This quarterly newsletter provides updates on litigation, regulatory, legislative, and other notable developments involving chemicals of concern to business. Our present focus is on substances which are the subject of regulatory activity or scrutiny by various government agencies and potential litigants. This includes emerging contaminants, such as perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), hexavalent chromium, trichloroethylene (TCE), 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP), and 1,4-dioxane, as well as substances identified by EPA under the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for prioritization, risk evaluation, or regulation. We hope you find this publication informative, and we welcome your feedback on chemicals of interest to your organization.


Environmental and Labor Groups Notified EPA of Intent to File Lawsuit Alleging Violations of TSCA Disclosure Requirements

In a notice of intent to sue sent on September 3, 2019, five environmental groups and a trade union asserted that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) routinely fails to comply with nondiscretionary mandates in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requiring public disclosure of information about new chemical substances.1 The notice contended that EPA fails to provide timely notice of its receipt of premanufacture notices (PMNs) and also that EPA fails to publish a list or descriptions of the test data submitted with PMNs. In addition, the notice letter asserted that EPA fails to publish notice of its receipt of applications for test marketing exemptions and fails to make PMNs, any health and safety studies submitted with a PMN, or other documents related to PMNs publicly available for examination. The groups also said EPA violates its duty to make PMNs and supporting information available online and fails to comply with its obligations to review confidentiality claims. The litigants cite the citizen suit provisions of TSCA Section 20 as the basis for their authority to bring this action, which is intended to compel the Agency to comply with, among others, the requirements of Section 5(d)(2) of TSCA. The statute permits such suits to be filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, or the district court for the district in which the plaintiffs are domiciled, 60 days following notice to the Agency.

EPA and Company Settled Violations of Formaldehyde Requirements for Composite Wood Products

On August 26, 2019, EPA announced a settlement resolving its first enforcement action for violations of formaldehyde standards for composite wood products. The settlement required the respondent—a company "in the business of procuring construction products and materials from global supply chain networks for incorporation into building projects by others"—to pay a penalty of $533,064 and to implement a corrective action plan to replace noncompliant components with compliant composite wood products.2 The enforcement action stemmed from a voluntary disclosure of potential noncompliance. EPA determined that the respondent did not satisfy requirement for reducing the gravity component of the civil penalty but considered the voluntary disclosure in determining the penalty.

DC Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of False Claims Act Lawsuit Premised on TSCA Violations

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals refused to recognize False Claims Act liability based on chemical manufacturers' alleged failures to meet a TSCA reporting requirement and to pay an unassessed TSCA penalty.3 The court was not persuaded by the law firm relator's contentions that the manufacturers deprived the government of property in the form of substantial risk information and money in the form of penalties by failing to disclose information to EPA about the adverse health effects of isocyanate chemicals.

States, DC Filed Lawsuit Challenging EPA's Denial of Asbestos Rulemaking Petition

On June 28, 2019, ten states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit asserting that EPA wrongfully denied their TSCA Section 21 rulemaking petition that requested that EPA amend the Chemical Data Reporting regulation to require reporting of information regarding asbestos and asbestos-containing articles.4 The complaint alleged that data from such reporting was necessary to properly assess potential hazards and exposure pathways of asbestos and was therefore necessary for EPA to perform a risk evaluation using information "consistent with the best available science," as required by TSCA. The states' case is similar to a case filed in February by public health organizations.5

Federal Developments

Regulatory Developments

EPA Sent Proposed PFAS Actions to Office of Management and Budget for Review

On September 25, 2019, EPA announced that it had sent two actions to the Office of Management and Budget for interagency review as part of the Agency's action plan to address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).6 One action is an advance notice of proposed rulemaking concerning the potential addition of PFAS to the Toxics Release Inventory toxic chemical list. The other action is a proposal to ensure that certain long-chain PFAS chemicals cannot be imported into the US without notification to and review by EPA under TSCA.

Comment Period Extended for EPA Draft PBT Risk Management Rules

On September 19, 2019, EPA extended the comment period on its proposed risk management rule for five persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) substances through October 28, 2019.7 EPA published the proposed rule in the Federal Register on July 29, 2019 pursuant to TSCA Section 6(h), which establishes an accelerated risk management schedule for the PBT substances. The five PBT substances subject to the rule are (1) decabromodiphenyl ethers (DecaBDE); (2) hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD); (3) pentachlorothiophenol (PCTP); (4) phenol, isopropylated, phosphate (3:1) (PIP (3:1)); and (5) 2,4,6-tris(tert-butyl)phenol (2,4,6 TRIS). EPA proposed restrictions and prohibitions on the manufacture, processing, and distribution for many uses of four of the five substances. The proposed rule also includes recordkeeping requirements for these four substances and a ban on downstream releases to water for PIP (3:1), as well as a requirement to notify downstream users of certain products of the PIP (3:1) restrictions. For HCBD, EPA proposed no action based on the Agency's determination that the potential for exposure from uses of HCBD is already addressed by actions under other federal and state statutes and further measures are not practicable. EPA rejected the alternative of prohibiting the manufacture of HCBD because doing so also would effectively prohibit manufacture of three widely used solvents: perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and carbon tetrachloride.8 Section 6(h) requires EPA to issue the final rule within 18 months of its proposal, which will be in January 2021.

TSCA Inventory Now Includes Unique Identifiers for Confidential Chemical Identities

On September 19, 2019, EPA announced that it had posted the first public TSCA Inventory to include unique identifier information for chemical substances with approved confidential business information claims for specific chemical identity.9 Pursuant to requirements implementing the 2016 amendments to TSCA, the same unique identifier is expected to be applied to all information or submissions concerning the same substance.

EPA Sought Comment on Evaluation of Potential Synergistic Effects of Pesticides

In the September 9, 2019 issue of the Federal Register, EPA published a notice soliciting public comments on the interim process it has developed to evaluate assertions in patent applications of "greater than additive" (GTA) effects in mixtures of pesticide active ingredients.10 EPA said the purpose of the interim process is to evaluate the utility of collecting and reviewing GTA patent information for use in conducting risk assessments, and to determine if such data, where applicable, affect risk assessments. The process—which EPA said it had generally been applying since 2016—involves EPA requesting GTA effect information on approved patents from registrants for new conventional pesticide active ingredients and other new chemicals and products. EPA conducts statistical analysis on the information provided to determine relevance for ecological risk assessment. EPA said its experience to date indicated that analysis of the patent data rarely showed a need for further testing and had not yet required adjustments to risk assessments. EPA said it would consider comments on its interim process as well as additional GTA patent information to determine whether to continue to require that registrants provide the patent data. EPA set a comment deadline of October 24, 2019.

Comment Period Closed on Manufacturer Requests for Risk Evaluations of Two Phthalates

On August 19, 2019, EPA published notice of its receipt of manufacturer requests for TSCA risk evaluations of two chemical substances: diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP) and diisononyl phthalate (DINP).11 DIDP is used as a plasticizer in polyvinyl chloride. DINP is used as a plasticizer and paint additive in consumer and commercial products and in manufacturing applications. In addition to conditions of use identified by the manufacturers, EPA also will consider conditions of use identified in the Agency's review of recent data submitted pursuant to the Chemical Data Reporting rule. EPA said it would accept comments on the requests through October 3, 2019, after which the Agency will have 60 days before it must decide whether to grant or deny the manufacturers' requests to commence the evaluations.

Fourth TSCA Draft Risk Evaluation Released for Public Comment

On August 12, 2019, EPA published notice of the availability of draft risk evaluation documents for the solvent 1-bromopropane (1-BP), the fourth substance for which EPA has released a risk evaluation.12 Comments on the draft risk evaluation are due October 11, 2019. EPA also announced that there would be a three-day meeting of the TSCA Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals on September 10-12, 2019 to consider the draft evaluation. The evaluation will enable the Agency to reach a determination regarding whether 1-BP presents an unreasonable risk to health or the environment under the conditions of use, including an unreasonable risk to a relevant potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation. In the coming weeks, EPA is expected to release draft risk evaluations for the remaining six substances of the 10 chemical substances that the Agency selected to undergo the first risk evaluations under the amended TSCA. The remaining six substances are: (a) asbestos; (b) carbon tetrachloride; (c) methylene chloride; (d) n-methylpyrrolidone; (e) perchloroethylene; and (f) trichloroethylene.

EPA Identified High- and Low-Priority Substances

On August 23, 2019, EPA published notice that it was proposing to designate 20 chemical substances as "high-priority" substances for risk evaluation.13 The 20 substances are the same substances EPA identified as "candidates" for such designation in March. If their high-priority designations are finalized, the 20 substances will be considered chemicals which "may present" an unreasonable risk and will enter the risk evaluation phase to determine whether each substance "presents" an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment under the conditions of use evaluated. The Agency said it would accept comments on the proposed designations through November 21, 2019. You can view the list of proposed high-priority substances in the Federal Register notice or on EPA's website.

Eight days earlier, EPA published notice of its proposed designation of 20 chemical substances as "low-priority."14 The 20 substances are the same substances that EPA identified as candidates for low-priority designation at the beginning of the "prioritization" process in March. Comments on these designations are due by November 13, 2019. Low-priority substances will not undergo further evaluation. Unlike high priority designations, low priority determinations are final actions for which judicial review may be sought. You can view the list of proposed low-priority substances in the Federal Register notice or on EPA's website.

Group Petitioned EPA to Ban Hydrofluoric Acid at Refineries

On August 7, 2019, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility submitted a rulemaking petition to EPA pursuant to Section 21 of TSCA and the Clean Air Act requesting that the Agency prohibit the use of hydrofluoric acid in oil refineries.15 The petition asserted that both TSCA and the Clean Air Act provided clear statutory authority for such a prohibition. The petition also argued that use of hydrofluoric acid at oil refineries presents an unreasonable risk to human health and the environment because it is inherently dangerous and there are safer alternatives.

Updated EPA Tracker Made Additional New Chemical Review Information Available to the Public

On August 1, 2019, EPA announced that it had updated its chemical review status tracker to make additional information about new chemical notices available to the public.16 The updated website allows users to search monthly updates for active PMNs, Significant New Use Notices (SNUNs), and Microbial Commercial Activity Notices. In addition, users can download spreadsheets listing all active cases and each case's status. EPA said future updates to the tracker would allow users to connect to PMN and SNUN cases of interest in EPA's ChemView database.

EPA Stopped Practice of Notifying Businesses of Deficient Confidentiality Claims

On July 16, 2019, EPA published notice that it would stop sending "non-statutorily required" notices of deficiency to businesses that do not meet all statutory requirements for asserting a confidential business information (CBI) claim when submitting documents to the Agency.17 (A deficiency notice typically gave the recipient 30 days during which to substantiate or otherwise rectify deficiencies in its CBI claim.) Instead of sending a notice of deficiency, EPA will provide written notice that CBI claims are invalid and inform businesses that the underlying information will be treated as not subject to a confidentiality claim and therefore subject to disclosure without further notice. EPA said the new procedure, which it began implementing on August 15, would make implementation of TSCA's review requirements for CBI claims more efficient.

ATSDR Finalized Toxicological Profiles for PERC and TCE

On July 1, 2019, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) published notice of the availability of final toxicological profiles for tetrachloroethylene (PERC) and trichloroethylene (TCE).18 ATSDR released drafts of the profiles in 2014. The profiles are mandated by Section 104 of CERCLA to provide health and toxicologic information based on ATSDR's assessment of relevant peer-reviewed toxicologic testing and information. The principal audiences for the profiles are health professionals at the federal, state, and local levels; interested private sector organizations and groups; and members of the public. PERC and TCE are ranked 33 and 16, respectively, on the ATSDR's Substance Priority List, which ranks substances based on their frequency, toxicity, and potential for human exposure at National Priorities List sites.19 In the final profile for TCE, ATSDR adopted oral and inhalation minimal risk levels (MRLs) consistent with an approach developed by EPA. The chronic- and intermediate-duration oral MRLs for TCE are 0.0005 mg/kg/day; the chronic- and intermediate-duration inhalation MRLs are 0.0004 ppm. For PERC, ATSDR adopted a chronic-, intermediate-, and acute-duration oral MRL of 0.008 mg/kg/day and a chronic-, intermediate-, and acute-duration inhalation MRL of 0.006 ppm.

Legislative Developments

Conference Committee to Reconcile House and Senate Versions of Defense Bill, Including PFAS Provisions

On September 19, 2019, the Senate and House members of the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) conference committee met formally for the first time to address differences in the versions of the NDAA passed by the Senate and House before the summer recess. The differences include provisions addressing PFAS. The House bill (H.R. 2500) requires EPA to add PFAS to the Clean Water Act's list of toxic substances and to establish effluent and pretreatment standards and also to designate all PFAS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.20 The Senate bill would require EPA to promulgate national primary drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS within two years and would include PFOA, PFOS, and certain other perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances on the Toxics Release Inventory.21 Both bills restrict use of PFAS-containing firefighting foams.

The House bill also prohibits the use of PFAS-containing food contact surfaces for preparing meals ready-to-eat and requires a Comptroller General study of Department of Defense efforts to remediate PFAS contamination in and around military bases. The bill's other PFAS measures include requiring the United States Geological Survey to conduct sampling nationwide to determine the concentrations of perfluorinated compounds in bodies of water and soil.

In July, the Trump administration objected to the provisions in the House bill that ban fluorinated aqueous film-forming foam at military installations by the end of September 2025 (unless a temporary waiver is obtained) and that authorize use of Department of Defense funds to provide uncontaminated water for agricultural uses where the source of PFAS contamination is a military installation.22The Senate bill included a similar provision authorizing the provision of uncontaminated water for agricultural uses as well as a provision authorizing acquisition of contaminated lands near Air Force bases. The Senate's prohibition on use of PFAS-containing firefighting foams would take effect by October 1, 2023.

In September, the Administration objected more broadly to the Senate bill's PFAS provisions, telling the Senate Armed Forces Committee that the provisions "are neither grounded in science nor consistent with statutory requirements that provide for the important consideration of scientific and technical information."23

A bipartisan group of 15 governors sent a letter to the chairs and ranking members of the Armed Services Committees on September 18 urging them to include keep key PFAS measures in the legislation.24

State Regulatory & Legislative Action


California to Require Website Posting of Chemical Ingredients and Safety Data Sheets

Under a law signed by then-Governor Jerry Brown, manufacturers of cleaning products will be required to disclose certain chemical ingredients on the product label and on the manufacturer's website. The online disclosure requirements apply beginning January 1, 2020. Known as California's Cleaning Product Right to Know Act of 2017, the law requires a manufacturer of designated products sold in California to disclose information pertaining to "intentionally added ingredients" contained in designated products. The law defines an "intentionally added ingredient" as "a chemical that a manufacturer has intentionally added to a designated product and that has a functional or technical effect in the designated product, including, but not limited to, the components of intentionally added fragrance ingredients and colorants and intentional breakdown products of an added chemical that also have a functional or technical effect in the designated product."25 The law exempts confidential business information, which is defined to include any intentionally added ingredient for which a claim has been approved by EPA for inclusion on the Toxic Substances Control Act Confidential Inventory, or for which the manufacturer, or its supplier, claims protection under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Under a related law signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom on September 20, 2019, manufacturers and importers of cosmetics and disinfectants that are hazardous substances or mixture of substances requiring creation of Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) must post the SDSs on their websites by July 1, 2020.26 The SDSs must be posted and maintained by a substance's brand name or another commonly known name. The law would also require that the SDS be translated into Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean, and other languages that the Director of Industrial Relations may determine are common to the beauty care industry, and that these translations also be posted on the manufacturer or importer's website.

California Rejected Industry Group's First Pass at Alternatives Analysis for Methylene Chloride Paint Removers

On August 30, 2019, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) issued a notice of deficiency for the first Preliminary Alternatives Analysis (PAA) Report submitted under the State's Safer Consumer Products program.27 DTSC said the PAA Report—which was submitted by the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance for methylene chloride-containing paint or varnish removers—was incomplete, lacked supporting information and a clear rationale, was based on little quantitative information, and was internally inconsistent. DTSC provided both general and specific, more technical comments. As a general comment, DTSC indicated that the PAA Report did not clearly document the methods used to compare multiple factors and the trade-offs considered to screen out alternatives. A revised document must be submitted by October 29, 2019.

State Water Board Adopted Nonregulatory Guidelines for PFOA and PFOS

On August 23, 2019, the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) announced new notification levels (NLs) of 5.1 parts per trillion (ppt) for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and 6.5 ppt for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS).28 SWRCB said it adopted the NLs based on the recommendation of the California Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which said the NLs should be set at the lowest levels at which PFOA and PFOS can be reliably detected in drinking water.29 OEHHA said it made this recommendation based on its development of reference levels for both cancer and noncancer effects that are lower than the levels of PFOA and PFOS that can be reliably detected in drinking water with available technologies. The NLs announced in August—which according to the SWRCB are nonregulatory, health-based advisory levels—are reduced from the interim NLs established in 2018 of 14 ppt for PFOA and 13 ppt for PFOS. In addition to the new NLs, SWRCB also announced that it had asked OEHHA to proceed with the development of public health goals, which would be the next step towards establishing regulatory standards for PFOA and PFOS. In addition, a law signed by the governor on July 31, 2019 gave SWRCB the authority to order public water systems to monitor for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances.30 The law also specified reporting and public notification requirements.

Lawsuit Filed to Challenge Designation of Spray Polyurethane Foam Systems as Priority Products; Manufacturers Find No Available Alternatives in Initial Assessment

On August 9, 2019, the American Chemistry Council and a manufacturer of spray polyurethane foam (SPF) systems filed a lawsuit challenging DTSC's listing of SPF systems containing unreacted methylene diphenyl diisocyanates as a Priority Product in the Safer Consumer Products program.31 The petitioners asserted that the designation of SPF systems as a Priority Product exceeded DTSC's statutory and regulatory authority because, among other reasons, DTSC included products "that fall outside the commonsense definition of 'consumer products,'" because the systems do not satisfy the criteria for Priority Products, and because the systems are already regulated under state and federal law. The petition also asserted that DTSC failed to comply with the California Administrative Procedure Act and the California Environmental Quality Act. In late August, responsible entities submitted Abridged Alternatives Analysis Reports on SPF systems to DTSC.32 The reports concluded that there was not a commercially available, functionally acceptable and technically feasible alternative to the SPF systems. The comment period on the reports is open through November 12, 2019.

New Hampshire

New Hampshire Law Banned Flame Retardants in Upholstered Furniture

On September 3, 2019, New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu signed a law prohibiting the import or manufacture for sale of upholstered furniture containing in its fabric or other covering or cushioning more than 0.1% of a flame-retardant chemical.33 The prohibition does not applied to used or antique upholstered furniture or upholstered furniture purchased for public use in public facilities. It also does not apply to new furniture imported into the state or acquired by a retailer or wholesaler prior to January 1, 2021; new furniture manufactured prior to January 1, 2020; upholstered furniture that includes electric or electronic components; or mattresses.

New York

State Court Nullified New York's Cleaning Product Disclosure Program

A New York trial court found that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) should have complied with State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA) rulemaking requirements when it created the Household Cleansing Product Information Disclosure Program.34 The court said the Program constituted "a clear rule and not a mere interpretative statement" and therefore nullified the Program and remanded to NYSDEC for compliance with SAPA. The Program required information about ingredients in cleaning products to be provided on manufacturers' websites. It is unclear at this time how NYSDEC will proceeed with respect to its efforts to implement ingredients disclosure requirements for cleaning products.

Rhode Island

Rhode Island Modified Ban on Organohalogen Flame Retardants in Upholstery

On July 8, 2019, Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo signed a bill amending a 2017 ban on the manufacture, sale, and distribution of residential upholstered bedding or furniture containing organohalogen flame retardant chemicals.35 The amendments increased the maximum amount of non-polymeric organohalogen flame retardant chemicals that upholstered bedding and furniture may contain from 100 parts per million to 1,000 parts per million. The prohibition, originally scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2019, now takes effect on January 1, 2020. The restrictions do not apply to internal electric and electronic components of residential upholstered furniture or bedding or to residential furniture or bedding sold for use in commercial or public spaces.


Amendments Expanded Vermont Chemical Disclosure Program for Children's Products

Amended regulations for Vermont's Chemical Disclosure Program for Children's Products took effect on August 15, 2019.36 The amendments added 20 substances, including lead, to the list of chemicals of high concern to children, bringing the total to 86. The amendments also established a process for making changes to the list of chemicals of high concern to children and a process for regulating or banning a chemical of high concern.


Wisconsin Governor Directed State to Develop PFAS Standards and Action Plan

On August 22, 2019, Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers signed an executive order directing the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to develop PFAS regulatory standards.37 The order also directed DNR to take other steps related to PFAS, including assessment of opportunities for natural resource damages claims under state or federal law to address compensation for PFAS impacts and modification the State's Voluntary Party Liability Exemption program to shield taxpayers from potential liability associated with PFAS. In addition, the executive order created a PFAS Coordinating Council to develop a "multi-agency PFAS action plan."

*Margaret Barry also contributed to this newsletter.

  1. Notice of Intent to File Suit Challenging EPA's Past and Ongoing Violations of Requirements to Disclose Information Under TSCA and its Implementing Regulations and to Compel EPA to Perform Nondiscretionary Acts to Remedy Those Violations (Sept. 3, 2019).
  2. In re Global Sourcing Solutions, Docket No. TSCA-HQ-2019-5004 (EAB Aug. 15, 2019).
  3. United States ex rel. Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP v. BASF Corp., 929 F.3d 721 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
  4. California v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency (EPA), Case No. 3:19-cv-03807 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2019).
  5. Asbestos Disease Awareness Org. v. Wheeler, No. 3:19-cv-00871 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2019).
  6. News Release, EPA, EPA Takes Two Important Steps Under PFAS Action Plan (Sept. 25, 2019).
  7. Regulation of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals Under TSCA Section 6(h); Extension of Comment Period, 84 Fed. Reg. 50809 (Sept. 26, 2019); Regulation of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals under Section 6(h) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, 84 Fed. Reg. 36728 (July 29, 2019); see also  Lawrence E. Culleen,  Two Recent EPA Announcements Can Have Unexpected Consequences, Arnold & Porter (July 19, 2019).
  8. These three substances are undergoing EPA risk evaluations pursuant Section 6 of the 2016 amendments to TSCA. Drafts of the final risk evaluations are expected to be published soon and finalized by the end of the year, or soon thereafter if EPA extends the review periods.
  9. News Release, EPA, Now Available: Updated TSCA Inventory with Unique ID Information (Sept. 19, 2019).
  10. Pesticides; Interim Process for Evaluating Potential Synergistic Effects of Pesticides During the Registration Process; Notice of Availability and Request for Comments, 84 Fed. Reg. 47287 (Sept. 9, 2019); EPA, GTA Procedures Guidance. Process for Receiving and Evaluating Data Supporting Assertions of Greater than Additive (GTA) Effects in Mixtures of Pesticide Active Ingredients and Associated Guidance for Registrants (Aug. 2019).
  11. Di-isodecyl Phthalate (DIDP); Manufacturer Request for Risk Evaluation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Notice of Availability and Request for Comments, 84 Fed. Reg. 42914 (Aug. 19, 2019); Di-isononyl Phthalate (DINP); Manufacturer Request for Risk Evaluation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Notice of Availability and Request for Comments, 84 Fed. Reg. 42912 (Aug. 19, 2019); see also List of Manufacturer-Requested Risk Evaluations under TSCA Section 6, EPA, (last updated Aug. 16, 2019).
  12. 1-Bromopropane (1-BP); Draft Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Risk Evaluation and TSCA Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) Meetings; Notice of Availability and Public Meetings, 84 Fed. Reg. 39830 (Aug. 12, 2019); see also Risk Evaluation for 1-Bromopropane (1-BP), EPA, (last updated Aug. 12, 2019).
  13. Proposed High-Priority Substance Designations Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Notice of Availability and Request for Comment, 84 Fed. Reg. 44300 (Aug. 23, 2019).
  14. Proposed Low-Priority Substance Designation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Notice of Availability and Request for Comment, 84 Fed. Reg. 41712 (Aug. 15, 2019).
  15. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), In re: Ban on Hydrofluoric Acid in Refineries, Petition for Rulemaking (Aug. 7, 2019).
  16. News Release, EPA, EPA Announces Updated Chemical Review Tool (Aug. 1, 2019).
  17.  Statutory Requirements for Substantiation of Confidential Business Information (CBI) Claims Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 84 Fed. Reg. 33939 (July 16, 2019).
  18. Availability of Toxicological Profiles for Tetrachloroethylene and Trichloroethylene, 84 Fed. Reg. 31321 (July 1, 2019); Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR), Toxicological Profile for Tetrachloroethylene (June 2019); ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Trichloroethylene (June 2019).
  19. ATSDR's Substance Priority List, ATSDR (last reviewed Aug. 10, 2017).
  20. H.R. 2500, 116th Cong. (2019).
  21. S. 1790, 116th Cong. (2019).
  22. Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Office of the President, Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 2500 – National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (July 9, 2019).
  23.  Letter from Acting Director, Office of Mgmt. & Budget, to Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate (Sept. 4, 2019).
  24. Letter from Governors to Chairmen and Ranking Members of House and Senate Armed Services Committees (Sept. 18, 2019).
  25. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 108952(k).
  26.  AB 647 (ch. 305) (codified at Cal. Labor Code § 6390.2).
  27. Cal. Dep't of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Notice of Deficiency (Aug. 30, 2019).
  28. Media Release, Cal. Water Bds., State Water Board Updates Guidelines for Testing and Reporting PFOA and PFOS As It Assesses Scope of Problem Process Begun for Establishing Regulatory Standards (Aug. 23, 2019).
  29. Cal. Office of Envtl. Health Hazard Assessment, Notification Level Recommendations: Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate in Drinking Water (Aug. 2019).
  30. AB 756 (ch. 162) (codified at Cal. Health & Safety Code § 116378).
  31. Am. Chem. Council v. DTSC, Case No. 19CECG02938 (Cal. Super. Ct. Aug. 9, 2019).
  32.  Comment Period Detail, CalSAFER (last visited Sept. 24, 2019).
  33. SB 193 (ch. 336) (codified at N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 359-Q:1–359-Q:7).
  34. Household & Comm. Prods. Ass'n v. N.Y. State Dep't of Envtl. Conservation, 2019 WL 4570160 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 27, 2019).
  35. H. 5119 (codified at R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 23-26-3.1, 23-75-3).
  36.  CVR 13-140-077.
  37.  Exec. Order #40 (Aug. 22, 2019); Press Release, Office of the Governor, State of Wisconsin, Gov. Evers Signs Executive Order #40 Relating to PFAS in Wisconsin (Aug. 23, 2019).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.