{"id":2773,"date":"2013-09-06T12:54:34","date_gmt":"2013-09-06T17:54:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=2773"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:01:30","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:01:30","slug":"stymied-at-every-turn-epa-withdraws-two-draft-tsca-proposals-in-the-face-of-endless-delay-at-omb","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2013\/09\/06\/stymied-at-every-turn-epa-withdraws-two-draft-tsca-proposals-in-the-face-of-endless-delay-at-omb\/","title":{"rendered":"Stymied at every turn: EPA withdraws two draft TSCA proposals in the face of endless delay at OMB"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: left\"><em>Richard Denison, Ph.D.<\/em><em>,<\/em> is a Senior Scientist.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: medium\"><span style=\"color: #000000\"><span style=\"font-family: Calibri\">The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has withdrawn two draft rules it had developed under authority of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). \u00a0EPA originally sent the proposed rules to the White House for its review way back in 2010 and 2011.\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: Calibri\"><span style=\"font-size: medium\"><span style=\"color: #000000\">Despite a clear requirement that White House reviews of draft proposed rules be completed within 90 days, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) [which is part of the Office of Management and Budget, OMB] sat on these two draft proposals for 1,213 and 619 days, respectively.\u00a0 Faced presumably with the reality that OIRA was never going to let EPA even propose the rules for public comment, EPA decided to withdraw them.\u00a0 <!--more--><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: medium\"><span style=\"color: #000000\"><span style=\"font-family: Calibri\">The two proposed rules that were just withdrawn would have:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.reginfo.gov\/public\/do\/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201010&amp;RIN=2070-AJ70\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;font-family: Calibri;font-size: medium\">Designated as \u201cchemicals of concern\u201d<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-family: Calibri\"><span style=\"font-size: medium\"><span style=\"color: #000000\"> three classes of chemicals for which evidence is more than sufficient to warrant such a designation:\u00a0 bisphenol A (BPA), a category of phthalates, and a category of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs).\u00a0 By listing a chemical as \u201cof concern,\u201d EPA may obtain, and provide to the public, more information about the chemical than it is typically able to access.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000\"><span style=\"font-family: Calibri;font-size: medium\">Clarified, consistent with the language of TSCA, that <\/span><\/span><a href=\"http:\/\/www.reginfo.gov\/public\/do\/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201104&amp;RIN=2070-AJ87\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;font-family: Calibri;font-size: medium\">health and safety studies on pre-market chemicals<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-family: Calibri\"><span style=\"font-size: medium\"><span style=\"color: #000000\"> submitted to the agency cannot be claimed to be confidential business information (CBI), and that those studies along with the identity of the subject chemical should be made publicly available.\u00a0 This information is vital to ensuring the public\u2019s and workers\u2019 right to know about chemicals to which they may be exposed.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;font-family: Calibri;font-size: medium\">EPA has clear statutory authority to take each of these proposed actions.\u00a0 (We have blogged about each proposal before \u2013 see our earlier posts <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2011\/06\/21\/waiting-for-godot-405-days-and-counting-at-omb-on-epa%e2%80%99s-modest-proposal-to-identify-chemicals-of-concern-under-tsca\/\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;font-family: Calibri;font-size: medium\">here<\/span><\/a><span style=\"color: #000000;font-family: Calibri;font-size: medium\"> and <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2012\/03\/01\/smoke-and-mirrors-acc-lawyers-are-working-hard-to-rein-in-your-right-to-know\/\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;font-family: Calibri;font-size: medium\">here<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-family: Calibri\"><span style=\"font-size: medium\"><span style=\"color: #000000\">.)\u00a0 And each proposed action would provide EPA, the public and the market with information needed to identify chemicals that could pose risks \u2013 without restricting in any manner the production or use of the subject chemicals.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: Calibri\"><span style=\"font-size: medium\"><span style=\"color: #000000\">Both proposed rules were subject to intense opposition and lobbying from the chemical industry, despite its public rhetoric that EPA should have greater ability to gather and make public more safety-related information and to identify and act on chemicals found to be of concern.\u00a0 This is not the first time, and undoubtedly won\u2019t be the last, that the industry says one thing and does another.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: Calibri\"><span style=\"font-size: medium\"><span style=\"color: #000000\">While there is room for debate over both the legal and scientific bases for and merits of EPA\u2019s proposed actions, the tragedy here is three-fold.\u00a0 First, these modest steps EPA proposed to take are among the few it has the ability to take under the highly constrained authority it has been given under TSCA.\u00a0 Second, by making more information on chemicals\u2019 safety publicly available, the actions would have helped the market to make better decisions in the absence or in advance of direct regulatory intervention by EPA. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;font-family: Calibri;font-size: medium\">Third, and perhaps most disturbing, OIRA\u2019s flaunting of its requirement to complete reviews of such proposals within 90 days (with an allowance for one 30-day extension; see Section 6(b)(2) of <\/span><a href=\"http:\/\/www.reginfo.gov\/public\/jsp\/Utilities\/EO_12866.pdf\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;font-family: Calibri;font-size: medium\">Executive Order 12866<\/span><\/a><span style=\"color: #000000;font-family: Calibri;font-size: medium\">) has effectively denied the public its voice in the rulemaking process.\u00a0 By blocking EPA from even proposing the rules and taking public comment \u2013 which would have been the proper venue for airing questions and concerns from all stakeholders \u2013 OIRA has taken on the unauthorized role of serving as judge and jury.\u00a0 And because none of its reasons for blocking the proposed rules has or will be made public, that <\/span><a href=\"http:\/\/papers.ssrn.com\/sol3\/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2262337\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;font-family: Calibri;font-size: medium\">outsize role<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-family: Calibri\"><span style=\"font-size: medium\"><span style=\"color: #000000\"> flies in the face of basic principles of transparency and democracy.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;font-family: Calibri;font-size: medium\">For its part, EPA continues to struggle to make what progress it can in each of the areas that these proposed rules aimed to advance.\u00a0 It developed and is trying to implement <\/span><a href=\"http:\/\/www.epa.gov\/oppt\/existingchemicals\/pubs\/managechemrisk.html#current\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;font-family: Calibri;font-size: medium\">action plans<\/span><\/a><span style=\"color: #000000;font-family: Calibri;font-size: medium\"> for each of the chemicals that were to have been listed as chemicals of concern in its proposed rule as well as seven others.\u00a0 It is seeking to finalize the first batch of its promised assessments on so-called <\/span><a href=\"http:\/\/www.epa.gov\/oppt\/existingchemicals\/pubs\/managechemrisk.html#chemicals\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;font-family: Calibri;font-size: medium\">work plan chemicals<\/span><\/a><span style=\"color: #000000;font-family: Calibri;font-size: medium\">, in the face of unrelenting efforts by the industry to interfere in and slow down the process.\u00a0 And it has made some progress in <\/span><a href=\"http:\/\/www.epa.gov\/oppt\/existingchemicals\/pubs\/findinfo.html\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;font-family: Calibri;font-size: medium\">increasing public access to critical chemical information<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-family: Calibri\"><span style=\"font-size: medium\"><span style=\"color: #000000\"> and limiting rampant misuse by industry of confidential business information (CBI) claims.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: medium\"><span style=\"color: #000000\"><span style=\"font-family: Calibri\">It\u2019s essential that EPA continue \u2013 and be supported in its efforts \u2013 to undertake and complete this critical work.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: medium\"><span style=\"color: #000000\"><span style=\"font-family: Calibri\">But even these efforts are being stymied, delayed or weakened at every turn by a chemical industry intent on limiting EPA activity under current TSCA, even as it claims to support expanding that authority in the context of TSCA reform.\u00a0 And, as evidenced by EPA\u2019s withdrawal of two proposed rules, in the absence of clear requirements and deadlines for making decisions and taking action under TSCA, we can expect that OIRA will continue to constrain EPA\u2019s efforts to address the risks to human health and the environment posed by toxic chemicals.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has withdrawn two draft rules it had developed under authority of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). \u00a0EPA originally sent the proposed rules to the White House for its review way back in 2010 and 2011.\u00a0 Despite a clear requirement that White House &#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":100,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[44,56096],"tags":[39155,68,5021,39172,5015],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-2773","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-policy","category-omboira","tag-cbi","tag-epa","tag-chemical-industry-tactics","tag-office-of-management-and-budget-omb","tag-substances-of-very-high-concern-svhc"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2773","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/100"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2773"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2773\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12686,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2773\/revisions\/12686"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2773"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2773"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2773"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=2773"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}