EPA to Consider Revising FIFRA Exemption for Pesticide-Treated Seeds and Paint

/in ,

On October 12, 2023, EPA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on seeds (“treated seeds”) and paint (“treated paint”) treated with a pesticide that is registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (“treating pesticide”). Treated seeds and treated paints are currently exempted from FIFRA under the “treated articles and substances” exemption at 40 CFR 152.25(a) as long as their use is consistent with the treating pesticide’s label instructions.

EPA’s longstanding position has been that subjecting treated articles to FIFRA requirements would be unnecessary since the treating pesticide would have already been assessed during the pesticide registration process. This position was challenged in 2017 by the Center for Food Safety, which filed a petition requesting that EPA remove the exemption for treated seeds and aggressively enforce FIFRA’s pesticide labeling and registration requirements for seeds treated with systemic insecticide chemicals. EPA denied the petition in 2022 but acknowledged that the use of a treated seed contrary to the treating pesticide’s labeling instructions is generally not enforceable under FIFRA. As a result, EPA noted its intention to issue the current advance notice of proposed rulemaking to collect more information on treated seeds. EPA also included treated paints in the notice because of concerns that painters may be exposed to treated paint without adequate PPE.

The information specifically requested by the notice falls into five main categories:

  1. Effectiveness of instructions on treated seed product labeling to mitigate potential risks. EPA seeks comment on the Agency’s labeling instructions for treated seeds, particularly with regard to whether these instructions are clear, generally achievable, and adequate.
  2. Use, usage, and tracking of treated seed products. EPA seeks comment on the use, usage rates, and volume of imports of treated seeds. EPA also seeks comment on whether tracking treated seed distribution, sale, and/or use would provide any meaningful improvements in the assessments of treating pesticides and whether the treated article exemption should be amended so that manufacturers of treated seeds would be subject to FIFRA section 7 registration and reporting requirements.
  3. Management of spilled or excess treated seed. EPA included additional labeling instructions for the management of spilled and excess treated seed in the registration review proposed interim decisions and interim decisions of several chemicals. EPA seeks comment on whether these instructions are sufficient. EPA also seeks comment on what farmers, distributors, and companies currently do with excess treated seed.
  4. Treated paint. Pesticide labeling requirements for treated paint do not currently exist. EPA seeks comment on whether it should add pesticide labeling requirements and what those requirements should include. EPA also seeks comment on whether it should add specific use instructions or enforceable use requirements for professional painters and whether the treated article exemption should be amended so that manufacturers of treated paints would be subject to FIFRA section 7 registration and reporting requirements.
  5. Administrative action, amendment of the treated article exemption, and/or FIFRA section 3(a) rule. EPA seeks comment on whether action is necessary to prevent unreasonable adverse effects on human health and the environment, considering the concerns raised regarding the enforceability of labeling instructions on treated seeds and paint and whether there are any such examples of the use of treated seed contrary to labeling instructions. If so, EPA requests comments on what the proper action should be and how such an action might impact states.

EPA also requests comments on whether exposure to treated seeds and paint may be an environmental justice concern and comments regarding potential child health concerns. Comments on the notice will be accepted through December 11, 2023.

EPA Proposes Changes to TSCA Risk Evaluation Procedures

/in ,

On October 30, 2023, EPA published a proposed rule altering the procedures for chemical risk evaluations under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The proposed rule revises the existing 2017 framework, which was adopted one year after Congress passed amendments to TSCA requiring EPA to evaluate whether existing chemicals that have been identified as “high priority” present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.

The rulemaking includes the following proposed changes:

  • The clarification that EPA will include all conditions of use (i.e., circumstances under which the chemical is “intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of”) in the scope of a risk evaluation.
  • The inclusion of all exposure pathways in the scope of a risk evaluation. EPA previously excluded exposure pathways covered under other EPA statutes in its risk evaluations for the first ten chemicals.
  • The removal of the definitions for “best available science” and “weight of the scientific evidence.” Though TSCA requires EPA to use the best available science and make decisions based on the weight of the scientific evidence at 15 U.S.C. 2625, EPA argues that the codification of these definitions inhibits the Agency’s ability to adapt to changing science.
  • The requirement that EPA make a single determination on whether the chemical presents an unreasonable risk. EPA initially made separate risk determinations for each condition of use in its risk evaluations for the first ten chemicals but later issued revised “whole substance” determinations.
  • The cessation of the consideration of “assumed” personal protective equipment (PPE) use when calculating exposure reduction due to PPE.
  • The addition of “overburdened communities” to the list of examples of potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations.
  • A number of alterations to the process and requirements for manufacturer-requested risk evaluations.

The above changes would apply to all risk evaluations initiated on or after the date of the final rule.  For risk evaluations in progress on the date of the final rule, EPA expects to apply the changes “only to the extent practicable.”

The proposed clarification that EPA includes all conditions of use in the scope of a risk evaluation stems from the Ninth Circuit’s 2019 decision in Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families v. US EPA. In the case, petitioners successfully challenged EPA’s exclusion of “legacy uses and associated disposals”—such as the use and future disposal of asbestos in previously installed insulation—from the scope of risk evaluations. Several of the other proposed changes would codify existing EPA practices introduced in 2021, including the requirement that risk evaluations end with a single determination rather than use-by-use determinations.

EPA requests public comments on all aspects of the proposed rulemaking. Comments are due on December 14, 2023.

EPA Finalizes TSCA Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for PFAS

/in , ,

EPA has finalized its Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance (“PFAS”) rule. The rule offers none of the customary TSCA reporting exemptions, such as the di minimus threshold exemption, article exemption, and research and development exemption. Although industry members voiced significant concerns over the proposed rule, the scope of the rule remains expansive. A summary of the final rule is detailed below.

Who does the final rule apply to?

40 CFR § 705.10 identifies the entities that are covered under the rule. The rule, which Congress mandated through the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act, applies to all entities that have manufactured and/or imported a PFAS for commercial purposes, including those present in a mixture and in an article since January 1, 2011. Those who have only processed, distributed in commerce, used, and/or disposed of PFAS are not subject to this rule.

Which PFAS must be reported under the final rule?

EPA has identified PFAS subject to the rule by a structural definition rather than a list of substance identities (40 CFR § 705.5). However, EPA will provide a public list of substances that meet this definition on its CompTox Chemical Dashboard. The definition of PFAS using a structural definition is as follows:

  • R-(CF2)-CF(R’)R’’, where both the CF2 and CF moieties are saturated carbons;
  • R-CF2OCF2-R’, where R and R’ can either be F, O, or saturated carbons; and
  • CF3C(CF3)R’R’’, where R’ and R’’ can either be F or saturated carbons.

This differs from the proposed rule, which defined PFAS as “a substance that includes the following structure: R-(CF2)–C(F)(R′)R″, in which both the CF2 and CF moieties are saturated carbons and none of the R groups (R, R′ or R″) can be hydrogen.”

Reporting threshold

There is no reporting threshold or de minimis level for PFAS reporting. The traditional TSCA reporting exemptions, such as byproducts and impurities, and low volume exemptions, are not being upheld under this rule and require reporting.

Reporting standard

40 CFR § 705.15 states that the reporting standard that applies to this rule is information “known or reasonably ascertainable” by the manufacturer. This means “all information in a person’s possession or control, plus all information that a reasonable person similarly situated might be expected to possess, control, or know” (See 40 CFR 704.3). Under this standard, the manufacturer must evaluate not only their current level of knowledge regarding substances that are manufactured or imported, including those in articles, but also any additional information that a reasonable person, similarly situated, would be expected to know, possess, or control.

To obtain the necessary information for reporting, EPA expects the manufacturer/importer to conduct a reasonable inquiry into their own organization and potentially make inquiries outside the organization. According to the Agency, this may require “phone calls or email inquiries to upstream suppliers or downstream users or employers or other agents of the manufacturer, including persons involved in the research and development, import or production, or marketing of the PFAS.”

If data is unknown or not reasonably ascertainable, the submitter should, if possible, submit reasonable estimates. If manufacturers or importers need additional information for reporting, but suppliers are unwilling to provide that information, they can send a request for information through EPA’s reporting tool.

What information must be reported?

The scope of information required is vast. Data elements are detailed at 40 CFR §705.15 and include:

  • Chemical-specific information for all PFAS manufactured each year since January 1, 2011, including PFAS incorporated in mixtures.
  • Categories of use, including information on the sector, industrial processing, commercial and consumer use, and product categories.
  • Concentrations of each PFAS used in consumer and commercial products.
  • Manufactured amounts.
  • Byproduct identification.
  • Environmental and health effects data – which must be submitted according to OECD Harmonized Templates for Reporting Chemical Test Summaries.
  • Worker exposure data.
  • Disposal data.

Reporting on PFAS in Articles

Articles importers are subject to the reporting rule. The fact that there is no de minimis concentration threshold makes the scope of this mandate expansive. Because the known and reasonably ascertainable standard applies to this rule, importers must go beyond simply reviewing the SDSs for the imported articles. To demonstrate compliance with the rule, importers will need to survey their suppliers about the presence of PFAS in all of the articles they have imported since January 1, 2011. However, the rule does not mandate any product testing for article importers.

The rule does exempt some data elements from reporting for PFAS imported in articles, such as byproduct identification, worker exposure data, and disposal data.

R&D exemptions to the reporting requirements

Manufacturers and importers of R&D PFAS substances are subject to the reporting rule.  The reporting requirements are reduced where volumes are below 10 kilograms annually.

Electronic reporting

All information must be submitted electronically through CDX (see 40 CFR § 705.35). A new tool, the Chemical Information Submission System (“CISS”), will be added to the CDX module “Submission for Chemical Safety and Pesticide Program” (“CSPP”). Reporting will be submitted through the CISS, which the Agency is currently developing, and will be live prior to the opening of the reporting period.

CBI claims

PFAS manufacturers reporting under this rule may claim CBI consistent with TSCA section 14, but they must make the CBI claim with their submission for this rule. CBI claims submitted for other reporting requirements will not be considered. See 40 CFR § 705.30 for details.

Reporting timeline

Manufacturers and importers will have one year from the effective date of this rule, November 13, 2023, to collect the data necessary for reporting and an additional six months to submit their reports; reports will be due May 13, 2023. Small manufacturers (as defined in 40 CFR 704.3) will have an additional six months to report, making their reporting deadline November 13, 2024.

Recordkeeping requirements

Manufacturers and importers subject to this rule must maintain records of all documents and information reported to EPA for five years, beginning on the last day of the information submission period.

EPA Settles with Slack Chemical Company Following Alleged EPCRA Violations

/in , , ,

On October 11, 2023, EPA announced a settlement with Slack Chemical Company, Inc. (“Slack”) following alleged violations of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) at two of the New York corporation’s facilities. The settlement includes a civil penalty of $231,300.

Under Section 313 of EPCRA, owners or operators of certain facilities are required to annually submit a Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Form R (“TRI Form R”) report for each chemical listed under 40 CFR 372.65 that was manufactured, processed or otherwise used in quantities exceeding a certain threshold. TRI Form R reports require information about on-site releases of the chemical into the environment, transfers of the chemical in waste to off-site locations, on-site waste treatment methods, and source reduction and recycling activities. Alternatively, owners or operators can opt to submit a simpler Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Form A (“TRI Form A”)  report when the quantity of the chemical manufactured, processed, or otherwise used is one million pounds or less, the total quantity released, disposed, and treated at the facility is 500 pounds or less, and the chemical is not considered to be of special concern. TRI Form R/Form A reports are due no later than July 1 for the preceding calendar year.

EPA alleges that Slack, which describes itself as a “chemical warehousing, repackaging and distribution company,” failed to submit timely TRI Form R/Form A reports at its Carthage and Saratoga Springs facilities for calendar years 2019 and 2021. More specifically, EPA alleges that Slack:

  • Submitted TRI Forms R or A for the chemical’s ammonia, methanol, nitric acid, and toluene at its Carthage facility and a TRI Form R for methanol at its Saratoga Springs facility on May 10, 2021, for calendar year 2019, approximately 10 months late; and
  • Submitted TRI Forms R or A for the same chemicals at the facilities on November 21, 2022, for the calendar year 2021, approximately 4.5 months late.

In a news release, EPA stated that Slack has “voluntarily instituted a corporate compliance plan to prevent recurrence of EPCRA reporting violations,” which includes a written procedure listing the steps needed to identify TRI chemicals and their quantities.

EPA Releases Proposed Rule on Regulatory Requirements for New HAP Additions

/in ,

Last month, EPA published a proposed rule that would amend the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) to facilitate the addition of pollutants to the list of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) under the Clean Air Act (CAA).  The proposed rule seeks to address applicability and compliance issues that EPA identified following the Agency’s 2022 decision to add 1-bromopropane (“1-BP”) to the list of HAP, which was the first addition to the HAP list since its inception in 1990.  Comments on the proposed rule are due on November 13, 2023.

The proposed rule makes the following clarifications:

  • EPA proposes language clarifying that a new HAP would not be regulated under NESHAP promulgated before the effective date of the listing.
  • EPA states that beginning on the effective date of the listing, a new HAP must be included in calculating a facility’s actual emissions, potential emissions, and whether a facility is considered an area source or a major source under CAA. Any facility that becomes a major source under CAA section 112 solely due to the addition of a new HAP, known as a major source due to listing (“MSDL”) facility, will need to evaluate whether any major source NESHAP applies to its operations.  EPA proposes that each MSDL facility be considered an “existing source” under CAA section 112, a designation that typically results in less stringent NESHAP emissions standards.  EPA also proposes that MSDL facilities would not be subject to the original NESHAP compliance schedules, which in many cases would require instantaneous compliance, and instead proposes that these facilities be subject to new deadlines based on the nature of the NESHAP emissions limitations or requirements.
  • When a facility triggers one or more major source NESHAP, it is required to submit an initial notification under each newly applicable NESHAP. EPA proposes that MSDL facilities include a statement that the facility is a major source due to HAP listing in their notification.

The proposed rule does not include any changes to the CAA Title V program.  MSDL facilities that do not elect to reduce their emissions to non-major levels would be required to apply for a Title V operating permit.  Though the proposed rule focuses on the immediate compliance obligations following the addition of a new HAP, EPA states that “future actions within NESHAP will address rule-specific issues,” such as identifying emissions sources and promulgating standards for new HAP.

1-BP was added to the Toxics Release Inventory list of reportable chemicals in 2015.  According to EPA’s website, the Agency “is now in the process of writing a proposed rule to take action to regulate 1-BP” following EPA’s 2022 determination that the chemical poses an unreasonable risk to human health.

EPA Proposes Revisions to the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements

/in ,

On August 9, 2023, EPA released a lengthy proposed rule revising the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR), which requires state, local, and some tribal agencies (“States”) to collect and report data on air pollutant emissions to EPA.

Perhaps most importantly, the proposed rule would require the reporting of point source emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP), as enumerated in Clean Air Act section 112(b) and amended in 40 CFR 63 Subpart C.  EPA is proposing to expand the definition of “point source” accordingly to include certain emitters of HAP pollutants.  Owners/operators of point sources would be required to report HAP data directly to EPA unless a State chooses to report these emissions on behalf of owners/operators of point sources within the State.

In addition to the reporting of HAP, EPA proposes that:

  • Owners/operators of point sources report performance test results and performance evaluations that meet certain criteria;
  • States report data on “small generating units” that operate at point sources and meet specific criteria, and
  • Point source reporting should be done for the same sources every year, eliminating the current triennial approach that requires more facilities to be reported every third year by making the triennial year thresholds permanent, among a myriad of other changes.

The comment period for the proposed rule was extended until November 17, 2023.  Though the proposed changes have varying implementation dates, most importantly, most facilities would be required to begin submitting HAP data for the 2026 inventory year.

EPA Releases Draft Supplement for 1,4-Dioxane

/in ,

In July 2023, EPA announced the release of a draft supplement to the Risk Evaluation for 1,4-dioxane for public comment and peer review.  1,4-dioxane is solvent used to manufacture other chemicals such as adhesives and sealants.  It is also used as a processing aid and laboratory chemical. In addition, some manufacturing processes, such as the process used for making commercial and consumer dish soaps, result in the chemical being present as a byproduct.

The draft supplement focuses on air and water exposure pathways that were not included in the 2020 Risk Evaluation.  The 2020 Risk Evaluation focused on health risks to workers, consumers, and the general public, but not from drinking water, the air, or exposure where 1,4-dioxane is present as a byproduct.  The omission was identified by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) as an oversight.  The SACC informed EPA that failure to assess the risks posed to the general population from exposure to the chemical may present a risk to human health – with an emphasis on drinking water as an exposure pathway.

The draft supplement identified cancer risk estimates higher than 1 in 10,000 for 1,4-dioxane present as a byproduct and higher than 1 in 1 million for general population exposure scenarios associated with 1,4-dioxane in drinking water sourced downstream of release sites and in air within 1 km of releasing facilities.

The draft supplement did note that the risk estimates include inherent uncertainties and the overall confidence in specific risk estimates fluctuates.  However, the document also stated that the information is beneficial in helping the Agency make a determination on whether the chemical poses an unreasonable risk to people with occupational exposure, through sources of drinking water, and breathing air near release sites.

EPA Proposes SNURs for Flame Retardants

/in , ,

EPA has proposed significant new use rules (SNURs) for three flame retardants under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The three flame retardants are tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP), tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), and triphenyl phosphate (TPP).  All three substances are currently undergoing TSCA risk evaluations.  The proposed significant new uses are manufacture (including import) or processing for any use, except for those uses being considered in the risk evaluations.  In the Federal Register notice, EPA explained that significant new uses would encompass the following categories:

  • Manufacture and processing for uses that have ceased;
  • Manufacture and processing for uses that have not yet ceased but for which all manufacture and processing has ceased; and
  • Manufacture and processing for uses for which EPA has no information demonstrating that the use has previously commenced in the United States.

The Agency sought public comment on its description of the significant new uses for the chemicals identified, including specific documentation of ongoing uses not identified by the Agency in the risk evaluation scope documents.

EPA noted that “The issuance of a SNUR is not a risk determination itself, only a notification requirement for ‘‘significant new uses,’’ so that the Agency has the opportunity to review the [Significant New Use Notification] for the significant new use and make a TSCA section 5(a)(3) risk determination.”  In other words, “Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA must either determine that the significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury or take such regulatory action as is associated with an alternative determination under TSCA section 5 before the manufacture (including import) or processing for the significant new use can commence.”

In its discussion of the significant new use determination, EPA explained that the Agency considered information about the toxicity or expected toxicity of these substances, likely human exposures and environmental releases associated with possible uses, and the four factors listed in TSCA section 5(a)(2):

  • The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance,
  • The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance,
  • The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance and
  • The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.

According to the Federal Register Notice, current uses of TCEP are as follows:  TCEP is imported into the United States and processed for commercial use in paints and coatings, for industrial or commercial use in polymers for use in aerospace equipment and products, and for commercial use as a laboratory chemical.

EPA found that TBBPA is currently manufactured (including imported) in the United States. It is processed as a reactant or intermediate to create other flame retardants; incorporated into formulation, mixture, or reaction products; and incorporated into articles. The Agency noted that the predominant uses for TBBPA are as a reactive flame retardant in electrical and electronic products and as an additive flame retardant in electrical and electronic products. In addition, epoxy resin containing TBBPA can be used in adhesives, laminate for aviation and automobile interiors and building/ construction materials.

The Agency reported that TPP is manufactured (including imported) in the United States.  It is processed as a reactant; incorporated into formulation, mixture, or reaction products; and incorporated into articles.  Commercial uses include in plastic and rubber products and in paints and coatings. The chemical is also used in lubricants and greases.  In addition, consumer uses were reported in foam seating and bedding products.

Comments can be viewed in docket EPA–HQ–OPPT–2023–0012 at regulations.gov.

Environmental Group Petitions for Review of EPA’s New Confidential Business Information Rule

/in ,

Environmental Defense Fund (“EDF”) has filed a petition in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia requesting a review of EPA’s recently finalized rule Confidential Business Information Claims Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  Petitioner’s Statement of Issues was filed in August.  EDF raises the question of whether EPA’s rule was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law because it …

 

  • Would allow confidential business information (“CBI”) claims for types of information TSCA makes categorically ineligible for CBI protection;
  • Would not require substantiation or EPA review of a CBI claim that was asserted before the chemical’s commercialization, for information that identifies the specific chemical identity. once the chemical is commercialized;
  • Unlawfully adopts a regulatory definition of “health and safety study” that is narrower than the TSCA definition, denying TSCA-mandated public access to important information on chemicals;
  • Give the Agency unlawfully broad discretion through its regulations where TSCA imposes a duty upon the Agency; and
  • Reduces the transparency previously required under EPA’s CBI review procedures without adequate justification.

 

EDF has not yet filed a memorandum in support of its petition.

EPA Requests Information on Addressing PFAS in the Environment for the Superfund Program

/in , ,

EPA has published a notice of proposed rulemaking, Addressing PFAS in the Environment, asking for public input, which the Agency will use to develop future per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) regulations under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The Agency asked for information on the potential future hazardous substance designation of a number of PFAS, categories of PFAS, and several PFAS precursors.

Request for Public Input Regarding Potential Future Hazardous Substance Designation of Seven PFAS

EPA had previously proposed designating PFOA and PFOS and their salts and structural isomers as hazardous substances under CERLA. The present notice requested feedback as to whether the agency should initiate action designating an additional seven PFAS and their salts and structural isomers or a subset thereof as CERCLA hazardous substances as well. The seven PFAS being considered for designation are:

  • Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS), CASRN 375–73–5
  • Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), CASRN 355–46–4
  • Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), CASRN 375–95–1
  • Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO–DA), CASRN 13252–13–6
  • Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) CASRN 375–22–4
  • Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) CASRN 307–24–4
  • Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) CASRN 335–76–2

EPA asked interested parties to submit information on whether any of these compounds may present substantial danger to public health or welfare or the environment. Such information could include data on mobility, persistence, and prevalence.

Request for Public Input Regarding Potential Future Hazardous Substance Designation of Precursors to PFOA, PFOS, and PFAS

The Agency is also considering initiating action that would designate certain PFAS precursors as hazardous substances under CERCLA. To make this determination, EPA requested information to help the Agency identify compounds that degrade to these PFAS through environmental processes such as biodegradation and hydrolysis.

Request for Public Input Regarding Potential Designation, or Designations, of Categories of PFAS as Hazardous Substances

Additionally, EPA is considering initiating action that would designate groups or categories of PFAS as CERCLA hazardous substances. These groups or categories would be based on characteristics that determine risk to human health and the environment, such as chemical structure, physical and chemical properties, mode of toxicological action, and precursors or degradants. To inform its decision-making, the Agency solicited the following information:

  • Published scientific literature that can inform whether categories of PFAS could or could not be designated as hazardous substances. This could include findings on the similarities or differences of a specific characteristic among PFAS. Also useful would be data on the relationship between different characteristics, such as the relationship between chemical structure and specific chemical, physical, or toxicological properties.
  • Other information that could inform EPA’s determination of whether to designate one or more categories of PFAS as hazardous substances.
  • Information that would contribute to economic analysis of the potential costs and benefits, including impacts on small entities, associated with a potential rulemaking designating categories of PFAS as hazardous substances. (Although CERCLA section 102(a) precludes EPA from taking cost into account in the designation of a hazardous substance, the Agency is requesting this information to help the Agency understand the potential costs and benefits associated with any potential future regulatory action.)

The deadline for submitting comments was extended from June 12 to August 11, 2023, during which period over 600 comments were submitted. The comments can be reviewed here.