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) announced on April 6, 2020, that the first set of draft scope documents for the next group of chemicals undergoing risk evaluation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is available for comment.  As reported in our December 20, 2019, memorandum, EPA designated these chemicals as a high priority for risk evaluation in December 2019.  According to EPA, seeking public input on the conditions of use to be included in the risk evaluations for these chemicals is the next step in the process outlined in TSCA.  EPA states that “it is important to note that being designated as a high-priority chemical does not mean that a chemical is high risk.”
 
EPA is releasing draft scope documents for 13 of the next 20 chemicals undergoing risk evaluation:

EPA will publish a Federal Register notice announcing the availability of the draft scope documents for public comment.  Publication of the notice will begin a 45-day comment period.  EPA states that it will use feedback received from the public comment process to inform the final scope documents.  More information on the first batch of draft scope documents will be available in a forthcoming memorandum that will be posted on our website.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the draft risk evaluation of asbestos on March 30, 2020.  EPA reviewed a suite of potential asbestos exposures and made the following initial determinations on risk:

  • EPA did not find risk to the environment.  For all the conditions of use included in the draft risk evaluation, EPA has preliminarily found no unreasonable risks to the environment under any of the conditions of use.
     
  • EPA’s draft risk evaluation preliminarily found unreasonable risk to workers, occupational non-users, consumers, and bystanders.  EPA found that workers, occupational non-users, consumers, and bystanders could be adversely affected by asbestos under certain conditions of use.

EPA states that these initial determinations are based on a draft risk evaluation of the reasonably available information and are not final determinations on whether asbestos presents unreasonable risks under the conditions of use.  EPA will use feedback received from the public comment and peer review processes to inform the final risk determinations.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released on February 19, 2020, a final rule concerning the process companies must follow to make certain confidential business information (CBI) claims and EPA’s plan for reviewing those claims.  EPA describes its final rule as creating “an efficient process” for fulfilling the CBI requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and providing clarity for affected stakeholders.  Following the procedures set forth in the final rule, EPA states that it will review CBI claims made for chemical substance identity for chemicals on the “active” portion of the TSCA Inventory.  These procedures and requirements are intended to help ensure that when a company claims the identity of a chemical as CBI, that claim meets the criteria laid out in TSCA.
 
The final rule is a follow-on to EPA’s 2017 TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Rule and amends certain substantiation provisions of that rule in response to a recent federal court decision.  The final rule applies to manufacturers and processors who made CBI claims for specific chemical identities for chemicals reported as “active” in response to the TSCA Inventory (Active-Inactive) Notification Rule.  The final rule describes the procedures and deadlines for substantiating these CBI claims, including provisions for supplementing certain previously filed substantiations.
 
The final rule also describes EPA’s plan to review these CBI claims for “active” chemicals, including procedures for its publication of annual review goals and results.  Manufacturers that amend, update, or file new CBI substantiations consistent with the new requirements must do so electronically via EPA’s Central Data Exchange.  According to EPA, providing this information electronically supports more efficient data transmittal, improves data quality, and minimizes respondent burden and EPA administrative costs associated with information submission and recordkeeping.
 
More information on the final rule will be available in a forthcoming memorandum that will be posted on our website.  Information on EPA’s 2017 TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Rule is available in our June 26, 2017, memorandum, “EPA Issues Final TSCA Framework Rules.”

 

Try our new TSCA Tutor™ online e-training platform, offering expert, efficient, essential TSCA training.

Tags: CBI, Inventory

 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Federal Register notice on January 27, 2020, identifying the preliminary lists of manufacturers (including importers) of the 20 chemical substances that EPA designated as high-priority substances for risk evaluation and for which fees will be charged.  85 Fed. Reg. 4661.  During the comment period, manufacturers (including importers) are required to self-identify as manufacturers of a high-priority substance irrespective of whether they are included on the preliminary lists identified by EPA.  EPA states that where appropriate, entities may also avoid or reduce fee obligations by making certain certifications consistent with the final rule on fees for the administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  The comment period also provides the public an opportunity to correct errors or provide comments on the preliminary lists.  According to the notice, EPA expects to publish final lists of manufacturers (including importers) subject to fees no later than concurrently with the publication of the final scope document for risk evaluations of the 20 high-priority substances.  Manufacturers (including importers) identified on the final lists will be subject to applicable fees.
 
The preliminary lists are available in Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0677 and on EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/TSCA-fees.  EPA states that it developed each preliminary list “using the most up-to-date information available, including information submitted to the Agency (e.g., information submitted under TSCA section 8(a) (including the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Rule) and section 8(b), and to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)).”  According to the notice, EPA considered using other sources of information, such as publicly available information or information submitted to other agencies to which EPA has access, but EPA “concluded that data quality limitations would create more false positives than appropriate additions to the lists.”  Additionally, EPA notes that it believes the Self-Identification process, established by 40 C.F.R. Section 700.45(b)(5), will be sufficient to identify additional manufacturers (including importers), as appropriate.  To include the two most recent CDR reporting cycle data (collected every four years) and to account for annual or other typical fluctuations in manufacturing (including import), EPA states that it used six years of data submitted or available to it under CDR and TRI to create the preliminary lists (2012-2018).
 
More information on the 20 substances designated as high-priority substances is available in our December 20, 2019, memorandum, “Final List of High-Priority Chemicals Will Be Next to Undergo Risk Evaluation under TSCA.”  More information on the final TSCA fees rule is available in our September 28, 2018, memorandum, “EPA Issues Final TSCA Fees Rule.”


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is scheduled to publish a Federal Register notice on January 27, 2020, identifying the preliminary lists of manufacturers (including importers) of the 20 chemical substances that EPA designated as high-priority substances for risk evaluation and for which fees will be charged.  Publication of the Federal Register notice will begin a 60-day comment period during which manufacturers (including importers) will be required to self-identify as a manufacturer of a high-priority substance irrespective of whether they are included on the preliminary lists identified by EPA.  EPA states that where appropriate, entities may also avoid or reduce fee obligations by making certain certifications consistent with the final rule on fees for the administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  During the 60-day comment period, the public will have the opportunity to correct errors or provide comments on the preliminary lists.  According to the notice, EPA expects to publish final lists of manufacturers (including importers) subject to fees no later than concurrently with the publication of the final scope document for risk evaluations of the 20 high-priority substances.  Manufacturers (including importers) identified on the final lists will be subject to applicable fees.

Once the Federal Register notice is published, the preliminary lists will be available in docket number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0677 at http://www.regulations.gov and on EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/TSCA-fees.  EPA states that it developed each preliminary list “using the most up-to-date information available, including information submitted to the Agency (e.g., information submitted under TSCA section 8(a) (including the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Rule) and section 8(b), and to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)).”  According to the notice, EPA considered using other sources of information, such as publicly available information or information submitted to other agencies to which EPA has access, but EPA “concluded that data quality limitations would create more false positives than appropriate additions to the lists.”  Additionally, EPA notes that it believes the Self-Identification process, established by 40 C.F.R. Section 700.45(b)(5), will be sufficient to identify additional manufacturers (including importers), as appropriate.  To include the two most recent CDR reporting cycle data (collected every four years) and to account for annual or other typical fluctuations in manufacturing (including import), EPA states that it used six years of data submitted or available to it under CDR and TRI to create the preliminary lists (2012-2018).

More information on the 20 substances designated as high-priority substances is available in our December 20, 2019, memorandum, “Final List of High-Priority Chemicals Will Be Next to Undergo Risk Evaluation under TSCA.”  More information on the final TSCA fees rule is available in our September 28, 2018, memorandum, “EPA Issues Final TSCA Fees Rule.”

See Also: "Are You Potentially Responsible for TSCA Fees? EPA Issues Preliminary Lists of Companies Responsible for TSCA Risk Evaluation Fees" episode of All Things Chemical™ podcast


 

Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) is pleased to announce the release of the complete suite of TSCA Tutor™ regulatory training courses online and on-demand at www.TSCAtutor.com.  Professionals seeking expert, efficient, essential training can preview and enroll in on-demand classes to complete at their own pace and timing.  In addition to the newly released online e-learning courses, B&C’s TSCA Tutor™ training platform offers live in-person training at a company’s site and customized live webinar training, so companies can mix and match training modules and training approaches to provide the most suitable combination for their work needs.
 
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) awareness is a critically important element in the 21st century work environment for any business that involves industrial chemicals.  The new normal requires awareness of TSCA’s application to a company’s operations to ensure consistent compliance with TSCA regulations and, importantly, to understand and anticipate how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ongoing implementation of new TSCA will impact a company’s industrial chemical selection and use processes.
 
TSCA Tutor™ online training courses include:

  • Video lessons.
  • Detailed hand-out materials, including copies of all presentations and relevant course materials from EPA and other sources.
  • Customizable, yet detailed and ready-to-use Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for the regulatory topic covered in the session.
 
The courses were developed and are presented by members of B&C’s renowned TSCA practice group, which includes five former senior EPA officials; an extensive scientific staff, including seven Ph.D.s; and a robust and highly experienced team of lawyers and non-lawyer professionals extremely well versed in all aspects of TSCA law, regulation, policy, compliance, and litigation.
 
Online courses are offered at $100 for one-hour modules and $200 for 2-hour modules, or $1,400 for the full 12-module training.  Courses can be completed at the learner’s own pace, and enrollment is valid for one full year.  Interested professionals should visit www.TSCAtutor.com to view sample course segments and purchase modules.  Volume discounts are available for companies wishing to purchase courses for multiple employees.  Companies interested in live in-person or customized live webinar training should contact .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) to schedule.
 
For more information about TSCA Tutor™, contact Heidi Lewis at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address), or read our full course descriptions here.
 
TSCA Tutor -- Curriculum


ONE-HOUR SESSIONS:

  • An Overview of TSCA (Course number T101)
  • New TSCA at a Glance (Course number T102)
  • Import Requirements, TSCA Section 13 (Course number T103)
  • Export Requirements, TSCA Section 12 (Course number T104)
  • Confidential Business Information (CBI) (Course number T105)
  • Reporting and Retention of Information, TSCA Section 8 (Course number T106)

TWO-HOUR SESSIONS:

  • Inspections and Audits (Course number T201)
    • Preparing for a TSCA Audit
    • TSCA Penalties/Overview of Self-Confession Policy
  • TSCA Section 5, Part 1:  TSCA Chemical Inventory, Exemptions (Course number T202)
    • TSCA Inventory
    • Exemptions
  • TSCA Section 5, Part 2:  New Chemicals/New Use (Course number T203)
    • New Chemicals/New Use
    • SNURs
  • Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) (Course number T204)
    • CDR Overview
    • Byproduct Reporting under CDR
  • Chemical Testing (Regulatory)/Animal Welfare, TSCA Section 4 (Course number T205):
    • Chemical Testing
    • How to Prepare/Engage If a Chemical of Interest Is Listed under TSCA Section 4
  • Prioritization and Risk Evaluation, TSCA Section 6 (Course number T206)
    • Overview of Section 6 Risk Framework -- Prioritization, Evaluation, and Management
    • How to Prepare/Engage If a Chemical of Interest Is Listed under Section 6

Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. is a Washington, D.C., law firm focusing on conventional, biobased, and nanoscale industrial, agricultural, and specialty chemical product approval and regulation, and associated business issues.  B&C represents clients in many businesses, including basic, specialty, and agricultural and antimicrobial chemicals; biotechnology, nanotechnology, and emerging transformative technologies; paints and coatings; plastic products; and chemical manufacturing, formulation, distribution, and consumer product sectors.  Visit www.lawbc.com for more information.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
On December 19, 2019, from 2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. (EST), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will host a conference call to review certain provisions of the final rule on fees for the administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  EPA states that it will provide a brief overview of the fees associated with an EPA-initiated risk evaluation, the creation of the preliminary list that identifies manufacturers and importers subject to fees, and how it divides fees among the identified businesses.  Questions should be submitted in advance to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).   The call-in number is (877) 317-0679, and the conference code is 1480769.  More information on EPA’s 2018 final rule is available in our September 28, 2018, memorandum, “EPA Issues Final TSCA Fees Rule.”

Tags: CBI, Fees

 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on December 2, 2019, that it granted the first two manufacturer requests for risk evaluations for diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP) and diisononyl phthalate (DINP), two chemicals used in plastic production.  EPA states that if the requests are not withdrawn within 30 days, both DIDP and DINP will enter the risk evaluation process under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  Manufacturer-requested risk evaluations are conducted in the same manner as other risk evaluations conducted under TSCA Section 6(b)(4)(A).  EPA received the manufacturer requests from ExxonMobil Chemical Company (for DIDP) and from ExxonMobil Chemical Company, Evonik Corporation, and Teknor Apex (for DINP), both through the American Chemistry Council’s High Phthalates Panel.  Both chemicals were identified in the 2014 Update to the TSCA Work Plan.  As reported in our August 17, 2019, blog item, EPA held a public comment period on the requests, as well as additional conditions of use that EPA identified to include in 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 Carla N. Hutton

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a press release on November 22, 2019, reminding stakeholders that its regulations to prohibit the manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution of methylene chloride in all paint removers for consumer use will go into effect after November 22, 2019.  Beginning November 23, 2019, it will be unlawful for any person or retailer to sell or distribute paint removal products containing methylene chloride for consumer use, including e-commerce sales.  EPA states that it “is encouraging all consumers to stop using methylene chloride products that they may have already purchased for paint and coating removal.”  EPA also reminds all retailers that sales of these products to consumers are prohibited by EPA regulations under the authority of Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  EPA promulgated the final regulation on methylene chloride for consumer paint and coating removal use on March 27, 2019, and the prohibition related to manufacturing, processing and distribution of methylene chloride for consumer paint and coating removal use is now in effect.  According to EPA, “[a] variety of effective, less harmful substitutes are readily available for paint removal.”  EPA notes that it “is continuing to work through the process outlined in TSCA to review the risks associated with other uses of methylene chloride.  This process is designed to thoroughly evaluate available science before taking action to manage the risk associated with the other uses of the chemical.”

More information on EPA’s actions concerning methylene chloride are available in the following memoranda:


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Federal Register notice on November 12, 2019, announcing the availability of its response to a petition it received under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).  84 Fed. Reg. 60986.  As reported in our August 23, 2019, blog item, PEER petitioned EPA under TSCA Section 21 to prohibit the use of hydrofluoric acid in manufacturing processes at oil refineries under TSCA Section 6(a) and under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to take the same action pursuant to Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).  PEER petitioned EPA to prohibit the use of hydrofluoric acid in manufacturing processes at oil refineries and require a phase-out of use at such facilities within two years.  EPA states that after “careful consideration,” it has denied the Section 21 petition.  EPA notes that the Federal Register notice specifically addresses only the TSCA Section 21 petition, not the petition submitted under the APA.  EPA is denying the petition “based on the petition’s lack of sufficient facts establishing that it is necessary for the Agency to issue a rule under TSCA section 6(a).”  According to EPA, to grant a petition for a TSCA Section 6(a) rulemaking, a petition must provide facts establishing that the requested rulemaking is necessary.  Those facts need to be “sufficiently clear and robust for EPA to be able to conclude, within 90 days of filing the petition, that the chemical presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment and that issuance of a TSCA section 6(a) rule is the appropriate response to the petition.”  To make the threshold finding, EPA needs hazard and exposure data and other information to enable it to assess risk and conclude whether the risk is unreasonable.  In this case, EPA states that PEER’s petition “refers to hazard databases and makes conclusory statements of toxicity but provides little further information that would support granting a TSCA section 6(a) rulemaking request.”  According to EPA, the petition lacks the analysis that would be expected in a TSCA risk evaluation preceding a Section 6(a) rulemaking, such as “discussion of the appropriate hazard threshold, exposure estimates, assessment of risks, or how the facts presented allow EPA to comply with its duties under section 26 or other statutory requirements in making an unreasonable risk determination.”  Absent such information, EPA “cannot make the threshold determinations necessary to substantively assess and grant a petition for a TSCA section 6(a) rulemaking.”  EPA denies PEER’s petition request as facially incomplete.


 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›