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 Kathleen M. Roberts

On October 12, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a notice in the Federal Register announcing the cancellation of the fourth meeting of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee for Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) requirements for inorganic byproducts (Reg Neg Committee) scheduled for October 25-26, 2017.  82 Fed. Reg. 47423. 

During their September 13-14, 2017, meeting, the members of the Reg Neg Committee concluded that further dialogue within the Committee context would be unproductive, and that the fourth meeting was not necessary.  EPA is, however, still providing the public an opportunity to weigh in on the legislative directive to reduce the CDR reporting burden for inorganic substances that are recycled, while maintaining EPA’s access to exposure information needed for risk assessment purposes.  The notice states that the Reg Neg Committee docket will remain open until December 11, 2017, to allow for public comment.

The Reg Neg Committee was established to respond to the legislative mandate under Section 8(a)(6)(A) of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which states:

The [EPA] Administrator shall enter into a negotiated rulemaking … to develop and publish … a proposed rule providing for limiting the reporting requirements, under this subsection, for manufacturers of any inorganic byproducts, when such byproducts, whether by the byproduct manufacturer or by any other person, are subsequently recycled, reused, or reprocessed.

During the first set of Reg Neg Committee meetings, EPA stressed its desire to implement the outcome of the Reg Neg Committee work during the next CDR reporting cycle in 2020.  To achieve this timeline, the Committee would need to reach a consensus on an approach or approaches by the October 2017 meetings.   While several different stakeholder organizations offered proposals for consideration, it became clear to Committee members during the September 14-15, 2017, meeting that those proposals would not have consensus support because they either required considerable further refinement and discussion beyond the October 2017 timeframe; did not provide EPA with appropriate exposure information needed for risk assessment; or did not adequately achieve the mandated goal of limiting reporting requirements. 

It is unclear if EPA will be able to complete the myriad of tasks needed to take a proposal received during the public comment period to final implementation before the 2020 CDR reporting cycle, as this would require EPA to complete a thorough analysis of additional proposals, consider potential impacts to the EPA offices, develop a proposed rulemaking, obtain public review and comment on the proposal, issue a final rulemaking, and provide clear and detailed guidance on the new approaches for reporting on recycled inorganic products prior to the 2020 CDR reporting cycle. 

More information on the negotiated rulemaking process as related to inorganic byproducts is available on our blog under key phrases negotiated rulemaking and inorganic byproducts.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

On September 14, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) filed a motion in the two Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals cases regarding review of the EPA Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) framework rule Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation under TSCA:  Safer Chemicals Healthy Families v. EPA, Case No. 17-72260 (filed August 10, 2017); and Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, Case No. 17-72501 (filed September 6, 2017), requesting that the cases be transferred to the Fourth Circuit and to hold the cases in abeyance.  In the motion, EPA states three reasons why these cases should be transferred:

  1. "It is in the interest of judicial economy for the same court to hear the challenges to both EPA Rules,” and “[a]lthough the two Rules are distinct and have separate administrative records, the parties anticipate that there will be some overlap of issues.”
  2. “It would be more convenient for the parties and conserve travel resources for these cases to be heard in the Fourth Circuit, because all counsel of record are located in Washington, DC, or New York.”
  3. “The Fourth Circuit may be able to resolve the petitions for review more quickly than this Court given the respective complexity of the courts’ dockets.”

In this motion, EPA also requests for these cases to be held in abeyance as it “will conserve party resources to wait until resolution of EPA’s motion to transfer before completing any scheduled filings, particularly because the two have different schedules” and “the deadline for interested persons to file petitions for review of the Prioritization and Risk Evaluation Rules has not yet expired…. additional petitions for review … could be filed as late as October 2, 2017.” 

In Case No. 17-72260, Petitioners’ briefs are due October 30, 2017, and Respondent EPA’s briefs are due November 28, 2017.  A briefing schedule has not been scheduled yet in Case No. 17-72501.  On September 11, 2017, in Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, et al. v. EPA, Case No. 17-1926, the Fourth Circuit case regarding review of EPA’s TSCA framework rule Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation under TSCA, the Fourth Circuit rescinded the briefing schedule.  A new briefing schedule has not been set. 

More information on these petitions for review is available on our blog under key phrases framework rules and petition for review.  


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

On September 6, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice in the Federal Register extending the period for public comments on the candidates for consideration for the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals from September 5, 2017, to September 17, 2017.  Comments can be submitted online in Docket Identification Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0713.

EPA is considering candidates for SACC membership listed in the August 26, 2016, Federal Register notice pool of requested nominees; the 29 candidates for membership identified in the December 9, 2016, Federal Register notice; and the additional candidates provided in the August 3, 2017, Federal Register notice.  More information on the background, qualification of members, and the process of obtaining nominees is available in our memorandum EPA Seeks Comment on Nominations to “Augmented” Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

On September 1, 2017, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) filed a petition for review in the U.S Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (No. 17-1201) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) final Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) framework rule TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirements, published on August 11, 2017 (82 Fed. Reg. 37520). 

This is the third and final challenge by EDF to the framework rules implementing amended TSCA (there are only three framework rules), but the seventh total challenge, as other parties have also petitioned for review.  On August 11, 2017, EDF petitioned for review of the TSCA framework rules Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation under TSCA and the final rule Procedures for Prioritization of Chemicals for Risk Evaluation, filed on August 11 (Second Cir. Case Nos. 17-2464 and 17-2403, respectively).  Per the Consolidation Orders of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, both of EDF’s August 11 petitions have now been consolidated with other petitions for review of the same orders.  Case No. 17-2464 was moved to the Fourth Circuit, and Case No. 2403 was moved to the Ninth Circuit. 

In the Fourth Circuit, the opening brief, record from agency, and the appendix are due September 20, 2017, and the response brief is due October 20, 2017.  In the Ninth Circuit, the Petitioners’ briefs are due October 30, 2017, and Respondent EPA’s briefs are due November 28, 2017.                                       


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton

On August 17, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted a proposed rule regarding reporting requirements for a mercury inventory to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  The proposed rule would establish reporting deadline(s) and information requirements for the purpose of assisting EPA’s periodic update and publication of the inventory of mercury supply, use, and trade in the U.S.  As required under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, EPA must “carry out and publish in the Federal Register an inventory of mercury supply, use, and trade” in the U.S.  The Lautenberg Act defines mercury as “elemental mercury” or “a mercury compound.”  The inventory was to be published no later than April 1, 2017, and every three years thereafter, as supported by a rule authorized in the Lautenberg Act.  As reported in our March 29, 2017, blog item, EPA published an initial inventory report on March 29, 2017.  For subsequent inventories, EPA is authorized to promulgate a rule to “assist in the preparation of the inventory” so that “any person who manufactures mercury or mercury-added products or otherwise intentionally uses mercury in a manufacturing process shall make periodic reports to the Administrator, at such time and including such information as the Administrator shall determine.”  EPA expects future triennial inventories of mercury supply, use, and trade to include data collected directly from such persons.  In future inventories, EPA also will “identify any manufacturing processes or products that intentionally add mercury; and . . . recommend actions, including proposed revisions of Federal law or regulations, to achieve further reductions in mercury use.”  EPA must promulgate a final rule by June 22, 2018.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

On August 18, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is scheduled to publish a notice in the Federal Register stating that it will be holding the third and fourth committee meetings of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (NRC) on September 13, 2017, from 9:00 a.m to 5:00 p.m. (EDT) to September 14, 2017, from 9:00 a.m to 3:00 p.m. (EDT); and on October 25, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (EDT) to October 26, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (EDT).  The third meeting will take place at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, Oceanic Suite, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004, while the fourth meeting will be held at the William Jefferson Clinton East Building, Room 1153, 1201 Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004.  Both meetings are open to the public.

The NRC’s objective is to “negotiate a proposed rule that would limit chemical data reporting requirements under Section 8(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), [as amended], for manufacturers of any inorganic byproduct chemical substances when such byproduct chemical substances are subsequently recycled, reused, or reprocessed.”  Kathleen M. Roberts, Vice President of B&C® Consortia Management, L.L.C. (BCCM), an affiliate of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®), is on the NRC on behalf of a BCCM client.  EPA states that written comments can be submitted at any time during the negotiated rulemaking process, but is asking for written comments to be e-mailed to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) no later than one week prior to the meeting dates (September 6, 2017; and October 19, 2017).  Information about attending these meetings and their agendas will be posted to the NRC website.   More information regarding the NRC is available on our blog under key phrase Negotiated Rulemaking


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton

On August 14, 2017, as the final Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a) information gathering rule on nanomaterials took effect, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published “working guidance” intended to assist stakeholders in complying with the rule.  The working guidance notes that it “will not provide answers to all of the potential questions that will arise as manufacturers and processors seek to comply with the rule.  Commenters to the draft guidance asked several questions that would require more details or information before EPA could respond to their question.”  If the guidance does not answer questions about the rule, companies are directed to contact Jim Alwood, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).  EPA states that it will answer questions on a case-by-case basis.  EPA intends to add further questions/answers and revisions to the guidance based on questions identified by persons who may be subject to the rule. 

As reported in our January 11, 2017, blog item, the January 12, 2017, final rule establishes reporting and recordkeeping requirements for certain discrete forms of chemical substances that are manufactured or processed at the nanoscale.  Under the rule, manufacturers and processers, or persons who intend to manufacture or process these chemical substances must report certain information to EPA.  The information to be reported includes, insofar as known to or reasonably ascertainable by the person making the report, the specific chemical identity, production volume, methods of manufacture and processing, exposure and release information, and existing information concerning environmental and health effects.  Persons who manufacture or process a discrete form of a reportable chemical substance at any time during the three years prior to August 14, 2017, the effective date of the final rule, must report to EPA one year after the effective date of the final rule.  There is also a standing one-time reporting requirement for persons who intend to manufacture or process a discrete form of a reportable chemical substance on or after the effective date of the rule.  These persons must report to EPA at least 135 days before manufacture or processing of that discrete form.  More information regarding the final rule is available in our January 12, 2017, memorandum EPA Promulgates Final TSCA Reporting and Recordkeeping Rule for Nanoscale Materials.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

On August 11, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the third Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) framework final rule in the Federal Register, the TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirements.  This final rule is effective as of August 11, 2017 (the date of publication).

As further detailed in the final rulemaking, chemical manufacturers and importers are required to submit notifications for chemicals that were manufactured or imported over the ten year look-back period of June 21, 2006, to June 21, 2016.  Pursuant to the rulemaking, the retrospective reporting period for manufacturers begins on August 11, 2017, and ends on February 7, 2018.  The submission period for processors also begins on August 11, 2017, but processors have until October 5, 2018, to submit retrospective activity notifications.

More information on the final rule is available in our memorandum EPA Issues Final TSCA Framework Rules.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

On August 11, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is scheduled to publish the third Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) framework final rule in the Federal Register, the TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirements.  This final rule is scheduled to become effective on August 11, 2017 (the date of publication).

This rule, signed by EPA on June 22, 2017, establishes, among other requirements:

  • A retrospective electronic notification of chemical substances on the TSCA Inventory that were manufactured (including imported) for nonexempt commercial purposes during the ten-year time period ending on June 21, 2016, with provision to also allow notification by processors;
  • Procedures for forward-looking electronic notification of chemical substances on the TSCA Inventory that are designated as inactive, if and when the manufacturing or processing of such chemical substances for nonexempt commercial purposes is expected to resume; and
  • Procedures regarding the manner in which such retrospective and forward-looking activity notifications must be submitted, the details of the notification requirements, exemptions from such requirements, and procedures for handling claims of confidentiality.

More information on this final rule is available in our memorandum EPA Issues Final TSCA Framework Rules.  


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

On August 3, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice on further nominations to the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC).  EPA’s notice provides the names and affiliations of 64 additional candidates currently under consideration for appointment to SACC.  Biographical sketches for these candidates will be are posted on EPA’s website

EPA will also be considering the 29 candidates for membership previously identified in the December 9, 2016, Federal Register notice -- their biographical sketches are available here.  EPA states that it “anticipates selecting approximately six additional SACC members with specific expertise and perspectives representing industry, labor, animal protection, government, public health, and public interest groups.”  EPA is inviting comments on the candidates to be used to assist in the selection process.  Comments are due September 5, 2017.

More information on these new nominations is available in our memorandum EPA Seeks Comment on Nominations to “Augmented” Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals.  More information on the SACC is available on our blog under key word SACC.


 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›