Groups Urge EPA to Include Export Exemption in Proposed Chemical Reporting Requirements
The EPA should exempt certain export activities from new proposed reporting requirements under a significant new use rule for per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), U.S. trade groups told the agency in recent comments. If EPA doesn’t exempt those activities, the proposed rule could disrupt chemical supply chains and other sectors that use PFAS, including the energy, instrument and machinery manufacturing industries, the groups said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The agency released the proposed SNURs in January, which would require notification to EPA in advance of a new use by importers, manufacturers or processors and certain activities by exporters (see 2301250021). The Toxic Substances Control Act’s Active-Inactive Rule requires people and companies to report to EPA before reintroducing certain “inactive substances into U.S. commerce,” and the EPA said in its proposed rule that uses of PFAS, based on “reasonably available information,” are “not ongoing at the time of this proposed rule; according to the TSCA Inventory they are inactive.”
But the Alliance for Automotive Innovation said it isn’t sure what “reasonably available information” EPA “utilized to identify these uses as inactive.” The alliance also said the TSCA doesn’t require reporting for the “manufacturing or processing of a chemical substance solely for export” from the U.S., and the EPA has “no basis to conclude that these uses of the identified PFAS chemicals are inactive or that any use subsequent to the proposal’s issuance date constitutes" a significant new use.
And because the proposed rule doesn’t include a “specific exemption” for these activities, EPA is including “uses that are not reportable to the TSCA Inventory and therefore are not designated as inactive and could currently be ongoing,” AAM said. The group added that it “is not clear why EPA proposes to apply the export notification requirements” to these substances.
“Because these uses are not reported to the TSCA Inventory, EPA has no information to support designating these uses as ‘inactive’ or, in the case of export-only chemicals, EPA has not made an unreasonable risk determination to support removal of the export-only exemption.”
The Semiconductor Industry Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Chemical Users Coalition and others also asked EPA to include export-only exemptions, along with other exemptions included in the Toxic Substances Control Act’s Active-Inactive Rule, in the proposed rule. The Sustainable PFAS Action Network also said those exemptions “should be carried over” into the proposed rule, warning of severe supply chain disruptions if not.
Removing the exemptions for “specific other regulations (as is being proposed here) creates significant confusion in the regulated community and can lead to substantial disruptions in the supply chain for chemical mixtures and complex articles,” the network said. “To avoid regulatory confusion and the opportunity for errors and omissions in reporting, all of the exemptions present in the original ‘active’/’inactive’ reporting rule should be retained in the final version of this proposed SNUR.”