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 March 3, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register a proposed supplemental significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under Section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylate (LCPFAC) chemical substances to make inapplicable the exemption for persons who import a subset of LCPFAC chemical substances as part of surface coatings on articles.  85 Fed. Reg. 12479.  Under the proposed supplemental SNUR, this subset of LCPFAC chemical substances also includes the salts and precursors of these perfluorinated carboxylates.  The supplemental proposal would require importers to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the import of these chemical substances in certain articles for the significant new use described in the proposed SNUR.  The required significant new use notification would initiate EPA’s evaluation of the conditions of use associated with the intended significant new use.  Manufacturing (including import) or processing for the significant new use would be prohibited from commencing 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.  Comments on the proposed supplemental SNUR are due April 17, 2020.  More information is available in our February 28, 2020, memorandum, “Proposed Supplemental SNUR Would Remove Exemption for LCPFAC Chemical Substances Used as Surface Coatings on Articles.”

 

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


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham, M.S.

On April 17, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the availability of updated systematic review supplemental files with data evaluation scoring sheets as supporting documents for the draft risk evaluation for Colour Index (C. I.) Pigment Violet 29 (PV29) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  84 Fed. Reg. 16011.  EPA states it is “seeking public comment on the draft risk evaluation for PV29 in light of the additional materials already made or being made publicly available.”  In her April 16, 2019, blog item, Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, described the updated systematic review documents for PV29 as “a tool that guides our review and selection of scientific studies used to evaluate chemicals,” and that the updates were made “based on public input we received during the initial comment period.” 

On March 22, 2019, EPA made 24 full study reports on PV29 available to the public, in some instances with information withheld as confidential business information (CBI) pursuant to EPA regulations.  EPA has considered these materials in the risk evaluation process of PV29 and has also submitted these materials to the TSCA Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC).  EPA states that comments submitted will be considered by the agency and also provided to the TSCA SACC peer review panel, which will have the opportunity to consider the comments during its discussions. 

The comment period for the draft risk evaluation of CI PV29 closed on January 14, 2019, but via this notice is being extended.  The Federal Register notice announcing the availability of the updated systematic review supplemental files lists a comment deadline of the same date as the notice -- April 17, 2019, but Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0604-0038, however, lists a comment deadline of May 17, 2019; it is most likely that the docket is correct in this instance especially considering that follows what was stated by Ms. Dunn in her blog item that in light of the new and updated information EPA has recently released, "we will be reopening the public comment on the draft risk evaluation for PV29. It is important that the public have the opportunity to provide input on all of the information EPA is considering before our risk evaluation is finalized, so we invite you to provide us with your feedback. The public comment period will reopen for 30 days following publication in the Federal Register.” 


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

On April 24, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is scheduled to publish a notice in the Federal Register that it will be adding a supplemental analysis, “Supplemental Analysis of Alternative Small Business Size Standard Definitions and their Effect on TSCA User Fee Collection,” to the rulemaking docket for the User Fees for the Administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) proposed rule published on February 26, 2018.  EPA will also be extending the comment period for the proposed rule for an additional 30 days “to give interested parties the opportunity to consider this additional analysis and prepare meaningful comments.”  Comments will be due within 30 days of publication (by May 24, 2018).  The original comment deadline was April 27, 2018.

Regarding the supplemental analysis, EPA states that it “provides additional estimates for the impact of setting the small business definition based on an employee-based threshold.”  More information on the proposed rule is available in our February 9, 2018, memorandum “Administrator Pruitt Signs TSCA User Fee Proposal.”


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

On February 26, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its proposed fees rule entitled User Fees for the Administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as permissible under TSCA Section 26(b).  83 Fed. Reg. 8212.  The rule as proposed will set user 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 the Administrator 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).  The notice of proposed rulemaking provides a description of proposed TSCA fees and fee categories for fiscal years 2019, 2020, and 2021, and explains the methodology by which the proposed TSCA user fees were determined and would be determined for subsequent fiscal years.  In proposing these new TSCA user fees, EPA also proposes amending long standing user fee regulations governing the review of premanufacture notices, exemption applications and notices, and significant new use notices.  Comments on the proposed rule are due April 27, 2018.

An in-depth analysis prepared by Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) is available in our memorandum “Administrator Pruitt Signs TSCA User Fee Proposal.”


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

 


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

On December 6, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it was extending the public comment period to receive information on the five persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals that are subject to Section 6(h) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) which requires EPA to take expedited regulatory action to address risks from certain PBT chemicals.  Comments were initially due on December 9, 2017; they are now due on January 12, 2018.  EPA states it is interested in information from the public about these chemicals, including uses, products containing these chemicals, exposed populations, and alternatives to these chemicals.  Very few comments have been filed regarding these chemicals thus far.  The chemicals and corresponding docket numbers are:

More information on the PBTs is available on our blog under keyword PBTs.

 


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

On December 9, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) opened five dockets to collect information on five persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals.  EPA requested information on uses, products containing these chemicals, exposed populations, and alternatives to these chemicals.  These five chemicals were selected on October 11, 2016, to receive expedited action under Section 6(h) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which requires EPA to take expedited regulatory action to address risks from certain PBT chemicals.  The deadline to submit comments is fast approaching:  December 9, 2017.  The five chemicals and their corresponding dockets are:

In August 2017, EPA provided background information for each of the five PBT chemicals in the form of use documents which provide a preliminary summary of available information collected by EPA on the manufacturing (including importing), processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of each chemical.  Amended TSCA gives EPA three years to propose rules to reduce risks and exposures from these PBT chemicals to the extent practicable (until June 22, 2019), and EPA must issue the rules in final within 18 months of when they are proposed. 

More information on the PBTs is available on our blog under keyword PBTs.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

On March 6, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is scheduled to publish a notice in the Federal Register reopening the comment period on the risk evaluation scoping efforts under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for the ten chemical substances that were designated on December 19, 2016:

  • 1, 4 Dioxane;
  • Methylene Chloride;
  • 1-Bromopropane;
  • N-Methylpyrolidone;
  • Asbestos;
  • Pigment Violet 29;
  • Carbon Tetrachloride;
  • Trichloroethylene;
  • Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster (HBCD); and
  • Tetrachloroethylene.

The prepublication version is available on the Federal Register website.  The initial notice, issued in the Federal Register on January 19, 2017, announced a public meeting which took place on February 14, 2017, and solicited “comments to receive input and information to assist the Agency in its efforts to establish the scope of risk evaluations under development for the ten chemicals substances.”  This notice will extend the comment period for 14 days, from March 1, 2017, to March 15, 2017, in response to a request from the interested public.  

More information is available in our blog items EPA To Hold Public Meeting on Uses and Conditions of Use for the Initial Ten Chemicals to be Evaluated under TSCA Section 6 and EPA Announces Initial List of TSCA Section 6 Chemicals for Risk Evaluation

 


 

By Sheryl L. Dolan, Kathleen M. RobertsJames V. Aidala, and Lynn L. Bergeson

On August 11, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) convened a public meeting to solicit comments prior to development of a proposed rule to implement the revised Section 26 fees provision under the new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  Public comments may be submitted through regulations.gov in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0401 until August 24, 2016.

During the meeting, EPA solicited public comment in particular on the following five issues:

  1. To be able to defray 25 percent of costs of administering Sections 4, 5 and 6, and Confidential Business Information (CBI), does industry have considerations of weight amongst the three areas of fee collection?
  2. Does industry have thoughts on the types of factors (types of submissions, numbers of submissions, level of difficulty, etc.) that EPA should consider when structuring the fees?
  3. Has industry considered how to distribute payment amongst multiple manufacturers and/or processors?
  4. Does industry have thoughts on how to identify the whole universe of manufacturers, including importers and processors affected?
  5. Does industry have thoughts on how to arrive at an appropriate balance between manufacturers and processors?

In its presentation, EPA stated that it intends to publish a proposed rule by mid-December 2016, and a final rule in time for its statutory June 22, 2017, deadline.

Four industry trade associations gave prepared remarks during the meeting:  the American Chemistry Council; the American Petroleum Institute; the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates; and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers.  Their comments reflected several common but competing themes, including:

  • EPA needs to share its expectations of internal costs as a starting point for discussions of the fee structure.
  • The fee system should be straightforward to implement.
  • EPA should be mindful in developing a fee structure so as not to stifle innovation; for example, placing too high of fees for review of new chemistries under Section 5 or confidentiality claims under Section 14.
  • Not all sections should be given equal weight; in particular, as industry will pay for Section 4 data development, it should not be double-charged by assessing a fee for EPA’s review of these data.
  • EPA must provide adequate consideration for the effect on small businesses.
  • Consideration should be given to incremental fees, tied to EPA milestones.
  • A business should have a way to exit from a Section 6 risk evaluation process if it elects to exit the market.

Commentary

Congress recognized that the new TSCA tasks EPA with significant additional responsibilities, and included Section 26 as a venue to ensure adequate resources would be available to develop the infrastructure to meet these responsibilities according to the specified timelines and in conformity with sound science.  Input from all affected stakeholders will be needed to devise a workable TSCA fee system, particularly in the compressed timeframe for rule development. 

EPA and industry stakeholders are supportive of a simple framework, but the complexities and current unknowns of how new TSCA will operate will make this goal challenging.  Many questions exist that will not be answered before next week’s comment deadline:

  1. Should a company have to pay fees for a Section 6 risk evaluation on uses that it does not support? 
  2. Should there be fees associated with Section 6 prioritization actions?  If not, does that mean that only high priority chemicals will have Section 6 fees assessed on them? 
  3. Given the new threshold for affirmative findings under Section 5, will EPA complete the same number of new chemical notifications that it has in the past?  If not, should that anticipated reduction in notification reviews be reflected in the fees proposal? 
  4. Most industry stakeholders recognize that the current PMN fee of $2,500 will be increased, but how much is too much?   
  5. As previously noted, is it appropriate to require industry to pay for testing under Section 4, and then charge for EPA review of that test data? 
  6. To ensure that sufficient funds are raised, will we need to assess a fee for every “touch” that EPA has within Sections 4, 5, and 6?  How can that cost be fairly allocated among all industry players, including small businesses?

While EPA did not offer to share information on budgets at the August 11, 2016, meeting, the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) presumably has pertinent information supporting its annual budgets that must be shared in the near term if it hopes to receive any meaningful ideas on a proposed fee structure.  Although past program outputs done under old TSCA may bear little resemblance to the duties EPA now has under new TSCA, EPA’s new policies and responsibilities will be some scale of past program capabilities and budget.

Of more relevance will be the experience of OPPT’s sister program, the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP).  OPP has had a dedicated stream of user fees since the 1988 amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and additional fees were imposed in 2004 with enactment of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) fee-for-service program.  While the FIFRA product licensing program is different in many respects from TSCA, there are relevant commonalities that OPPT should find helpful.  OPP has a time accounting system, for example, that provides a principled basis on which to estimate the time required for study report review and risk evaluation. 

With estimates derived from the time accounting system, OPP (and presumably OPPT) can estimate how much it costs EPA to review toxicity studies individually.  For example, there is an estimate of how much it costs EPA to review a 90-day subchronic study, or how much to review a genotoxicity study. These calculations form the basis of the PRIA fee scheme, as PRIA is designed to generate one-third of the program costs involved.  The “simple” general rule underlying a now elaborate fee schedule with almost 200 categories is that the more science review involved, the greater the required fee.  The new law may not need or want to have so many different categories, but the operating principle can remain the same.

For OPPT, the dollar amounts could vary from OPP given the statutory limitation of the maximum amount to be generated, but the more difficult question will be how OPPT calculates its expected workload under the new law.  Given the wealth of information available through OPP’s experience, sharing this information would further inform the public about what to expect in, or options for how to fashion, a fee scheme.