[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 154 (Friday, August 11, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37520-37544]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15736]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 710

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0426; FRL-9964-22]
RIN 2070-AK24

TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
require EPA to designate chemical substances on the TSCA Chemical
Substance Inventory as either ``active'' or ``inactive'' in U.S.
commerce. To accomplish that, EPA is establishing a retrospective
electronic notification of chemical substances on the TSCA Inventory
that were manufactured

(including imported) for nonexempt commercial purposes during the 10-
year time period ending on June 21, 2016, with provision to also allow
notification by processors. EPA will use these notifications to
distinguish active substances from inactive substances. EPA will
include the active and inactive designations on the TSCA Inventory and
as part of its regular publications of the Inventory. EPA is also
establishing procedures for forward-looking electronic notification of
chemical substances on the TSCA Inventory that are designated as
inactive, if and when the manufacturing or processing of such chemical
substances for nonexempt commercial purposes is expected to resume. On
receiving forward-looking notification, EPA will change the designation
of the pertinent chemical substance on the TSCA Inventory from inactive
to active. EPA is establishing the procedures regarding the manner in
which such retrospective and forward-looking activity notifications
must be submitted, the details of the notification requirements,
exemptions from such requirements, and procedures for handling claims
of confidentiality.

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 11, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0426, is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Office
of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental
Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson
Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
OPPT Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions
and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Myrta R. Christian, Chemistry, Economics, and Sustainable Strategies
Division (Mailcode 7406M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

A. Who does this action apply to?

    You may be affected by this action if you domestically
manufactured, imported, or processed a chemical substance listed on the
TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory for nonexempt commercial purpose
during the 10-year time period ending on June 21, 2016. You may also be
affected by this action if you intend to domestically manufacture,
import, or process in the future a chemical substance listed on the
TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory.
    The following North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this action may apply to them:
     Chemical manufacturing or processing (NAICS code 325).
     Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing (NAICS code
324).
    In addition, the discussion in Unit II.A. describes in more detail
which chemical substances will and will not be subject to reporting
under this action. You may also consult the regulatory text in this
document for further information on the applicability of exemptions to
this rule.
    Note that TSCA's statutory definition of ``manufacture'' includes
importing. Accordingly, the regulatory definition of ``manufacture''
for this rule includes importation. Since ``manufacture'' is itself
defined (in this rule and in TSCA) to include ``import,'' it is clear
that importers are a subset of manufacturers. All references to
manufacturing in this notice should be understood to also encompass
importing. Where EPA's intent is to specifically refer to domestic
manufacturing or importing (both activities constitute
``manufacture''), this rule will do so expressly.

B. What action is the Agency taking?

    On January 13, 2017 (82 FR 4255, FRL-9956-28) (Ref. 1), EPA
proposed procedural reporting requirements for persons who manufactured
(including imported) in the past or intend to manufacture in the future
chemical substances on the TSCA Inventory (hereafter referred to as the
``Inventory''). EPA received numerous public comments on the proposed
rule. This final rule is based on that proposal and the consideration
of the public comments received.
    This TSCA section 8(b) rule requires electronic reporting of
chemical identity from persons who manufactured a chemical substance
for nonexempt commercial purpose during the 10-year time period ending
on June 21, 2016. EPA will accept notices for substances that were
processed during the same ten-year time period. EPA will use the
chemical identity information obtained from this retrospective
reporting to designate as active those substances on the Inventory for
which notices were received. If no notice is received during this
retrospective reporting for a substance subject to designation on the
Inventory, then that substance will be designated as inactive.
    This rule also requires electronic reporting of certain information
from persons who in the future intend to manufacture or process an
inactive substance on the Inventory for nonexempt commercial purpose.
The information to be reported includes chemical identity and the date
when manufacturing or processing is anticipated to resume. Upon receipt
of such notices, EPA will change the designation on the Inventory from
inactive to active.
    This rule includes procedures for persons who co-manufacture or co-
process a reportable chemical substance. These procedures will allow
the submission of a single commercial activity notice where there has
been co-manufacturing or co-processing of a particular volume of a
substance. These procedures are similar to TSCA Chemical Data Reporting
(CDR) rule requirements (40 CFR 711.22) when two or more persons are
involved in a particular manufacture or import transaction.
    This rule also includes a simplified procedure for filing a
submission, including when specific chemical identity information is
claimed to be confidential business information (CBI) by a supplier,
and finalizes the proposed procedure for filing a joint submission. See
response to Comment 14 in Unit III. EPA expanded its electronic
reporting system to include a pick list from which persons can select
chemicals for reporting. The pick list will include only reportable
chemical substances and will not include CBI. Substances that are on
the confidential portion of the Inventory will be listed on the pick
list by EPA accession numbers and generic names, as they appear on
public versions of the Inventory. In cases where specific chemical
identity is claimed CBI by a supplier, a submitter can provide a single
notice to EPA for a CBI substance if it has in its possession the

corresponding non-CBI chemical identifiers (EPA accession number and
generic name).
    If a manufacturer or processor cannot provide the specific chemical
identity of a reportable chemical substance to EPA because the
information is claimed CBI by a supplier, and therefore is unknown to
the importer, the submitter will be required to ask the supplier to
provide the CBI chemical identity information directly to the Agency in
a joint submission. EPA will only accept joint submissions that are
submitted electronically using CDX. This requirement is similar to CDR
rule requirements (40 CFR 711.15) and will allow EPA to obtain the
information necessary to identify the specific chemical identity of a
reportable substance and designate it as active on the Inventory.
    This rule also finalizes proposed changes to 40 CFR 710.3
definitions. These changes were proposed to conform the definitions
applicable to these reporting requirements with those that apply to CDR
rule requirements (definitions found at 40 CFR 704.3 and 711.3) and the
submission of Premanufacture Notices (PMNs) (definitions found at 40
CFR 720.3). Finally, this rule finalizes recordkeeping requirements as
required by TSCA section 8(b)(9)(B). Records relevant to retrospective
notification must be retained for a period of 5 years beginning on the
last day of the submission period. Records relevant to forward-looking
notification must be retained for a period of 5 years beginning on the
day that the notice was submitted.

C. Why is the Agency taking this action?

    TSCA section 8(b)(4)(A) requires EPA to issue a final rule for
retrospective reporting by June 22, 2017. This rule will enable EPA to
fulfill a statutory obligation to designate chemical substances on the
Inventory as active or inactive in U.S. commerce. TSCA section
8(b)(5)(B) further establishes a forward-looking reporting requirement
that goes into effect as soon as EPA designates inactive substances.
This rule also establishes the procedural framework whereby
manufacturers and processors will discharge their notice obligations
under this section of TSCA.
    This rule and designations under the rule are not intended to
indicate conclusions about the risks of chemical substances on the
Inventory. Nonetheless, the designation of a substance as active or
inactive will be relevant to the Agency's prioritization of substances
in U.S. commerce under TSCA section 6(b).

D. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    EPA is issuing this rule under TSCA section 8(b), 15 U.S.C.
2607(b). TSCA was amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety
for the 21st Century Act, Public Law 114-182. The Government Paperwork
Elimination Act (GPEA), 44 U.S.C. 3504, provides that, when
practicable, Federal organizations use electronic forms, electronic
filings, and electronic signatures to conduct official business with
the public.
    Under section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
553(d), the Agency may make a rule immediately effective ``for good
cause found and published with the rule.'' EPA finds that there is
``good cause'' to make this rule effective upon publication in the
Federal Register because the deadline for manufacturers to submit
retrospective reports under this rule is fixed by statute at ``180 days
after the date on which the final rule is published in the Federal
Register.'' TSCA section 8(b)(4)(A)(i). Because the submission deadline
is tied by statute to the date of the rule's publication, rather than
the effective date of the rule, delaying the effective date of this
rule would not afford any additional time for manufacturers to comply
with reporting requirements. Rather, delaying the effective date of the
rule would push back the start of the submission period for
retrospective reporting, but not the end of the submission period
(which remains fixed by statute), leaving manufacturers with a shorter
period (less than 180 days) during which notices may be submitted.
Thus, any impact on the regulated community of making the rule
immediately effective is expected to be beneficial, given that an
immediate effective date provides manufacturers with the greatest
possible timing discretion regarding when to submit retrospective
reports.

E. What are the estimated incremental impacts of this action?

    EPA has reevaluated the potential costs of establishing the
reporting requirements for manufacturers and processors in response to
comments received. This analysis, which is available in the docket, is
discussed in Unit V. and briefly summarized here (Ref. 2).
    During the retrospective (or ``start-up'') period, between
approximately June 2017 and June 2018, typical costs per firm are
estimated at $1,188 per submission (with an estimated eighteen
chemicals per submission), with possible additional costs at $41.55 per
CDX registration in the event that the submitter is not currently
registered in CDX. Among manufacturers, an estimated 5,322 firms will
undertake rule familiarization with 1,585 completing compliance
determination, form completion, and recordkeeping. For manufacturers,
the total burden during start-up is estimated at 38,613 hours with an
associated total cost of $3.09 million. For processors, an estimated
283,993 firms will undertake rule familiarization, with 100 completing
compliance determination, form completion, and recordkeeping.
    For processors completing rule familiarization only, the cost
entails 3.30 hours on average per firm (under $300 per firm). For
processors who complete a submission, typically involving one chemical,
the burden for rule familiarization, compliance determination, form
completion and recordkeeping during the start-up year is estimated at
500 hours with an associated cost of $0.04 million. Lastly, for 169 new
CDX registrations (for individuals lacking previous experience with
electronic reporting to EPA), burden during start-up is estimated at 90
hours with an associated cost of $0.007 million.
    The rule has minimal burden and cost implications related to
ongoing reporting with the typical cost per firm estimated at $889 per
submission after the start-up year. The forward-looking (or
``ongoing'') reporting after June 2018 involves compliance
determination, form completion, and recordkeeping for twenty
manufacturers and/or processors per year. Burden and cost are estimated
to total 225 burden hours per year with an associated cost of $17,779
per year.
    Agency activities due to the rule include CDX and Chemical
Information Submission System (CISS) capacity expansions, time to
manage commercial activity notices, and increased costs incurred when
making revisions to the Inventory. Associated costs are estimated at
$3.62 million during start-up, and $0.22 million annually thereafter.
    Combining Industry and Agency cost estimates, and annualizing over
a 10-year period, the total cost of the rule is estimated at $9.7
million per year using a 3% discount rate, and at $11.8 million per
year using a 7% discount rate.

II. Summary of the Final Rule

    EPA is describing in this unit the reporting requirements for
manufacturers and processors of chemical substances pursuant to TSCA
section 8(b). EPA developed two versions of a Notice of Activity (NOA)
reporting form for submitting the information described in this rule
for

the two reporting scenarios, retrospective and forward-looking (Ref.
3). The Notice of Activity Form A (EPA Form No. TBD-1) will be used for
retrospective reporting, and the Notice of Activity Form B (EPA Form
No. TBD-2) will be used for forward-looking reporting.
    EPA intends that the provisions of this rule be severable. In the
event that any individual provision or part of the rule is invalidated,
EPA intends that this would not render the entire rule invalid, and
that any individual provisions that can continue to operate will be
left in place.

A. What chemical substances and activities are reportable under this
rule?

    1. Reportable chemical substances. The retrospective reporting
requirements of this rule apply to chemical substances listed on the
Inventory that were manufactured for nonexempt commercial purposes
during the 10-year period ending on June 21, 2016. This 10-year period,
referred to here as the ``lookback period,'' is set by statute. The
forward-looking reporting requirements apply to substances listed as
inactive on the Inventory that are to be reintroduced into U.S.
commerce for nonexempt purposes. The Inventory is available at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-inventory.
    2. Exemptions from reporting. i. Excluded chemical substances. The
scope of chemical substances covered under this rule is reflected in
the definitions of ``chemical substance subject to commercial activity
designation,'' and ``reportable chemical substance,'' at 40 CFR 710.23,
which exclude substances that are not chemical substances and
substances that are not listed on the Inventory. For example, a
substance that is not considered a ``chemical substance'' (as provided
in subsection 3(2)(B) of TSCA and in the definition of ``chemical
substance'' in 40 CFR 710.3(d)) is not a ``chemical substance subject
to commercial activity designation'' or a ``reportable chemical
substance'' and it thus cannot become an ``active substance'' or an
``inactive substance.'' A similar analysis applies with respect to a
mixture (as defined in 40 CFR 710.3(d)), although individual Inventory-
listed substances present in the mixture may be subject to reporting.
Additionally, a substance that has not been added to the Inventory
because it is manufactured solely under a TSCA section 5(h) exemption
(e.g., low releases and low exposures exemption, low volume exemption,
polymer exemption, research and development exemption, test marketing
exemption) is not a ``chemical substance subject to commercial activity
designation'' or a ``reportable chemical substance'' and it cannot
become an ``active substance'' or an ``inactive substance.'' See
response to Comment 1 in Unit III.
    Naturally occurring chemical substances also are excluded from
reporting under this rule, as long as the manufacturing and processing
of such substances meet the criteria set forth in 40 CFR 710.27(b).
Naturally occurring substances are considered to be automatically
included on the Inventory as the category ``Naturally Occurring
Chemical Substances'' (42 FR 64578). EPA is designating the whole
category of Naturally Occurring Chemical Substances as active
substances by this rule, thereby excluding them from reporting under
this rule.
    ii. Manufacturing or processing for an exempt commercial purpose.
Manufacturing or processing a chemical substance listed on the
Inventory solely for an exempt commercial purpose is not subject to
reporting requirements under TSCA section 8(b)(4) or 8(b)(5). The
statute limits these notification obligations to manufacturing and
processing for ``nonexempt commercial purpose.'' The scope of
manufacturing or processing for an exempt commercial purpose is set
forth in 40 CFR 710.27(a). While EPA expects that many chemical
substances manufactured or processed for exempt commercial purposes
will not be listed on the Inventory (due to similar exemptions under
PMN regulations), and therefore are already excluded from reporting
under this rule, the activity exemptions listed at 40 CFR 710.27(a)
clarify circumstances under which a person is exempt from reporting
requirements for the manufacturing or processing of a chemical
substance that has been listed on the Inventory (e.g., due to another
manufacturer's actions). For example, the manufacturing or processing
of impurities or byproducts that have no subsequent commercial purpose
will not trigger reporting obligations under this rule. See 40 CFR
710.27(a)(3). Additionally, manufacturing or processing in small
quantities solely for research and development is exempt as described
in 40 CFR 710.3(d) and 40 CFR 710.27(a)(1). Furthermore, the import or
processing of substances solely as part of articles is not subject to
reporting under this rule. See 40 CFR 710.27(a)(2) and response to
Comment 2 in Unit III. In response to comments, EPA revised the rule to
clarify that manufacturing or processing a chemical substance solely
for export from the United States or for test marketing purposes are
also exempt commercial purposes not subject to reporting requirements
under this rule. See 40 CFR 710.27(a)(4) and (5) and response to
Comment 1 in Unit III.
    iii. Chemical substances for which EPA already has an equivalent
notice. EPA is establishing an exemption from the retrospective
reporting requirement for three different circumstances in which EPA
has already received equivalent notice that a chemical substance was
manufactured during the lookback period, and further requirement to
submit a notice would therefore be inconsistent with TSCA section
8(a)(5)(B).
    First, chemical substances that are on the interim list of active
substances described in TSCA section 8(b)(6) will be designated as
active substances, by operation of this rule, and they are exempted
from retrospective notification requirements under this rule. The
interim list will be available on the TSCA Inventory Web page (see
https://www.epa.gov/tsca-inventory), and is comprised of all chemical
substances reported in 2012 or 2016 under the CDR rule, 40 CFR part
711. See 82 FR 4259. A CDR notice from 2012 or 2016 provides equivalent
notice to EPA that the substance was manufactured during the lookback
period. In response to comments, this exemption now applies
irrespective of whether the substance is on the confidential portion of
the Inventory. See 40 CFR 710.23 for revised definition of ``interim
active substance'' and response to Comment 3 in Unit III.
    Second, chemical substances that were added to the Inventory during
the ten-year time period ending on June 21, 2016, pursuant to a Notice
of Commencement (NOC) under 40 CFR 720.102 received by the Agency
between June 21, 2006 and June 21, 2016, will be designated as active
substances, by operation of this rule, and they are exempted from
retrospective notification requirements under this rule. An NOC is
required to be submitted on or no later than 30 calendar days after the
first day of manufacture for commercial purpose. Additionally, an NOC
substance is considered to be added to the Inventory on the date the
NOC is received by EPA, provided that the EPA determines the NOC to be
valid during its review. Therefore, a processed NOC provides equivalent
notice that the substance was manufactured or processed during the
lookback period. This exemption applies irrespective of whether the
substance is on the confidential portion of the Inventory. See 40 CFR
710.23 for revised definitions of ``active substance,'' ``chemical
substance subject

to commercial activity designation,'' and response to Comment 4 in Unit
III.
    Third, a manufacturer is exempt from the retrospective notification
requirements under this rule, for a particular chemical substance, if
the manufacturer has evidence in the form of a CDX receipt, documenting
EPA's receipt of an NOA Form A from another manufacturer. See 40 CFR
710.25(a) and response to Comment 6 in Unit III. Manufacturers should
keep in mind, however, that they bear the risk of failing to submit a
required forward-looking notification (NOA Form B) notice if they rely
on this Form A exemption, and the Form A notice (for which they have a
CDX receipt) is later withdrawn, leading to the substance being
designated as inactive. Furthermore, one manufacturer's expectation
that another manufacturer will later submit an NOA Form A is not an
acceptable basis for relying on this exemption. Since it is only
submitters who will be notified of errors, manufacturers relying on the
exemption are responsible for assuring their substance is designated as
commercially active.
    iv. Inapplicability of exemptions to persons seeking to maintain an
existing CBI claim for specific chemical identity. Persons who
manufactured or processed a chemical substance on the confidential
portion of the Inventory, that was added to the Inventory prior to June
22, 2016, should recognize that they must submit an NOA Form A to EPA
if they wish to indicate that they ``seek to maintain an existing claim
for protection against disclosure of the specific chemical identity of
the substance as confidential.'' See TSCA 8(b)(4)(B)(ii) and response
to Comment 3 in Unit III. This includes persons that, during the
lookback period, manufactured or processed a confidential substance on
the Inventory for which EPA already has an equivalent notice (as
described in paragraph A.2.iii. of this Unit). It may also potentially
include persons that, during the lookback period, manufactured or
processed a confidential substance on the Inventory for an exempt
commercial purpose (as described in paragraph A.2.ii. of this Unit), if
such substance is designated active due, for instance, to EPA's receipt
of an equivalent notice (such as an NOC or CDR report). In connection
with extending manufacturers' reporting exemptions to cover substances
on the confidential portion of the Inventory, EPA has revised 40 CFR
710.25(b) to clarify manufacturers' and processors' discretion to
report. If manufacturers elect not to submit a notice because they are
availing themselves of one of the exemptions described previously, then
they are foregoing their opportunity to maintain an existing claim for
protection against disclosure of the specific chemical identity of the
substance as confidential. EPA is required, by statute, to move from
the confidential to the public portion of the Inventory any active
chemical substance for which no request is received to maintain an
existing CBI claim for chemical identity. See TSCA section
8(b)(4)(B)(iv) and 40 CFR 710.37(a).
    3. Chemical substances added to the Inventory on or after June 22,
2016. Chemical substances added to the Inventory on or after June 22,
2016 will be designated as active, by operation of this rule. Such
substances are not subject to reporting under this rule. Furthermore,
such substances are beyond the scope of the CBI claim maintenance
provision under TSCA section 8(b)(4)(B)(ii). This CBI maintenance
provision is intended to address ``existing claim[s] for protection
against disclosure of the specific chemical identity.'' EPA interprets
this to be a reference to CBI claims asserted prior to June 22, 2016.
See 40 CFR 710.23 for revised definition of ``active substance.''

B. When will reporting be required?

    1. Retrospective reporting period for manufacturers. Manufacturers
must report to EPA not later than 180 days after the final rule is
published in the Federal Register. The 180-day time period for this
retrospective reporting for manufacturers is the maximum time allowed
under TSCA section 8(b)(4)(A). Following this retrospective reporting
for manufacturers, EPA will include the active designations, determined
by the notices received, on a draft of the Inventory. EPA will publish
this draft Inventory with the active designations as soon as is
practicable following the close of the 180-day submission period for
manufacturers. This draft Inventory with active designations will not
have the legal effect of actually designating any chemical substance as
inactive. EPA, therefore, does not construe this draft Inventory as the
list with ``designations of active substances and inactive substances''
(TSCA section 8(b)(5)(A)) from which forward-looking reporting
commences (TSCA section 8(b)(5)(B)). EPA concludes that the statute is
referring in both sections to the completed product of the initial
cycle of sorting between active and inactive substances, not the
preliminary product of the initial cycle of such sorting (i.e., a draft
Inventory released between manufacturer and processor reporting).
    2. Retrospective reporting period for processors. Processors may
report to EPA not later than 420 days after the final rule is published
in the Federal Register. EPA originally proposed that processors may
report not later than 360 days after the final rule is published in the
Federal Register. EPA's rationale was that the additional 180-day time
period for processors would allow processors to search EPA's
publication of the draft Inventory with active designations, based on
the retrospective reporting by manufacturers, and to report only those
chemical substances not already reported. In response to comments
received that the additional 180-day submission period for processors
should begin on the date on which the draft Inventory is published,
which EPA anticipates will likely occur approximately 60 days after the
180-day submission period for manufacturers closes, and to a comment
that the rule should specify a fixed date on which the processor
submission period will end, EPA is finalizing the rule such that
processors may report not later than 420 days, rather than 360 days,
after the final rule is published in the Federal Register. See 40 CFR
710.30(a)(2) and response to Comment 7 in Unit III.
    Processors have the option to simply not report under TSCA section
8(b)(4) and continue processing until the effective date of EPA's
designation of a chemical substance as inactive on the Inventory. At
such time, any further processing of the substance for a nonexempt
commercial purpose, without prior notification to EPA, will be
prohibited by TSCA section 8(b)(5). Earlier notification under TSCA
section 8(b)(4) will allow EPA to add the substance to the Inventory as
an active substance, so that processing can continue without the need
for a later notification under TSCA section 8(b)(5).
    3. Forward-looking reporting. The forward-looking reporting period
begins on the effective date of EPA's final active/inactive substance
designations. Manufacturers and processors intending to reintroduce
into U.S. commerce for a nonexempt commercial purpose a chemical
substance designated as inactive on the Inventory must report to EPA
not more than 90 days before the anticipated date of manufacturing or
processing. EPA originally proposed that forward-looking notices would
be required to be submitted not more than 30 days before the date of
manufacturing or processing. EPA agrees with commenters that notices
should be submitted based on the anticipated (not actual) date of

manufacturing or processing. EPA also finds that extending such
submission period from 30 to 90 days prior to resuming manufacturing or
processing will afford manufacturers and processors additional time to
adjust to information and schedule changes and will not significantly
impact the accuracy of notices submitted. See 40 CFR 710.29(c)(2), 40
CFR 710.30(b)(1), and response to Comment 8 in Unit III.
    4. Transitional period reporting and effective date for inactive
substance designations. The structure of the reporting requirements
under TSCA sections 8(b)(4)(A) and 8(b)(5)(B) results in a transitional
period beginning on June 22, 2016 (the day after the lookback period
for retrospective reporting ends) and ending on the date that EPA
designates chemical substances on the Inventory as active or inactive
(the day that forward-looking reporting begins). It is possible that
substances that were not manufactured or processed during the lookback
period--and therefore cannot be designated as active through
retrospective reporting--may be reintroduced into U.S. commerce during
this transitional period. In response to comments expressing concern
that persons who began manufacturing or processing such substances
during the transitional period might be obliged to curtail
manufacturing or processing on the date that EPA publishes an inactive
substance designation, or else find themselves in violation of the
forward-looking notice requirement, EPA is establishing an effective
date provision for the designation of a chemical substance as an
inactive substance. As ``inactive substance'' is now defined, a
substance is not designated as an ``inactive substance'' until 90 days
after EPA has identified the substance for inactive designation. EPA
will identify chemical substances for inactive designation in a signed
action accompanying the first version of the Inventory with all
finalized active-inactive listings. EPA expects to publish this first
version of the Inventory with all listings identified as active or
inactive as soon as practicable after compilation, in a posting on
EPA's TSCA Inventory Web page (see https://www.epa.gov/tsca-inventory).
See 40 CFR 710.23 for revised definition of ``inactive substance'' and
response to Comment 9 in Unit III.
    Accordingly, the rule clarifies that the obligation to submit an
NOA Form B does not arise until 90 days after EPA has identified
chemical substances for the inactive designation. The rule also
clarifies that manufacturers and processors will be permitted to submit
an NOA Form B for a substance that EPA has identified for inactive
designation, even before the effective date of such designation has
arrived, and thus before the substance has the legal status of being
inactive. Thus, persons manufacturing or processing a substance for
nonexempt commercial purpose during the transitional period are
afforded time to react to an inactive substance identification and are
permitted to file an NOA Form B prior to the effective date of the
substance being designated as inactive. Similarly, persons that
anticipate reintroducing a substance into U.S. commerce for nonexempt
commercial purpose shortly after EPA identifies such substance as
inactive are afforded time to react to an inactive substance
identification and are permitted to file an NOA Form B prior to the
effective date of the inactive designation, so long as such form is
filed no more than 90 days before the anticipated date of manufacturing
or processing. See 40 CFR 710.30(b)(2) and response to Comment 10 in
Unit III.

C. What information will be reported?

    1. Information reported by manufacturers during retrospective
reporting. This rule will require that manufacturers reporting for the
retrospective reporting period provide chemical identity information
and indicate whether they seek to maintain an existing claim for
protection against disclosure of a CBI chemical identity, if
applicable. In response to comments stating concern with burden
associated with information required to be reported, EPA removed the
proposed requirements to report commercial activity type and date
range, as EPA determined these requirements are unnecessary to achieve
the objective of designating substances as active or inactive on the
Inventory. See 40 CFR 710.29(b) and response to Comment 11 in Unit III.
In response to comments stating concern for availability of information
required to be reported, EPA clarified that persons required to report
under this rule will provide information to the extent it is known to
or reasonably ascertainable by them. See 40 CFR 710.29(a) and response
to Comment 12 in Unit III. In response to comments requesting that a
manufacturer be able to correct or withdraw an NOA Form A in the event
that it discovers errors in the notice, EPA is not establishing a
formal corrections provision in the regulation, but will allow a
manufacturer or processor to withdraw an NOA Form A, provided that the
withdrawn notice is submitted prior to the end of the submission period
for processors, i.e., not later than 420 days after the final rule is
published in the Federal Register. See response to Comment 13 in Unit
III. The manufacturer may effect a correction by filing a new NOA Form
A following withdrawal, so long as the new Form A is filed within the
time provided in the rule for the initial filing (i.e., no later than
180 days after the final rule is published in the Federal Register).
    2. Information reported by processors during retrospective
reporting. Processors that choose to report for the retrospective
reporting period will be required to provide chemical identity
information and whether they seek to maintain an existing claim for
protection against disclosure of a CBI chemical identity, if
applicable. In response to comments received, EPA removed the proposed
requirements to report commercial activity type and date range as these
requirements were deemed unnecessary to achieve the objective of
designating substances as active or inactive on the Inventory. See 40
CFR 710.29(b) and response to Comment 11 in Unit III. EPA is not
establishing a formal corrections provision in the regulation for an
NOA Form A, but will allow a processer to withdraw an NOA Form A,
provided that the withdrawn notice is submitted not later than 420 days
after the final rule is published in the Federal Register. See 40 CFR
710.30(a)(3) and response to Comment 13 in Unit III. As with
manufacturers, processors can effectuate a correction by filing a new
Form A within the time provided in the rule for the initial filing
(i.e., no later than 420 days after the final rule is published in the
Federal Register).
    3. Information reported during forward-looking reporting. This rule
will require that persons that intend to manufacture or process an
inactive substance for nonexempt commercial purpose provide chemical
identity information, the anticipated date of manufacturing or
processing for nonexempt commercial purpose, and whether they seek to
maintain an existing claim for protection against disclosure of a CBI
chemical identity, if applicable. In response to comments, EPA removed
the proposed requirement to report commercial activity type as this
requirement was deemed unnecessary to achieve the objective of re-
designating inactive substances as active, and revised the date of
manufacturing or processing for nonexempt commercial purpose from
actual to anticipated date. See 40 CFR 710.29(c) and response to
Comment 11 in Unit III. Persons that have already commenced
manufacturing or processing for nonexempt commercial

purpose (e.g., during the transitional period prior to the effective
date of a substance's inactive designation) may provide the most recent
date of manufacturing or processing in lieu of an anticipated future
date, if the forward-looking notice is submitted prior to the effective
date of the substance's inactive designation. See 40 CFR 710.29(c).
    EPA's proposed rule related the timing of the reporting to a future
``actual date of manufacturing and processing.'' See 82 FR 4267. In
response to comments about the need for greater flexibility regarding
the timing of a forward-looking notice, under the rule the validity of
the notice does not depend on whether the intended manufacturing or
processing actually occurs by the anticipated date. Therefore,
manufacturers or processors need not supplement a forward-looking
notice with confirmation of whether the intended manufacturing or
processing of the chemical substance actually occurred by the
anticipated date. By the same token, EPA will designate such substances
as active, irrespective of subsequent changes in the intentions of the
submitter of the forward-looking notice. Consistent with the regulatory
definition of ``active substance,'' an inactive substance becomes an
active substance ``based on the receipt of a notice under this
subpart,'' 40 CFR 710.23, and the factual basis for the notice is the
submitter's intent, expressed at time of notification, to manufacture
or process an inactive substance for a nonexempt commercial purpose
within 90 days of notification. See 40 CFR 710.25(c) and 40 CFR
710.30(b)(2). This simplified approach reduces burdens for both
submitters and EPA, is consistent with the statute, and furthers the
orderly and efficient implementation of the Inventory. See TSCA section
8(b)(5)(B)(iii) (requiring EPA to take certain definite actions ``on
receiving'' the notice). With respect to substances re-designated as
active for which the intended manufacturing or processing has not been
actualized after an extended period of time and not corrected, EPA may
later adjust the status of such substances, through procedures that
would be established by future rulemaking, to further implement TSCA
section 8(b)(5)(A).
    Finally, in response to comment requesting that submitters be able
to withdraw an NOA Form B if their intent to re-commence manufacture or
process a chemical substance later changes, EPA is allowing a submitter
to request to withdraw its NOA Form B, and EPA may do so, if EPA has
not yet altered the Inventory status of the substance in response to
the original submission (i.e., EPA has neither re-designated the
substance from inactive to active nor moved the substance from the
confidential portion of the Inventory to the public portion Inventory
as a result of a request in the original submission for a CBI claim to
be withdrawn). Because another person may have commenced manufacturing
or processing for non-exempt commercial purpose in reliance of a
substance being re-designated as active, the rule does not allow for
EPA to revert a substance re-designated as active back to inactive
status based on a request to withdraw an NOA Form B, or for EPA to
revert a non-CBI substance back to a CBI substance based on a request
to withdraw a Form B. It would be burdensome and potentially impossible
to implement such an approach. See 40 CFR 710.30(b)(3) and response to
Comment 13 in Unit III.
    4. Reporting forms. The NOA Form A will be used by manufacturers
for the retrospective reporting period. It will also be used by
processors who choose to report for the retrospective reporting period.
The NOA Form B will be used by manufacturers and processors for
forward-looking reporting, which includes reporting chemical substances
reintroduced into U.S. commerce during the transitional period. For the
sake of clarity, the final rule now defines the terms `Notice of
Activity Form A' and `Notice of Activity Form B', consistent with the
use of these terms in the proposal. The new NOA forms are based on
EPA's NOC form (Ref. 4), since the information required in an NOA form
is the same or similar to the information in the NOC form.

D. How will information be submitted to EPA?

    The rule requires electronic reporting similar to the requirements
established in 2013 for submitting other information under TSCA (see 40
CFR 704.20(e)) and in accordance with section 3.2000 of 40 CFR part 3
(CROMERR) (Ref. 5). Submitters will use EPA's CDX, the Agency's
electronic reporting portal, and EPA's Chemical Information Submission
System (CISS), a web-based reporting tool, for all reporting under this
rule. EPA expects that electronic reporting will minimize time
requirements, support improved data quality, and provide efficiencies
for both the submitters and the Agency.
    In 2013, EPA finalized a rule to require electronic reporting of
certain information submitted to the Agency under TSCA sections 4, 5,
8(a) and 8(d). (Ref. 6) The rule follows two previous rules requiring
similar electronic reporting of information submitted to EPA for CDR
and PMNs.
    This rule will require persons submitting notices of activity to
EPA under TSCA section 8(b) to follow the same electronic reporting
procedures used for other TSCA submissions, i.e., to register with
EPA's CDX (if not already registered) and use CISS to prepare a data
file for submission. Registration enables CDX to authenticate identity
and verify authorization. To register, the CDX registrant (also
referred to as ``Electronic Signature Holder'' or ``Public/Private Key
Holder'') agrees to the Terms and Conditions, provides information
about the submitter and organization, and selects a user name and
password. Users who have previously registered with CDX for other TSCA
submissions will be able to add the ``Submission for Chemical Safety
and Pesticide Program'' (CSPP) service to their current registration in
CDX and use the CISS web-based reporting tool.
    EPA developed the CISS for use in submitting data under TSCA
sections 4, 5, 8(a), and 8(d) to the Agency electronically. The web
reporting tool is available for use with Windows, iOS, Linux, and UNIX
based computers and uses ``Extensible Markup Language'' (XML)
specifications for the efficient transfer of data across the Internet
when notices are submitted to EPA. CISS works with CDX to secure online
communication, provides user-friendly navigation, creates a completed
document in Portable Document Format (PDF) for review prior to
submission, and enables information to be submitted easily in XML
format or as PDF attachments.
    The NOA forms described in this rule are included in an e-NOA
software module in CISS. Once a user completes entry of the relevant
data fields and metadata information in the appropriate NOA form, the
CISS reporting tool validates the submission by performing a basic
error check. CISS also allows the user to choose ``Preview,'' ``Save,''
or ``Submit.'' When ``Submit'' is selected, the user is asked to
provide the user name and password that was created during the CDX
registration process. CISS then submits the data via CDX. Upon
successful receipt of the submission by EPA, the status of the
submissions will be flagged as ``Submitted.'' The user can also login
to the application and download their Copy of Record.
    Any person submitting a reporting form can claim any part or all of
the form as confidential. Except as otherwise provided in this rule,
any information that is claimed as CBI will

be disclosed by EPA only to the extent and by the means of the
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

E. How will CBI claims and requests be handled?

    Notices pursuant to this rule may contain two different types of
CBI assertions: claims for protection of information other than
specific chemical identity, and requests to maintain existing claims
for protection of specific chemical identity. In response to comments
received, EPA has extensively re-written the substantiation questions
from the proposed rule in a manner intended to more succinctly secure
responses for CBI assertions of discrete data elements as well as CBI
concerns on the linkage of data elements. See 40 CFR 710.31 and
response to Comment 17.
    1. Information other than specific chemical identity. For all new
claims for protection (i.e., for all CBI assertions under this rule
other than requests to maintain existing claims for protection of
specific chemical identity), TSCA section 14(c)(1)(B) and 14(c)(5)
require that persons claiming CBI must provide a specific certification
statement regarding the basis for the CBI claims. In addition, TSCA
section 14(c)(3) and this rule require that all such claims be
substantiated at the time of submission. EPA will review a
representative subset of these claims as specified by TSCA
section14(g)(1).
    2. Requests to maintain existing CBI claims for chemical identity.
Any manufacturer or processor submitting an NOA under TSCA section
8(b)(4)(A) may seek to maintain an existing CBI claim for specific
chemical identity, regardless of whether that person asserted the
original claim that caused the specific chemical identity to be listed
on the confidential portion of the Inventory. EPA believes this is the
correct interpretation of ``a manufacturer or processor . . . that
seeks to maintain an existing claim for protection against disclosure''
of specific chemical identity in TSCA section 8(b)(4)(B)(ii). A number
of manufacturers and processors may legitimately benefit from the
confidential status of a specific chemical identity, even when such
persons did not originally report that chemical identity to EPA and
therefore were not in a position to assert a CBI claim for that
chemical identity. Congress could not have intended that such companies
would be forced to rely on another company to request to maintain the
claim. For example, the initial claimant may no longer exist or may no
longer manufacture or process the chemical substance, or may simply
fail to file the required NOA. EPA does not believe that Congress
intended for specific confidential chemical identities to be disclosed
without providing the opportunity for manufacturers and processors to
make a request that the identities should remain confidential simply
because the original claimants did not file under TSCA section
8(b)(4)(B)(ii).
    Pursuant to TSCA section 8(b)(4)(B)(iv), EPA will move an active
substance from the confidential portion of the Inventory to the non-
confidential portion if no manufacturer or processor submitting an NOA
under TSCA section 8(b)(4)(A) requests to maintain the existing CBI
claim for the specific chemical identity of that chemical substance.
See 40 CFR 710.37(a). As a courtesy, EPA practice is to notify original
claimants and/or the public when it has moved substances from the
confidential portion of the Inventory to the public portion of the
Inventory, e.g., through direct contact with the original claimant or
publication of a Federal Register notice. A chemical substance for
which EPA has received a request to maintain an existing CBI claim for
specific chemical identity will remain on the confidential portion of
the Inventory pending EPA's review of the claim pursuant to a review
plan to be promulgated at a later date in accordance with TSCA section
8(b)(4)(C)-(D).
    While this rule requires submitters to indicate whether they seek
to maintain an existing CBI claim for specific chemical identity, this
rule does not include mandatory substantiation requirements for CBI
requests for specific chemical identity on an NOA Form A. TSCA section
8(b)(4)(B)(iii) stipulates that EPA shall ``require the substantiation
of those claims pursuant to section 14 and in accordance with the
review plan described in subparagraph C.'' EPA will be conducting a
separate rulemaking to establish this review plan. The review plan will
include mandatory requirements for substantiating a CBI request for
specific chemical identity reported in an NOA Form A and specify when
such substantiation is to be provided. If EPA receives an NOA Form A in
which the submitter requests to maintain an existing CBI claim for
specific chemical identity but chooses not to substantiate such at the
time of filing, EPA will continue to list the chemical substance on the
confidential portion of the Inventory pending the submission of any
substantiation required under the review plan and EPA's review of the
claim pursuant to the review plan.
    However, in this rule the Agency is allowing companies to submit
substantiation for the CBI claims for specific chemical identity at the
same time that the NOA Form A is filed, if they so choose. As long as
the period between the date these earlier substantiations are received
and the due date to be established in the review plan (yet to be
proposed) is not more than five years, these substantiations will
exempt the company from the requirement to submit additional
substantiation under the terms of the review plan. See TSCA section
8(b)(4)(D). EPA will review requests to maintain CBI claims for
specific chemical identity in accordance with the TSCA section
8(b)(4)(D) review plan in the timeframe mandated by TSCA section
8(b)(4)(E).
    With respect to requests to maintain existing CBI claims that are
submitted on an NOA Form B, TSCA section 8(b)(5)(B) stipulates that
such requests must be substantiated not later than 30 days after
submitting Form B. See TSCA section 8(b)(5)(B)(ii)(II). Substantiation
requirements for NOA Form B CBI claims for specific chemical identity
are found in 40 CFR 710.37(a)(2).
    The Agency will allow companies to submit substantiation at the
same time that their NOA Form B is filed, if they so choose. Persons
submitting an NOA Form B may find it more efficient to provide the
substantiation for a CBI claim for specific chemical identity at the
time of filing.

III. Summary of Response to Comments Including Changes and
Clarifications From the Proposed Rule

    This unit summarizes EPA's responses to comments for several
general areas from multiple stakeholders. EPA also discusses any
changes to and clarifications from the proposed rule, and where
responses are particularly relevant to the requirements of the final
rule. A separate document that summarizes the comments relevant to the
proposal and EPA's responses to those comments has been prepared and is
available in the docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 7).
    Comment 1: Several commenters indicated that EPA should clarify the
activities for which notification is not required under the rule, and
should confirm that all substances and activities that are exempt from
premanufacture notification requirements are also exempt from reporting
requirements under this rule. The commenters make reference to the
following PMN exemptions: export-only exemption, low volume exemption,
low releases/low exposures exemption, test

marketing exemption, and polymer exemption. One commenter elaborated
that substances exempted from listing on the TSCA Inventory and other
substances exempt from premanufacture notification are exempt from this
rule but are ambiguously stated as such. Two commenters elaborated that
substances listed on the Inventory but manufactured under a low volume
exemption should be exempt from reporting under this rule by a person
manufacturing the substance under the exemption. One commenter
recommended that all categories of substances for which no reporting is
required pursuant to the CDR rule should be exempt from reporting under
this rule.
    Several commenters indicated that EPA should clarify or confirm
that polymers are exempt from reporting under this action. One
commenter requested that EPA clarify whether polymers manufactured
under the pre-1995 polymer exemption rule need to be reported, as
technically such polymers are listed on the Inventory. A few commenters
stated that polymers listed on the Inventory, including polymers with a
``Y'' designation, should be included on the interim list of active
substances. One commenter elaborated that polymers on the Inventory are
not subject to CDR, that many were placed on the Inventory before EPA
promulgated the TSCA section 5 polymer exemption rule and would likely
meet the current standard for the polymer exemption, and that such low
risk polymers should be on the interim active Inventory.
    One commenter expressed concern that, without an explicit reporting
exemption in the rule, a company manufacturing a chemical substance
under a polymer, low volume, or test marketing exemption could
inadvertently violate the reporting requirements if (without the
company's knowledge) another company manufacturing the same substance
added that substance to the confidential portion of the Inventory, then
ceased manufacturing, causing the substance to be designated inactive.
Another commenter expressed concern that, in the absence of an explicit
reporting exemption in the rule for all companies manufacturing
chemical substances under a PMN exemption, the rule would appear to
require such companies to submit an inquiry to EPA to ascertain whether
the chemical substances in question had been added to the confidential
portion of the Inventory by another manufacturer.
    Response: In response to the comment to clarify the reporting
status under this rule of a substance manufactured under a TSCA section
5 exemption and not listed on the Inventory, EPA confirms that such
substance is not subject to reporting under this action. The scope of
chemical substances covered under this rule excludes substances that
are not listed on the Inventory. See definition of ``reportable
chemical substance'' at 40 CFR 710.23. A substance that has not been
added to the Inventory because it is manufactured solely under a PMN
exemption is not a ``reportable chemical substance'' and, therefore,
cannot become an ``active substance'' or an ``inactive substance.''
    EPA recognizes that in certain cases, chemical substances
manufactured by a company under a PMN exemption may nevertheless be
added to the Inventory voluntarily, or may subsequently be added to the
Inventory by another company. Accordingly, in the proposed rule, EPA
listed reporting exemptions for the following activities, which EPA
construed as exempt commercial purposes: The manufacture or processing
of a substance as described in 720.30(g) or (h), the manufacture or
processing of a substance solely in small quantities for research and
development, and the import of a substance as part of an article. EPA
finalized the rule to include these exemptions and, based on comments,
revised the rule to include additional exemptions: the manufacture or
processing of a substance solely for test marketing purposes, and the
manufacture or processing of a substance solely for export from the
United States, except where the Administrator has made a finding
described in TSCA section 12(a)(2). See 40 CFR 710.27(a)(4) and (5).
EPA believes that these two additional activities also qualify as
exempt commercial purposes based on the limited nature of these
commercial activities and the exemptions from PMN reporting under TSCA
sections 5(h)(1) and 12(a)(1) for substances manufactured solely for
these purposes. While TSCA section 12(a)(1) authorizes EPA to include
substances manufactured or processed solely for export in TSCA section
8 reporting, EPA construes manufacturing or processing solely for
export to be an exempt commercial purpose, given that section 12(a)(1)
broadly exempts such activities from other TSCA provisions, including
PMN requirements under section 5.
    EPA declined to add additional reporting exemptions in the final
rule for activities that are exempt from PMN reporting based on rules
promulgated under TSCA section 5(h)(4) (i.e., low volume, low releases/
low exposures, and polymer exemptions). EPA disagrees with comments
that a substance manufactured under a TSCA section 5(h)(4) exemption
but nevertheless listed on the Inventory should be exempt from
reporting under this rule. EPA does not believe that manufacturing or
processing under a low volume, low releases/low exposures, or polymer
exemption (1984 or 1995 polymer exemption) qualify as exempt commercial
purposes under TSCA section 8(b), despite the exemptions from reporting
under TSCA section 5(h)(4) for such substances. This is because
exemptions promulgated under section 5(h)(4) are predicated upon a risk
determination, rather than the particular commercial purpose for which
manufacturing is undertaken. Unlike the other activities that EPA has
exempted from reporting requirements under this rule (e.g., research
and development, test marketing, export-only), the activities exempt
from PMN reporting pursuant to rules promulgated under section 5(h)(4)
need not be undertaken for any specific and limited commercial purpose.
Because the commercial purpose for which a substance is manufactured is
not integral to an exemption under section 5(h)(4), and in
consideration of the statutory objective of TSCA section 8(b)(4)-(5) to
enable EPA to determine which chemical substances on the Inventory are
active in U.S. commerce, EPA does not construe activities undertaken
pursuant to a section 5(h)(4) exemption to be exempt ``commercial
purposes'' within the meaning of section 8(b)(4)(A)(i) and
8(b)(5)(B)(i). EPA emphasizes, however, that substances which (based on
such PMN exemptions) have never been added to the Inventory are
excluded from any reporting requirements under this rule.
    EPA also disagrees with comments that this rule should provide
reporting exemptions for polymers and other categories of Inventory-
listed substances that are exempt from CDR for reasons unrelated to the
specific commercial purpose for which they are manufactured or
processed. A statutory objective supported by reporting under this rule
is to enable EPA to determine which chemical substances on the
Inventory are active in U.S. commerce. This statutory objective under
TSCA section 8(b) is distinct from the statutory objective for CDR
under TSCA section 8(a). Whereas polymers and certain other categories
of substances listed on the Inventory are exempt from reporting under
CDR, these substances nevertheless require designation as active or
inactive under TSCA section

8(b), and are therefore subject to reporting under this rule if they
were or are anticipated to be manufactured for nonexempt commercial
purpose. Exempting polymers and other categories of substances under
this TSCA section 8(b) rule for no other reason than that they are
exempt from CDR under TSCA section 8(a) would not accomplish the
statutory objective of designating substances on the Inventory
manufactured for non-exempt commercial purposes as active or inactive.
EPA does not believe Congress intended for an entire category of
substances (such as polymers), that were listed on the Inventory as of
June 22, 2016, to be designated inactive despite the fact that such
substances were manufactured or processed for wide-ranging commercial
purposes during the 10-year lookback period.
    EPA furthermore disagrees with comments that polymers should be
included on the interim list of active substances. The interim list is
defined by TSCA section 8(b)(6) to include only substances reported
under CDR during the reporting period that most closely preceded the
date of enactment of the TSCA amendments. Substances such as polymers
that are exempt from reporting under CDR, therefore, are not eligible
to be included on the interim list. Moreover, unless these substances
were the subject of an NOC received during the lookback period, EPA has
no equivalent notice that such substances were manufactured during the
lookback period, and therefore no justification for designating the
substances as active in this rule.
    Finally, in response to comments expressing concern that a person
manufacturing under a PMN exemption may be unaware that another person
subsequently added the same substance to the confidential portion of
the Inventory, EPA notes that it revised 40 CFR 710.25(a) and (c) to
clarify that reporting is not required where it is not ``known to or
reasonably ascertainable by'' a company that it manufactured a chemical
substance subject to commercial activity designation during the
lookback period, or that it intends to manufacture or process an
inactive substance on the confidential portion of the Inventory. EPA
anticipates that the presence of a substance on the confidential
portion of the Inventory may be information that is not ``known to or
reasonably ascertainable by'' a person who is operating under a PMN
exemption and who did not submit the confidentiality claim for the
specific chemical identity of that substance.
    Changes to Activities that are Exempt from Reporting in the Final
Rule: EPA revised the rule to exempt additional commercial activities
from reporting requirements: The manufacture or processing of a
substance solely for test marketing purposes, and the manufacture or
processing of a substance solely for export from the United States,
except where the Administrator has made a finding described in TSCA
section 12(a)(2). See 40 CFR 710.27(a)(4) and (5).
    Comment 2: One commenter stated that substances processed as part
of an article should be exempt from reporting. One commenter indicated
that substances contained within imported articles should be subject to
reporting if and when they are released from the article during use and
perform a separate end-use function.
    Response: The proposed rule included an exemption from reporting
requirements for persons importing a chemical substance as part of an
article. EPA agrees with commenter that the processing of a chemical
substance as part of an article should likewise be exempt from
reporting under this rule on the grounds that it is processing for an
exempt commercial purpose, following the logic of the exemption for
manufacture of a chemical as part of an article through import. Under
TSCA, the import of a chemical substance as part of an article does not
require new chemical reporting. Consequently, the Inventory does not
list all chemical substances that are processed as part of articles
since it does not include the processing of chemical substances as part
of imported articles. More generally, the processing of a chemical as
part of an article is not a basis to add a chemical substance to the
Inventory. EPA believes it would be incongruous to identify a chemical
substance as active solely based on the fact that it is processed as
part of an article, when that would not be a basis to add the chemical
substance to the Inventory in the first place if there were no
manufacture reportable under TSCA section 5. In addition, EPA is
concerned that an approach under which chemical substances are listed
as active simply because they are components of articles that are
processed in some fashion could undermine the purpose of meaningfully
distinguishing active from inactive chemicals. It should be noted that
the extraction of a chemical substance from an article would not be
considered processing a chemical substance as part of an article and so
would not be exempt from reporting under this provision. EPA therefore
revised 40 CFR 710.27(a)(2) to exempt persons processing a chemical
substance as part of an article from reporting requirements for that
substance.
    Regarding the comment that substances contained within imported
articles should be subject to reporting if and when they are released
from the article during use and perform a separate end-use function, no
regulatory change is necessary. The final rule at 40 CFR 710.27(a)(2)
refers to ``[t]he import or processing of a chemical substance as part
of an article.'' EPA's longstanding interpretation of this phrase is
that a chemical substance is only considered to be imported ``as part
of an article'' if the substance is not intended to be removed from
that article and it has no end use or commercial purpose separate from
the article of which it is a part. See 42 FR 64583 (1977). Thus, for
the kinds of articles from which a contained chemical substance would
be released during use and perform a separate end-use function, the
chemical substance would not be considered to be part of the article
and would not qualify for exemption on that basis. In any event, as
stated previously, even in the case where a chemical substance is part
of an article, the extraction of a chemical substance from an article
would not be considered processing a chemical substance ``as part of an
article'' and so would not be exempt from reporting on this basis. See
also TSCA Chemical Data Reporting Fact Sheet: Imported Articles,
available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/documents/cdr_fact_sheet_imported_articles_-_final_dec2015.pdf. (Ref.
8)
    Changes to Activities that are Exempt from Reporting in the Final
Rule: EPA amended the rule to reflect that both importing and
processing a chemical substance as part of an article are exempt from
reporting requirements under this rule. See 40 CFR 710.27(a)(2).
    Comment 3: Numerous commenters stated that CBI substances reported
to the 2016 or 2012 CDR should be made active on the interim Inventory
and should not be subject to retrospective reporting. Several
commenters also stated that CBI substances reported to the 2016 CDR
should also not be subject to further substantiation of CBI claims
because the claims have already been substantiated.
    Response: EPA agrees in part with the comments involving CBI
substances. EPA confirms that it had proposed that both CBI and non-CBI
substances reported to the 2012 or 2016 CDR would be made active on the
interim list. EPA finalized this aspect of the rule. Furthermore, EPA
revised the rule to reflect that both CBI and non-CBI substances
reported to the 2012 or 2016 CDR will be eligible for exemption from

retrospective notification requirements under this rule. See 40 CFR
710.23 and 710.25.
    However, a company that seeks to maintain an existing CBI claim for
specific chemical identity cannot avail itself of this exemption, and
must submit an NOA Form A that includes such request, because TSCA
section 8(b)(4)(B)(ii) requires a specific request to maintain the CBI
claim. Pursuant to TSCA section 8(b)(4)(B)(iv), EPA must move to the
non-confidential portion of the Inventory any active substance for
which no request is received to maintain an existing CBI claim for
specific chemical identity. EPA recognizes in the final rule that there
may be circumstances where a company, which had previously sought a CBI
claim for a specific chemical identity, may no longer view the CBI
status as necessary or currently defendable. In such circumstance, the
company may take advantage of any retrospective reporting exemption for
which it is eligible, and decline to submit a retrospective notice to
EPA.
    Regarding substantiation, pursuant to TSCA section 8(b)(4)(D)(i), a
previously submitted substantiation may satisfy the section
8(b)(4)(B)(iii) substantiation requirement if the prior substantiation
was submitted to EPA within five years of a deadline to be established
in the forthcoming review plan described in section 8(b)(4)(C)-(D). EPA
does not expect that a 2012 CDR submission will satisfy the five-year
substantiation requirement. Because the deadline for submitting
substantiation in the review plan has not yet been set, EPA does not
currently know whether substantiation submitted for a 2016 CDR
submission will satisfy the TSCA section 8(b)(4)(B)(iii) five-year
substantiation requirement. Note that a voluntary substantiation
submitted with Form A might also not fall within the five-year period,
depending upon the deadline that is set.
    Changes to Chemical Substances That Are Exempt from Retrospective
Reporting in the Final Rule: EPA changed the exemptions from
retrospective reporting requirements to reflect that both CBI and non-
CBI chemical substances reported to the 2012 or 2016 CDR will be
eligible. See 40 CFR 710.23 for revised definition of ``interim active
substance.'' TSCA section 8(b)(4)(B)(ii) requires a notice to be
submitted only by those manufacturers or processors that seek to
maintain an existing CBI claim for the specific chemical identity of a
reportable substance.
    Comment 4: Several commenters stated that non-CBI substances added
to the Inventory during the ten-year retrospective reporting period via
an NOC should be exempt from notification.
    Response: EPA agrees with this comment. An NOC is required to be
submitted to EPA on or no later than 30 calendar days after the first
day of manufacture of a new chemical substance for commercial purpose
and an NOC substance is considered to be added to the Inventory on the
date the NOC is received by EPA, provided that the EPA determines the
NOC to be valid during its review. Requiring retrospective reporting of
substances for which an NOC was received during the lookback period
would be duplicative because EPA already has an equivalent report (the
NOC itself) indicating that the substance was manufactured or processed
during the lookback period. EPA furthermore concludes (consistent with
its response to comments about the availability of the interim list
exemption for CBI substances) that the analogous reasoning applies with
respect to CBI substances added to the Inventory during the lookback
period. EPA revised the rule to reflect that both CBI and non-CBI
substances reported in an NOC during the lookback period will be
eligible for exemption from retrospective notification requirements
under this rule. EPA was able to compile this list of substances and
designate them as active substances by the deadline for publication of
the rule. EPA's June 2017 posting of the Inventory will include these
NOC substances designated as active (see https://www.epa.gov/tsca-inventory). See 40 CFR 710.23 for revised definitions of ``active
substance'' and ``chemical substance subject to commercial activity
designation.''
    However, a company that seeks to maintain an existing CBI claim for
specific chemical identity cannot avail itself of this exemption
because TSCA section 8(b)(4)(B)(ii) requires a specific request to
maintain the CBI claim. See response to Comment 3 for additional
discussion on CBI substances.
    Additionally, substantiation of a CBI claim for chemical identity
submitted with an NOC may or may not satisfy the TSCA section
8(b)(4)(B)(iii) substantiation requirement. Pursuant to TSCA section
8(b)(4)(D)(i), a previously submitted substantiation may satisfy the
section 8(b)(4)(B)(iii) substantiation requirement if the prior
substantiation was submitted to EPA within 5 years of the deadline to
be established in the forthcoming review plan described in section
8(b)(4)(C)-(D). NOCs submitted more recently may satisfy the 5-year
substantiation requirement, while NOCs submitted earlier in the 10-year
lookback period for retrospective reporting may not satisfy the 5-year
substantiation requirement. Note that a voluntary substantiation
submitted with an NOA Form A might also not satisfy the 5-year
substantiation requirement, depending upon the deadline that is set in
the review plan.
    Changes to Chemical Substances That Are Exempt from Retrospective
Reporting in the Final Rule: EPA added an exemption from retrospective
reporting requirements for chemical substances added to the Inventory
via an NOC during the ten-year retrospective reporting period. See 40
CFR 710.23 for revised definitions of ``active substance'' and
``chemical substance subject to commercial activity designation.''
    Comment 5: Several commenters stated that EPA should update the
interim list and/or publish submissions frequently or in real time in
order for potential submitters to see what is being submitted and to
avoid or reduce duplicative submissions during retrospective reporting.
    Response: EPA has determined that publishing submissions frequently
or in real time is not feasible. In order to publish notices frequently
or in real time, EPA would need to develop, test, and implement an
electronic platform that would be able transfer non-CBI notices from
the Agency's confidential repository to a public system. EPA has not to
date developed nor implemented such an electronic platform for TSCA
purposes and does not believe that it could do so by the time it would
be needed to support this action in a manner suggested by these
comments. Additionally, because non-CBI notices suitable for
publication would include those submitted with no CBI claims and those
submitted with claims but for which CBI would be redacted, EPA would
need to ensure that such an electronic platform would appropriately
transfer only non-CBI notices to a public system. Furthermore, in order
for published information to be accurate and reliable, EPA believes
that notices would necessarily need to be fully processed and reviewed,
which would not allow the Agency to publish notices in real time or
even frequently, especially since the number of notices submitted may
increase, possibly sharply, as the submission deadline approaches.
    Comment 6: Several commenters disagreed with the proposal that each
manufacturer must report every nonexempt chemical manufactured during
the retrospective lookback period. Commenters stated that, for

purposes of designating substances as active, EPA need only receive one
notice for each reportable substance. Commenters elaborated that EPA
should allow a ``one-and-done'' approach for retrospective reporting,
i.e., once a notice is received by EPA for a particular substance, and
either the notice is published and/or the interim list is updated and
published, other manufacturers need not report the same substance. One
commenter stated that EPA appropriately proposed to require that each
company that has manufactured a chemical substance on the Inventory
during the lookback period must notify EPA of such manufacture. The
commenter elaborated that ``one-and-done'' reporting is legally
impermissible.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the statement of one commenter that a
``one-and-done'' reporting exemption is impermissible under TSCA
section 8(b)(4)(A)(i). Section 8(b)(4)(A)(i) states that the
Administrator ``shall require manufacturers . . . to notify the
Administrator'' of each chemical substance that the manufacturer has
manufactured during the 10-year lookback period. The statute does not
state that the Administrator shall require all manufacturers to submit
such a notice. Had Congress intended to preclude the Administrator from
implementing a ``one-and-done'' reporting process, Congress could have
done so by specifying that the Administrator shall require all
manufacturers to submit a notice for each chemical manufactured during
the lookback period. Furthermore, EPA believes the commenter
incorrectly discounts the significance of language in TSCA section
8(b)(4)(A)(i) admonishing EPA to issue the rule ``subject to the
limitations under subsection (a)(5)(A).'' TSCA section 8(a)(5)(A)
provides that ``the Administrator shall, to the extent feasible . . .
not require reporting which is unnecessary or duplicative.'' EPA does
not agree with the commenter's assertion that subsection (a)(5)(A) is
solely concerned with the manner of reporting, such that the scope of
reporting would be unaffected. It is difficult to see how one could
make a notification requirement less unnecessary or less duplicative
except by tailoring the scope of persons who are required to submit the
notification.
    EPA agrees in part with the other commenters that a ``one-and-
done'' approach should be allowed for retrospective reporting.
Accordingly, EPA has revised the rule to exempt a manufacturer from the
retrospective notification requirements for a particular chemical
substance, if the manufacturer has evidence in the form of a CDX
receipt, documenting EPA's receipt of an NOA Form A from another
manufacturer. As discussed further in Comment 5 in this Unit, it is
infeasible for EPA to supply ``real-time'' reports to the public during
the manufacturers' submission period for retrospective reporting by
listing the particular substances for which it has already received an
NOA Form A. However, manufacturers who possess an NOA Form A CDX
receipt for a substance (e.g., obtained through a consortium
arrangement), documenting that an NOA Form A has already been received
by EPA, may avail themselves of this exemption for that substance.
Manufacturers should keep in mind, however, that they bear the risk of
failing to submit a required forward-looking notification (NOA Form B)
notice if they rely on this Form A exemption, and the Form A notice
(for which they have a CDX receipt) is later withdrawn, leading to the
substance being designated as inactive. Furthermore, one manufacturer's
expectation that another manufacturer will later submit an NOA Form A
is not an acceptable basis for relying on this exemption. If such an
approach were allowed as a basis for exemption, then EPA would risk
receiving no notification at all for an active substance, based on each
manufacturer expecting that some other manufacturer would later submit
an NOA Form A. Since it is only submitters who will be notified of
errors, manufacturers relying on the exemption are responsible for
assuring their substance is properly designated as commercially active.
    However, a company that seeks to maintain an existing CBI claim for
specific chemical identity cannot avail itself of this exemption
because TSCA section 8(b)(4)(B)(ii) requires a specific request to
maintain the CBI claim. See response to Comment 3 for additional
discussion on CBI substances.
    Changes to Chemical Substances That Are Exempt from Retrospective
Reporting in the Final Rule: EPA added an exemption from retrospective
reporting requirements in the rule for manufacturers that have evidence
in the form of a copy of a CDX receipt documenting EPA's receipt of an
NOA Form A from another person for the same chemical substance. See 40
CFR 710.25(a). However, as noted in Unit II and in 40 CFR 710.25(a),
any manufacturer relying on another person's notice remains responsible
for confirming that their substance becomes designated as active.
    Comment 7: Several commenters requested that processors be allowed
to report for an additional 180 days that begins when the draft
Inventory is published and not when the 180-day submission period for
manufacturers closes. One commenter questioned whether EPA had legal
authority to extend the submission period for processors beyond 180
days, but accepted EPA's rationale for providing processors with
additional reporting time after EPA's publication of the draft
Inventory, provided that the extra time for processor reporting remains
a short (i.e., no more than 180 days) and fixed period, as proposed.
    Response: With respect to EPA's legal authority to establish a
voluntary retrospective submission period for processors beyond 180
days, EPA believes this is implicit in its authority to establish a
mandatory reporting period for manufacturers during the first 180 days.
EPA notes that TSCA does not require that the rule impose any
retrospective reporting requirements at all on processors. Nor does
TSCA section 8(b)(4) establish a deadline for the publication of the
Inventory designating active and inactive substances. Furthermore,
allowing processors additional time to report is consistent with the
manner in which the original Inventory was assembled, it advances the
statutory objective of efficiently dividing active substances from
inactive substances, and it advances the statutory objective under TSCA
section 8(a)(5) of avoiding (to the extent feasible) unnecessary
reporting. Processors may be able to identify certain active substances
that manufacturers would not, but requiring them to report during the
same time period as manufacturers might lead them to duplicate the
reports of manufacturers.
    EPA originally proposed that processors may report not later than
360 days after the final rule is published in the Federal Register.
EPA's rationale was that the additional 180-day submission period for
processors, beyond the 180-day submission period for manufacturers,
would allow processors to search EPA's publication of the draft
Inventory with active designations, based on the retrospective
reporting by manufacturers, and to report only those substances not
already reported. EPA agrees with comments that the purpose of
affording the additional 180 days for processors is best served if that
180-day submission period begins on the date on which processors would
actually be able to review the draft Inventory. EPA also agrees with
the comment that the rule should specify a fixed date on which the
processor submission period will end,

as originally proposed, but which would not be the case if the 180-day
submission period were to begin on the unknown date of the publication
of the draft Inventory. EPA intends to publish the draft Inventory with
active designations as soon as is practicable following the close of
the 180-day submission period for manufacturers, which is anticipated
to be approximately 60 days after the 180-day submission period for
manufacturers ends. Based on this anticipated timeframe for publishing
the draft Inventory and in consideration of these comments, EPA is
finalizing the rule to allow processors to report not later than 420
days after the publication of the rule in the Federal Register. See 40
CFR 710.30(a)(2). This revised submission period for processors
provides a fixed date on which the processor submission period will end
and is anticipated to provide an approximate 180-day period for
processor reporting from the date by which EPA expects to publish the
draft Inventory.
    Changes to Processor Submission Period for Retrospective Reporting:
EPA changed the retrospective reporting submission period for
processors to end not more than 420 days after the publication of the
rule in the Federal Register. See 40 CFR 710.30(a)(2).
    Comment 8: Two commenters stated that an estimated date of re-
commercialization should be able to be provided rather than an actual
date. Two commenters stated that there is no need to limit the
submission period for forward-looking reporting (NOA Form B) to not
more than 30 days prior to manufacturing or processing, as proposed by
EPA, citing that the statute only requires notification to take place
``before'' commercialization resumes. One commenter suggests that
persons be permitted to submit an NOA Form B up to 90 days before re-
commercialization instead of 30 days. Another commenter suggested that
the Agency require an NOA Form B to be submitted not less than 90 days
prior to manufacturing or processing to allow sufficient time for the
Agency to evaluate the chemical and determine whether a Significant New
Use Rule (SNUR) is needed. Another commenter was supportive of the
proposed 30-day requirement.
    Response: EPA agrees that the date that must be provided on an NOA
Form B should be the anticipated date of reintroduction of a chemical
substance in U.S. commerce, rather than the actual date. EPA recognizes
that any reporting required in advance of actual commercialization is
based on information and schedules that are subject to change, and
providing an actual date of commercialization in advance, therefore, is
not always practical. EPA believes that providing an anticipated date
of commercialization should lessen concerns expressed by commenters.
See 40 CFR 710.29(c)(2).
    EPA has also decided to modify the date requirement from originally
proposed, extending it to allow notice up to 90 days ahead of time, in
addition to basing the date requirement on the anticipated date of
manufacturing or processing rather than the actual date of
manufacturing or processing. EPA decided to retain some limitation on
the submission period because EPA's experience with other reporting
under TSCA (e.g., PMNs) is that the earlier a notice is submitted, the
higher the likelihood is that the schedule for commercialization will
change or that a chemical substance might not be commercialized at all.
EPA believes that retaining a limitation on the submission period for
future reporting will reduce the number of notices submitted for
substances whose schedule for commercial re-introduction changes
appreciably. EPA also believes that extending the submission period to
begin from 90 days, rather than 30 days, prior to resuming
manufacturing or processing will afford manufacturers and processers
additional time to adjust to information and schedule changes and will
not significantly impact the accuracy of notices submitted. See 40 CFR
710.30(b)(1).
    Regarding changing the deadline for submission of an NOA Form B to
be at least 90 days prior to resuming manufacturing or processing for
the purposes of Agency action (e.g., SNUR), EPA disagrees with the
commenter's interpretation that by requiring advance notification,
Congress wanted to provide EPA an opportunity to take action to delay
the resumption of manufacturing or processing if it had concerns about
the subject chemical. To the contrary, the statute clearly reflects
that the obligation to submit a section 8(b)(5)(B) notification was not
intended as a tool to impede the resumption of manufacturing or
processing. Specifically, the statute does not authorize EPA to
structure the rule in such a manner that if a manufacturer or processor
submits an NOA Form B, the manufacturer or processor could be obliged
to wait longer than the next day to commence manufacturing and
processing the chemical substance. See TSCA section 8(b)(5)(B)(i). EPA
believes the most plausible explanations for why Congress imposed the
advance notification requirement were: (1) To ensure that EPA actually
receives the notices (by making the lawful resumption of manufacturing
or processing contingent on the notification) and; (2) to support EPA's
subsequent prioritization efforts under TSCA section 6(b). See TSCA
section 8(b)(5)(B)(iii)(IV).
    Changes to the Date Requirement for Forward-looking Reporting: EPA
changed the limitation on submitting an NOA Form B to be not more than
90 days prior to the anticipated date of manufacturing or processing.
See 40 CFR 710.29(c)(2) and 40 CFR 710.30(b)(1).
    Comment 9: A few commenters asked EPA to clarify in the rule how it
would implement the requirements of TSCA section 8(b)(7). For example,
commenters requested that EPA confirm in the final rule when the draft
and final lists of active and inactive substances will be published.
One commenter indicated that EPA should identify all substances on the
Inventory as active or inactive not later than 15 months after
promulgation of this final rule. Another commenter indicated that EPA
should publish an updated version of the Inventory, with all substances
designated as active or inactive, not later than six months after the
completion of the retrospective notification process. Commenters also
stated that EPA should specify in the rule the date when substances
will be designated as inactive. One commenter stated that EPA should
publish a Federal Register notice every 90 days listing all substances
that EPA has designated as active following receipt of an NOA Form B.
    Response: TSCA section 8(b)(7) requires EPA to make active and
inactive designations available to the public, but it gives EPA
discretion as to the manner and timing of doing so. EPA intends to
publish a draft Inventory as soon as practicable after the close of the
180-day submission period for manufacturers, which will include only
active designations (based on interim list designations, NOCs, and
manufacturer reporting); chemicals that have no designation on this
draft Inventory should not be assumed to be inactive. EPA intends to
publish the first Inventory identifying both active and inactive
substances as soon as practicable after the close of the retrospective
submission period for processors, in a web posting of the Inventory on
EPA's Inventory Web page (see https://www.epa.gov/tsca-inventory).
Given that the statute does not mandate a specific deadline for the
publication of the first Inventory identifying both active and inactive
substances, and given the challenges of

foreseeing precisely how much time will be necessary to review and
compile the data it will receive from retrospective reporting, EPA has
chosen not to impose a regulatory deadline on the publication of this
first Inventory.
    The obligation to submit an NOA Form B under TSCA section
8(b)(5)(B)(i) does not arise until a chemical substance has been
``designated as an inactive substance.'' EPA is establishing an
effective date provision for the designation of a substance as an
inactive substance. EPA revised the rule so that an ``inactive
substance'' designation becomes effective 90 days after the date that
EPA identifies the substance for inactive designation. See 40 CFR
710.23 for revised definition of ``inactive substance.'' EPA will
identify substances for inactive designation in a signed action
accompanying the first version of the Inventory with all active-
inactive listings following the close of the retrospective submission
period for processors. EPA intends to publish this signed action
together with the Inventory in a web posting on EPA's Inventory Web
page (see https://www.epa.gov/tsca-inventory).
    With respect to Inventory updates based on forward-looking
reporting, the statute does not specifically require that EPA inform
the public of the reintroduction of chemical substances by issuing
Federal Register notices every 90 days, indicating what substances (if
any) have been reactivated. EPA intends to include substances submitted
in forward-looking notices and re-designated as active on the Inventory
in its regular publications of the Inventory, which occur approximately
every six months.
    Changes to the Final Rule to Establish the Date When a Chemical
Substance Will Be Designated as Inactive: EPA revised the rule so that
an inactive substance designation is not effective until 90 days after
the date that EPA identifies a substance for inactive designation. See
40 CFR 710.23 for revised definition of ``inactive substance.''
    Comment 10: A few commenters expressed concerns about the status of
substances manufactured or processed in the period between June 22,
2016 and the date the first Inventory with active and inactive
designations is finalized and published. These commenters requested
that EPA clarify the status of such substances.
    Response: EPA clarified the status of these chemical substances in
Unit II and the final rule. The structure of the reporting requirements
under TSCA sections 8(b)(4)(A) and 8(b)(5)(B) results in a transitional
period beginning on June 22, 2016 (the day after the lookback period
for retrospective reporting ends) and ending on the date the forward-
looking reporting period begins (i.e., the effective date that chemical
substances are designated as inactive, which is 90 days after EPA
publishes the first Inventory with listings identified as active or
inactive). A person who did not manufacture or process a particular
chemical substance during the lookback period (June 21, 2006 through
June 21, 2016) is not subject to the retrospective reporting provisions
of this rule with respect to that substance, and should not submit an
NOA Form A for that substance regardless of whether the person
manufactured or processed the substance on or after June 22, 2016. If
that substance is ultimately designated by EPA as inactive, however,
any person who intends to manufacture or process that substance after
it is designated as inactive must submit an NOA Form B.
    To address concerns about substances reintroduced into U.S.
commerce during the transitional period and potential interruptions in
commercial activity that could arise upon EPA's designation of such
substances as inactive, EPA revised the rule to reflect that an
inactive designation only becomes effective 90 days after EPA
identifies the substance for such designation. EPA is clarifying that
the obligation to submit an NOA Form B does not begin until the
effective date of an inactive substance designation. Because EPA
revised the rule so that an inactive substance designation is not
effective until 90 days after the date that EPA identifies a substance
for inactive designation, manufacturers and processors are afforded
time to react to an inactive substance identification. Persons who are
already manufacturing or processing a substance for nonexempt
commercial purpose (e.g., during the transitional period), and wish to
continue doing so without interruption after EPA's designation of such
substance as inactive, are permitted to submit an NOA Form B for such
substance prior to the effective date of the inactive designation,
which is the date that the substance attains the legal status of being
inactive. Similarly, persons that anticipate reintroducing a substance
into U.S. commerce for nonexempt commercial purpose shortly after EPA
identifies the substance for inactive designation are also afforded
time to react to the inactive substance identification and are
permitted to file an NOA Form B prior to the effective date of the
substance's inactive designation, as long as such form is filed no more
than 90 days before the anticipated date of manufacture or processing.
Manufacturers should be aware that the timely filing of an NOA Form B
does not remedy an earlier failure to comply with the retrospective
reporting requirement; it merely ensures that the manufacturer will not
also be in violation of the forward-looking reporting requirement.
    Changes to the Final Rule to Clarify the Status of Chemical
Substances Manufactured or Processed in between the Retrospective and
Forward-Looking Reporting Periods: EPA revised the rule to clarify that
manufacturers and processors are permitted to submit an NOA Form B for
a chemical substance that EPA has identified for inactive designation,
even though the effective date of such designation has not yet arrived,
and thus the substance does not yet have the legal status of being
inactive. See 40 CFR 710.30(b)(2).
    Comment 11: Numerous commenters stated that certain data
requirements should be eliminated or reduced. Two commenters stated
that EPA should reduce the proposed requirement for a date range from
retrospective notification by not requiring exact dates for the date
range for retrospective notification, and instead suggested that the
first and last dates of the range be reported by month and year.
Numerous commenters stated that EPA should eliminate the proposed
requirement for a date range from retrospective notification,
indicating that such information would be burdensome to retrieve and
evaluate and, in certain cases, may not be available due to record
retention policies. Commenters further indicated that such information
is not required to meet the statutory objective and that the
certification statement should be sufficient to support data accuracy.
Similarly, several commenters also stated that EPA should eliminate the
proposed requirement for type of commercial activity from retrospective
notification; one commenter indicated that the proposed requirement
should also be eliminated from forward-looking notification. A few
commenters suggested reducing the proposed requirement for type of
commercial activity from retrospective notification by combining
``Domestically manufactured'' and ``Imported'' into one category for
reporting. One commenter was supportive of requiring type of commercial
activity.
    Response: EPA has decided not to require date range and activity
type for retrospective notification. EPA had proposed such information
to serve the objective of verifying and validating notices submitted.
However, in response

to comments received, EPA has been persuaded that the collection of a
date range of manufacture, as well as the collection of information to
differentiate between domestic manufacture, import, and processing, is
unnecessary to serve the underlying objective of reliably
differentiating active and inactive substances. EPA is also mindful
that TSCA section 8(b)(4)(A)(i) specially admonishes the Agency to
avoid, to the extent feasible, the collection of unnecessary
information in this rule. As an alternative to requiring date and
information, EPA has revised the NOA Form A certification statement to
require an affirmation that manufacturing or processing of the chemical
substance occurred during the lookback period. If EPA needs to verify
the basis for such a certification, it can obtain and evaluate the
documentation that submitters are required to maintain under 40 CFR
710.35.
    EPA has similarly removed the activity type requirement for
forward-looking notification. This is consistent with the evidence of
Congressional intent motivating the notification requirement. See S.
Rep. 114-67 at 20 (purpose is to categorize the chemical substances on
the Inventory as ``active or inactive,'' and ``[m]anufacturers of an
inactive substance may return the substance to the active inventory
with a simple notification to EPA''). In response to comments received,
EPA has been persuaded that information on activity type is not
necessary to accomplish the purpose of the rule regarding
differentiating inactive substances from active substances. EPA has
also revised the NOA Form B certification statement to require an
affirmation that persons submitting an NOA Form B have forward-looking
intent to manufacture or process for nonexempt commercial purpose. If
EPA needs to verify the basis for such a certification, it can obtain
and evaluate the documentation that submitters are required to maintain
under 40 CFR 710.35.
    Changes to Required Reporting Elements in the Final Rule: EPA
removed the date range and commercial activity type requirements from
retrospective notification, and revised the certification statement on
the NOA Form A to clarify that persons submitting the form are
certifying that manufacturing or processing of the chemical substance
occurred during the lookback period. EPA also removed the commercial
activity type requirement from forward-looking notification, and
revised the certification statement on the NOA Form B to clarify that
persons submitting the form are certifying that they have forward-
looking intent to manufacture or process the substance. See 40 CFR
710.29(b) and 40 CFR 710.29(c).
    Comment 12: Numerous commenters stated that EPA should clarify the
meaning of ``known or reasonably ascertainable,'' particularly in the
context of scenarios involving mergers and acquisitions (e.g.,
corporate predecessors and successors) that occurred during or after
the ten-year reporting period, and in such scenarios, who is
responsible for reporting under the rule. Some commenters further
elaborated that if a company no longer has a legal obligation to retain
particular records, or if the records are no longer in the possession
of the company (e.g., they are not available due to company document
retention policies or are in the possession of an acquiring company),
the information should be considered to be not ``Known or Reasonably
Available/Ascertainable'' and reporting should not be required. One
commenter suggested amending 40 CFR 710.25 to add a new paragraph (b)
to address entities formed during the lookback period that may not have
historical records in their possession or control. Another commenter
stated that EPA's proposal was still silent as to the level of
diligence that must be used to determine which substances must be
reported under NOA Form A and Form B, and suggested that EPA assign a
``readily obtainable'' standard to that level of diligence for the Form
A's.
    Response: CFR 40 part 704 defines ``Known to or reasonably
ascertainable by'' as all information in a person's possession or
control, plus all information that a reasonable person similarly
situated might be expected to possess, control, or know. In response to
commenters' request for clarification of possession or control as it
relates to corporate mergers and acquisitions, EPA has added to 40 CFR
710.23 the definition of ``Possession or Control'' from 40 CFR 704.3.
Consistent with its use in Part 704, ``Possession or Control'' is
defined as meaning in the possession or control of any person, or of
any subsidiary, partnership in which the person is a general partner,
parent company, or any company or partnership which the parent company
owns or controls, if the subsidiary, parent company, or other company
or partnership is associated with the person in the research,
development, test marketing, or commercial marketing of the chemical
substance in question. Information is in the possession or control of a
person if it is: (1) In the person's own files including files
maintained by employees of the person in the course of their
employment, (2) in commercially available data bases to which the
person has purchased access, or (3) maintained in the files in the
course of employment by other agents of the person who are associated
with research, development, test marketing, or commercial marketing of
the chemical substance in question.
    EPA believes it is appropriate to construe what ``a reasonable
person similarly situated might be expected to possess, control, or
know,'' based on the totality of pertinent factors. Prior loss of
records consistent with document retention policies and the other
individual factors cited by the commenters could be pertinent in
construing what information is known or reasonably ascertainable, but
they are not replacements for the regulatory standard. In any event, if
a person actually knows information, then it is known or reasonably
ascertainable.
    In the context of the CDR rule, EPA has published extensive
guidance on the application of the ``known to or reasonably
ascertainable by'' standard and how to address retrospective reporting
in the case of corporate succession. See, e.g., TSCA Chemical Data
Reporting Fact Sheet: Reporting After Changes to Company Ownership or
Legal Identity, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents/cdr_fact_sheet_company_changes.pdf (Ref. 9).
See also 2016 Chemical Data Reporting Frequent Questions, available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/documents/cdr_fq_final_july_11_2016.pdf (Ref. 10). EPA finds that guidance issued
on these topics in the context of the CDR rule is also instructive in
the context of this rule.
    EPA agrees with one commenter that the level of diligence that must
be used to determine which chemical substances must be reported using
an NOA Form A should be clarified, but disagrees with the suggestion
that manufacturers need not report their manufacture of substances
during the lookback period if the knowledge that they conducted the
prior manufacture is reasonably ascertainable by them but not ``readily
obtainable'' by them. EPA revised 40 CFR 710.25(a) to clarify that if
it is not ``known to or reasonably ascertainable by'' a manufacturer
that the person manufactured a particular substance during the lookback
period, then the person is not obligated to report that substance on an
NOA Form A. EPA believes that the authority to limit retrospective
reporting to information that is known or reasonably ascertainable at
the time of the reporting obligation is implicit in the grant of

rulemaking authority under TSCA section 8(b)(4), consistent with TSCA
section 8(a) and the overall statutory objectives of TSCA section 8(b),
and consistent with past practice for retrospective reporting on the
CDR rule. The commenter set forth little basis for adopting a ``readily
obtainable'' standard and EPA continues to believe (see proposal at 82
FR 4256) that it is appropriate to base this rule on basic reporting
concepts that the public is already familiar with from the CDR. It
would be confusing to have one standard governing the need to submit an
NOA Form A (``readily obtainable'') and another standard (``known to or
reasonably ascertainable by'') governing the information elements that
need to be reported on the NOA Form A. Finally, EPA has already
significantly addressed commenters' broader concern about the potential
burden of conducting an information search by eliminating the
requirement to report the specific start and end dates of manufacture.
    EPA also disagrees with one commenter that 40 CFR 710.25 should be
amended to specifically address entities formed during the lookback
period that do not have historical records in their possession. The
revision to 40 CFR 710.23 to add the definition of ``Possession or
Control,'' and the revision to 40 CFR 710.25(a) to clarify application
of the ``known to or reasonably ascertainable by'' standard in the
context of retrospective reporting, apply to all persons subject to
reporting under 40 CFR 710.25(a). It is not necessary to separately
address a specific type of entity, e.g., entities formed during the
lookback period, in 40 CFR 710.25.
    With respect to the standard of diligence for determining whether a
chemical substance is subject to forward-looking reporting on an NOA
Form B, EPA revised 40 CFR 710.25(c) to clarify that if it is not
``known to or reasonably ascertainable by'' a person that the substance
being manufactured or processed is listed on the confidential portion
of the Inventory as an inactive substance, then the person is not
obligated to report that substance on an NOA Form B. This may be the
case, for instance, if one person manufactures a polymer under a PMN
exemption, but another manufacturer subsequently adds the same polymer
to the confidential portion of the Inventory and then ceases
manufacturing before the lookback period, resulting in the confidential
substance being designated inactive. EPA anticipates that only persons
operating under PMN exemptions will be able to avail themselves of this
revision, since other persons will have no basis to manufacture an
Inventory chemical without knowing the Inventory identity of the
chemical.
    With respect to the information that must be reported on an NOA
Form B, believes that the question of the information reporting
standard and the standard of diligence has become moot, with the
elimination of all information submission requirements other than those
that EPA can reasonably expect the submitter to know. By direct
operation of the statute and consistent with proposed procedural rules
at 40 CFR 710.25, any person who intends to manufacture or process an
inactive substance, except for a nonexempt commercial purpose, must
submit an NOA Form B alerting EPA to ``designate the applicable
chemical substance as an active substance.'' TSCA section 8(b)(5)(B).
Thus, irrespective of any rulemaking, TSCA itself requires the identity
of the substance to be placed on the active Inventory to be specified.
The proposed requirement to report the type of intended commercial
activity has been eliminated, along with the ``actual date'' by which
the inactive substance is to be manufactured or processed. If a person
does not know the date by which it anticipates that the inactive
substance is to be manufactured or processed, then filing NOA Form B
would be inconsistent with the timing requirements of 40 CFR 710.30.
Finally, EPA can reasonably expect the submitter to know its own
identity. Accordingly, EPA has removed, as moot, the proposed
specification in 40 CFR 710.29(c) that a person required to submit
information on an NOA Form B must report information to the extent that
such information is known or reasonably ascertainable by that person.
    Changes to the Final Rule to Clarify ``Known or Reasonably
Ascertainable'' and to Add a Definition for ``Possession or Control:''
EPA added a definition for ``Possession or Control'' in the rule to
clarify the existing definition of ``Known to or reasonably
ascertainable by.'' See 40 CFR 710.23. EPA also revised 40 CFR
710.25(a) to clarify that if it is not ``known to or reasonably
ascertainable by'' a manufacturer that the person manufactured a
particular chemical substance during the lookback period, then the
person is not obligated to report that substance on an NOA Form A. EPA
revised 40 CFR 710.25(c) to clarify that if it is not ``known to or
reasonably ascertainable by'' a person that the substance being
manufactured or processed is listed on the confidential portion of the
Inventory as an inactive substance, then the person is not obligated to
report that substance on an NOA Form B. EPA removed, as moot, the
proposed specification in 40 CFR 710.29(c) that a person required to
submit information on an NOA Form B must report information to the
extent that such information is known to or reasonably ascertainable by
that person.
    Comment 13: Numerous commenters stated that EPA should provide a
reasonable opportunity or a formal process to amend or correct
retrospective notices. Several commenters suggested a time frame for
corrections, e.g., up until the date that the first Inventory with
active and inactive designations is published; for manufacturers,
during the additional 180-day submission period for processors; and for
processors, 180 days from the date that the first Inventory is
published. Two commenters stated that EPA should also allow forward-
looking notices to be corrected or rescinded. Several commenters
indicated that corrections should be non-punitive.
    Response: EPA agrees in part with these comments. The 180-day
retrospective submission period for manufacturers is the maximum time
provided for by the statute. While EPA is not providing a formal
corrections process for retrospective reporting to the regulatory text,
EPA will allow retrospective reporting notices submitted by
manufacturers during the 180-day submission period for manufacturers to
be withdrawn not later than 420 days after the publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register. EPA will allow retrospective reporting
notices submitted by processors during the 420-day submission period
for processors to be withdrawn not later than October 5, 2018, should
processors discover errors in their original notices. See 40 CFR
710.30(a)(3).
    With respect to forward-looking reporting, EPA is not providing a
formal corrections process but has revised the regulatory text to allow
forward-looking reporting notices submitted by manufacturers or
processors to be withdrawn if EPA has not yet altered the Inventory
status of the chemical substance in response to the original submission
(i.e., EPA has neither re-designated the substance from inactive to
active nor moved the substance from the confidential portion of the
Inventory to the public portion of the Inventory as a result of a
request in the original submission for a CBI claim to be withdrawn).
See 40 CFR 710.30(b)(3). Because a forward-looking notice will be
processed even if the intended manufacture and processing does not
occur as originally anticipated, and because it would be burdensome and
potentially impossible to implement

such an approach, the rule does not allow for EPA to revert a re-
activated substance back to inactive status based on a request to
withdraw a Form B, or for EPA to revert a non-CBI substance back to a
CBI substance based on a request to withdraw a Form B.
    EPA appreciates that retrospective withdrawals should be non-
punitive. However, after the period allowed for withdrawal, incorrect
information would be considered a prohibited act under Section 15(1)
and 15(3). Similarly, incorrect information in forward-looking notices
would also be considered a prohibited act under Section 15(1) and
15(3), if not withdrawn prior to EPA altering the Inventory status of
the chemical substance in the original notice. Persons making
corrections after these retrospective and forward-looking timeframes
and seeking future penalty mitigation considerations may disclose
within 21 days after they have an objectively reasonable basis for
believing that a violation has, or may have, occurred, pursuant to
EPA's Self-Disclosure policies. See: https://www.epa.gov/compliance/epas-edisclosure.
    Changes to the Final Rule to Allow Withdrawal of a Notice of
Activity Form A or Form B: EPA revised the rule to allow retrospective
notices to be withdrawn if done so not later than October 5, 2018. See
40 CFR 710.30(a)(3). EPA revised the rule to allow forward-looking
notices to be withdrawn if EPA has not yet altered the Inventory status
of the substance in response to the original submission. See 40 CFR
710.30(b)(3).
    Comment 14: A few commenters requested clarification on the
proposed procedures for joint submissions. One commenter requested that
EPA provide a different reporting option that avoids the need for a
joint submission. Two commenters requested clarification on the
reporting responsibilities of manufacturers, importers, and processors
when a supplier fails to submit its information.
    Response: EPA proposed procedures for joint submissions that will
enable a company to submit a commercial activity notice for a chemical
substance on the confidential portion of the Inventory in situations
where the submitter does not know the specific chemical identity of the
substance because a portion of the specific chemical identity is held
CBI by a supplier. This rule includes such joint submission procedures
that allow the submitter to provide information on the specific
chemical identity that it has in its possession, and the supplier to
separately provide information on the specific chemical identity that
it has in its possession, in a manner that protects the supplier's CBI
from the submitter of the NOA.
    Additionally, since publication of the proposed rule, EPA expanded
its electronic reporting system to include a pick list from which
persons can select chemicals for reporting. The pick list will include
only reportable substances and will not include CBI. Non-CBI substances
will be listed by CASRNs and CA index names, as they appear on the
Inventory, and CBI substances will be listed by EPA accession numbers
and generic names, as they appear on public versions of the Inventory.
Submitters can identify substances from the pick list and, therefore,
do not have to manually enter chemical identity information. Because
the chemical identity information selected from the pick list and
transmitted on the NOA form will not be CBI, there is no need for
submitters who use this pick list to supply CBI to EPA. In cases
involving third party CBI, a submitter can provide a single notice to
EPA for a CBI substance, provided they have in their possession the
corresponding non-CBI chemical identifiers, EPA accession number and
generic name, by selecting the non-CBI identifiers from the pick list,
thereby avoiding the need for a joint submission. If a submitting
company does not know the EPA accession number and generic name, they
can use existing mechanisms (e.g., Inventory Correspondence) to request
such information from EPA.
    A submitting company that does not know the CBI chemical identity
of the substance that it is required to report because of third party
CBI, therefore, has two options for reporting. Such submitter can
utilize the joint submission functionality in the electronic reporting
tool. Alternatively, such submitter can select from the pick list based
on the corresponding non-CBI chemical identifiers, EPA accession number
and generic name, provided they have this information.
    Changes to Reporting Options for Joint Submissions: EPA revised the
final rule to add a description of the pick list that will be provided
in the electronic reporting system and which can serve as an
alternative to a joint submission, should submitters have in their
possession non-CBI chemical identifiers (EPA accession number and
generic name) for a reportable CBI substance.
    Comment 15: A few commenters stated that the estimated reporting
burden and costs are too low or unrealistic, citing the following
universe estimates as underestimated: Number of chemicals that are not
reported under CDR because of exemptions or reporting threshold
(including ten percent basis for nonexempt low volume chemicals and
polymers) and total burden for processors. One commenter recommended
that EPA revise the number of processors or better explain the origins
of EPA's estimation of 161,000 affected processors. Additionally, a few
commenters stated that unit burden estimates per activity and/or
respondent are too low, including: Cost per industry submission, time
needed for data gathering, time needed for due diligence, and rule
familiarization (for processors).
    Response: EPA agrees in part with these comments. After considering
these comments, EPA adjusted the universe estimates and certain unit
burden estimates. Regarding the number of chemicals and associated
firms, EPA adds a group of chemicals termed ``XU Chemicals'' that was
not included in estimates for the proposed rule. XU chemicals are
defined in 40 CFR 711.6 and largely consist of polymers. This group of
chemicals is listed on the Inventory, but is exempt from the reporting
requirements of the CDR rule. Given that the CDR database is the
primary source from which this rule's economic analysis draws
measurements for counts of chemicals and firms, the XU Chemicals needed
to be added. Regarding the number of processors, the origin for the
proposed rule estimate of 161,550 processors was derived using the
total chemical count for the initial reporting period combined with a
model for ``processors per chemical.'' The model is based on a previous
analysis for a different proposed rule (and cited in this proposed
rule's Burden and Cost Report.) For the final rule, the model is
updated using the more current CDR 2016 data; detailed methodology is
provided in Table 2 footnote (Ref. 2). Due to the increased value of
the model coupled with the higher chemical counts (discussed
previously), processors are estimated for the final rule at 283,993
firms
    Regarding unit burden estimates, EPA developed estimates for
typical scenarios during start up and ongoing reporting to use as the
representative average and then apply universe estimates to yield total
burden estimates. Individual respondents may experience lower or higher
levels of burden. The activities of ``time for data gathering,'' and
``time needed for due diligence'' are included in the unit burden
estimate for compliance determination. Similarly, unit burden estimate
for rule familiarization is based

on the activities expected: ``. . . becoming familiar with the full
requirements of the rule, which includes reading the rule,
understanding the various reporting and administrative requirements,
and determining the manner in which reporting requirements will be met
for each chemical substance'' (Ref. 2). EPA also developed a range of
burden hours estimates for processors' rule familiarization during
start up at one to four hours, based on EPA judgment of how processors
will familiarize themselves with the rule.
    Changes to the Burden and Cost Estimates in the Final Rule: EPA
revised the universe estimates to add XU Chemicals, and to incorporate
a revised, larger estimate for the number of processor firms. EPA also
revised the unit burden for processors' rule familiarization during
start up.
    Comment 16: One commenter indicated that EPA should justify why
certification is required for non-CBI notices. Another commenter
suggested the following changes to the proposed regulatory text for
certification: 40 CFR 710.37(b)(3) should be corrected to ``[a]n
authorized official of a person'' instead of ``person,'' 40 CFR
710.29(d)(5) should be extended to substantiations as well as to claims
and notices, and 40 CFR 710.37(b)(3) should be replicated in 40 CFR
710.37(a) so that it also applies to CBI claims for chemical identity
in addition to other CBI claims.
    Response: Certification statements are required under TSCA section
8(b)(9)(A) and are essential whenever information is submitted to the
EPA. Certification statements are routinely required for data submitted
to the EPA under TSCA as well as other statutes for both CBI and non-
CBI submissions. Such statements ensure that the data the EPA
ultimately relies on are valid and accurate. It also puts the submitter
on notice of the consequences of submitting false, inaccurate, or
incomplete information to the Agency.
    EPA agrees in large part with the comment recommending specific
corrections to 40 CFR 710.37(b)(3) and 710.29(d)(5), the proposed
regulatory provisions for certifications. EPA has revised the
certification provisions in the rule, which currently appear at 40 CFR
710.37(e) (applicable to CBI claims and associated substantiations) and
710.29(d)(5) (applicable to all information reported on NOA Forms A and
B). The rule clarifies that an ``authorized official'' submitting or
substantiating any new or existing CBI claim must provide a
certification, consistent with the requirements of TSCA section
14(c)(5).
    While EPA does not agree with the commenter's implication that a
request to maintain an existing CBI claim for specific chemical
identity is subject to all of the same requirements and procedures that
would apply to the assertion of a new claim under TSCA section 14(c),
EPA finds it appropriate under the circumstances to require a
certification statement for such requests that is consistent with TSCA
section 14(c)(5), in addition to meeting the certification requirement
of TSCA section 8(b)(9)(A). The earlier assertion of the CBI claim for
specific chemical identity may have predated current provisions under
TSCA subsections 14(c)(5) and (c)(1)(B) pertaining to the certification
of a specific statement required for the assertion of a CBI claim. EPA
does not believe that Congress intended the Agency to review existing
CBI claims for chemical identity under TSCA section 8(b) without having
the benefit of this certified statement.
    Changes to the Certification Statements in the Final Rule. EPA
revised the certification statement applicable to CBI claims to
substitute ``authorized official'' for ``person,'' and to address
substantiation of claims, consistent with TSCA sections 8(b)(9)(A) and
14(c)(5).
    Comment 17: One commenter indicated that the CBI claims process
should be better defined, particularly with regard to substantiation.
Two commenters stated that the substantiation questions should be
reduced in scope.
    Response: EPA has extensively re-written the substantiation
questions from the proposal in a manner intended to more succinctly
secure answers for the basis of the CBI assertions for each data
element as well as the CBI concerns on the linkage of data elements.
    Changes to Substantiation Questions in the Final Rule: EPA has
rewritten the substantiation questions to more succinctly secure
answers for the basis of the CBI assertions for each data elements as
well as the CBI concerns on the linkage of data elements.

IV. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket includes these references and
other information considered by EPA. For assistance in locating these
other documents, please consult the technical contact listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. 2017. EPA. TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive)
Requirements; Proposed Rule. Federal Register (82 FR 4255, January
13, 2017) (FRL 9956-28).
2. 2017. EPA. Burden and Cost Report for the Final Rule: TSCA
Inventory Notification Requirements (RIN 2070-AK24, June 19, 2017).
3. 2017. EPA. Notice of Activity Form A and Form B; Final.