{"id":8766,"date":"2019-05-03T14:04:31","date_gmt":"2019-05-03T19:04:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=8766"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:02:17","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:02:17","slug":"edf-tells-epa-it-must-modify-its-proposed-cbi-claim-review-rule-to-comply-with-recent-d-c-circuit-decision","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2019\/05\/03\/edf-tells-epa-it-must-modify-its-proposed-cbi-claim-review-rule-to-comply-with-recent-d-c-circuit-decision\/","title":{"rendered":"EDF tells EPA it must modify its proposed CBI Claim Review Rule to comply with recent D.C. Circuit decision"},"content":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D.,\u00a0<\/em>is a Lead Senior Scientist.<\/p>\n

Yesterday Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) sent a letter<\/a> to the Assistant Administrator of EPA\u2019s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention in follow-up to last month\u2019s decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in EDF\u2019s challenge to EPA\u2019s Inventory Notification Rule (EDF v. EPA<\/em>, 17-1201<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The letter identifies \u201cimmediate, time-sensitive implications [of the decision] for EPA\u2019s ongoing rulemaking for\u201d EPA\u2019s proposed Confidential Business Information (CBI) Claim Review Rule<\/a>, which is currently undergoing public comment.\u00a0 EDF noted that, in addition to addressing problems the Court identified in EPA\u2019s regulations promulgated pursuant to its Inventory Notification Rule, EPA will need to modify the current proposed rule to ensure it is consistent with the Court\u2019s Opinion, and accept comments on the modified proposal.<\/p>\n

This is because the proposed rule explicitly references and applies regulatory provisions that the Court found were unlawful.\u00a0 Specifically, the Court found that EPA\u2019s CBI claim substantiation questions were flawed because they failed to inquire into \u201ca chemical identity\u2019s susceptibility to reverse engineering\u201d and \u201ceffectively excised a statutorily required criterion from the substantiation process.\u201d\u00a0 Hence, to align the proposed rule with the Court\u2019s ruling and the representations that EPA made to the Court in its briefing and at argument, EPA will need to revise the substantiation questions and the substantive standard that EPA plans to use when reviewing claims under the CBI Claim Review Rule.<\/p>\n

EDFs letter also notes that the proposed rule allows persons to rely on the voluntary substantiations they submitted as part of the Inventory notification process.\u00a0 But the Court\u2019s Opinion establishes that these substantiations are inadequate because they fail to address a chemical\u2019s susceptibility to reverse engineering, and EPA will need to modify the proposed rule to require companies to provide substantiations that address this statutory factor for confidentiality claims.<\/p>\n

See EDF\u2019s letter<\/a> for more details.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D.,\u00a0is a Lead Senior Scientist. Yesterday Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) sent a letter to the Assistant Administrator of EPA\u2019s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention in follow-up to last month\u2019s decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in EDF\u2019s challenge to EPA\u2019s Inventory Notification Rule (EDF v. EPA, 17-1201). The letter …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":100,"featured_media":8768,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[44,114108],"tags":[39152,39155,68],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-8766","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-policy","category-tsca","tag-chemical-identity","tag-cbi","tag-epa"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8766","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=8766"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8766\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12872,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8766\/revisions\/12872"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8768"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8766"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8766"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8766"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=8766"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}