{"id":10209,"date":"2021-04-07T08:00:09","date_gmt":"2021-04-07T13:00:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=10209"},"modified":"2025-12-03T14:11:27","modified_gmt":"2025-12-03T19:11:27","slug":"at-all-costs-failings-of-trump-epas-proposed-tsca-fee-rule","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2021\/04\/07\/at-all-costs-failings-of-trump-epas-proposed-tsca-fee-rule\/","title":{"rendered":"At all costs: Failings of Trump EPA\u2019s proposed TSCA fee rule"},"content":{"rendered":"

Lindsay McCormick<\/a>, Program Manager <\/em><\/strong>and<\/strong> <\/em>Richard Denison, Ph.D.<\/a>, Lead Senior Scientist<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

When Congress reformed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 2016, it authorized EPA to require companies to pay fees to help defray the agency\u2019s costs of administering this extensive new law.\u00a0 EPA finalized the first \u201cfee rule\u201d in 2018 to establish the payment framework.\u00a0 Under TSCA, EPA is to adjust the fees every three years both to account for inflation and to ensure it is recouping the authorized portion of agency costs to implement the law.<\/p>\n

Therefore, developing an accurate estimate of the agency\u2019s costs to implement TSCA is critical.\u00a0 Not only does this provide the baseline by which to establish industry fees (as EPA is to set the fees so as to recoup 25% of its program costs), but it should serve as a north star to identify the true resource needs to lawfully implement TSCA.<\/p>\n

Recent reports by the Government Accountability Office<\/a> and EPA\u2019s Office of Inspector General<\/a> found that EPA\u2019s ability to assess and manage chemicals regressed over recent years due to lack of workforce or workload planning to ensure the agency can carry out its duties. \u00a0Both reports recognize the greatly increased scope of work under amended TSCA, and EPA\u2019s failure to translate that into additional staff and resource needs.\u00a0 Establishing a robust, accurate budget for administering TSCA is the first step to rectifying this problem.<\/p>\n

Despite the alarm bells rung by these two watchdogs, the Trump EPA\u2019s proposed revised fee rule<\/a> seems to have lost sight of Congress\u2019 purpose in expanding EPA\u2019s fee authority.\u00a0 The proposed rule invokes a new purpose entirely divorced from TSCA: to reduce asserted burdens on industry \u2013 without regard to the impacts that will have on EPA\u2019s ability to implement the law or on ensuring health and environmental protection from chemical exposures.\u00a0 As a result, EPA underestimated its costs and proposed fees such that, if finalized, would push an undue portion of its costs onto the taxpayer.<\/p>\n

Below we summarize the major concerns about the fee rule proposal that we detailed in our comments<\/a> submitted to the agency late last month.<\/p>\n

Summary of Major Concerns <\/strong><\/p>\n

Underestimated costs and insufficient fees<\/em><\/p>\n

EPA significantly underestimated the baseline costs to the agency of carrying out TSCA as it is required to do under the law.\u00a0 For example:<\/p>\n