USA Regulatory News

On the 11th of July 2022, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the US notifies and seeks comment on a draft revision for trichloroethylene (TCE) risk evaluation issued under TSCA. The old d...

On the 11^th of July 2022, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the US notifies and seeks comment on a draft revision for trichloroethylene (TCE) risk evaluation issued under TSCA.

The old draft was revised to reflect the policy changes, to enhance the environment’s protection from unreasonable risks caused by chemicals. According to EPA, TCE as a whole chemical substance can cause unreasonable risks and injury to health.

This decision does not cover the assumption that all workers always wear personal protective equipment (PPE). This is because there is possibly a subpopulation of workers who might be highly exposed to TCE because they are not covered by OSHA standards or because many of OSHA’s chemical-specific permissible exposure limits are now outdated and inadequate for protecting workers’ health. OSHA standards are the rules that explain the methods employers are obligated to use to ensure their employees are protected from hazards.

When implemented, this decision will supersede the condition of use-specific no unreasonable risk determinations in the November 2020 TCE risk evaluation and will make a revised determination of unreasonable risk for TCE as a whole chemical substance.

The proposed dates of adoption and entry into force are yet to be determined. Comments for the draft revision will close on August 8, 2022.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), on July 4, 2022, notified its draft revision to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This is for risk determination for Perchloroethylene (PCE) risk e...

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), on July 4, 2022, notified its draft revision to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This is for risk determination for Perchloroethylene (PCE) risk evaluation to reflect the announced policy changes by ensuring the public is protected from unreasonable chemical risks.

According to the draft, the US EPA after evaluation of use finds PCE as a toxic chemical substance that presents unreasonable risks to health. Although this evaluation does not consider the assumption of workers appropriately wearing personal protective equipment (PPE).

When the decision becomes final, it will override the condition of use-specific no unreasonable risk determinations in the December 2020 PCE risk evaluation and make a revised determination of unreasonable risk for PCE as a whole chemical substance.

The final date for comments on the draft revision is August 1, 2022.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for chemical substances that are subject to premanufacture notices (PMNs). ...

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for chemical substances that are subject to premanufacture notices (PMNs).

This new rule means that concerned persons have to notify EPA at least 90 days before manufacturing or import takes place. It also applies to processing any chemical substance under TSCA for an activity that is tagged as significant new use by the new rule. Therefore, concerned persons cannot comment manufacturing or processing of chemicals for the significant new use until they have submitted a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN) and EPA has made the notice determination, which comes after reviewing the notice.

The new rule will come into force on August 26, 2022, after its promulgation on July 11, 2022.

To prohibit the ongoing uses of asbestos at a greater level, the US EPA has agreed to extend by a month the public comment period for consultation on its April 12 proposed TSCA section 6(a) rule. The ...

To prohibit the ongoing uses of asbestos at a greater level, the US EPA has agreed to extend by a month the public comment period for consultation on its April 12 proposed TSCA section 6(a) rule. The new deadline is July 13, 2022.

Several groups that have requested time extension include the American Chemistry Council, the Chlorine Institute, and the US Chamber of Commerce. This extra consultation time that lasts until July 13, 2022, allows businesses to respond more comprehensively to the issues for which EPA requests more detailed information, which in turn also aids EPA in creating a more robust and systematic final risk assessment rule.

Under the EPA’s Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) programme, the proposal to list three hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) blends as acceptable substitutes for Ozone-depleting Substances (ODSs) in the foam blowing sector was withdrawn. It was believed that some lower-risk alternatives are technically available and feasible according to a May 20 Federal Register Notice that addresses the October 2021 supplemental proposal.

It is the companies’ duty to submit to the EPA an 8(e) notice when identifying information that reasonably supports the conclusion that a substance handled by the concerned individuals could present a substantial risk of injury to human health or the environment, and the agency has supplemented more than a thousand additional TSCA section 8(e) “Substantial Risk” reports to its public-facing database.

Meanwhile, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the EPA has planned to begin a review of the agency’s response to reported incidents of unintended effects from pet collar pesticides. This watchdog’s evaluation assesses if the agency adheres to pesticide registration requirements in its approval of Seresto pet collars, where the collars have to be used without posing unreasonable adverse effects to human health and the environment.

A ground-breaking prohibition on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)-containing clothing has been approved by the New York legislators, which will enter into force next year upon being signed i...

A ground-breaking prohibition on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)-containing clothing has been approved by the New York legislators, which will enter into force next year upon being signed into law by the governor.

It is expected to facilitate a far-reaching market shift against PFAS in most garments and to expand on the momentum to restrict the persistent substance class across consumer goods in New York and other US states by enforcing the bill (S 6291A/A 7063A).

There is at the same time another similar measure (AB 1817) that covers textiles more broadly clearing California’s state Assembly, while some advocates in New York are working their way to promote several more proposals so as to eliminate PFAS applications in the legislature’s final days.

The already approved PFAS-containing apparel ban would halt the sale of the following articles with deliberately added per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances by December 31, 2023: shirts and tops, pants, skirts and dresses, vests, normal attire, leisurewear, underwear, scarves, onesies, bibs, and diapers.

The professional uniforms and heavy-duty outerwears are excluded from the ban, while PFAS-containing carpets and rugs have already been banned in early May as part of a larger extended producer responsibility measure (S 5027C/A 9279A), which, upon signed into law, shall take effect on December 31, 2024.

One critical factor for the approval here is that PFAS, though providing textiles with extraordinary durability and maintenance of apparel, are in general deemed non-essential in textiles, in which case famous retailers such as Gap Inc., Levi Strauss, and Patagonia, etc., have long pledged to move away from applying such compounds in their products. Nonetheless, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) urges to launch a veto against this decision, intending to demonstrate the negative consequences such a ban would have on consumers.

Noteworthily, the involved lawmakers plan to release a new measure targeting various goods, addressing textiles, fabric treatments, cookware, ski waxes, cleaning items, and architectural paints in reminiscence of multiproduct legislation awaiting executive action in Colorado. Further laws eliminating additional categories of PFAS-containing products before the legislature adjourns on June 2 are also pressed by several other environmental NGOs and legislative sponsors in New York. In the meantime, another bill (S 3331A/A 143) prohibiting PFAS and other concerning substances in cosmetics is also in the process of vigorous discussion.

On June 8, 2022, US EPA notified WTO about the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (MCM NESHAP). The agency currently proposes certain a...

On June 8, 2022, US EPA notified WTO about the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (MCM NESHAP).

The agency currently proposes certain amendments to MCM NESHAP facilities, in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The proposal focuses on inorganic hazardous air pollutant (HAP) standards for process vessels. This will aid the completion of the required technology review, which was originally promulgated on August 14, 2020, and enhance the protection of the environment.

Comment on this proposal is open till August 8, 2022.

About CAA: CAA is a federal law in the U.S. targeted at protecting human health and the environment from polluting emissions. The law requires U.S. EPA to set minimum national standards for the quality of air as well as ensure that the states comply with the set standards.  

The proposed action is the removal of 401 KAR 50:055 section 1(1) and section 1(4) from the Kentucky SIP, following the submission made by the Commonwealth in 2016 requesting the same. You can access the official proposal document here.

The overhaul to “short form” warnings under Prop 65 is temporarily paused in California, the US. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has decided to keep on hold this contr...

The overhaul to “short form” warnings under Prop 65 is temporarily paused in California, the US. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has decided to keep on hold this controversial proposal and instead issue an alternative regulatory proposal in the near future.

The proposal was originally intended to prompt provisions of clear and reasonable warnings in the use of short-form labels. Based on the state’s “Right-to-know Scheme”, the companies shall, for example, name a minimum of 1 listed chemical they would like to warn about in the products.

OEHHA has revised twice the proposal after its floating state in January 2021, so as to address stakeholders’ concerns. However,  businesses remain opposed to this action. Under the allotted time frame, the agency was however not able to complete the rule-making process as announced in a May 20 Notice. The rule-making is hence allowed to lapse and OEHHA intends to restart the process, involving issuing a new regulatory proposal informed by comments on the previous one.