Coatings Industry News

Main News Page

EPA Requests Comments for Fees, PV29 Rules

Tuesday, February 23, 2021

Comment | More

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is asking for further comments on both the Toxic Substances Control Act Fees Rule and its potential rulemaking for C.I. Pigment Violet 29.

Under both request notices, the EPA said that the comments in receives will be considered in its rulemaking process, and both are supposed to reach completion later this year.

TSCA Fees Rule

The EPA announced that it was looking into the fees in March 2020. The TSCA Fees Rule mandates that manufacturers (including importers) of each chemical prioritized for risk evaluation are responsible for paying the fee associated with those evaluations.

As a first step, the agency extended the comment period by 60 days for the preliminary lists of manufacturers subject to fees associated with EPA-initiated risk evaluations. That comment period ran through March 27.

At the end of March, the EPA announced that it was considering a rule that would look at potential exemptions to the Fees Rule.

“By considering a proposal to narrow the broad scope of the current requirements, the agency could significantly reduce burden on potentially thousands of businesses across the country while maintaining the ability to successfully implement the Lautenberg Act amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act to protect human health and the environment,” the EPA said in a statement at the time.

© iStock / Skyhobo

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is asking for further comments on both the Toxic Substances Control Act Fees Rule and its potential rulemaking for C.I. Pigment Violet 29.

The agency said then that it planned to initiate a new rulemaking process to consider proposing exemptions to the current rule’s self-identification requirements associated with risk evaluations for manufacturers that:

  • Import the chemical substance in an article;
  • Produce the chemical substance as a byproduct; and
  • Produce or import the chemical substance as an impurity.

The agency said that it could also consider other changes to the rule, which is consistent with TSCA’s requirement to reevaluate the Fees Rule every three years.

Then, in April, the EPA hosted a call with stakeholders that covered:

  • TSCA fees rule requirements and processes associated with EPA-initiated risk evaluations;
  • The EPA’s March 25, rulemaking announcement and “No Action Assurance” and the implications for certain manufacturers who: (1) import a high-priority chemical in an article; (2) produce a high-priority chemical as a byproduct; and (3) produce or import a high-priority chemical as an impurity; and
  • Reporting obligations during the current comment period for the preliminary lists of fee payers (which closed on May 27).

At the end of last year, the EPA finally released a set of proposed updates for public comment. The updates include:

  • Narrowing the scope of the rule by exempting importers of articles containing a chemical substance, companies that produce a chemical as a byproduct or manufacture or import as an impurity, companies that produce a chemical in de minimus amounts, companies that use chemicals solely for research and development purposes, and companies that manufacture a chemical that is produced as a non-isolated intermediate from fees;
  • Using cost data gathered over the last two years, instead of estimates, to update the fee calculations;
  • Ensuring fees are fairly and appropriately shared across companies by proposing a production-volume based fee allocation and including export-only manufacturers for EPA-initiated risk evaluations;
  • Allowing for corrections to be made to the list of manufacturers subject to fees for EPA-initiated risk evaluations after the final list is published, ensuring the accuracy of the list.
  • Increasing flexibility for companies by extending the amount of time to form consortium to share in fee payments; and
  • Ensuring EPA can fully collect fees and enabling companies to better prepare for paying fees by allowing payments in installments for EPA-initiated and manufacturer-requested risk evaluations.

The EPA is also proposing to add new fee categories associated with new chemical activities.

This comment period initially was set to close Feb. 25. However, now the EPA announced in an emailed press release that it is extending that period by 30 days. Comments can still be submitted to docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0493 on the website.

PV29 Updates

In December 2016 the EPA designated the first 10 substances up for evaluation, which included:

  • 1, 4 Dioxane;
  • Methylene Chloride;
  • 1-Bromopropane;
  • N-Methylpyrolidone;
  • Asbestos;
  • Pigment Violet 29;
  • Carbon Tetrachloride;
  • Trichloroethylene;
  • Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster (HBCD); and
  • Tetrachloroethylene.

In June 2019, the focus turned to PV29 with a review meeting.

PV29 is described in the Chemical Data Reporting database as:

“Approximately 90% of the domestic production volume of C.I. Pigment Violet 29 in 2015 (approximately 530,000 lbs.) was processed as a site-limited intermediate for the manufacture of other perylene pigments, while 10% of the production volume (approximately 60,000 lbs.) was processed and used in either commercial paints and coatings (approximately 30,000 lbs.) or commercial plastic and rubber products (approximately 30,000 lbs.). An unknown volume of C.I. Pigment Violet 29 is used in consumer watercolor and acrylic paints.”

“This will be an important opportunity for the science experts on this new committee to provide their scientific and technical advice to EPA,” said EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Assistant Administrator Alexandra Dapolito Dunn.

“This peer review ensures scientific rigor and enhances transparency of the risk evaluation process.”

The purpose of that meeting was for the EPA to get the independent review of the science underlying the PV29 risk assessment, including the hazard assessment, assessment of dose-response, exposure assessment and risk characterization.

The EPA said in an emailed press release in October that, after initially issuing the draft risk evaluation in November 2018, it “received additional data on PV29 in response to test orders, and the sole U.S. manufacturer of this chemical voluntarily submitted additional information to the agency.”

That information was reportedly used to revise the draft risk evaluation.

“This new data led the EPA to revise its analytical approach for evaluating the potential exposure and health effects of PV29,” the agency said.

“As a result of this updated analysis, the revised draft risk evaluation now shows unreasonable risk to workers for 11 out of 14 conditions of use. Because this new data had a significant impact on EPA’s risk evaluation and ultimately the risk determinations, the agency is providing an opportunity for the public and independent, scientific experts to give input before the risk evaluation is finalized.”

At the end of last year, the EPA began accepting public comments on the revised draft risk evaluation until Dec.19.

Meanwhile, the EPA said it was conducting a letter peer review of the revised draft risk evaluation using independent scientists, including one who has served as a member and several who have served as ad hoc peer reviewers for the TSCA Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals, the EPA notes. Biographical sketches of the peer reviewers will be available in the docket. The peer review will focus on charge questions supplied by the agency, and the public is encouraged to focus their comments on those issues as well.

The EPA issued a risk evaluation for the substance last month, and is now inviting small business, governments and not-for-profits to participate as Small Entity Representatives to provide advice and recommendations to a Small Business Advocacy Review panel for PV29.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to establish a SBAR Panel for rules that may have “a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The SBAR panel will include federal representatives from the Small Business Administration, the Office of Management and Budget and the EPA.

“SERs will be selected by the SBAR Panel to provide comments on behalf of their company, community, or organization and advise the panel on the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities. EPA is seeking self-nominations directly from the small entities that may be subject to the rule requirements. Other representatives, such as trade associations that exclusively or at least primarily represent potentially regulated small entities, may also serve as SERs,” the EPA noted in its press release.

“SERs provide advice and recommendations to the panel. The SERs participate in consultations with the SBAR Panel via telephone, webinar, or in person in one or two meetings and are given an opportunity to submit written comments to the Panel.”

Self-nominations to be considered a SER are due March 5.


Tagged categories: EPA; EPA; Good Technical Practice; NA; North America; Pigments; Regulations

Comment Join the Conversation:

Sign in to our community to add your comments.

Abrasives Inc.


Western Technology Inc.

HoldTight Solutions Inc.


Sauereisen, Inc.

Axxiom Manufacturing

KTA-Tator, Inc. - Corporate Office


Technology Publishing Co., 1501 Reedsdale Street, Suite 2008, Pittsburgh, PA 15233

TEL 1-412-431-8300  • FAX  1-412-431-5428  •  EMAIL

The Technology Publishing Network

PaintSquare the Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings Paint BidTracker

EXPLORE:      JPCL   |   PaintSquare News   |   Interact   |   Buying Guides   |   Webinars   |   Resources   |   Classifieds
REGISTER AND SUBSCRIBE:      Free PaintSquare Registration   |   Subscribe to JPCL   |   Subscribe to PaintSquare News
MORE:      About   |   Privacy Policy   |   Terms & Conditions   |   Support   |   Site Map   |   Search   |   Contact Us