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
 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Federal Register notice on April 28, 2021, announcing a 30-day comment period on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Interagency Testing Committee’s (ITC) revisions to the Priority Testing List.  86 Fed. Reg. 22414.  In the 74th ITC Report, ITC revised the TSCA Section 4(e) Priority Testing List by adding the following 15 high-priority substances designated pursuant to TSCA Section 6(b) and 24 organohalogen flame retardants:

Chemical Substance Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number
High-Priority Substances
1,3-Butadiene 106-99-0
Butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP) - 1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1- butyl 2(phenylmethyl) ester 85-68-7
Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- dibutyl ester) 84-74-2
o-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1
p-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7
trans-1,2- Dichloroethylene 156-60-5
1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5
Dicyclohexyl phthalate 84-61-7
Di-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) - (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- bis(2- ethylhexyl) ester) 117-81-7
Di-isobutyl phthalate (DIBP) - (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- bis-(2methylpropyl) ester) 84-69-5
Formaldehyde 50-00-0
1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethylcyclopenta [g]-2-benzopyran (HHCB) 1222-05-5
Phthalic anhydride 85-44-9
4,4'-(1-Methylethylidene)bis[2, 6-dibromophenol] (TBBPA) 79-94-7
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5
Organohalogen Flame Retardants
Bis(hexachlorocyclopentadieno)cyclooctane 13560-89-9
1,2-Bis(2,4,6-tribromophenoxy)ethane 37853-59-1
1,1'-Ethane-1,2-diylbis(pentabromobenzene) 84852-53-9
2-(2-Hydroxyethoxy)ethyl 2-hydroxypropyl 3,4,5,6-tetrabromophthalate 20566-35-2
2,2'-[(1-Methylethylidene)bis[(2,6-dibromo-4,1-
phenylene)oxymethylene]]bis[oxirane]
3072-84-2
Mixture of chlorinated linear alkanes C14-17 with 45-52 % chlorine 85535-85-9
N,N-Ethylene-bis(tetrabromophthalimide) 32588-76-4
Pentabromochlorocyclohexane 87-84-3
(Pentabromophenyl)methyl acrylate 59447-55-1
Pentabromotoluene 87-83-2
Perbromo-1,4-diphenoxybenzene 58965-66-5
Phosphonic acid, (2-chloroethyl)-, bis(2-chloroethyl) ester 6294-34-4
Propanoic acid, 2-bromo-, methyl ester 5445-17-0
Tetrabromobisphenol A-bis(2,3-dibromopropyl ether) 21850-44-2
Tetrabromobisphenol A bis(2-hydroxyethyl) ether 4162-45-2
Tetrabromobisphenol A diallyl ether 25327-89-3
Tetrabromobisphenol A dimethyl ether 37853-61-5
2,4,6-Tribromoaniline 147-82-0
1,3,5-Tribromo-2-(prop-2-en-1-yloxy)benzene 3278-89-5
Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphite 140-08-9
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate 126-72-7
1,3,5-Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6(1H,3H,5H)-trione 52434-90-9
Tris(tribromoneopentyl)phosphate 19186-97-1
2,4,6-Tris-(2,4,6-tribromophenoxy)-1,3,5-triazine 25713-60-4

ITC requests that EPA add these chemical substances and the other five high-priority substances and six organohalogen flame retardants currently on the Priority Testing List to 40 C.F.R. Section 716.120(a), the list of substances subject to the TSCA Section 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting rule (40 C.F.R. Part 716).  The rule requires manufacturers (including importers) of chemical substances and mixtures added to the Health and Safety Data Reporting rule to submit lists and copies of unpublished health and safety studies to EPA.  Comments are due May 28, 2021.
 
EPA notes that in addition to the chemical substances being added to the Priority Testing List in the 74th ITC Report, the Priority Testing List includes two alkylphenols, 45 High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program orphan chemicals, cadmium, a category of cadmium compounds, six non-phthalate plasticizers, 25 phosphate ester flame retardants, two other flame retardants, nine chemicals to which children living near hazardous waste sites may be exposed, and 19 diisocyanates and related compounds.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on February 3, 2021, the latest update to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory, “a list of all existing chemical substances manufactured, processed, or imported” in the United States.  EPA states that this biannual update to the public TSCA Inventory is part of its regular posting of non-confidential TSCA Inventory data.  EPA plans to release the next regular update of the Inventory in summer 2021.  According to EPA, the Inventory contains 86,557 chemicals of which 41,864 are active in U.S commerce.  EPA notes that other updates to the TSCA Inventory include new chemical substance additions, commercial activity data, and regulatory flags, such as polymer exemptions, TSCA Section 4 test orders, and TSCA Section 5 significant new use rules (SNUR).


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
On January 22, 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the reasons for its denial of a petition requesting it to require health and environmental effects testing on 54 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).  86 Fed. Reg. 6602.  The petition sought issuance of a rule or order under TSCA Section 4 compelling The Chemours Company (Chemours) to fund and carry out this testing under the direction of a panel of independent scientists.  EPA states that it finds the petitioners have not provided the facts necessary for it to determine for each of the 54 PFAS that “existing information and experience are insufficient and testing of such substance or mixture with respect to such effects is necessary to develop such information.”  After “careful consideration,” EPA denied the TSCA petition for the following reasons:

  • Insufficient Information and Experience:  According to EPA, the petition does not set forth the facts necessary to demonstrate that there is “insufficient information and experience” for each of the 54 PFAS.  The petitioners state, in part, “[f]or the 54 PFAS, the sufficiency of available information should be determined by comparing available data with the known adverse effects of other PFAS.  The goal should be to conduct a scientifically sound assessment of each of the 54 chemicals for the critical toxic endpoints that have been identified in studies on [perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)], [perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)] and other well-characterized studies.”  EPA states that the petitioners do not provide evidence that they conducted an assessment to support a finding of insufficient information and experience, however;
     
  • Testing of Such Substance or Mixture with Respect to Such Effects Is Necessary to Develop Such Information:  According to EPA, the petitioners do not demonstrate “testing of such substance or mixture with respect to such effects is necessary to develop such information.”  EPA finds that the petitioners failed to address ongoing testing and data collections for some of the 54 PFAS, thereby failing to set forth facts that are necessary to establish there is a need for the testing sought in the petition.  According to EPA, this research may provide information that overlaps with testing the petitioners requested, which would render the information unnecessary under TSCA Section 4(a)(1)(A)(i)(III);
     
  • Class-Based Approach to Testing:  TSCA Section 4(h)(1)(B)(ii) “encourage[s]” EPA to consider “the grouping of 2 or more chemical substances into scientifically appropriate categories in cases in which testing of a chemical substance would provide scientifically valid and useful information on other chemical substances in the category.”  EPA states that it “is currently investigating ways to group similar PFAS by likeness into subcategories for purposes of research, data collection, hazard determinations, and other activities.”  EPA notes that it collaborated with the National Toxicology Program (NTP) “to construct a PFAS screening library subset composed of 75 PFAS on a structural category basis and considerations such as structural diversity within a category, data availability, and read-across category-level weight (e.g., value of substance for anchoring read-across trends within a category, serving as an analog); four of the 54 PFAS the petitioners identify are included in this subset.”  While the petitioners mention this effort, they “incorrectly state that just two of the 54 PFAS the petitioners cover are included in the EPA testing.”
     
  • Practicability of National Academy of Sciences Oversight:  The petitioners also request that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) oversee all aspects of the proposed testing program.  EPA states that it “finds such an oversight arrangement is not within the scope of what a TSCA section 21 petitioner can request when seeking the initiation of a rule or the issuance of an order under TSCA section 4.”  Furthermore, according to EPA, projects and studies must meet certain conditions for the NAS to accept private funding.  EPA concludes that it is not in a position to require NAS to oversee the testing requested by the petitioners, and the petitioners provide no administrative or organizational procedures for implementation.
     
  • Selection of PFAS for Health and Environmental Effects Testing:  The petitioners divide the 54 PFAS at issue into Tier 1 substances “for which there is known human exposure based on detection in blood, food or drinking water,” and Tier 2 substances “for which human exposure is probable based on detection in environmental media.”  According to EPA, the petitioners do not set forth facts showing that for all 40 PFAS it ranks as Tier 2 substances “human exposure is probable based on detection in environmental media” or that “a strong inference of exposure can be drawn from their presence in surface water, stormwater, wastewater, sediment, groundwater, soil, private wells, and/or air emissions,” however.
     
  • Scientific Standards:  EPA states that it “finds the petitioners have not evaluated the quality of the data they have provided or indicated how they conducted their searches, evaluated the quality of the sources, or indicated what gaps were located and then explained why the specific tests requested, as compared to others, would provide the data being sought.”  According to EPA, such an evaluation is necessary for EPA to conduct the considerations under TSCA Section 26(h).
     
  • Vertebrate Testing:  TSCA Section 4(h) requires that EPA reduce and replace the use of vertebrate animals in the testing of chemical substances under TSCA Section 4.  EPA states that it must consider “as appropriate and to the extent practicable and scientifically justified, reasonably available existing information, including (i) Toxicity information; (ii) Computational toxicology and bioinformatics; and (iii) High-throughput screening methods and the prediction models of those methods.”

More information on the TSCA Section 21 petition is available in our October 29, 2020, memorandum, “TSCA Section 21 Petition Seeks Section 4 Test Rule for 54 PFAS.”


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on January 15, 2021, that it has issued test orders under Section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to obtain additional data on nine of the next 20 chemicals undergoing risk evaluation.  EPA states that after reviewing the available data on these chemicals, it determined additional data are needed and is using its TSCA test order authority to require companies to develop and submit information on environmental hazard and inhalation and dermal exposures for workers.  According to EPA, companies subject to the test orders may provide EPA with existing data or conduct new tests.  Companies may also form consortia to consolidate costs and burden and to avoid unnecessary duplication of testing.  The nine chemicals subject to the Section 4 test orders are:

  • Chlorinated Solvents:
    • 1,1,2-Trichloroethane;
    • 1,1-Dichloroethane;
    • 1,2-Dichloroethane;
    • 1,2-Dichloropropane;
    • Trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene;
    • o-Dichlorobenzene; and
    • p-Dichlorobenzene;
  • Flame Retardants:
    • 4,4ʹ-(1-Methylethylidene)bis[2,6-dibromophenol] (TBBPA); and
    • Phosphoric acid, triphenyl ester (TPP).

EPA states that the orders and any data submitted in response to the orders will be made publicly available on EPA’s website and in applicable dockets on www.regulations.gov.  More information will be available in a forthcoming memorandum that will be posted on our website.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 

On October 14, 2020, a coalition of North Carolina non-governmental organizations (NGO) petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 4 test rule for 54 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) manufactured by The Chemours Company (Chemours) at its chemical production facility in Fayetteville, North Carolina.  The petition, filed under TSCA Section 21, seeks issuance of a rule or order under TSCA Section 4 compelling Chemours to fund and carry out testing under the direction of a panel of independent scientists.  EPA states in its letter acknowledging receipt of the petition that under TSCA Section 21, it has 90 days after the date the petition is filed to grant or deny the petition (January 11, 2021, in this case).  If the Administrator grants the petition, the Administrator shall promptly commence an appropriate proceeding.  If the Administrator denies the petition, the Administrator shall publish the reasons for such a denial in the Federal Register.  The petition was filed by Center for Environmental Health, Cape Fear River Watch, Clean Cape Fear, Democracy Green, the NC Black Alliance, and Toxic Free NC.  More information will be available in a forthcoming memorandum that will be posted on our website.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
On September 30, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will hold a webinar on “Identification of NAMs for Placement on the TSCA Section 4(h)(2)(C) List:  A Proposed NAM Nomination Form.”  The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg Act) amended Section 4(h)(2)(c) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to require EPA to develop a list of alternative test methods or strategies that are “scientifically reliable, relevant, and capable of providing information of equivalent or better scientific reliability and quality to that which would be obtained from vertebrate animal testing.”  The current TSCA Section 4(h)(2)(C) List is available on the EPA website.  EPA’s 2018 Strategic Plan to Promote the Development and Implementation of Alternative Test Methods Within the TSCA Program provides initial criteria for considering scientific reliability and relevance of new approach methodologies (NAM) to be eligible for placement on the List.  EPA states that it “envisions that any party interested in proposing a NAM for placement on the List would use a nomination form.”  The webinar will walk through the proposed nomination form.
 
The webinar is co-organized by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) International Science Consortium, EPA, and the Physicians for Responsible Medicine (PCRM).  EPA notes that it does not necessarily endorse the views of the speakers.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

On October 17, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its final fees rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in the Federal Register.  83 Fed. Reg. 52694.  The final rule largely tracks the proposed rule.  EPA is establishing fees applicable to any person required to submit information to EPA; or a notice, including an exemption or other information, to be reviewed by EPA; or who manufactures (including imports) a chemical substance that is the subject of a risk evaluation.  This final rulemaking describes the final TSCA fees and fee categories for fiscal years 2019, 2020, and 2021, and explains the methodology by which the final TSCA fees were determined.  It identifies some factors and considerations for determining fees for subsequent fiscal years; and includes amendments to existing fee regulations governing the review of premanufacture notices, exemption applications and notices, and significant new use notices. As required in TSCA, EPA is also establishing standards for determining which persons qualify as “small business concerns” and thus would be subject to lower fee payments.  Small businesses will be eligible to receive a substantial discount of approximately 80 percent on their fees.  EPA will host a series of webinars focusing on making TSCA submissions and paying fees under the final rule.  The first webinar was held on October 10, 2018.  The other two webinars will be held on October 24, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. (EDT) and on November 7, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. (EDT).  Our memorandum provides an overview of the final rule with specific information about final fee amounts and timing and a commentary.  The final rule is effective on October 18, 2018.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

On September 27, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the user fees final rule for the administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the fourth and remaining framework rule to be issued in final under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg).

This final rule, that amends 40 C.F.R. Parts 700, 720, 723, 725, 790, and 791, “describes the final TSCA fees and fee categories for fiscal years 2019, 2020, and 2021”; “explains the methodology by which the final TSCA fees were determined”; “identifies some factors and considerations for determining fees for subsequent fiscal years”; and “includes amendments to existing fee regulations governing the review of premanufacture notices, exemption applications and notices, and significant new use notices.”   The final rule has not been published yet in the Federal Register so an effective date is not yet available; a pre-publication version is available here.

Specifically, EPA is establishing fees applicable to any person required to submit information to EPA under TSCA Section 4; or a notice, including an exemption or other information, to be reviewed by EPA under TSCA Section 5; or who manufactures (including imports) a chemical substance that is the subject of a risk evaluation under TSCA Section 6(b).  EPA is also establishing standards for determining which persons qualify as "small business concerns" and thus would be subject to lower fee payments.  

In the press release announcing the rule, EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler states that this rule will “provide resources needed to support the valuable work EPA does to review chemicals for safety, manage risk as required, and make chemical information available as appropriate.”  During fiscal years 2019-2021, EPA states it will “work to track costs and will use that information to adjust future fees, if appropriate.”

EPA also announced that it will be hosting a series of webinars focusing on making TSCA submissions and paying fees under the final rule.  The webinars are scheduled for October 10, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. - 2:30 p.m. (EST); October 24, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. - 2:30 p.m. (EST); and November 7, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. - 2:30 p.m. (EST).

More information on TSCA implementation is available on our website under key phrase Lautenberg Implementation.  A detailed Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) memorandum on the TSCA user fees final rule is forthcoming.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton

On August 31, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review a final rule regarding user fees for the administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  As reported in our February 9, 2018, memorandum, “Administrator Pruitt Signs TSCA User Fee Proposal,” as amended by the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, TSCA provides EPA the authority to levy fees on certain chemical manufacturers, including importers and processors, to “provide a sustainable source of funding to defray resources that are available for implementation of new responsibilities under the amended law.”  Under the amendments to TSCA, EPA has authority to require payment from manufacturers and processors who:

  • Are required to submit information by test rule, test order, or enforceable consent agreement (ECA) (TSCA Section 4);
  • Submit notification of or information related to intent to manufacture a new chemical or significant new use of a chemical (TSCA Section 5); or
  • Manufacture or process a chemical substance that is subject to a risk evaluation, including a risk evaluation conducted at the request of a manufacturer (TSCA Section 6(b)).

EPA’s February 26, 2018, proposed rule described the proposed TSCA fees and fee categories for fiscal years (FY) 2019, 2020, and 2021, and explained the methodology by which the proposed TSCA user fees were determined and would be determined for subsequent FYs.  In proposing the new TSCA user fees, EPA also proposed amending long-standing user fee regulations governing the review of Section 5 premanufacture notices (PMN), exemption applications and notices, and significant new use notices (SNUN).  Under the proposed rule, after implementation of final TSCA user fees regulations, certain manufacturers and processors would be required to pay a prescribed fee for each Section 5 notice or exemption application, Section 4 testing action, or Section 6 risk evaluation for EPA to recover certain costs associated with carrying out certain work under TSCA.  EPA did not propose specific fees for submission of confidential business information (CBI).