By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on February 18, 2021, that it is opening a public comment period for a manufacturer-requested risk evaluation of octahydro-tetramethyl-naphthalenyl-ethanone (OTNE), a category of chemical substances consisting of four inseparable individual isomers. EPA notes that two chemicals in the OTNE category are considered persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals under TSCA, “meaning they are toxic, can remain in the environment for long periods of time, and can build up or accumulate in the body.” Upon publication of the Federal Register notice announcing the public comment period, EPA will accept public comments on the request for 45 days. EPA states that it “welcomes all public comments,” particularly on the following:
- Any information not included in the manufacturer request that commenters believe EPA would need to conduct a risk evaluation;
- Additional conditions of use EPA is proposing to include in the risk evaluation; and
- Information on conditions of use not included in the manufacturer request or in the additional conditions of use EPA proposes to include in the risk evaluation, specifically the inclusion of any additional conditions of use and potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations. EPA states that it “is in the process of broadly re-examining how it intends to implement these and other provisions of amended TSCA including determining how new executive orders will be addressed. This process would benefit greatly from stakeholder feedback.”
After the comment period closes, EPA will review the comments and either grant or deny the request to conduct a risk evaluation within 60 days. If EPA grants the request, the manufacturers would be responsible for half the cost of the risk evaluation. International Flavors and Fragrances, Inc., Privi Organics USA Corporation, and DRT America, Inc. formally requested the risk evaluation through the OTNE Consortium managed by B&C® Consortia Management, L.L.C. (BCCM).
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on August 16, 2019, that it is opening a public comment period for manufacturer requests for the risk evaluations of diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP) and diisononyl phthalate (DINP), two chemicals used in plastic production. EPA notes that the manufacturer-requested risk evaluations “are among the first such evaluations of this kind to be requested” under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). EPA is also taking public comments on additional conditions of use it identified to include in the risk evaluations. Upon publication of the Federal Register notices, comments may be submitted to Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0435 for DIDP and Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0436 for DINP for 45 days. EPA encourages comments on any information not included in the manufacturer requests that commenters believe would be needed to conduct a risk evaluation. EPA also welcomes any other information relevant to the proposed determinations of the conditions of use, including information on other conditions of use of the chemicals than those included in the manufacturer requests or in EPA’s proposed determinations. After the comment period closes, EPA will review the comments and within 60 days either grant or deny the requests to conduct risk evaluations. If these requests are granted, the manufacturers would be responsible for half the cost of the risk evaluations. More information is available in our August 19, 2019, memorandum, "EPA Begins Comment Period on Manufacturer Requests for Risk Evaluation of DIDP and DINP, and Identifies Additional Conditions of Use."
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham, M.S.
On June 14, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that on May 24, 2019, EPA received manufacturer requests for EPA to conduct risk evaluations of diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP) from ExxonMobil Chemical Company and diisononyl phthalate (DINP) from ExxonMobil Chemical Company, Evonik Corporation, and Teknor Apex, both through the American Chemistry Council’s High Phthalates Panel. EPA states that both DIDP and DINP belong to a family of chemicals commonly referred to as phthalates, which are used as plasticizers in the production of plastic and plastic coatings to increase flexibility and were identified in the 2014 Update to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Work Plan.
Within 15 business days of receiving a facially complete request (i.e., submission appears to be consistent with rule requirements), EPA states that it must notify the public of receipt of this request under 40 C.F.R. Section 702.37(e)(2); and within 60 business days of receipt of a facially complete request, EPA will submit for publication the receipt of the request in the Federal Register, open a public docket for the request, and provide no less than 45 calendar days for public comment. After the comment period closes, EPA has up to 60 days to either grant or deny the request to conduct a risk evaluation under 40 C.F.R. Section 702.37(e)(6). More information on Manufacturer Requests is available on EPA’s website.
By Lynn L. Bergeson, Charlie M. Auer, and Margaret R. Graham
On October 21, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reopened the comment period on a proposed rule revising regulations governing significant new uses (SNU) of chemical substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), per a request from a commenter. EPA states in its Federal Register notice that this request was “reasonable and is therefore reopening the comment period … [for] all interested persons.” The proposed rule would amend the TSCA SNU regulations to align them with revisions to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Hazard Communications Standard (HCS), as occasioned by OSHA's March 2012 final rule modifying the HCS to conform to the United Nations' (U.N.) Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), changes to OSHA’s 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. The proposed rule would also amend regulations for SNU rules (SNUR) previously proposed and issued and make a “minor” change to reporting requirements for premanufacture notices (PMN) and other TSCA Section 5 notices.
The brief notice reopening the comment period does little to reinforce the magnitude and consequences of these proposed changes. Our memorandum TSCA: Proposed Revisions to Significant New Use Rules Reflect Current Occupational Safety and Health Standards provides a detailed account of the significant and complex issues that these changes raise, briefly reiterated here:
- The challenges in aligning labeling, as well as legal and regulatory ambiguities. EPA has devoted considerable effort to clarifying the application of HCS/GHS requirements to Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) but unresolved issues still remain. The implementation of these revisions will most likely present similar challenges.
- EPA’s use of the hierarchy of controls (HOC) approach in the significant new use provisions, even though Congress did not include this approach in new TSCA. The wisdom of the inclusion of the HOC approach, even though we recognize and appreciate the importance of HOC as an element in a system to manage or eliminate occupational risks, is questionable and inconsistent.
- Whether or not EPA's review considered the possibility that new TSCA may materially impact the content of the proposal. There are signs, such as EPA’s inclusion of old TSCA citations, that point to them not having done this review, and there are no reassurances from EPA that new TSCA’s potential impacts were considered.
Our memorandum TSCA Reform: Proposed Changes to SNUR Procedures Would, Perhaps Inadvertently, Result in Disclosure of CBI to Third Parties/Possible Competitors also brings to light another important legal issue, concerning interesting anomalies that appear in the proposal's discussion of bona fide requests and the disclosure of information potentially considered confidential. EPA proposes to modify the procedures for determining if a specific substance or chemical use is subject to a SNUR when the substance, production volume, or use is claimed as confidential business information (CBI). The source of EPA’s authority to disclose CBI in the ways described in the proposed rule is unclear, as neither old nor new TSCA specifies them, such as the statutory basis and rationale for informing a bona fide intent notice (BFN) submitter of confidential use or production volume conditions. Also, EPA does not justify why disclosure to the BFN submitter is necessary. The current proposed SNUR provides for neither equal disclosure nor equal confidentiality as a result of BFN submission.