New chemical innovation is not as celebrated as innovation in electronics, materials, software, or other sectors, but it is every bit as important. Many believe, as do we, that new chemical innovation is essential to achieving sustainable development. For this reason, a close look at the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) implementation of them offers valuable insights into whether the new U.S. industrial chemical management law and EPA policy initiatives implementing it are aligned with this goal. This article discusses EPA’s implementation of the TSCA amendments as they relate to new chemical innovation and highlights EPA policy positions and institutional practices that EPA should reconsider to alignmore closely with the goal of more sustainable new chemical technologies.

In 2018, the global M&A market achieved a transaction volume of $4.1 trillion, the third highest year ever for M&A volumes. Divestitures, spin-offs and split-offs are essential to defining corporate identity, a key shareholder imperative. This brisk pace is expected to continue. Whatever the motivation, M&A activity demands razor-sharp due diligence. The premise of this article is that due diligence often underestimates or, worse, ignores the impact implementation of revisions to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the US industrial chemical safety law, has on commercial transactions. Implementation of these revisions is now influencing key sectors of the economy, making it essential that TSCA chemical risk evaluations be routinely included in M&A due diligence protocols.

This past spring, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a first-ever final rule under Section 6(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) banning the use of methylene chloride in consumer paint and coating removal products. Although this rule was long in the making, this type of chemical ban of selected products is likely to be seen more routinely in the months and years ahead. This article reflects upon EPA’s broad authority under TSCA Section 6 and explores the reasons why chemical prohibitions, and the commercial complications they inspire, are expected to be the new normal.

After many years of study, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), industry stakeholders, and the scientific community at large well know that chemicals that are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) behave differently in the environment and in biological systems than non-PBT chemicals. Congress acknowledged this in updating the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 2016 by specifying special provisions under TSCA Section 6(h) for PBT chemicals. In June of this year, the EPA proposed a rule implementing TSCA Section 6(h) review that elicits important insights on how the EPA intends to review such chemicals. The rule is a blueprint for its consideration of PBTs for years to come.

Health and safety studies provide invaluable insights into the hazards posed by chemical substances. The cost of generating these studies is also considerable, and access to them should be commensurate with the intellectual property interests they reflect. This article explores two current challenges under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and offers practical tips for managing these issues.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released on March 20, 2019, a list of 40 chemicals for which EPA is initiating the prioritization process for risk evaluation. This article explains why the prioritization process is critically important for product manufacturers to monitor and manage, and how best to do so.

The concept of confidential business information (CBI) is sometimes considered at odds with the concept of the ‘right-to-know.’ When Congress amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 2016 through enactment of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg), it was mindful of the public’s growing interest in knowing more about the identity of chemicals to which they may be exposed, but equally mindful of a business’ legitimate interest in protecting highly proprietary and commercially sensitive trade secret and other information entitled to protection from disclosure. Congress enacted several significant TSCA modifications in an effort to balance these competing interests, amendments that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been implementing through rulemaking and guidance documents over the past three years. This article discusses key CBI initiatives, and the stakeholder community’s response to them.

On February 19, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a much anticipated “updated” Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory. The updated TSCA Inventory now lists chemicals that are “active” versus “inactive” in commerce in the U.S. This development has important legal and transactional implications for foreign companies importing chemicals into the U.S. This column explains why.

The 21st Century has witnessed intense renewed interest in commercialising new biobased chemicals, defined generally to include chemicals that are derived fromplants and otherrenewablematerials. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is the U.S. law thatregulatesindustrial chemicalsubstances,including biobased chemicals, used in applications other than food, drugs, cosmetics, and pesticides, or uses that are regulated by other federal authorities. TSCA wassignificantly amended in 2016, and stakeholders need now more than ever to understand how TSCA applies to biobased chemicals to appreciate the implications of new TSCA on their commercial operations. Doing so will better assure uninterrupted business operations and consistent TSCA compliance.

On September 27, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final fees rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The final rule largely tracks the proposed rule. The EPA will host a series of webinars focusing on TSCA submissions and fee payments under the final rule. The agency has posted a pre-publication version of the final rule, as well as its response to public comments on the proposed rule.

Section 8(b)(10)(B) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg), directs that “[n]ot later than April 1, 2017, and every 3 years thereafter, the Administrator shall carry out and publish” (Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2018a, p. 30056) an inventory of mercury or mercury-added products or uses of mercury in a manufacturing process. On June 27, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule responding to this legislative mandate. The rule requires certain entities to provide information to assist in the preparation of this inventory. This column outlines the final rule and discusses its implications.

This summer, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report titled “EPA’s Chemical Data Reporting Rule Largely Implemented as Intended, but Opportunities for Improvement Exist.” The OIG conducted an audit to determine how the EPA is ensuring companies are compliant with the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and whether the EPA uses CDR data to prioritize chemicals for the purpose of identifying their potential risks to human health and the environment. The OIG found that implementing policies for data quality checks will help tailor the information reported to meet the EPA’s needs. This column discusses the report.

Bergeson & Campbell has written extensively about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s implementation of the 2016 Amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act occasioned by enactment of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg). On the whole, EPA implementation efforts have been timely, balanced, and defensible. Implementation of Section 5 (new chemicals) revisions has been less successful. To date, the EPA’s approach has impeded the commercialization of more sustainable new chemical technologies and thus has, ironically, extended the market presence of often less- sustainable legacy chemicals. This article was originally published as a three part series analyzing the implementation of TSCA Section 5 and its impact on chemical innovation.

This article reviews the Trump Administration’s engagement, to date, in key industrial chemical matters, domestically and internationally.  Topics include the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the UN’s Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) and 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and Ratification of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.

As a candidate and now as president, President Trump has been uncharacteristically predictable in systematically dismantling signature environmental policies of prior administrations and ceding the United States’ leadership in combating climate change to other global powers. The administration’s industrial chemicals management policy has been less transparent and predictable, however. Some may have interpreted candidate Trump’s notable silence on the campaign trail as support for Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform, given the broad bipartisan support it enjoyed before its enactment on June 22, 2016. Others may have assumed that candidate Trump was simply unaware of the enactment of the most sweeping legislative changes to our domestic chemical management law in four decades and the significant commercial, legal, and trade implications occasioned by enactment of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg). President Trump has kept his TSCA cards close to his vest, and the administration’s broader engagement in chemicals management on the world stage is similarly unclear. Some trends can be discerned, or at least inferred, as discussed in this article.

The release of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 5(a)(3)(C) determination for a new polymer, P-16-0510, represents a positive step in implementing the New Chemicals Program under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. The new chemical is intended to be used as a deodorizer in a variety of products, including floor cleaners, cat litter, fabric freshener sprays and other consumer products. This column explains why this is a significant development.

The ‘right-to-know’ has been a foundational element of U.S. environmental law and policy for decades. As more information becomes known about the potential health and environmental impacts of chemical substances in industrial, commercial, and especially consumer products, the public’s interest in product ingredients has sharply increased. Recently this interest has taken a new direction, one targeting consumer cleaning products. Two state initiatives, originating in opposite sides of the country, reflect different approaches to compelling product ingredient disclosure, and portend similar state measures elsewhere. Consumer product manufacturers are bracing for renewed challenges in preserving consistent product labeling and maintaining confidential business information (CBI). Information-saturated consumers likely do not know what to think as they sort through ever more detailed product information. How these state measures might impact European manufacturers and trade and commerce in general remain to be seen. Here is an overview of the new measures and their implications.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) April 2018 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory is now available (https://www.epa.gov/tsca-inventory/ how-access-tsca-inventory). For the first time, the Inventory includes a field designating substances that are “active” in U.S. commerce.

On June 21, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued guidance to assist companies in creating structurally descriptive chemical names for substances whose specific chemical identities are claimed confidential and for listing substances on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory. Because the need to retain chemical identity confidentiality is critical, this guidance is an essential read.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expanded on June 12, 2018, the list of chemicals subject to reporting under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). The list now includes a category containing 13 nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPE). NPEs are nonionic surfactants used in a variety of industrial applications and consumer products including adhesives, wetting agents, emulsifiers, stabilizers, dispersants, defoamers, cleaners, paints and coatings. The final rule will apply for the reporting year beginning January 1, 2019, with the first reporting forms due July 1, 2020. This development will impact chemical stakeholders in a range of commercial applications, as explained below.

Changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) occasioned by enactment of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act have fundamentally changed the way the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviews new and assesses existing chemical substances in surprising and subtle ways. Our 26-professionals TSCA practice in Washington, D.C. has been “doing TSCA” for a very long time. We offer our European colleagues practical insights into the new law and EPA’s implementation efforts. As we represent many European companies that have business interests in the U.S., our views are offered from a practical perspective.

We all knew it was coming, and the proposal has finally arrived. On February 8, 2018, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt signed a proposed rule regarding user fees for the administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). As amended by the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, TSCA provides the 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” (EPA, 2018a, p. 1). This column summarizes the proposal and explains why it is significant.

A downloadable and printable version of this article is available here. 

A petition filed under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was one of the first actions reviewed by a federal district court since TSCA was substantially rewritten in June 2016.The rulings described below pose interesting and potentially formidable challenges for TSCA stakeholders.

When the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was legislatively ‘modernised’ in June 2016, no one in the legal community doubted litigation was in our collective future. We have not been disappointed.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its legal counsel for these purposes, the US Department of Justice (DoJ), are facing multiple lawsuits in several federal appeals courts and the very real possibility of more litigation deriving from TSCA Section 21 citizen petitions in the light of a recent decision. While none of this is especially unexpected, it is nonetheless disquieting. This article is a quick summary of where the cases stand and a discussion of what is at stake.

The cost of compliance with the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) will soon rise. On February 8, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed off on proposed TSCA user fees. As amended by the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, TSCA authorizes the EPA 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.” This column summarizes the proposal and its significance.

The new year promises to be a busy one in the chemical area. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hit all of its new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) marks in timely promulgating rules or taking other steps required by the new TSCA. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to implement reporting requirements pertinent to the supply, use and trade of mercury in the United States. This column provides more information and a closer look into the EPA’s October 2017 proposed rule.

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 (EPA, 2017). This final rule is now in effect. This Washington Watch column explains why the rule is important, and what stakeholders should be doing to protect their interests.

After a decade of trying, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) now has in effect a final Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a) information gathering rule focusing on nanoscale materials. This article explains the final rule, what stakeholders are required to do, and by when.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is the federal gap-filling chemical control law regulating chemical substances used in applications other than food, drugs, cosmetics, and pesticides, and other uses that are regulated by other federal authorities. Chemical product innovators need to understand how TSCA, significantly amended in 2016, applies to biomass starting material, including industrial microorganisms (such as algae), intermediates, and commercial products, and build TSCA compliance into business timelines and budgets. Doing so will better assure uninterrupted business operations and consistent TSCA compliance.

On June 22, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the final inventory notification rule under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The rule establishes an electronic notification of chemical substances listed on the TSCA Inventory that were manufactured/imported for nonexempt commercial purposes during the 10-year time period ending on June 21, 2016, with provision to also allow processor notification. These notifications will be used to distinguish "active" from "inactive" substances. A summary of this rule follows.

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 now in effect. Here is why the rule is important, and what stakeholders should be doing to protect their interests.

The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act significantly amended the Toxic Substances Control Act. The act, which has been in force for just over a year, made substantive changes to multiple sections of TSCA that are proving to be even more consequential than anticipated (new TSCA is identified as Pub. L. No. 114-182 and old TSCA was identified as Pub. L. No. 94-469).

This paper, authored principally by former EPA officials and a practicing TSCA lawyer, all with long experience under old TSCA, provides suggestions for new approaches or ‘‘fixes’’ that could assist the agency and interested groups in moving toward smoother implementation of the new law, achieving policy goals, and ensuring greater transparency. These suggestions are presented in no particular order and in the spirit of urging other stakeholders to also think of creative ways to ensure that new TSCA fulfills Congress’s mandate to develop an effective domestic chemical management program.

On July 20, 2017, the Trump Administration published its Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The Agenda includes a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) item (RIN 2070-AJ54) concerning the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a) reporting rule for nanoscale materials.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued on Jan. 12, 2017, a final rule under Section 8(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) establishing reporting and recordkeeping requirements for certain discrete forms of chemical substances that are manufactured or processed at the nanoscale. This column summarizes the rule.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued in June final framework rules under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Each is summarized in the article.

2016 was full of surprises, two of which are driving much of the environmental agenda for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2017.  First, Congress significantly amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in June of 2016.  The changes are intended to reform the program to address the widely recognized deficiencies in the law, especially regarding existing chemicals, chemical testing, Confidential Business Information (CBI) claims, and preemption of state actions.  EPA has been busy implementing the new law, as the all-important “framework rules” must be issued in final in June 2017.  The second surprise event was even more unexpected -- the election of Donald Trump as President.  His election is already having a significant impact on environmental law and policy.  This column briefly offers some thoughts and predictions on the impact of the new Administration on environmental issues of interest to our readers.

A major change, brought about by the November elections, is the uptick in citizen suit litigation, and lawsuits brought by third parties against the government. Given the current administration’s position on climate change, environmental regulation generally, and the perception that regulations impede economic growth and job development, there has been a significant slowdown in regulatory and administrative activity and the initiation of enforcement actions. NGOs and third-party activists will continue to fill this void by private lawsuits as citizen litigants.

With the recent 2016 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) dataset and the initial interim list of “active” substances released with the February 2017 copy of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory, the magnitude of effort needed for the TSCA Section 8(b)(4) Inventory Reset is becoming clear. Stakeholders should waste no time in preparing to meet their obligations; the final rule was issued in June.

Most people knew candidate Trump was no fan of climate change regulation or the Clean Water Rule (CWR). Mr. Trump’s views on chemical management were never clearly articulated, however. Some may have interpreted this notable silence as support for Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform, given the broad bipartisan support it enjoyed before its enactment last June. Others may have assumed candidate Trump, in the heat of the campaign, was unaware of the significant commercial, legal, and trade implications occasioned by enactment of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety of the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg), the most sweeping legislative overhaul to our domestic chemical management law in four decades. Similar to candidate Trump, President Trump has kept his TSCA cards close to his vest. To the extent money talks, the President’s fiscal year 2018 budget doubles down on slashing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) budget by over 30 percent. The chemicals program, however, would largely be spared cuts and in fact would get a boost under the Trump budget submitted to Congress in late May, suggesting solid support for ensuring the new law is implemented timely.

On June 22, 2016, President Obama signed into law the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. The text of the law is available at: http://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2576/text. The law substantially amends the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and in so doing, fundamentally alters the domestic management of industrial chemicals, the lifeblood of many manufacturing processes. This article summarizes key changes and explains their likely impacts on the manufacturing sector. For the purposes of this article, reference is made to the amended TSCA as “new TSCA.”

On March 29, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its initial inventory report of mercury supply, use and trade in the United States pursuant to the requirements of the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This article outlines this development in the context of mercury regulation under the TSCA.

On June 22, 2016, President Obama signed into law the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg). The new law amended significantly the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and in so doing, is redefining supply chain relationships, rewriting the rules of engagement for due diligence in mergers and acquisitions, reopening debate on new avenues in product liability and tort law, and raising important questions regarding right-to-know vs. confidential business information (CBI). TSCA, as amended, is no longer an arcane chemical statute that only chemists, consultants, and counsel for chemical manufacturers need to understand. We discuss below the significant changes in commercial transactions, supply chain relationships, and related legal areas of which Section members need to be aware, anticipate, and address. We also briefly consider TSCA and its alignment and differences with the European Union’s (EU) Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) program, and speculate on the impact Brexit might have on chemical management.

Implementation of the newly amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), signed into law last June, is in full swing. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been working hard to meet statutorily imposed deadlines for promulgating three “framework” rules by June 2017. To date, the EPA is on target. This column discusses the three framework rules.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finally concluded January 12, 2017, a ten-year effort to issue a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a) rule establishing reporting and recordkeeping requirements for certain discrete forms of chemical substances manufactured or processed at nanoscale. This column summarizes the rule. Reports are due to the EPA no later than May 12, 2018. The final rule is effective May 12, 2017.

On June 22, 2016, President Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, Pub. L. No. 114-182, and in so doing significantly revised the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for the first time since its enactment in 1976. This article reviews and analyzes TSCA as amended and focuses narrowly on how new TSCA specifically impacts nanoscale materials. Although the new TSCA dramatically changes how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) evaluates and manages industrial chemicals, including nanoscale chemicals, the absence of words or phrases such as nano or nanoscale materials means that there are no specific or additional requirements that apply explicitly to such materials. This was a significant shift from many of the earlier TSCA reform bills, which explicitly addressed nanoscale materials by proposing new definitions such as “substance characteristics” and “special substance characteristics” that included concepts such as size or size distribution; shape; surface structure; and reactivity. The new TSCA is noticeably silent on this subject and does not distinguish nanoscale materials or treat such materials differently from other chemical substances regulated under TSCA.

Last year was full of surprises, two of which will drive much of the agenda in 2017 for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). First, Congress significantly amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Although many thought the chances of successful TSCA legislation were slim, the second surprise event was even more unexpected — the election of Donald Trump as President.

“Next Generation Compliance” is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) signature initiative intended to increase compliance with environmental regulations by using advances in pollution monitoring and information technology and by more effectively using and designing regulations and permits to reduce pollution and enhance compliance.  This column describes EPA’s initiative, discusses several examples of its applications in rulemakings and civil enforcement settlements, discusses another new compliance-related tool, eDisclosure, and outlines the implications for industry of these novel approaches to incentivizing compliance.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is continuing its brisk pace to be on target with implementing the new requirements of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (see “Grasp the Gravity of the New TSCA,” and “EPA Releases Q&As on New TSCA”). Congress has in its sights persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals — with the goal to reduce exposures to them. The EPA’s recent action to fast track review of five such chemicals does just that. Here’s what the EPA announced, and its impact on industry.

President Barack Obama signed into law amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act on June 22. The amendments bring sweeping changes to the nation’s primary chemicals law. In this Bloomberg BNA Insights, Charles M. Auer and Lynn L. Bergeson look specifically at the role of ‘‘conditions of use’’ in Sections 5 and 6 under the amended law and other chemical exposure considerations.