California Proposes Further Prop. 65 AmendmentTSCA Inventory Reset Rule Finalize
California’s Office of Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has published proposed amendments to the State’s Proposition 65 “Clear and Reasonable Warning” regulations which may affect some ILMA members who market pesticide products to customers in California either directly or through a distribution chain.
OEHHA’s proposal may affect those ILMA Supplier Member companies that market pesticide products whose labels are subject to EPA approval under its Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) regulations.
Such products include biocides intended for tank side use to extend the life of water-miscible metalworking fluids and formulated metalworking fluid products which incorporate such biocides and whose producers claim biocidal properties for the product. ILMA Manufacturing Members who distribute biocidal products for use by their end-user customers could also be affected by the proposal.
Under the new Proposition 65 Clear and Reasonable Warning regulations, which take effect on August 30, 2018, businesses such as machine shops which employ more than ten people must change now-familiar Proposition 65 “safe harbor” warning language to that required by the new regulations.
The Act requires businesses to provide a clear and reasonable warning before they cause an exposure to a chemical listed as known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. The proposed amendment to the regulations would add optional signal words that would be allowed in narrow circumstances where a warning is provided on a product regulated under FIFRA and the signal word “warning” conflicts with the FIFRA requirements.
Under the new proposed amendment to the regulations, pesticide products which already, as part of the FIFRA-approved label, incorporate the signal word “Warning,” would be permitted to change that signal word used with a Prop 65 safe harbor warning to “Attention” or “Notice” in place of the signal word “Warning.” A so-called “long form” version of the new safe harbor language for consumer products and certain occupational exposures for a biocidal additive that releases formaldehyde might read:
*WARNING – This product can expose you to formaldehyde, which is known to the State of California to cause cancer. For more information go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.
If the approved FIFRA label for a pesticide product already included the word WARNING, then the proposed amendment would allow the use of the alternative signal word ATTENTION or NOTICE.
While ILMA understands that members may include in a product Safety Data Sheet (SDS) information about whether any chemical listed by OEHHA under Proposition 65 is contained in that product in Section 15 of that SDS, ILMA is not clear on who in the supply chain, if the proposed amendment is agreed upon, would be responsible for including the soon-to-be-required “safe harbor” language for such biocidal products.
ILMA has sent a letter to OEHHA asking for clarification on this and several other issues related to the new Clear and Reasonable Warning language requirements that are effective August 30.
TSCA Inventory Reset Rule Finalized
On the first anniversary of the 2016 TSCA amendments, EPA released three of its “framework” rules and guidance documents that are intended to shape chemicals management regulation for the foreseeable future. One of the three rules finalized of particular interest to ILMA members is the TSCA Inventory reset rule.
The final TSCA Inventory reset rule will be effective upon its publication in the Federal Register because the statutory deadline for manufacturers and importers to submit retrospective reports is 180 days after the final rule is published in the Federal Register.
The final rule contains the procedures for the Inventory Reset -- the process EPA is required by the amended TSCA to designate chemical substances as either “active” or “inactive.” Active chemicals are then candidates for risk prioritization and risk evaluation.
Under the final rule, retrospective reporting applies to manufacturers and importers of chemicals that were manufactured for nonexempt commercial purposes during the 10-year period ending June 21, 2016. Manufacturers and importers will have 180 days after the final rule is published in the Federal Register to submit reports using the Central Data Exchange (CDX) reporting portal.
EPA created three categories of excluded substances in the final rule. First, manufacturers and importers will not need to resubmit information on chemicals reported under the Chemical Data Reporting program in 2012 and 2016. Second, substances on the TSCA Inventory based on premanufacture notification submissions do not need to be re-reported to the Agency. Third, a manufacturer is exempt from the retrospective notification requirements for a chemical substance if the manufacturer has a CDX receipt that EPA received a Form A from another manufacturer.
For forward-looking reporting, manufacturers, importers and processors must notify the Agency if they intend to manufacture, import or process a substance deemed “inactive” 90 days before the anticipated date of manufacturing or processing.
For both the retrospective and forward-looking reporting, EPA eliminated the requirement to report commercial activity type.
Importantly for ILMA members, processor reporting during the retrospective reporting period is voluntary. Processors will now have up to 420 days after the final rule is published in the Federal Register to report. ILMA had requested additional time beyond the 180 days offered by EPA in the proposed rule.
The final rule also covers the transitional period between June 22, 2016 — the day after the lookback period for retrospective reporting ends — and the date that EPA designates chemical substances on the Inventory as active or inactive -- the day that forward-looking reporting begin. EPA said it will identify chemical substances for inactive designation in a signed action accompanying the first version of the updated Inventory.
For confidential business information (CBI) claims for both retrospective and forward-looking reporting, submitters of retrospective reports for chemicals whose chemical identity was previously claimed as CBI will need to resubmit and reassert the CBI claim.
While the information requirements in the final rule may appear relaxed from those in the proposed rule, the CDR process takes a lot of time. EPA estimates that it will cost $1,188 per submission with a possible additional cost of $41.55 to register for the online CDX. EPA said that manufacturers will spend in excess of 38,000 hours at a cost of over $3 million to comply.
The Agency estimates that the over 280,000 processors will undertake “rule familiarization” and 100 will report at an estimated cost of $.04 million.
In addition to the TSCA Inventory reset rule, EPA also finalized last week its risk prioritization process rule and risk evaluation process rule and guidance. The risk prioritization rule sets forth the process EPA will use to identify and select chemicals as “high priority” chemicals requiring review and potential regulation.
The risk evaluation process rule and guidance governs how EPA will conduct the risk evaluation of those chemicals identified as “high priority” during the prioritization process. The results of the evaluations will determine whether a chemical should be restricted in commerce. EPA also released last the “scope” documents for the first ten chemicals that will be undergoing risk evaluation.
TSCA Risk Prioritization Rule Finalized
EEPA has released the pre-publication copy of its final rule on its internal, risk-based procedures for the prioritization of existing chemicals under TSCA as either “High-Priority Substances” for risk evaluation, or “Low-Priority Substances” for which risk evaluations are not warranted at the time. The new prioritization process is mandated by the 2016 amendments to TSCA.
“High-Priority Substance” means a chemical substance, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, that may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment because of a potential hazard and a potential route of exposure under the conditions of use, including an unreasonable risk to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations identified as relevant by EPA. “Low-Priority Substance” means a chemical substance that does not meet the standard for a High-Priority Substance.
The final prioritization rule is one of the framework regulations that implement last year’s TSCA overhaul. The amended statute envisions a systematic “review pipeline” for all existing chemicals in commerce. Prioritization is the initial step in the new process.
The revised TSCA requires that the prioritization process for a single chemical last no less than nine months, but no more than 12 months, and EPA will use the following steps:
(1) The Agency will identify a chemical substance in the Federal Register and allow for a 90-day comment period for industry and the public to submit information to inform the Agency’s designation. In the final rule, EPA noted that it would generally include an explanation for why it chose to analyze the particular substance.
(2) Once all relevant information and data are submitted, EPA will make a preliminary determination that a chemical is high or low priority and will publish that proposed designation in the Federal Register and allow for a second 90-day comment period, along with the information, data, and analyses used to reach the proposed designation.
(3) Once comments are reviewed, EPA will make its final substance designation. High-priority chemicals will then be subject to risk evaluations while EPA will not take further action on a low-priority substance. EPA eliminated a provision in the final rule whereby the Agency defaulted to a high-priority designation if insufficient information existed, noting that each chemical would be examined on case-by-case basis.
EPA is not authorized by the statute to pause or delay prioritization once the process has been initiated. Sufficiency of information on a chemical remains a crucial factor in its selection by EPA chooses for the prioritization process, so data-rich chemicals remain more likely to be chosen.
It is important to note that final designation as high priority requires EPA to conduct a risk evaluation for that chemical. However, a high-priority substance designation does not mean that the chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment; rather, it means that EPA intends to consider the chemical substance for further risk review and evaluation.
The Agency addresses in the final rule several issues raised by stakeholders on the proposed rule. For example, ILMA called for greater clarity and transparency in its comments during the “pre-prioritization” phase in which the Agency examined what data are available on a particular chemical to make the determination whether there is sufficient information to officially commence the prioritization process.
The pre-prioritization phase was not a statutory mandate, so EPA declined to formalize it in the final rule. Instead, the Agency says that it will apply the two statutory preferences in TSCA Section 6(b)(2) to select chemicals with persistence and bioaccumulation scores of three under the EPA Work Plan, and known human carcinogens with high acute and chronic toxicity.
ILMA noted in its comments that there is a significant benefit to the Agency designating more chemicals as low priority than required by the statute as it signals to industry that a chemical is likely to be prospectively available, thereby allowing businesses to better plan their operations. The Agency agreed with that comment from ILMA and others and noted that it actively “will seek to identify candidates for low-priority designation . . .” Nevertheless, the low-priority threshold will remain rigorous to meet, because the safety of all conditions of use will need to be established to support the designation.
The Association also commented that EPA must be reasonable in its interpretation of known, intended, or reasonably foreseen uses and must not get bogged down in a “fishing excursion” and scour for every possible use of a substance – no matter how unlikely it may be.
EPA responded to ILMA’s and similar comments by stating that the statute requires the Agency to prioritize the entire chemical substance and not individual uses; however, the final rule notes that the Administrator has discretion to outline the “conditions of use” that will be closely examined during prioritization and then during the risk evaluation, if warranted.
The Agency did acknowledge its obligation to comply with TSCA Section 26 of TSCA, which requires EPA to use certain scientific standards and base those decisions on the weight of the scientific evidence.
EPA's Risk Evaluation Rule Finalized
EPA has finalized its TSCA risk evaluation rule that describes the internal procedures the Agency will utilize to conduct risk evaluations of high priority chemicals or for substances for which industry requests an evaluation to determine whether they present an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment.
The risk evaluation rule is one of the framework regulations that implement last year’s TSCA overhaul. The amended statute envisions a systematic “review pipeline” for all existing chemicals in commerce. In the risk evaluation provisions, Congress gave two critical mandates to EPA -- speed and quality of the scientific review.
The Agency notes that its risk evaluation process builds upon the risk assessment procedure EPA currently uses and it includes new requirements from the amended statute.
For industry-requested evaluations -- which may make up between 25-50 percent of all risk evaluations -- manufacturers must submit their name, mailing address, and contact information, the chemical identity, CAS number, and molecular structure of the substance.
The submitter must also furnish a list of reasonably available information (citations are sufficient) on the substance along with an explanation why the information within the list will allow EPA to complete its risk evaluation as well as information on hazard and exposure potential, substantiated Confidential Business Information (CBI) claims, if any, information on bioaccumulation and persistence, relevant potentially exposed subpopulations, storage location, production volume, and any other relevant information.
The Agency estimates that it will cost $56,572 per “submission package” for manufacturer-requested risk evaluations.
EPA will then review those claims for completeness and “facial validity.” Within 15 days of receiving a complete submission, EPA will notify the submitter and the public, and within 60 days of the request, the Agency will open a public docket and allow for a 45-day comment period.
Within 60 days of the completion of the comment period, EPA will inform the manufacturer whether the information obtained from the submitter and through the comment period is sufficient to proceed.
For all risk evaluations, EPA will develop a scoping document that will include an overview of the conditions of use to be evaluated, potentially exposed subpopulations, hazards, exposures, a conceptual model, and an analysis plan.
The draft scope is generally going to be published within three months in the Federal Register after the risk evaluation process commences and will allow for public comment. The final scope will then be published within six months after initiating the risk evaluation process and will outline what specifically will be addressed in the risk evaluation.
EPA will then proceed with the risk assessment, which will contain risk characterization, hazard assessment, risk characterization, exposure assessment, data quality summaries, alternative interpretations of data points and environmental risks.
From the information in the risk evaluation, the Agency will then makes its unreasonable risk determination, using the weight-of-evidence approach and publish its draft evaluation in the Federal Register and allow at least 60 days for public comment.
The final evaluation will then be published as soon as practicable after comments are considered, but not to exceed the statutory deadline of three years (with a potential six- month extension) from when the evaluation commenced.
Significantly, in the proposed rule, EPA asserted that it must consider every condition of use in the risk evaluation. ILMA argued against this methodology in its comments, noting that such an approach is not required by the statute and would likely prevent the Agency from completing robust scientific evaluations within the statutory deadlines.
In the final rule, the Agency concurred with ILMA and other stakeholder commenting “EPA has re-interpreted the provisions related to the conditions of use and determined that the statute provides the Agency with discretion to determine the appropriate conditions of use to analyze within a risk evaluation. Consequently, EPA may, on a case-by-case basis, exclude certain activities that EPA has determined to be conditions of use in order to focus its analytical efforts on those exposures that are likely to present the greatest concern, and consequently merit an unreasonable risk determination.”
Finally, the Agency included several definitions for key terms such as “weight of the evidence” and “best available science” in its final rule.
Evaluation of Existing Regulations
ILMA submitted comments to EPA last week on the Agency’s Federal Register Notice, “Evaluation of Existing Regulations.” EPA has asked for stakeholder comments to assist the Agency respond to President Trump’s Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” by identifying those regulations that can be repealed or modified to reduce burdens while protecting human health and the environment.
ILMA supported President Trump’s efforts to rescind and replace the Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule promulgated by the Obama Administration. The WOTUS rule significantly expanded the jurisdiction of EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act. Implementation of the rule has been stayed while court challenges are being heard.
ILMA recommended one area where EPA could reduce compliance costs, namely revisions to the periodic integrity testing requirements for protected aboveground tanks under the Agency’s Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule.
Additionally, under the terms of a sue-and-settle lawsuit, EPA agreed to expand the SPCC rule to include hazardous substance tanks. ILMA said that EPA must engage small businesses as required by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) to ensure the rule is narrowly tailored and that it adequately considers alternative regulatory options.
Finally, ILMA addressed concerns with the recent updates to the Hazardous Waste Generator rule, particularly the potential penalties with incidental non-compliance with the conditions for exemption that can result in a business losing its generator status, potentially exposing them to significant liability.
Reducing Regulatory Burdens
ILMA has submitted detailed comments to the Department of Commerce (DOC) on its Federal Register notice, requesting manufacturers' views on improving the federal permitting process and reducing federal regulatory burdens on their operations. DOC is preparing a report to President Trump, responding to his January 24, 2017 Memorandum, "Streamlining Permitting and Reducing Regulatory Burdens for Domestic Manufacturing."
The Association's comments focused on the regulatory burdens imposed on independent lubricant manufacturers. ILMA highlighted members' concerns with EPA’s threatened ban on medium- and long-chain chlorinated paraffins and issues with the Agency's Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule and forthcoming "update."
ILMA urged that the Department of Labor (DOL) "overtime rule" be rescinded. The Association also addressed OSHA rules and interpretations, including the electronic reporting and retaliation rule, the "lock-out, tag-out" regulation, HCS 2012 and "walk-around" interpretation. Additionally, the Association discussed burdens created by the National Labor Relations Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
"ILMA made the point in its comments to DOC that all regulations are not bad, and Executive branch agencies should have the resources to implement and enforce those rules," said ILMA CEO Holly Alfano. "However, with regulatory compliance costs now over $2 trillion, it's time for federal administrative process reform."
ILMA suggested that DOC be designated as the "voice" for manufacturers in the inter-agency review of rulemakings. For example, DOC could weigh in on whether an agency's draft rule, if finalized, will have a positive or negative effect on exports of products. The Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy already plays a similar role in rulemakings for small businesses.
"DOC's report to President Trump is scheduled to be delivered by May 24, 2017," Alfano added. "ILMA will continue its efforts in the interim for smarter, cost-effective rules."
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
The SCAQMD Metal Forging Facilities Rule
On December 9, 2016, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) issued a public advisory, recommending that any metal grinding occur within a building and not outside. SCAQMD is the smog control agency for all or portions of Los Angeles. Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties in Southern California. In the advisory, SCAQMD noted:
Based on ongoing investigations and air sampling activities conducted by SCAQMD staff, it has been demonstrated that metal grinding activities conducted outdoors can cause odors and release metal particulate emissions to the outside air, affecting surrounding businesses and residents so as to cause a public nuisance in violation of SCAQMD Rule 402 and California Health and Safety Code Section 41700. Also, depending on the toxicity of metals being grinded and/or the intensity and duration of the activity, metal grinding particulate emissions may increase health risks for receptors, which may also be a public nuisance.
The advisory was not part of SCAQMD's rulemaking process for Proposed Rule 1430 — “Control of Emissions from Grinding Operations at Metal Forging Facilities.” ILMA has been participating in the stakeholder meetings on Proposed Rule 1430. The advisory was likely in response to data gathered by SCAQMD in preparation for Proposed Rule 1430.
SCAQMD held its fifth stakeholder meeting on January 11, 2017 on Proposed Rule 1430 and reviewed changes that have been incorporated or expect to be incorporated by the Agency staff into the draft rule before it is published for formal public comment.
ILMA was represented at the meeting that included other industry groups, public health advocates and citizens.
Proposed Rule 1430 is intended to reduce emissions from metal grinding and metal cutting operations at forging facilities. These operations currently are exempt from SCAQMD permits, and the Agency considers them to be an unregulated source category, even though many metal grinding operations have air pollution controls. During its investigation of forging facilities in the Los Angeles area, SCAQMD staff found that certain dry grinding generated toxic particulate emissions of hexavalent chromium.
Importantly for ILMA members, the current draft rule would provide an exemption from rule’s control measures and other requirements if the facility elects to utilize a continuous flood of metalworking fluid in its grinding operations.
ILMA submitted comments on the draft rule, recommending that SCAQMD clarify the “applicability” section of the rule and requesting the addition of two definitions:
A Minimum Quantity Lubricant (MQL) is a lubricant, not a coolant, and does so in "minimum quantities." MQL coats the tool work piece interface with a thin film of lubricant and minimizes heat buildup through friction reduction. MQL fluids can be applied by pre-coating the tool in the MQL fluid or by direct application at the tool work piece interface with a fine mist. MQL fluids are not well suited for grinding operations since grinding processes generate significant heat at the point of cut. Thus more cooling is required than lubricity.
Flood application is the application of a metalworking fluid applied at the grinding wheel/work piece interface that meets all or part of the following conditions and is sufficient to suppress dust, reduce heat and spark generation at the point of cut:
1. Applying the metalworking fluid at a velocity of three (3) feet per second or greater;
2. Applying the metalworking fluid at a volume flow rate of one (1) US gallon per minute or greater; and,
3. Applying the metalworking fluid whereas the nozzle application tip pressure is ten (10) pounds per square inch gauge (PSIG) or greater.
As part of the rulemaking process, SCAQMD scheduled a public workshop for January 19, 2017 and a public consultation meeting for January 25, 2017. Additionally, the Agency’s Stationary Source Committee met on January 20. It was hoped that meeting would lay the procedural foundation for the adoption of a final Rule 1430 by the full SCAQMD board on March 3, 2017.
Nationwide Injunction Against DOL Overtime Rule Issued
A Texas federal judge has entered a nationwide injunction, blocking the implementation of the Department of Labor's (DOL) overtime rule that was set to go into effect on December 1.
In a 20-page order, U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant (Eastern District of Texas) said that DOL overstepped its authority by raising the salary threshold for receiving mandatory overtime from $23,660 to $47,476 a year, or from $455 to $913 a week. He said that 21 states and more than 50 business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers, stood a significant chance of winning their consolidated lawsuits on the merits and they would suffer significant financial harm if the rule went into effect as scheduled on December 1.
The Obama administration told the court that it was simply updating the overtime rule to keep up with today's economy, but the judge said the DOL improperly created a de facto salary test for determining which workers fall under the Fair Labor Standards Act's "white collar" exemption. The judge rejected DOL's plea to hold off on an injunction, saying that the overtime rule can await a trial on the merits.
The nationwide injunction means that DOL cannot enforce the new overtime rule until either the judge lifts the injunction or DOL can obtain a countermanding order from the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
It is likely that any final action by the courts will not occur until after President-elect Donald Trump takes office on January 20. Further, with both chambers of Congress being controlled next year by the Republicans, it is unlikely that DOL will be unable to revive its overtime rule that was published last May.
While the DOL overtime rule now is on a temporary hold, many employers nationwide already had changed the way they pay their workers to meet the requirements of the rule.
ILMA will continue to monitor the case and keep members updated on any developments.The Department of Labor has revised the rule related to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The final rule, which is effective December 1, 2016, broadly expands overtime pay eligibility to employees making less than $47,476 annually.
DOL Overtime Rule Halted - Now What? — 11/28/16
ILMA members have been frustrated by EPA’s decision to ban medium- and long-chain chlorinated paraffins — which have been in commerce for decades — as new chemicals. ILMA continues its quest for reason from EPA, and in the meantime, has stepped up and educated other associations, and other industries, and has engaged them as allies in this battle.
The result is an impressive coalition of stakeholders who are all working together to apply pressure. They are taking the issue to Capitol Hill and weighing with EPA. Some of the most influential associations in Washington are on this list, including the American Chemistry Council; the National Association of Manufacturers; the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers; the Industrial Fasteners Institute; and, the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers. In all, some 17 associations have joined ILMA’s crusade to persuade EPA that their pending action on chlorinated paraffins is wrong.
Chlorinated Paraffins Overview | Regulatory Status of MCCPs and LCCPs — 7/6/16 | ACC Peer Review Letter — 6/20/16
Letter to Maria Doa (EPA), Chlorinated Paraffins — 3/21/16 | Letter to Greg Schweer (EPA), Critical Uses of MWFs Containing MCCAs and LCCAs — 9/10/15
Letter to Gina McCarthy (EPA), Chlorinated Paraffins — 7/31/15 | Letter To Greg Schweer, (EPA), Chlorinated Paraffins Timing — 7/24/15
Letter to Representative from ILMA Member, Chlorinated Paraffins — 7/21/15 | Dear Colleague Letter from Representative To EPA, Chlorinated Paraffins — 7/21/15
Chlorinated Paraffins Letter to EPA — 6/10/15 | MCCP-LCCP Redacted EPA Review Risk Assessment — 11/1/14
California Assembly Bill 808 — Automotive Fuels and Products ("Obsolete Oils")
The state of California has banned the sale of engine oil that doesn’t meet an active API service classification effective January 1, 2016. While ILMA is supportive of this action, we do believe there is a need for some exceptions to an outright ban. We are working to educate the California Department of Food and Agriculture on where we might need exemptions, and are bringing other stakeholders with us to the table.
ILMA is also involved in this issue on a national level, and bringing it to the attention of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. ILMA is also educating retail trade groups about the obsolete oils issue, and have been in touch with the National Association of Convenience Stores; the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers; the Petroleum Marketers Association; and others. We are working with these groups to educate retailers about the automotive engine oils that they sell in their gas stations and convenience stores. The response has been very positive.
AB 808 Supplemental Comments Filed with California Weights and Measures — 6/30/16 | ILMA Questions California Department of Food and Agriculture Re. Ban on Obsolete Oils — 3/25/16
CDFA's Division Management Standards, Proposed Regulations | California Assembly Bill 808 — Automotive Fuels and Products
California Proposition 65
On January 25, 2016, ILMA submitted comments to California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) on its proposed rulemaking for Proposition 65 (Prop 65) "Clear and Reasonable Warnings" that was published on November 15, 2015. ILMA’s comments highlight concerns with the proposed regulatory text that suggests full compliance with the federal Hazard Communication Standard 2012 is sufficient for Prop 65 warnings. Further, ILMA’s comments questioned the inappropriate over-warning that would likely occur if the section regarding petroleum products were finalized as written. In addition to ILMA’s comments, the Association was also a signatory to a coalition comment letter that was led by the California Chamber of Commerce.
Final Comments from Coalition to CalChamber — 6/6/16 | ILMA Prop 65 Comments — 1/25/16 | Cal Chamber Prop 65 Comments — 1/25/16
ILMA/CalChamber Coalition Prop 65 Comment Letter — 4/8/15 | ILMA/SHERA Letter to Monet Vela (OEHHA) — 4/8/15 | ILMA/SHERA Letter to Monet Vela (OEHHA) — 6/13/14
Waters of the U.S.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issued their final “Waters of the U.S.” in 2015. The final rule identifies six types of waters that are within the two agencies’ jurisdiction and two categories of waters for which a case-by-case determination is required. While EPA and the Corps contend that they have merely clarified their jurisdictional authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to regulate waterways and other water bodies in the United States, many states and industry stakeholders view the actions as a power grab. The final rule is the subject of multiple, pending lawsuits and remains a hotly-debated topic on Capitol Hill.
The National Toxicology Program (NTP) completed a two-year study of the metalworking fluid, TRIM® VX. ILMA retained toxicologist Dr. Wally Dalbey to assist in the Association’s review of that study. The Association questioned several aspects regarding the manner in which the study was conducted and the resulting conclusions. Additionally, ILMA argued that OSHA's 2012 Hazard Communication Standard bridging principles preclude extrapolation of the results of the NTP study to other metalworking fluids. Further, ILMA agreed with comments made by members of the peer review panel that similarly questioned NTP’s study methodology and application of the findings.
Letter to Dr. Yun Xie (NTP), Final Technical Report for TRIMⓇVX — 3/18/16 | Letter to Dr. Yun Xie (NTP), Abstract and Posted Presentation at Society of Toxicology Meeting — 2/29/16
Letter to Dr. Yun Xie (NTP), TRIMⓇVX — 2/18/16 | MasterChemical Comments on NTP TRIMⓇVX — 2/18/16 | ILMA NTP TRIM VX Presentations — 2/18/16
The National Toxicology Program also conducted a two-year study of the metalworking fluid, CIMSTAR® 3800. ILMA retained toxicologist Dr. Wally Dalbey to help the Association review and comment on the study, highlighting that there are significant differences between laboratory exposures and occupational exposures and addressing other issues with the manner in which NTP conducted its study.
ILMA Metalworking Fluids NTP MSDS Letter — 6/24/14 | Comment on Draft NTP Technical Report — 5/8/14
Global Harmonization System (GHS)
ILMA continues to explain to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) the problems associated with full implementation of the Hazard Communication Standard 2012 (the U.S. version of the Globally Harmonized System for the classification and labeling of chemicals) on independent lubricant manufacturers. Specifically, the Association has shared members' experiences with the impracticality of the singular compliance date for upstream manufacturers and downstream users, and it has raised concerns about differing upstream chemical classifications for the same substances.
Letter to Health Canada re: WHMIS 2015 Provisions — 5/23/16 | Letter to OSHA re. HCS 2012 Compliance Concerns — 3/18/15 | ULMA GHS Survey Summary — 4/10/14
OSHA Guidance on "Whistleblower" Cases
OSHA has published guidelines to its regional offices for approving settlements between employers and employees in whistleblower cases to ensure that these settlements do not contain terms that could be interpreted to restrict future whistleblowing. OSHA outlines in the guidelines protected activities for employees, such as filing a complaint with a government agency, participating in an investigation, testifying in proceedings, or otherwise providing information to the government. Click the link below to see the guidelines.
OSHA Whistleblower Guidelines — 8/23/16