA’s Federal Certification for Applicators and Dealers of Restricted-Use Pesticides within Indian Country: Determine how EPA monitors and enforces the requirements for restricted-use pesticide applicators (private and commercial) and restricted-use pesticide dealers in Indian Country;
     
  • Evaluation of EPA’s Progress toward Providing States with Clear Benchmarks to Address Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Drinking Water: Determine why EPA has not established a mandatory limit for PFAS in drinking water; what challenges may prevent EPA from setting such a limit; and what EPA’s plan -- if one exists -- is for implementing such a limit; and
     
  • Evaluation of EPA’s Progress to Identify Key Regulatory Stakeholders for TSCA Existing Chemical Risk Management: Determine whether EPA identified and partnered with key regulatory stakeholders and developed a process to coordinate the regulation of occupational exposures from existing chemicals under TSCA.

Ongoing projects concerning Ensuring the Safe Use of Chemicals include:

  • Evaluation of EPA’s Cancer Assessment Review for Pesticide 1,3-Dichloropropene: Evaluate the extent to which EPA followed policies and procedures in developing the cancer assessment for the 1,3-dichloropropene pesticide registration review decision to prevent unreasonable adverse effects on human health; and
     
  • Evaluation of EPA’s Overdue Residual Risk and Technology Reviews: Evaluate whether EPA has conducted residual risk and technology reviews in a timely manner, as required for EPA to revise standards, as needed, to protect the public from air toxics emitted by stationary sources.

Planned and ongoing projects concerning Safeguarding Scientific Integrity Principles include:

  • Congressional Request: Evaluation of EPA’s Changes to Final Perfluoroalkyl Carboxylate and Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonate Significant New Use Rule (SNUR): Determine the extent to which EPA followed applicable policies, procedures, and guidance for the changes made to the Long-Chain Perfluoroalkyl Carboxylate and Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonate Chemical Substances SNUR between the EPA Administrator’s signing of the final SNUR on June 22, 2020, and the publication of the final SNUR in the Federal Register on July 27, 2020; and
     
  • Evaluation of EPA’s January 2021 Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid (PFBS) Toxicity Assessment: Determine whether EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) and Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) followed applicable policies and procedures in the development and publication of the January 19, 2021, PFBS toxicity assessment.

OIG states that it is important to note that its planning efforts “are not static and that the projects included herein may be modified throughout the year as challenges and risks for the EPA and the CSB evolve and emerge.”


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton

On December 10, 2021, the Biden Administration released its Fall 2021 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rule list, the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) is working on the following rulemakings under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Rulemakings at the proposed stage include:

  • Tiered Data Reporting to Inform Prioritization, Risk Evaluation, and Risk Management Under TSCA (2070-AK62): EPA is developing this rule to obtain information about potential hazards and exposure pathways related to certain chemicals, particularly occupational, environmental, and consumer exposure information. EPA states that this information is needed to inform prioritization, risk evaluation, and risk management of the chemical substances under TSCA Section 6. EPA intends to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in July 2022 and a final rule in March 2023. More information on the rulemaking is available in our July 29, 2021, memorandum;
     
  • Revisions to the TSCA Fees Rule (2070-AK64): In January 2021, EPA proposed updates and adjustments to the 2018 TSCA Fees Rule. EPA proposed to add three new fee categories: a Bona Fide Intent to Manufacture or Import Notice, a Notice of Commencement of Manufacture or Import, and an additional fee associated with test orders. In addition, EPA proposed exemptions for entities subject to certain fee triggering activities, including: an exemption for research and development activities; an exemption for entities manufacturing less than 2,500 pounds of a chemical subject to an EPA-initiated risk evaluation fee; an exemption for manufacturers of chemical substances produced as a non-isolated intermediate; and exemptions for manufacturers of a chemical substance subject to an EPA-initiated risk evaluation if the chemical substance is imported in an article, produced as a byproduct, or produced or imported as an impurity. EPA proposed a volume-based fee allocation for EPA-initiated risk evaluation fees in any scenario where a consortium is not formed and proposed to require export-only manufacturers to pay fees for EPA-initiated risk evaluations. EPA states that in light of public comments, it has decided to issue a supplemental proposal and seek additional public comment on changes to the January 2021 proposal. EPA intends to issue a supplemental NPRM in February 2022. EPA has not determined when it will issue a final rule. More information on the proposed rule is available in our December 30, 2020, memorandum;
     
  • New Chemicals Procedural Regulations to Reflect Amendments to TSCA (2070-AK65): This rulemaking seeks to revise the new chemicals procedural regulations in 40 C.F.R. Part 720 to improve the efficiency of EPA’s review process and to align its processes and procedures with the new statutory requirements. According to EPA, this rulemaking seeks to increase the quality of information initially submitted in new chemicals notices and improve its processes “to reduce unnecessary rework in the risk assessment and, ultimately, the length of time that new chemicals are under review.” EPA intends to publish an NPRM in September 2022. EPA has not determined when it will issue a final rule;
     
  • Procedures for Submitting Information Subject to Business Confidentiality Claims Under TSCA (2070-AK68): EPA states that it is considering proposing new and amended rules concerning the assertion and maintenance of claims of business confidentiality (i.e., confidential business information (CBI)) under TSCA. The 2016 TSCA amendments included several new provisions concerning the assertion and EPA review and treatment of confidentiality claims. EPA is considering procedures for submitting and supporting such claims in TSCA submissions, including substantiation requirements, exemptions, electronic reporting enhancements, and maintenance or withdrawal of confidentiality claims. EPA is also considering whether the proposed rule should elaborate on EPA’s procedures for reviewing and communicating with TSCA submitters about confidentiality claims. According to EPA, it expects the proposed rule to include new provisions, as well as revisions to existing rules on asserting confidentiality claims to conform to the 2016 amendments. EPA intends to issue an NPRM in April 2022;
     
  • Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster (HBCD); Rulemaking Under TSCA Section 6(a) (2070-AK71): TSCA Section 6 requires EPA to address unreasonable risks of injury to health or the environment that the Administrator has determined are presented by a chemical substance under the conditions of use. Following a TSCA Section 6 risk evaluation for HBCD, EPA initiated rulemaking to address unreasonable risks of injury to health and the environment identified in the final risk evaluation. EPA intends to publish an NPRM by September 2022 and a final rule by April 2024. More information on the final risk evaluation is available in our September 28, 2020, memorandum;
     
  • 1-Bromopropane; Rulemaking Under TSCA Section 6(a) (2070-AK73): TSCA Section 6 requires EPA to address unreasonable risks of injury to health or the environment that the Administrator has determined are presented by a chemical substance under the conditions of use. Following a TSCA Section 6 risk evaluation for 1-bromopropane, EPA initiated rulemaking to address unreasonable risks of injury to health identified in the final risk evaluation. EPA intends to issue an NPRM in October 2022 and a final rule in May 2024. More information on the final risk evaluation is available in our August 11, 2020, memorandum;
     
  • Carbon Tetrachloride; Rulemaking Under TSCA Section 6(a) (2070-AK82): TSCA Section 6 requires EPA to address unreasonable risks of injury to health or the environment that the Administrator has determined are presented by a chemical substance under the conditions of use. Following a TSCA Section 6 risk evaluation for carbon tetrachloride, EPA initiated rulemaking to address unreasonable risks of injury to health identified in the final risk evaluation. EPA intends to issue an NPRM in October 2022 and a final rule in June 2024. More information on the final risk evaluation is available in our November 4, 2020, memorandum;
     
  • Trichloroethylene (TCE); Rulemaking Under TSCA Section 6(a) (2070-AK83): TSCA Section 6 requires EPA to address unreasonable risks of injury to health or the environment that the Administrator has determined are presented by a chemical substance under the conditions of use. Following a TSCA Section 6 risk evaluation for TCE carried out under the authority of TSCA Section 6, EPA initiated rulemaking to address unreasonable risks of injury to health identified in the final risk evaluation. EPA intends to issue an NPRM in October 2022 and a final rule in June 2024. More information on the final risk evaluation is available in our November 24, 2020, memorandum;
     
  • Asbestos (Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos); Rulemaking under TSCA Section 6(a) (2070-AK86): TSCA Section 6 requires EPA to address unreasonable risks of injury to health or the environment that the Administrator has determined are presented by a chemical substance under the conditions of use. Following a TSCA Section 6 risk evaluation for chrysotile asbestos, EPA initiated rulemaking to address unreasonable risks of injury to health identified in the final risk evaluation. EPA intends to issue an NPRM by April 2022 and a final rule by November 2023. More information on the final risk evaluation is available in our January 4, 2021, memorandum;
     
  • Reconsideration of Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under the Amended TSCA (2070-AK90): EPA published a final rule on July 20, 2017, that established a process for conducting risk evaluations to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation, under the conditions of use. This process incorporates the science requirements of the amended statute, including best available science and weight of the scientific evidence. The final rule established the steps of a risk evaluation process, including: scope, hazard assessment, exposure assessment, risk characterization, and risk determination. EPA states that it is now in the process of reconsidering the final rule in keeping with new executive orders (EO) concerning the advancement of racial equity and support for underserved communities through the federal government (EO 13985), the protection of public health and the environment and restoring science to tackle the climate crisis (EO 13990), tackling the climate crisis at home and abroad (EO 14008), and other Administration priorities (such as the Presidential memorandum on restoring trust in government through scientific integrity and evidence-based policymaking). If EPA determines to amend the 2017 final rule based on its reconsideration, it will solicit public comment through an NPRM. EPA intends to publish an NPRM in September 2022;
     
  • Regulation of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) Chemicals Under TSCA Section 6(h); Phenol, Isopropylated Phosphate (3:1) (PIP (3:1)); Further Compliance Date Extension (2070-AK95): EPA proposed in October 2021 to amend the regulations applicable to PIP (3:1) promulgated under TSCA. Specifically, EPA proposes to extend the compliance date applicable to the processing and distribution in commerce of certain PIP (3:1)-containing articles and the PIP (3:1) used to make those articles until October 31, 2024, along with the associated recordkeeping requirements for manufacturers, processors, and distributors of PIP (3:1)-containing articles. EPA notes that the articles covered by the proposed rule include a wide range of key consumer and commercial goods such as cellular telephones, laptop computers, and other electronic and electrical devices and industrial and commercial equipment used in various sectors, including transportation, construction, agriculture, forestry, mining, life sciences, and semiconductor production. The proposed rule follows a recently-issued final rule that extended the compliance date applicable to the processing and distribution in commerce of certain PIP (3:1)-containing articles, and the PIP (3:1) used to make those articles, from March 8, 2021, to March 8, 2022, along with the associated recordkeeping requirements. Comments on the proposed rule are due December 27, 2021. EPA intends to issue a final rule in March 2022. More information on the proposed rule is available in our October 25, 2021, memorandum; and
     
  • TSCA Section 8(a) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Asbestos (2070-AK99): This rulemaking, under the authority of TSCA Section 8(a), would require the maintenance of records and submission to EPA of reports by manufacturers, importers, and processors of asbestos and mixtures and articles containing asbestos (including as an impurity). EPA states that the information sought includes data on the quantities of asbestos used in making products, employee exposure data, and waste disposal data. Reported information would be used by EPA and other federal agencies in considering the regulation of asbestos. EPA intends to issue an NPRM in March 2022 and a final rule in November 2022.

The Unified Agenda lists the following TSCA rulemaking at the final stage:

  • Significant New Uses of Chemical Substances; Updates to the Hazard Communication Program and Regulatory Framework; Minor Amendments to Reporting Requirements for Premanufacture Notices (PMN) (2070-AJ94): EPA proposed amending components of the Significant New Uses of Chemical Substances regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 721, specifically the “Protection in the Workplace” (40 C.F.R. Section 721.63) and “Hazard Communication Program” (40 C.F.R. Section 721.72). 81 Fed. Reg. 49598. The proposed changes are intended to align, where possible, EPA’s regulations with the revised Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations at 29 C.F.R. Section 1910.1200. OSHA issued a final rule on March 26, 2012, (77 Fed. Reg. 17573) that aligns OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standards with the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). EPA states that it is reviewing the comments received and is planning to issue a final rule. EPA intends to issue a final rule in September 2022. More information on EPA’s 2016 proposed rule is available in our July 29, 2016, memorandum.

 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton

On November 15, 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) announced the availability of its annual report summarizing what OIG considers the “most serious management and performance challenges facing the agency.” According to OIG, EPA’s top management challenges in fiscal year (FY) 2022 include:

  • Mitigating the Causes and Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change: EPA must take a leadership role in limiting climate change and mitigating its effect on human health and the environment;
     
  • Integrating and Leading Environmental Justice across EPA and the Government: As part of its effort to integrate environmental justice across its programs, EPA must address the environmental hazards and cumulative risk facing at-risk communities and effectively communicate that risk to those communities;
     
  • Ensuring the Safe Use of Chemicals: OIG states that to protect effectively public health and the environment, EPA must be able to depend on its ability to conduct credible and timely assessments of the risks posed by pesticides, toxic chemicals, and other environmental chemical risks. According to OIG, the 2016 expansion of EPA’s regulatory authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has increased the need for conducting rapid and accurate risk assessments. OIG notes that EPA must also continue to conduct registration and reregistration of “hundreds of pesticides per year, as well as assure that it is setting appropriate exposure levels for contaminants in drinking water.” Without appropriate resource and implementation plans in place to demonstrate that EPA can accomplish this work, and without the ability to conduct scientifically sound risk assessments accurately, the public’s trust and confidence in EPA’s ability to accomplish its mission of protecting human health and the environment will be at risk;
     
  • Safeguarding Scientific Integrity Principles: Science-based decisions at EPA must be based on principles of scientific integrity to ensure that human health and the environment are protected by using the best available science. EPA must develop new processes and update its regulations, policies, and guidance to protect scientific integrity. According to OIG, taking these actions will help make EPA decisions more legally defensible and maintain public trust in its decision making;
     
  • Ensuring Information Technology and Systems Are Protected against Cyberthreats: Information technology is a fundamental and essential resource for EPA to carry out its mission;
     
  • Managing Infrastructure Funding and Business Operations: EPA must effectively oversee the funding and operation of America’s water, wastewater, and other environmental infrastructure; and
     
  • Enforcing Environmental Laws and Regulations: Through enforcement, EPA ensures that regulated entities are following environmental laws and will continue to do so, as enforcement actions effectively deter future noncompliance. According to OIG, considering EPA’s limited resources, and despite potential funding increases in FY 2022, “EPA is challenged to assess its resource requirements for the enforcement program and identify innovative and cost-effective means of detecting and deterring noncompliance in the future.”

 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on October 26, 2021, that it is acting upon a petition from New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) to address per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA states that in responding to the petition, it outlined plans to initiate the rulemaking process for two new RCRA actions, “reflecting the agency’s focus on using best available science and leveraging authorities to combat this shared challenge.” First, EPA will initiate the process to propose adding four PFAS as RCRA Hazardous Constituents under Appendix VIII, by evaluating the existing data for these chemicals and establishing a record to support such a proposed rule. The four PFAS that EPA will evaluate are perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS), and GenX. EPA states that adding these chemicals as RCRA Hazardous Constituents “would ensure they are subject to corrective action requirements and would be a necessary building block for future work to regulate PFAS as a listed hazardous waste.” The second rulemaking effort will clarify in EPA’s regulations that the RCRA Corrective Action Program has the authority to require investigation and cleanup for wastes that meet the statutory definition of hazardous waste, as defined under RCRA Section 1004(5). According to EPA, this modification would clarify that emerging contaminants such as PFAS can be cleaned up through the RCRA corrective action process.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
On September 22, 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognized 33 Safer Choice Partner of the Year award winners across 16 states and the District of Columbia for achievement in the design, manufacture, selection, and use of products with safer chemicals. The Safer Choice program helps consumers and purchasers for facilities, such as schools and office buildings, find products that perform and are safer for human health and the environment. According to EPA, the work of many of the organizations being recognized addressed climate change, including by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, several awardees have worked to increase access to products with safer chemical ingredients in underserved communities. EPA states that in the coming year, it hopes to build on this work by expanding the Safer Choice program to make products containing safer chemicals increasingly available to underserved communities, including communities of color and low-income communities. The 2021 Partner of the Year award winners include:

  • Albertsons Companies, Safer Choice Retailer: Albertsons expanded their line of Safer Choice-certified products by adding six laundry detergent products that have SmartLabels that allow customers to scan a product quick response (QR) code and learn more about the Safer Choice certification. Albertsons also worked with cities and counties to identify opportunities to educate underserved households about safer cleaning and disinfecting products.
     
  • American Cleaning Institute (ACI), Safer Choice Supporter: ACI contributed toxicological reviews that resulted in eight chemicals being added to EPA’s Safer Chemical Ingredients List (SCIL) and was the first non-manufacturer to do so. ACI’s news media coverage featuring the Safer Choice program generated a total potential reach of 11.2 million in 2020 and highlighted that “Adding chemicals to SCIL encourages innovation and growth in safer products, increases markets for manufacturers and helps protect people and the environment.”
     
  • Apple, Safer Choice Supporter: Apple uses internal Apple Safer Cleaner Criteria based on Safer Choice criteria, among other assessment tools, to determine the safer chemical status of chemicals used in its manufacturing processes. Apple assessed 54 new cleaners, bringing the total to more than 80 safer cleaner and degreaser alternatives approved for use by more than 80,000 employees in their supply chain.
     
  • The Ashkin Group, Safer Choice Supporter: The Ashkin Group included Safer Choice in training programs for frontline cleaning workers, training more than 30,000 workers to date, the majority of whom are from underserved communities.
     
  • BASF Home Care and I&I Cleaning Solutions (BASF), Safer Choice Innovator: BASF added 13 and renewed 25 safer ingredients on CleanGredients, a database of chemical ingredients pre-approved for use in Safer Choice-certified products. This brought their total to 74 ingredients across seven functional class categories.
     
  • Bona, Safer Choice Formulator-Product Manufacturer: Achieving Safer Choice-certification is a companywide objective for Bona. Since becoming a Safer Choice partner in 2020, Bona has certified 13 products. Bona has reformulated more than 90 percent of their current cleaner line for Safer Choice certification.
     
  • Case Medical, Safer Choice Formulator-Product Manufacturer: Case Medical broadened the availability of their line of Safer Choice-certified products to additional markets. They built these formulations with ingredients from the SCIL and from CleanGredients.
     
  • Church & Dwight Co., Inc. (CHD), Safer Choice Formulator-Product Manufacturer: CHD had a new product certified by Safer Choice. CHD’s advertising of this new Safer Choice-certified product included national television, digital, and print ads, and social media, with a potential reach of 169 million. CHD partnered with Safer Choice to develop and implement an in vitro testing strategy to meet Safer Choice pH criteria for laundry detergents.
     
  • The Clorox Company, Safer Choice Formulator-Product Manufacturer: Clorox updated ten formulations and added a new product to their offering of Safer Choice- and Design for the Environment (DfE)-certified products, bringing the total to 37 Stock Keeping Units (SKU) spanning 19 retail and 18 industrial and institutional products. They also increased the percentage of Safer Choice-certified products displaying the Safer Choice label prominently on the front product label from 57 percent of products in 2019 to 70 percent of products in 2020.
     
  • Defunkify, Safer Choice Formulator-Product Manufacturer: Defunkify has 15 Safer Choice-certified products, a 67 percent increase over 2019. Defunkify centers their communications strategy on emphasizing product performance and Safer Choice certification.
     
  • Dirty Labs Inc., Safer Choice Formulator-Product Manufacturer: Dirty Labs’ first two commercial products are Safer Choice-certified, and every ingredient in these products is listed on CleanGredients. The lifecycles and sources for these ingredients are mapped on Dirty Labs’ website.
     
  • ECOS, Safer Choice Formulator-Product Manufacturer: ECOS added four new products, renewed four products, and updated 11 product formulations. In total, ECOS offers more than 150 products that are Safer Choice-certified, which represents 79 percent of all ECOS product offerings.
     
  • Grove Collaborative, Safer Choice Formulator-Product Manufacturer: Grove Collaborative expanded beyond the hand soap category to certify their entire liquid laundry and dishwasher detergent collections. Grove Collaborative made it easier for customers to learn about the Safer Choice program and find certified products on their website by creating an EPA Safer Choice Spotlight store.
     
  • Hazardous Waste Management Program, King County, Washington, Safer Choice Supporter: The program featured Safer Choice in presentations at virtual webinars, as well as in publications and educational materials available in more than a dozen languages. The program also piloted a Safer Choice retail product mapping database that lists Safer Choice-certified products and information on the store where each product is sold, with the goal of increasing access to Safer Choice-certified products.
     
  • The Home Depot, Safer Choice Retailer: In 2020, Home Depot carried 173 Safer Choice-certified products. These products are featured in a callout on Home Depot’s Eco Options website, which had more than 410,000 views in 2020.
     
  • Household & Commercial Products Association (HCPA), Safer Choice Supporter. HCPA continued its support of the Safer Choice program by bringing stakeholders together from across HCPA’s membership virtually to strengthen Safer Choice, encourage more HCPA members to get their products certified by Safer Choice, and engage in discussions with Safer Choice staff about improvements to the program.
     
  • Jelmar, LLC, Safer Choice Formulator-Product Manufacturer: Jelmar added three new products to its Safer Choice partnership. Jelmar displays the Safer Choice label to consumers on 100 percent of its Safer Choice-certified products. In addition to its product labels, Jelmar features the Safer Choice label in advertisements for television, social media, online video, podcasts, and at trade shows.
     
  • Lake Monroe Sailing Association (LMSA), Safer Choice Supporter: The City of Bloomington, Indiana, relies on the Lake Monroe watershed for drinking water, recreation, and supporting the local economy. LMSA uses Safer Choice-certified products on facility-owned boats and makes these products easily accessible at no cost to their 200 members by placing them at boat cleaning stations.
     
  • Lemi Shine, Safer Choice Formulator-Product Manufacturer: Lemi Shine added three products and updated five Safer Choice-certified formulations in 2020. Currently, 18 of their 21 products are Safer Choice-certified, and Lemi Shine prioritizes formulating with chemicals from the SCIL in over 99 percent of their materials.
     
  • LightHouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired, Safer Choice Formulator-Product Manufacturer: LightHouse is a non-profit that has programs to help blind and visually impaired employees get experience in many areas, including chemical manufacturing, chemical blending, and quality assurance and control. LightHouse had record sales for their Safer Choice-certified products in 2020, with all proceeds going directly to the blind and visually impaired community.
     
  • LSI, Innovator: LSI developed a formula for a DfE-certified, fast-acting hydrogen peroxide-based disinfectant that combats SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. This base formulation is registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and certified under the DfE program.
     
  • Novozymes North America, Safer Choice Innovator: In 2020, Novozymes added six enzyme ingredients to CleanGredients. Novozymes also supported 25 requests made by formulators and brand owners for certification of formulations by the Safer Choice program.
     
  • Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)-Toxics Use Reduction Program, Safer Choice Supporter: Oregon DEQ developed innovative projects with goals of building a community that purchases safer products and of directly supporting businesses in obtaining Safer Choice certification. In partnership with the Pollution Prevention Resource Center, Oregon DEQ’s team developed and implemented a Safer Chemical Alternatives Training Program that focused on increasing knowledge about Safer Choice-certified products.
     
  • The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G), Safer Choice Formulator-Product Manufacturer: P&G added 12 products to their Safer Choice-certified line and updated two formulations. P&G designed, formulated, and manufactured their first complete Safer Choice-certified brand portfolio that is a collection of fabric and home care products.
     
  • PurposeBuilt Brands, Safer Choice Formulator-Product Manufacturer: PurposeBuilt Brands added 12 products (with 27 SKUs) to their line of Safer Choice-certified products.
     
  • Roger McFadden and Associates, LLC, Safer Choice Supporter: McFadden and Associates designed 21 products to meet Safer Choice criteria. Based on their pro bono technical recommendations, three health care facilities replaced eight cleaning products, amounting to 84,500 pounds, with Safer Choice-certified products.
     
  • Rust-Oleum Corporation, Safer Choice Formulator-Product Manufacturer: Rust-Oleum increased their offering of Safer Choice-certified products by 19 percent to 16 products (with 42 SKUs). They also began focusing on using concentrates and refillable bottles to reduce plastic use and emissions, contributing to EPA’s goal of addressing climate change.
     
  • Sea Mar Community Health Centers, Safer Choice Supporter: Sea Mar continued to act on the top two concerns for the Hispanic/Latino community identified during an earlier stakeholder meeting: the overuse of disinfectants and the common and dangerous practice of mixing cleaning products. Sea Mar conducted 100 trainings with Spanish-speaking households on safer cleaning practices, reaching 369 people with their training.
     
  • Sensitive Home, Safer Choice Formulator-Product Manufacturer: All of Sensitive Home’s 14 dish, laundry, and surface cleaners became Safer Choice-certified in 2020. Sensitive Home designed their products for sensitive people, including those with skin sensitivities, compromised immune systems, and respiratory issues.
     
  • Seventh Generation, Safer Choice Formulator-Product Manufacturer: Seventh Generation added 16 products, bringing their total to 66 Safer Choice-certified products. Seventh Generation also promoted their Safer Choice-certified products through digital and print marketing materials, including Safer Choice promotions through major e-commerce retail partners.
     
  • University of Washington Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences (UW DEOHS) Continuing Education Programs, Safer Choice Supporter: In response to a surge in calls to the Poison Control Center because of increased misuse of cleaning and disinfecting products in 2020, a team at the UW DEOHS collaborated with the Occupational Health and Safety Section of the American Public Health Association to publish a fact sheet on best practices for safer cleaning and disinfecting to prevent the spread of COVID-19. In both English and Spanish, the fact sheet highlights certified safer cleaning products, including those with the Safer Choice label and DfE-certified disinfectants and products with DfE-approved active ingredients.
     
  • Wegmans Food Markets, Safer Choice Retailer: Wegmans added nine products (with 16 different SKUs) to their line of Safer Choice-certified products. Wegmans offers more than 70 SKUs of national brand Safer Choice-certified products.
     
  • Wexford Labs, Inc., Formulator-Product Manufacturer: Wexford Labs has three DfE-certified products, after bringing on a new brand of disinfecting wipes in 2020. They also assisted their partners in obtaining DfE certifications for seven new private-label products.

 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on September 24, 2021, that it is extending the submission deadline for manufacturers (including importers) of 50 chemicals to report data from certain unpublished health and safety studies. The deadline for the reporting rule was originally September 27, 2021, and EPA has extended the deadline until December 1, 2021, for 20 of the 50 chemicals and to January 25, 2022, for 30 of the 50 chemicals. The 50 chemicals include:

  • Twenty chemicals designated by EPA as high-priority substances and currently undergoing risk evaluation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The deadline for manufacturers to submit studies on these chemicals will be December 1, 2021. EPA states that this deadline “ensures that health and safety studies will be received in time for use in risk evaluations on these chemical substances.”
     
  • Thirty organohalogen flame retardants being evaluated for health risks by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA). The deadline for manufacturers to submit studies on these chemicals will be January 25, 2022.

EPA will publish a notice in the Federal Register extending the deadline. A pre-publication version of the notice is available on EPA’s website. EPA has also posted a “historic” question and answer document about reporting under TSCA Section 8(d). Detailed information about the reporting rule is available in our June 29, 2021, memorandum, “Manufacturers and Importers of 20 High-Priority Chemicals and 30 Organohalogen Flame Retardants Must Submit Data to EPA.”


 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›