This article focuses on one of many abrupt, and in some views, unlawful, EPA policy shifts frustrating lawyers and confusing the public. The EPA moved in 2021 from a “conditions of use” approach to evaluating chemical risk to a “whole chemical” approach. This seemingly modest change is a key reason why lawyers advising chemical stakeholders are struggling and why there may be a lot of TSCA litigation in the EPA’s future.

Chemicals are the foundational origin of just about everything we enjoy and cannot live without. The federal law that authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate industrial chemical substances is the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), an almost 47-year-old law significantly amended in 2016 by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg). Lautenberg’s passage was a bipartisan triumph marking the do-over of a law that many believed did not ensure chemical safety.

The past seven years are no cause for celebration, however, as the three different administrations that have occupied the White House since 2016 have made a mess of Lautenberg’s implementation. EPA’s recent move from a “conditions of use” approach in evaluating existing chemical risk to a “whole chemical” approach is one of many abrupt EPA policy shifts frustrating lawyers and confusing the public.  TSCA litigation is plainly in our future.

On Nov. 16, 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a supplemental proposal modifying its 2021 proposed rule that would amend the 2018 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) fees rule. The EPA’s assistant administrator warned us to be prepared for sticker shock. The proposed increases are significant. This article discusses what you need to know.

Given the passage of time since the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was enacted in 1976, the public’s growing awareness of the potential for exposure from chemicals in “articles,” or finished goods, during use, and greater focus on the implications of end-of-life product disposal, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulation of articles under TSCA has shifted significantly. Historically, EPA elected not to regulate articles for the most part. EPA’s more recent announcement of its intent to regulate chemicals in articles to a much greater extent has caught many off guard and reflects a significant shift in U.S. chemical regulation policy.

The scope of what diligence is due in any corporate transaction has evolved greatly over the past decade, particularly with respect to transactions involving chemical products. Once upon a time, transactional due diligence involving chemical products, whether ‘neat’ (pure) chemicals, formulations or end-use products, typically consisted of a phase I or phase II environmental site assessment (ESA) focusing on identifying contamination derivative of chemical releases into environmental media as effluent, emissions, fugitive releases or waste, as well as quantifying the potential for such releases to pose litigation risks or regulatory enforcement, or require costly remediation. Increasingly, parties to corporate transactions now continue to focus on these liabilities and on the compositional elements of chemical products themselves as potential sources of liability and commercial disruption. This article explains why the transition to chemical product due diligence has been slow and offers a few tips to help assess what diligence is due in corporate transactions involving chemical products.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency held a webinar on August 17, on the “EPA PFAS Strategic Roadmap: Research Tools and Resources.” The webinar provided a brief overview of EPA’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap and ongoing efforts by EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) to address key per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) research needs for environmental decision-making. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued two new documents for recipients of Section 4 test orders under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The good news is these documents offer relief to stakeholders who otherwise would be responsible for chemical testing costs for certain chemicals they produced or imported.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invited on July 6, 2022, small businesses to participate as Small Entity Representatives (SER) for a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel. The EPA seeks self-nominations directly from entities that may be subject to the rule requirements; self-nominations were due July 20, 2022. The panel focuses on the agency’s proposed rule to collect data to inform each step of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk evaluation and risk management process. Participating in the SBAR, or at least tracking its activities and engaging as much as possible, is encouraged. The reasons for engagement are discussed in this article.

Since the US Supreme Court issued its blockbuster ruling in West Virginia v EPA, 597 US _ 2022 WL 2347278 (30 June 2022), many are asking whether the Court’s amplification of the 'major questions doctrine' (MQD) might be used to seek to limit the US EPA’s authority in implementing Congress’s 2016 amendments to TSCA, the Frank R Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg). Lynn L Bergeson, managing partner of the law firm Bergeson & Campbell, says there's little doubt that West Virginia v EPA will be used to seek to limit the agency's authority in implementing the 2016 amendments to the law. 

In February 2022, France and the United States announced their commitment to protect our shared environment for future generations against the harm resulting plastic pollution.Both nations stated their united recognition of the transboundary impacts of plastic pollution and the importance of mitigating plastic waste at its source. On March 2, 2022, as reported by the 5th UN Environment Assembly (UNAE-5.2) in Nairobi, both France and the United States, along with 173 other nations, adopted a Resolution to End Plastic Pollution with an international legally binding agreement by 2024, with discussions beginning in 2022. Significantly, the Resolution to End Plastic Pollution defines “plastic waste” to include “microplastic.” Building upon the historic collaboration between France and the United States regarding plastic waste and learning from the contrasts in their governmental structures and approaches to environmental regulation, this French and United States Comparative Law Analysis and Recommendations Regarding Plastic Waste is offered for use by policy makers in the upcoming negotiations regarding the global plastic waste treaty.

On May 6, 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements for asbestos under Section 8(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Unsurprisingly, the proposed requirements are extensive and tough.  This article provides a summary.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are getting a lot of attention in the United States and globally. Their varied chemical properties make the categorization of “PFAS” into a single category chemically and scientifically questionable. Increasingly, the ability to make distinctions among this large chemical category is challenging, yet failure to do so could be unwise. This article provides information on PFAS, and offers a few suggestions to keep in mind when making business decisions.

The ubiquity of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and the manufacturing sector’s decades-long reliance on them to impart functionalities in a dizzying array of products put the investor between the proverbial rock and a hard place. PFAS varied chemical properties make the broad categorisation of ‘PFAS’ into a monolithic category of ‘forever chemicals’ chemically and scientifically questionable.

For better or worse, however, that is exactly what is happening today, and distinguishing between commercially promising and commercially risky PFAS chemicals is challenging. Yet, the ability to make this distinction could be the difference between a great investment and a commercially disastrous one. This article explores this difficult assessment, provides essential information on PFAS, and offers some suggestions to avoid making bad investment decisions.

The Biden Administration’s U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is laser focused on achieving several “whole-of-government” priorities: addressing climate change, identifying and giving environmental justice greater consideration in decision-making, and following the science wherever it may lead. Knowing and respecting leadership in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) tasked with achieving these laudable yet daunting objectives, there is no question the commitment is genuine. It is ironic, however, that EPA is applying the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in ways that are counterproductive to achieving these goals.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has long been considered the “poster child” of failure as a chemical control law when it comes to asbestos regulation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its latest approach to regulating “legacy” uses may well invite heightened scrutiny. The EPA announced in December the availability of the Draft Scope of the Risk Evaluation for Asbestos, Part 2. In it, the agency will evaluate conditions of use of asbestos were excluded from Part 1 as legacy uses and associated disposals, and use conditions of asbestos in talc and talc-containing products. This article summarizes the EPA’s approach.

The environmental impacts of the digital economy are increasingly the focus of attention and concern. There is no question the demand for electricity, water and land have increased sharply in response to the growth in digital activity. Identifying, quantifying and mitigating environmental and ecological impacts are core to value creation, and investors must be mindful of how a company is positioned to create value while avoiding public rebuke for neglecting to account for the environmental impacts of greatly increased digital activity.

This article explores the digital economy, the growing set of metrics used to assess environmental sustainability in a digital economy, the tools companies are using to improve efficiency, lessen environmental impacts and increase supply chain transparency and traceability, and tips for investors in assessing a company’s environmental awareness of the impacts of greatly increased digital activity.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on October 21 that it intends to move further back the compliance dates related to articles containing phenol, isopropylated phosphate (3:1) (PIP (3:1)) to ensure supply chains for key consumer and commercial goods are not disrupted. The agency proposed extending the compliance date until October 31, 2024, along with the associated recordkeeping requirements for manufacturers, processors and distributors of PIP (3:1)-containing articles. This article discusses this important development.

The implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) provisions relating to regulating persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals has been anything but smooth. On September 3, 2021, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it intends to initiate new PBT rulemaking and anticipates proposing new rules for five PBT chemicals subject to final risk management rules under TSCA Section 6(h). Additionally, and happily, the agency extended the compliance dates for the prohibitions on processing and distribution and the associated recordkeeping requirements of one of these PBT chemicals, phenol, isopropylated phosphate (3:1) (PIP (3:1)). The action was imperative as EPA’s earlier-issued “No Action Assurance” (NAA) lapsed on September 4, 2021. This article provides key points related to this complicated area of TSCA regulation.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on June 10, 2021, three actions intended to protect communities from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), as covered in July’s column “EPA Announces Blockbuster PFAS Actions.” This column focuses on one of them: an ambitious proposal intended to obtain comprehensive data on more than 1,000 PFAS manufactured in or imported into the United States. As discussed in this article, the proposal’s scope is enormous.

By any independent standard, the US electronics industry is huge – it was worth over $300bn in 2019 – and growing annually. Would it surprise you to know that as big, essential and powerful as it is, a single rule issued in January of this year by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) nearly brought this sector to a halt? To this day, the rule is causing extraordinary disruption as electric and electronic device manufacturers, importers, processors, distributors and others scramble to adjust in its aftermath. This article tells the cautionary tale of PIP (3:1). This sad and largely avoidable tale crystalises the importance of understanding the long reach of the US industrial chemical control law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and its seemingly limitless potential for disrupting global supply chains.

When it comes to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is not messing around. The agency announced on June 10, 2021, three actions intended to protect communities from PFAS. This article summarizes the actions.

Just as the industrial chemical community was getting into a predictable, somewhat comfortable groove regarding commercializing new chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided to blow up the process. With it went any hope for business certainty in this highly volatile regulatory area.  While new administrations are entitled to shape policies to align with their agendas, the Biden Administration’s decision to rescind the new chemicals policies bodes badly for chemical innovation at the very time new, sustainable chemical innovations are most needed.  This article explains why the new chemicals policies portend major delays.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) will be busy in 2021. Implementation of the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) will continue to dominate the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). In 2021, the EPA will need to complete outstanding risk evaluators of the 'first 10' chemicals and begin developing proposals for the section 6 risk management rules necessitated by the risk evaluations' conclusions. Given the tight statutory deadline for issuing proposed risk management rules, the complexity of the issues and the novelty of applying the new regulatory authorities, risk management decisions will likely present daunting challenges to the EPA as it sorts through the many legal and evolving policy issues at play. The EPA also now has four manufacture-requested risk evaluations that will parallel the 'next 20' chemicals for review. The change in administration makes the next four years especially 'unpredictable', not a word the business community welcomes.

June 22 of this year will mark the fifth anniversary since President Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Popularly still known by the name of the 40-year-old statute it replaced, the new version of the Toxic Substances Control Act had a vision to follow in reforming a system for evaluating and regulating chemicals in commerce that everyone, from industry to green NGOs to government officials, agreed was weak and ineffective. The new TSCA, promising to fix a broken statute, received bipartisan support and was the first major environmental law in a quarter century.

Lawyers counselling companies in the biotechnology, biopesticide and related crop protection and industrial biotechnology areas appreciate the critically important role federal agencies play in ensuring the success of start-up businesses.

Federal agencies, including the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), among others, wield enormous power over businesses that require premarket product approval. While we product approval practitioners know this, it comes as a bit of a surprise when investors, poised to make multimillion-dollar investments in start-up businesses, neglect to focus on the regulatory integrity of the start-up. This lack of focus invites costly mistakes. This article explains why, and how to avoid making these mistakes.

If anyone on planet Earth thinks the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended, is not commercially consequential, think again. The implementation of the 2016 amendments by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is triggering tremendous commercial disruption. The EPA’s March 8, 2021, announcement seeking comment on five final rules for persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals issued on January 6, 2021, and, importantly, granting a rare “No Action Assurance” regarding the PIP (3:1) rule, is demonstrable proof of TSCA’s enormous reach. The reasons behind this regulatory action are revealing and demonstrate why the PIP (3:1) experience is a cautionary tale.

In the 21st century, we take as given a continuous stream of new and better products. From electronics to building materials to transportation solutions, the flow of new and better products and applications seems unending. New chemical substances play a fundamental role in creating those products and making existing products better. If the pipeline of new chemicals were closed off, the flow of new products and applications would slow to a trickle and eventually dry up. Modern life as we know it would not exist without the continued invention, production and use of new chemicals.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on January 15, 2021, that it has issued test orders under Section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to obtain additional data on nine of the next 20 chemicals undergoing risk evaluation. Many in the industrial chemical community expect the EPA to use its TSCA testing authority much more in the coming years. The January orders seem to confirm that expectation. This article discusses the significance of the action.

The Biden Administration has embraced environmental justice with unprecedented gusto.  In its July 2020 Plan to Secure Environmental Justice and Equitable Economic Opportunity (Plan), the Biden Administration sets out in broad terms how it intends to use an “All-of-Government” approach to “rooting out systemic racism in our laws, policies, institutions, and hearts.”

On January 11, 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to amend the 2018 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) fees rule. This column discusses the proposal and its improvements to the rule.

There has been remarkable consolidation in the analytical services sector in the US and elsewhere globally over the past few years. Make no mistake; the need for analytical and related testing services is growing significantly. Because of the legal and regulatory frameworks that demand such services, however, there is considerable need for attendant technical expertise to staff these laboratories, and the need for specialised expertise is also growing exponentially. This article summarises mergers and acquisitions (M&A) trends and explains why skilled help is essential to avoid liability. A PDF of this article can be downloaded here. 

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to collect fees from chemical manufacturers (including importers) to defray a portion of the costs associated with TSCA implementation efforts. The TSCA fees rule requires payment for eight categories of fee-triggering events under TSCA, including EPA-initiated risk evaluations under TSCA Section 6. The EPA must prepare a preliminary list of manufacturers subject to fee obligations for EPA-initiated Section 6 risk assessments, which it did (see, “Are You on the List?” and “EPA Tells Businesses to Pay Up”). Since then, who pays for what has led to significant controversy. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the final risk evaluation for carbon tetrachloride on November 4, 2020. The EPA found unreasonable risks to workers and occupational non-users (ONU) for 13 of the 15 conditions of CCl4 use, but no unreasonable risks to the environment. According to the EPA, there are no consumer uses of this chemical. Most agree the findings are not unexpected. This article explains the assessment and the results.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is not the arcane federal law it once was. Amended in 2016 in response to a demand so loud and persistent from nongovernmental organizations, consumers, and, eventually, the industrial chemical community that Congress could no longer ignore it, TSCA is now a force with which to be reckoned. While the U.S Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) implementation of the 2016 Lautenberg Act that amended TSCA invites criticism among stakeholders, there is no disagreement that today TSCA is a more consequential law, deserving of legal practitioners’ attention.

On August 26, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the much-anticipated interim final list of businesses subject to risk evaluation fees for the 20 chemicals designated as “high priority” under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Making the interim final list available now gives businesses and other stakeholders an opportunity to review the list for accuracy. It also provides time for businesses to reach out to form consortia to share in fee payments. That is a fancy way of saying the race is on to try to get off the list or find others to share in the not-so-trivial cost of $1.35 million — the EPA’s fee for work on the risk evaluation.

Ordinarily, government fees command little interest in corporate finance and board-level business circles. Newly imposed fees to defray the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) risk evaluation of high-priority chemical substances under Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) are extraordinary, however, and are commanding significant interest. This article explains why.

As the expression goes, it is that time of year again.  Section 8 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires manufacturers, including importers, to provide the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with information on the production and use of chemicals in commerce at four-year intervals.  The last reporting cycle for the requirement, known as the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) requirement, was in 2016, so TSCA stakeholders have been gearing up since then for the current quadrennial reporting obligation, which commenced on June 1, 2020.  This column provides an overview of what is new and different since 2016.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to regulate “forever chemicals,” named such for their persistence and risk to the environment and health. On July 27, 2020, the EPA issued a long-awaited final rule amending significant new use rules (SNUR) issued earlier on such chemicals — one pertinent to certain perfluoroalkyl sulfonate chemical substances and the other on long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylate (LCPFAC) chemical substances. To some, the final rule reflects comments on the proposed rule issued five years ago; to others, the rule weakens to the public’s detriment a proposal the Obama Administration issued. This article discusses the rule and its implications.

The Frank R Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act is four years old. While to some 22 June 2016 seems like yesterday, the past four years have been transformational. The US EPA has worked hard, been timely and done well in thoughtfully implementing the changes. 

Anniversaries tend to inspire reflection on the past, and this year was no exception. The Environmental Law Institute, Bergeson & Campbell and the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health convened for an all-day seminar on TSCA reform, four years after the enactment of Lautenberg. Diverse stakeholders offered their perspectives on TSCA implementation and shared candid reviews on where we are as a TSCA community.

Rather than look back, this article looks forward to the next four years and speculates on some of the many challenging topics the EPA and other TSCA stakeholders are likely to address.

Download a PDF of this article here. 

Section 8 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) compels manufacturers (including importers) to provide the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with information on the production and use of chemicals in commerce. The last Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) cycle was in 2016, so TSCA stakeholders have been gearing up for this quadrennial reporting obligation in 2020. This column provides an overview of changes since 2016.

Under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has authority to collect fees from chemical manufacturers and importers to defray a portion of the EPA costs associated with risk evaluation efforts.  The fees are quite substantial and who pays them has been the subject of considerable debate and uncertainty.  This column addresses issues that have caused confusion and anxiety for industry stakeholders regarding the self-identification criteria, time lines, and procedures, and seeks to add much needed clarity to this chaotic issue.

Much attention now focuses on COVID-19 and subsequent supply chain disruptions; here, we tackle supply chain communications and ways to optimize them. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires such communications, as do evolving best business practices. Managing supply chain communications effectively, and strategically optimizing the commercial interactions and exchanges of information they elicit are essential business practices.

The EPA’s amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act reporting requirements have increased the need for chemical stakeholders to manage actively supply chain communications. Lynn L. Bergeson, owner and managing partner of Bergeson & Campbell P.C., explores the upsides to be realized through these communications and the perils of failing to seize them. Download a PDF of this article here.

Is your company potentially liable for a share of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) $1,350,000 fee for developing a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk evaluation? This is a hot topic these days, given EPA’s notice dated January 27, 2020, identifying the “preliminary lists” of manufacturers, including importers, of the 20 chemical substances that EPA has designated as “high-priority” substances for risk evaluation and for which fees will be charged. Stakeholders are required by March 27, 2020, to “self-identify” as manufacturers of a highpriority substance irrespective of whether they are included on the preliminary lists identified by EPA.  

PBT chemicals have long been recognised to behave differently in the environment and in biological systems from non-PBT substances. The US Congress acknowledged this when amending TSCA in 2016 by crafting special provisions under the Regulation’s Section 6(h) that were uniquely applicable to PBTs. Last July, the EPA proposed a rule that would implement the section, but this caused much controversy and led to comments from, among others, the retail, coatings and aerospace sectors and NGOs. It also raised several novel legal issues relating to TSCA’s interpretation.

Nevertheless, the EPA must issue a final rule within 18 months of the proposal, that is to say by December 2020. This article focuses on the novel issues that have arisen and the implications of their resolution on affected stakeholders.

In last month’s column, we reported on the January 27, 2020, notice from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identifying the preliminary lists of manufacturers, including importers, of the 20 chemical substances the EPA designated as high-priority for risk evaluation and for which fees will be charged. The notice created a firestorm of criticism over the lack of any exemptions from being considered potentially responsible for paying a share of the EPA’s $1,350,000 fee for conducting a risk evaluation of a high-priority chemical. This column updates the status of this fast-changing matter.

Is your company potentially liable for a share of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) $1,350,000 fee for developing a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk evaluation?  It may well be.  This is a hot topic these days, given EPA’s Federal Register notice published on January 27, 2020, identifying the “preliminary lists” of manufacturers, including importers, of the 20 chemical substances that EPA has designated as “high-priority” substances for risk evaluation and for which fees will be charged.  Until March 27, 2020, stakeholders 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 (yes, you must submit a form to EPA even if your company name is already identified by EPA).  The preliminary lists are available in Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0677 and on EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/TSCA-fees.  This article explains the notice and suggests way to respond to it.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published on January 27, 2020, a notice identifying the preliminary lists of manufacturers (including importers) of the 20 chemical substances that the EPA designated as high-priority substances for risk evaluation and for which fees will be charged (85 Fed. Reg. 4661). The list and the EPA’s interpretation of the fee rule caught many off guard. This column explains why.

On December 20, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released an updated “Working Approach” document that builds upon its November 2017 version. The EPA states that the updated version, “TSCA New Chemical Determinations: A Working Approach for Making Determinations under TSCA Section 5,” explains its approach for making affirmative determinations on new chemical notices under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This article highlights key changes in the document.

Among the changes when the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century, also known as Lautenberg or ‘new TSCA’, none is more consequential than the requirement that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conduct risk evaluations for ‘high priority’ chemical substances. We are now three years into new TSCA and this is being done, amid spirited debate and, inevitably, litigation.

The citizen suit provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) are turning out to be a potentially powerful tool for advocates dissatisfied with risk evaluations conducted under TSCA Section 6. What is unclear is whether anyone intended this result. This column discusses the new and somewhat surprising role TSCA Section 21 citizen petitions may play in defining chemical risks under TSCA. The issue involves an interesting TSCA Section 21 petition filed in 2016 that has been the subject of litigation ever since. How the lawsuit plays out will have significant implications for TSCA stakeholders.

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.

A federal appellate court recently decided a case brought under the FCA’s reverse false claims provision premised on alleged non-compliance with a TSCA reporting obligation. Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP v. BASF Corp. As discussed in this article, while the court dismissed the case, it did so for fact-specific reasons and creative plaintiff lawyers can be expected to rely upon the FCA in the future to bring actions based on other TSCA provisions.

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.

2019 started with a political bang. The President’s decision to allow a partial government shutdown in the absence of funding for the “wall” will continue to inspire federal administrative and regulatory havoc for months to come. This is particularly true of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) as it administers the programs under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), both of which maintain hugely important fees-for-service programs.

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 October 3, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a final significant new use rule (SNUR) under Section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for the chemical substance identified generically as bimodal mixture consisting of multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) and other classes of carbon nanotubes (CNT), which was the subject of premanufacture notice (PMN) P-11-482.

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.