Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) is a Washington, D.C., law firm providing biobased and renewable chemical product stakeholders unparalleled experience, judgment, and excellence in bringing innovative products to market.

By  Lynn L. Bergeson 

On January 11, 2021, EPA published a proposed rule that would amend the 2018 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) fees rule. 86 Fed. Reg. 1890. Under TSCA, EPA collects fees from chemical manufacturers and processors to help fund implementation and to ensure that public health and the environment continue to be protected. TSCA requires EPA to review its fees every three years and, after consulting with parties potentially subject to the fees, to adjust the fees if necessary. The proposed rule describes the proposed modifications to the TSCA fees and fee categories for fiscal years 2022, 2023, and 2024 and explains the methodology by which these TSCA fees were determined. The proposed updates include:

  • Regarding EPA-initiated risk evaluations, narrowing the scope of the TSCA fees rule by exempting from the requirement to pay fees importers of articles containing a chemical substance, companies that produce a chemical as a byproduct or manufacture or import as an impurity, companies that manufacture or import a chemical in de minimis amounts, companies that manufacture or import chemicals solely for R&D purposes, and companies that produce a chemical as a non-isolated intermediate;
     
  • Using cost data gathered over the past two years, instead of estimates, to update the fee calculations;
     
  • Ensuring fees are fairly and appropriately shared across companies by proposing a production-volume based fee allocation and including export-only manufacturers for EPA-initiated risk evaluations;
     
  • Allowing for corrections to be made to the list of manufacturers subject to fees for EPA-initiated risk evaluations after the final list is published, ensuring the accuracy of the list;
     
  • Increasing flexibility for companies by extending the amount of time to form consortia to share in fee payments;
     
  • Ensuring that EPA can fully collect fees and enabling companies to prepare better for paying fees by allowing payments in installments for EPA-initiated and manufacturer-requested risk evaluations (MRRE); and
     
  • Adding three new fee categories, two associated with new chemical activities and one associated with test orders.
     

Comments are due February 25, 2021. More information is available in our December 30, 2020, memorandum, “EPA Intends Proposed Rule to Increase Flexibility and Reduce Burdens under TSCA Fees Program.

Tags: TSCA, Fees

 

By  Lynn L. Bergeson 

On December 21, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a pre-publication notice of proposed updates to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Fees Rule. Specifically, the proposed updates to the original 2018 TSCA Fees Rule include:

  • Narrowing the scope of the rule by exempting importers of articles containing a chemical substance, companies that produce a chemical as a byproduct or manufacture or import as an impurity, companies that produce a chemical in de minimis amounts, companies that use chemicals solely for research and development (R&D) purposes, and companies that manufacture a chemical that is produced as a non-isolated intermediate from fees;
     
  • Using cost data gathered over the past two years, instead of estimates, to update the fee calculations;
     
  • Ensuring fees are fairly and appropriately shared across companies by proposing a production-volume based fee allocation and including export-only manufacturers for EPA-initiated risk evaluations;
     
  • Allowing for corrections to be made to the list of manufacturers subject to fees for EPA-initiated risk evaluations after the final list is published, ensuring the accuracy of the list;
     
  • Increasing flexibility for companies by extending the amount of time to form consortia to share in fee payments;
     
  • Ensuring that EPA can fully collect fees and enabling companies to prepare better for paying fees by allowing payments in installments for EPA-initiated and manufacturer-requested risk evaluations; and
     
  • Adding new fee categories associated with new chemicals activities.

EPA will accept public comments on the proposal for 45 days after its publication in the Federal Register. Further details are available here, and a Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) commentary can be accessed here.


 

By  Lynn L. Bergeson 

EPA has posted a Compliance Advisory entitled “Applicability of the Toxic Substances Control Act to Chemicals made from Petroleum and Renewable Sources Used as Fuels and Fuel Additives and Distillates.” The Compliance Advisory states that EPA is reaffirming that chemical substances used as fuels, fuel additives, and distillates made from either petroleum or renewable sources are subject to TSCA. Anyone who plans to manufacture (including import) a chemical made from petroleum or renewable sources must comply with the statutory and regulatory new chemical requirements under TSCA Section 5. According to the Compliance Advisory, EPA has received stakeholder inquiries “as to whether fuel and fuel additives made from renewable sources (such as renewable naphtha) are subject to the TSCA new chemicals requirements under section 5.” EPA states that it is issuing the Compliance Advisory “to affirm that fuel and fuel additives either made from petroleum or renewable sources are subject to TSCA and have been subject to its requirements since 1976.”

According to the Compliance Advisory, there are about 142 “naphthas” and 178 “distillates” (that compositionally can qualify as naphthas) currently on the TSCA Inventory, and they are considered Unknown, Variable composition, Complex, or Biological (UVCB) substances. Any substance that is not on the TSCA Inventory is a new chemical under TSCA Section 5(a)(1)(A). Prior to manufacture (including import) of a new chemical for commercial use, a premanufacture notice (PMN) must be filed with EPA under TSCA Section 5. The Compliance Advisory includes several questions and answers (Q&A), including:

Can you manufacture or import a chemical substance made from a renewable source if it is not listed on the TSCA Inventory?

No. Anyone who intends to manufacture (including import) a new chemical substance that is subject to TSCA for a non-exempt commercial purpose is required to submit a PMN at least 90 days prior to the manufacture of the chemical. Manufacturers (importers) are in violation of TSCA if they fail to comply or are late in complying with TSCA notice requirements. If you are required to submit a PMN, failure to do so is a violation of TSCA Section 15 and you may be subject to penalties. PMN submissions must include all available data, pursuant to 40 CFR 720.45 and 720.50. TSCA requires EPA to review the notice and make a determination; and, if appropriate, regulate the proposed activity.

EPA’s “compliance advisory” is disappointing. It signals this EPA is disinclined to promote renewable petroleum cuts and essentially (and emphatically) reaffirms what we believe to be EPA’s inflexible and unimaginative stance on “source” being determinative in petroleum cut UVCBs. This position, as we have noted in a variety of regulatory contexts, is a substantial disincentive to commercializing renewable petroleum cuts. EPA’s view is especially problematic when a refinery might wish to use a combination of petroleum and renewable feedstocks to make a single naphtha (or other distillate) cut.

For example, to avail itself of the equivalence determination, a company would have to submit a PMN for the renewable equivalent of a petroleum cut, sign the almost certain resultant consent order (EPA will undoubtedly identify aquatic toxicity concerns and may also identify health concerns), commence manufacture, file a Notice of Commencement of Manufacture or Import (NOC), and then request an equivalency determination. If EPA denies the equivalency determination, any downstream processor or user will have to either segregate the renewable products from the petroleum products so that the downstream entity can maintain records of compliance with the consent order or treat both the renewable and petroleum products as being subject to the order. Neither option is commercially feasible or sustainable.

This sequence of events illustrates why commercial entities are disinclined to avail themselves of renewable sources in the distillate space. EPA’s compliance advisory is an unexpected and, to many, unwanted parting gift from the Trump Administration. The Biden Administration may wish to revisit the wisdom and prudence of this inflexible, antiquated, and inequitable view.


 

By  Lynn L. Bergeson 

EPA announced on January 5, 2021, that it is reopening the reporting period under the TSCA Inventory notification active-inactive rule where companies identified chemicals that were manufactured, imported, or processed in the United States during the ten-year time period ending on June 21, 2016. As reported in our June 26, 2017, memorandum, “EPA Issues Final TSCA Framework Rules,” the final TSCA Inventory notification (active-inactive) rule established 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. From August 11, 2017, through October 5, 2018, chemical manufacturers and processors provided information on which chemicals were manufactured, imported, or processed in the United States over the past ten years. The reporting period included an opportunity for submitters to assert claims to retain specific chemical identities as confidential business information (CBI). In May 2020, EPA posted an interim list of chemicals expected to lose their CBI status and move to the public portion of the TSCA Inventory. In its January 5, 2021, announcement, EPA states that it has since become aware of “submitter confusion and issues regarding CBI claims” during the initial reporting period. EPA is allowing companies to submit, amend, or withdraw filings under the TSCA Inventory notification (active-inactive) rule to maintain existing CBI claims for specific chemical identity. The reporting period will reopen 30 days after publication in the Federal Register and run for 60 days after that date.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson

On November 25, 2020, EPA announced the amendment of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) regulations by extending the submission deadline for 2020 reports. CDR submissions are now due on January 29, 2021. According to EPA, this is the final extension, and it only applies to 2020 submissions. CDR regulations require manufacturers of certain chemical substances included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory to report data on the manufacturing, processing, and use of chemical substances.

To assist chemical manufacturers and processors with submitting CDR data, Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.’s (B&C®) affiliate The Acta Group (Acta®) developed CDR Cross-Check, an ingenious and cost-efficient tool to identify whether a company’s chemicals are subject to CDR and at what reporting threshold. CDR Cross-Check will identify:

  • Whether the chemical is listed as active or inactive;
  • Whether the chemical was subject to specific TSCA regulatory actions in 2016;
  • Whether the chemical is exempt; and
  • What the reporting thresholds are based on the updated data released by EPA on May 29, 2020.

Visit the CDR Cross-Check page on the Acta website for a sample report and information on how to use CDR Cross-Check.

Tags: TSCA, CDR, Deadline

 

We are pleased to announce that the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources published an article written by Lynn L. Bergeson and Eve C. Gartner entitled “The essentials of TSCA practice” in the November/December 2020 issue of Trends. According to the authors, legal practitioners should be aware of the commercial, legal, and reputational implications of TSCA as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act in 2016. The authors state that TSCA’s expanded commercial reach “is an important, consequential, and growing practice area.” The authors note that “[c]ommunity organizations representing populations at greater risk of harm from chemicals should also be aware that TSCA may offer much-needed protections.”

Tags: TSCA, ABA

 

After reading the article below by Jeffery Morris, former Director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), we were inspired to post it. We appreciate having the opportunity to share his analysis with our audience.

TSCA as a Gap-Filling Statute: Potentially Exposed and Susceptible Subpopulations

By Jeffery Morris, PhD

In its response to public comments on the scope documents for its next twenty chemical risk evaluations conducted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has asserted that TSCA is a “gap-filling statute” for the regulation of chemical substances in the United States (US EPA, Summary of Public Comments Received on the Draft Scopes of the Risk Evaluations for Twenty Chemical Substances Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), August 2020, p. 13). This assertion relates to the regulatory nexus between TSCA and other federal statutes. At issue regarding regulatory nexus is whether TSCA’s role is to: (1) fill gaps where issues are not addressed by other laws that regulate chemicals1, (2) serve as the nation’s primary and preeminent statute for chemicals, or (3) operate somewhere between these two positions. Inherent in the TSCA-as-gap-filler position is the view that federal laws should work together to advance the public welfare, and that different environmental statutes have their own strengths in how they govern the impact of chemicals on people and the environment.

TSCA requires the consideration of potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations in the EPA’s evaluation of chemicals. While TSCA is not the only environmental law with provisions for susceptible or vulnerable subpopulations, the direct, repeated emphasis across multiple sections of the law that the EPA consider potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations may be unique in US environmental law. Therefore, how the EPA meets this requirement with respect to other laws’ treatment of such populations is an important consideration for regulatory nexus. Key questions regarding regulatory nexus and TSCA’s role are how to go about identifying whether other statutes leave gaps in this area for TSCA to fill and if they do, how those gaps should be filled in the EPA’s chemical evaluations.

The recently released final scope documents and the accompanying response-to-comments document do not fully answer these questions, including regarding comments that have been raised about how the EPA will apply exposure and susceptibility considerations to people living in communities located near high concentrations of chemicals-related activity. My hope is that exploring these questions now can help inform a path forward for further addressing comments the EPA has received on potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations as the twenty draft risk evaluations are developed, as well as in scope documents for future chemicals brought into the TSCA prioritization process.

In its response to scope document comments, the EPA makes two important statements regarding the regulatory nexus issue as applied to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations. The first, on page 13, is that “EPA believes that coordinated action on exposure pathways and risks addressed by other EPA-administered statutes and regulatory programs is consistent with statutory text and legislative history, particularly as they pertain to TSCA’s function as a ‘gap-filling’ statute ….” In the second statement, also on page 13, the EPA adds that “[t]o the extent that specific exposure pathways are not under the jurisdiction of other EPA-administered statutes and associated regulatory programs, EPA plans to evaluate those exposures in the risk evaluations for the individual substances.”

The first statement’s focus on “coordinated action” between laws and regulations with respect to chemical evaluation and management is a crucial consideration for regulatory nexus. Coordination by the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), which administers TSCA, with other EPA offices that manage statutes that address chemicals, as well as with other federal agencies that implement laws impacting chemicals, is good government practice. What is missing from the final scope documents, and therefore would be a valuable addition to the chemical-specific dockets, is a detailed description of the type of coordination cited in the response to comments. Ideally, this description would appear in the scope documents, but for these twenty chemicals an addition to the dockets would be helpful. For example, the EPA could strengthen its explanation of whether potential exposures or susceptibilities are based on geography (e.g., exposures are higher in a particular location), biology (e.g., a particular population has a genetic or otherwise biologically based predisposition to suffer adverse effects from exposure to a chemical), or cultural/societal factors (e.g., a cultural or community practice results in exposure potential greater than in the general population, or an attribute of the subpopulation’s location in society, such as having low income or poor access to health care, creates susceptibilities to adverse effects from chemical exposure).

Because some comments on community exposures refer specifically to 1,3-butadiene, it is a useful example to illustrate the challenges and opportunities presented by the coordination the EPA is conducting within the regulatory nexus construct; it also can illustrate what I mean by a detailed description of cross-office coordination on potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations. This example looks at just one of 1,3-butadiene’s uses: in the production of tires. Under its Clean Air Act (CAA) authority, the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) conducted a Residual Risk Assessment for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392-0047, February 2020) that includes 1,3-butadiene within this source category, among numerous other chemical substances designated as hazardous air pollutants (HAP). This assessment supports a July 24, 2020, final rule, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review (EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0392; FRL 10008-48-OAR, 85 FR 44752, July 24, 2020).

The coordination challenge, therefore, is to crosswalk the CAA review, which covers numerous HAPs within one sector, with a TSCA risk evaluation covering the conditions of use of a single HAP chemical across multiple sectors. On page 49 of the 1,3-butadiene TSCA scope document, the EPA states that air emission pathways are covered under the CAA (Final Scope of the Risk Evaluation for 1,3-Butadiene, EPA Document # EPA-740-R-20-011, August 2020). It would be useful for the 1,3-butadiene record to include a table and/or narrative that describes how, for its TSCA coordination on the consideration of potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations, OCSPP evaluated the 1,3-butadiene conditions of use against the respective source category-based and any other analyses conducted by OAR that included 1,3-butadiene. Such a crosswalk could serve as a best practice for application of regulatory nexus analysis in the implementation of TSCA. It would also aid in transparency to the public around a very complex but important concept: that although different environmental statutes may use different approaches (e.g., sector or source category versus individual chemical analysis), it is possible to coordinate their respective contributions to chemical evaluation and management so that, if gaps exist, TSCA can play its appropriate role in health and environmental protection.

For instance, OAR’s 2020 final rule states that “the percentage of the population potentially impacted by Rubber Tire Manufacturing emissions is greater than its corresponding nationwide percentage for: African Americans (25 percent for the source category compared to 12 percent nationwide) and below the poverty level (21 percent for the source category compared to 14 percent nationwide)” (page 44759). Strong coordination between TSCA and the CAA would suggest that such information obtained through CAA activities would be helpful to OCSPP in determining how to address the “potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations” considerations required under TSCA section 6, including as they may apply to TSCA’s gap-filler role in addressing comments to the 1,3-butadiene scope document concerning disproportionate exposure to communities located near high concentrations of chemicals-related activity.

This consideration leads to the EPA’s statement in its response-to-comments document that where there is not overlap with another regulatory jurisdiction, the EPA will evaluate the exposures. Using the above TSCA-CAA coordination example for 1,3-butadiene, a question for OCSPP could be whether the TSCA requirement that the EPA consider potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations in its risk evaluations is covered by the work done by OAR on 1,3-butadiene, specifically with respect to commenters’ input on community-based impacts. One would assume “covered” to mean that this particular aspect of TSCA’s potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations requirement has been evaluated and addressed in OAR’s CAA activities, and therefore can be excluded from the 1,3-butadiene risk evaluation. However, if the CAA has not addressed this particular TSCA requirement in a manner or to an extent intended by the best read of TSCA’s language regarding the consideration of those potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations in a particular chemical risk evaluation, then there exists a gap that TSCA, as a gap-filling statute, should address.

The manner in which a TSCA risk evaluation fills any identified gaps is also important. This again will require careful and transparent coordination and analysis between statutes. In its chemical risk evaluations, EPA would presumably want to fill gaps in ways that meet the specific requirements of TSCA for potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations, without doing so in a manner that is at odds with other statutes’ treatment of a chemical substance under TSCA evaluation. Not only would this careful gap filling be in general sound government practice, but it also would help avoid difficulties if the risk evaluation identifies unreasonable risks that the EPA determines, under TSCA section 9, should be addressed under a law other than TSCA.

The 1,3-butadiene example shows how greater explanation, preferably in scoping documents, on how the EPA coordinates among its offices and other agencies to make regulatory nexus decisions for TSCA risk evaluations can not only provide greater transparency to the public on individual chemical evaluations, but also can inform broader discussions on regulatory nexus by showing how such coordination can identify gaps that TSCA is best situated to fill. For some chemicals, it may be the case that other statutes have already adequately assessed the risks to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations, obviating the need for additional analysis in a TSCA risk evaluation. However, the mere existence of another statute with jurisdiction over a particular environmental pathway or human exposure scenario for a chemical substance subject to TSCA review should not lead to an a priori assumption that there is not an evaluation gap for TSCA to fill. Any assumptions about other statutes’ coverage of TSCA’s chemical evaluation requirements should be explored, tested, and fully described in TSCA chemical scope documents or elsewhere in the risk evaluation record. This is particularly important with potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations, given TSCA’s unique approach to requiring their consideration in chemical prioritization, evaluation, and management. I would argue that a good starting point for articulating TSCA’s gap-filling role is in the application of these requirements to people living near high concentrations of chemicals-related activity.

1 By “chemicals” I refer in this article to chemicals regulated under TSCA, and not to chemicals that are regulated under other federal statutes, such as pesticides, drugs, and food additives.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson 

On August 17, 2020, EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) published a report entitled Lack of Planning Risks EPA’s Ability to Meet Toxic Substances Control Act Deadlines. OIG conducted an audit to determine whether EPA met the deadlines already imposed by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg Act) in 2016, which amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and whether EPA has the staff, resources, and management controls in place to meet future statutory deadlines. OIG found that while EPA met several of its TSCA deadlines, it did not complete all ten required existing chemical risk evaluations by the June 19, 2020, deadline. OIG recommends that the assistant administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention publish the annual existing chemical plan, including the anticipated implementation efforts and required resources; conduct a workforce analysis to assess the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics’ (OPPT) capability to implement the TSCA requirements; and specify what skill gaps must be filled in fiscal year 2021 to meet the TSCA requirements. More information is available in our August 18, 2020, blog item.

Tags: OIG, TSCA

 

By Lynn L. Bergeson

From June 15-19, 2020, the American Chemical Society (ACS) will be hosting its annual Green Chemistry and Engineering (GC&E) Conference virtually. On June 15, 2020, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. (EDT), during the “Enabling a Circular Economy for Materials in the Consumer Goods Industry,” Richard E. Engler, Ph.D., B&C’s Director of Chemistry, will proudly present his abstract titled “Road-map for Innovators - Commercialization in a Circular Economy.”

In addition, Engler will present a poster titled “TSCA Tutor -- The Importance of Regulatory Awareness and Applications” on each day of the conference, from 12:00 p.m. to 12:55 p.m. (EDT). The poster presentation will highlight B&C’s complete suite of TSCA Tutor® regulatory training courses online and on-demand. This year’s conference registration is free, so check out Engler’s abstract and poster presentations!

B&C will also have a virtual exhibitor booth concurrent with the poster session mentioned above where attendees can learn more about B&C’s services, BRAG, and B&C’s affiliates The Acta Group and BCCM. Join us during our live sessions to discover more! If those times do not work for you, check us out during one of the conference’s networking breaks daily from 2:45 p.m. to 3:05 p.m. (EDT).


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson

EPA announced on June 1, 2020, the availability of the latest Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory. EPA notes that this biannual update to the public TSCA Inventory is part of its regular posting of non-confidential TSCA Inventory data. EPA plans the next regular update of the Inventory for early 2021. According to EPA, the Inventory contains 86,405 chemicals, of which 41,587 are active in the United States commerce. Other updates to the TSCA Inventory include updates to commercial activity data and regulatory flags, such as consent orders and significant new use rules (SNUR).


 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›