By Lynn L. Bergeson
EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) announced the availability of its FY 2022 oversight plan on December 14, 2021. According to OIG, the plan reflects the priority work that the OIG believes is necessary to keep EPA, the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), and Congress fully informed about issues relating to the administration of EPA programs and operations. The planned oversight projects concerning Ensuring the Safe Use of Chemicals include:
- Audit of EPA’s Management of New Chemical Risk Assessments Conducted under TSCA: Determine the extent to which EPA is using and complying with applicable records-management and quality-assurance requirements and employee performance standards to review and approve new chemicals under TSCA to manage human health and environmental risks;
- Evaluation of EPA Regions’ Oversight Responsibilities for State and Tribal Drinking Water Certification Programs: Determine whether select EPA regions are fulfilling oversight responsibilities for drinking water certification programs in states and tribal nations;
- Evaluation of EPA’s Use of Pesticide Incident-Reporting Data: Determine whether EPA uses pesticide incident-reporting data to prevent unreasonable adverse effects on human health and the environment;
- Evaluation of Implementation of EPA’s Federal Certification for Applicators and Dealers of Restricted-Use Pesticides within Indian Country: Determine how EPA monitors and enforces the requirements for restricted-use pesticide applicators (private and commercial) and restricted-use pesticide dealers in Indian Country;
- Evaluation of EPA’s Progress toward Providing States with Clear Benchmarks to Address PFAS in Drinking Water: Determine why EPA has not established a mandatory limit for PFAS in drinking water; what challenges may prevent EPA from setting such a limit; and what EPA’s plan -- if one exists -- is for implementing such a limit; and
- Evaluation of EPA’s Progress to Identify Key Regulatory Stakeholders for TSCA Existing Chemical Risk Management: Determine whether EPA identified and partnered with key regulatory stakeholders and developed a process to coordinate the regulation of occupational exposures from existing chemicals under TSCA.
OIG states that it is important to note that its planning efforts “are not static and that the projects included herein may be modified throughout the year as challenges and risks for the EPA and the CSB evolve and emerge.”
By Lynn L. Bergeson
On December 10, 2021, the Biden Administration released its Fall 2021 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. According to EPA’s rule list, the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) is working on the following rulemakings under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Rulemakings at the proposed stage include:
- Tiered Data Reporting to Inform Prioritization, Risk Evaluation, and Risk Management Under TSCA (2070-AK62): EPA is developing this rule to obtain information about potential hazards and exposure pathways related to certain chemicals, particularly occupational, environmental, and consumer exposure information. EPA states that this information is needed to inform prioritization, risk evaluation, and risk management of the chemical substances under TSCA Section 6. EPA intends to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in July 2022 and a final rule in March 2023. More information on the rulemaking is available in our July 29, 2021, memorandum;
- Revisions to the TSCA Fees Rule (2070-AK64): In January 2021, EPA proposed updates and adjustments to the 2018 TSCA Fees Rule. EPA proposed to add three new fee categories: a Bona Fide Intent to Manufacture or Import Notice, a Notice of Commencement of Manufacture or Import, and an additional fee associated with test orders. In addition, EPA proposed exemptions for entities subject to certain fee triggering activities, including: an exemption for research and development activities; an exemption for entities manufacturing less than 2,500 pounds of a chemical subject to an EPA-initiated risk evaluation fee; an exemption for manufacturers of chemical substances produced as a non-isolated intermediate; and exemptions for manufacturers of a chemical substance subject to an EPA-initiated risk evaluation if the chemical substance is imported in an article, produced as a byproduct, or produced or imported as an impurity. EPA proposed a volume-based fee allocation for EPA-initiated risk evaluation fees in any scenario where a consortium is not formed and proposed to require export-only manufacturers to pay fees for EPA-initiated risk evaluations. EPA states that in light of public comments, it has decided to issue a supplemental proposal and seek additional public comment on changes to the January 2021 proposal. EPA intends to issue a supplemental NPRM in February 2022. EPA has not determined when it will issue a final rule. More information on the proposed rule is available in our December 30, 2020, memorandum;
- New Chemicals Procedural Regulations to Reflect Amendments to TSCA (2070-AK65): This rulemaking seeks to revise the new chemicals procedural regulations in 40 C.F.R. Part 720 to improve the efficiency of EPA’s review process and to align its processes and procedures with the new statutory requirements. According to EPA, this rulemaking seeks to increase the quality of information initially submitted in new chemicals notices and improve its processes “to reduce unnecessary rework in the risk assessment and, ultimately, the length of time that new chemicals are under review.” EPA intends to publish an NPRM in September 2022. EPA has not determined when it will issue a final rule;
- Procedures for Submitting Information Subject to Business Confidentiality Claims Under TSCA (2070-AK68): EPA states that it is considering proposing new and amended rules concerning the assertion and maintenance of claims of business confidentiality (i.e., confidential business information (CBI)) under TSCA. The 2016 TSCA amendments included several new provisions concerning the assertion and EPA review and treatment of confidentiality claims. EPA is considering procedures for submitting and supporting such claims in TSCA submissions, including substantiation requirements, exemptions, electronic reporting enhancements, and maintenance or withdrawal of confidentiality claims. EPA is also considering whether the proposed rule should elaborate on EPA’s procedures for reviewing and communicating with TSCA submitters about confidentiality claims. According to EPA, it expects the proposed rule to include new provisions, as well as revisions to existing rules on asserting confidentiality claims to conform to the 2016 amendments. EPA intends to issue an NPRM in April 2022; and
- Reconsideration of Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under the Amended TSCA (2070-AK90): EPA published a final rule on July 20, 2017, that established a process for conducting risk evaluations to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation, under the conditions of use. This process incorporates the science requirements of the amended statute, including best available science and weight of the scientific evidence. The final rule established the steps of a risk evaluation process, including: scope, hazard assessment, exposure assessment, risk characterization, and risk determination. EPA states that it is now in the process of reconsidering the final rule in keeping with new EOs concerning the advancement of racial equity and support for underserved communities through the federal government (EO 13985), the protection of public health and the environment and restoring science to tackle the climate crisis (EO 13990), tackling the climate crisis at home and abroad (EO 14008), and other Administration priorities (such as the Presidential memorandum on restoring trust in government through scientific integrity and evidence-based policymaking). If EPA determines to amend the 2017 final rule based on its reconsideration, it will solicit public comment through an NPRM. EPA intends to publish an NPRM in September 2022.
The Unified Agenda lists the following TSCA rulemaking at the final stage:
- Significant New Uses of Chemical Substances; Updates to the Hazard Communication Program and Regulatory Framework; Minor Amendments to Reporting Requirements for Premanufacture Notices (PMN) (2070-AJ94): EPA proposed amending components of the Significant New Uses of Chemical Substances regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 721, specifically the “Protection in the Workplace” (40 C.F.R. Section 721.63) and “Hazard Communication Program” (40 C.F.R. Section 721.72). 81 Fed. Reg. 49598. The proposed changes are intended to align, where possible, EPA’s regulations with the revised Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations at 29 C.F.R. Section 1910.1200. OSHA issued a final rule on March 26, 2012 (77 Fed. Reg. 17573), that aligns OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standards with the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). EPA states that it is reviewing the comments received and is planning to issue a final rule. EPA intends to issue a final rule in September 2022. More information on EPA’s 2016 proposed rule is available in our July 29, 2016, memorandum.
Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) is pleased to provide our Forecast 2022 to readers of the Biobased and Renewable Products Update, offering our best informed judgment as to the trends and key developments we expect to see in the new year. Global and national policy reforms continue to focus increasingly on a circular economy as a critical part of addressing climate change. In 2022, industry stakeholders can expect the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to announce funding opportunities for efforts focused on the development of novel biobased chemistry. Stakeholders in the biobased chemical industry should also plan to monitor activities on Capitol Hill, including the Sustainable Chemistry Research and Development Act, passed in July 2020 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year (FY) 2021. More details on this, and expected regulatory changes of all varieties, are available in our Forecast for U.S. Federal and International Chemical Regulatory Policy 2022.
“ What to Expect in Chemicals in 2022”
January 26, 2022, 12:00 p.m. EST
B&C will be presenting a complimentary webinar, “What to Expect in Chemicals in 2022,” focusing on themes outlined in the forecast. Join Lynn L. Bergeson, Managing Partner; Richard E. Engler, Ph.D., Director of Chemistry; and James V. Aidala, Senior Government Affairs Consultant, for this informative and forward-looking webinar.
By Lynn L. Bergeson
According to an October 26, 2021, project notification memorandum, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) plans to begin fieldwork on an audit of EPA’s process for conducting reviews of new chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The memorandum states that the audit “is self-initiated based on OIG’s oversight plan for fiscal year [(FY)] 2022 and to address complaints submitted to the OIG Hotline.” The audit also addresses the following FY 2022 top management challenge for EPA: ensuring safe use of chemicals.
OIG states that its objective is to determine the extent to which EPA uses and complies with applicable records management requirements, quality assurance requirements, and employee performance standards to review and approve new chemicals under TSCA to manage human health and environmental risks. OIG plans to conduct work with the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) in EPA headquarters. According to OIG, the anticipated benefits of the audit are “improved operational efficiency and greater human health and environmental protections.”
To expedite the audit, OIG asks that OSCPP provide the following information:
- Any training materials, handbooks, or other materials related to the review of new chemicals;
- Resource allocations for the New Chemicals Review Program for FYs 2018 through 2021;
- Scopes of work for any contracts related to the new chemicals review process;
- Any OCSPP guidance under which products developed during the review of new chemicals would constitute records and how the records should be managed; and
- New Chemicals Review Program organization charts before and after the October 2020 reorganization.
As reported in Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.’s (B&C®) October 28, 2021, memorandum, “House Committee Holds Hearing on ‘TSCA and Public Health: Fulfilling the Promise of the Lautenberg Act,’” Dr. Michal Ilana Freedhoff, OCSPP Assistant Administrator, has let OIG know that OCSPP will cooperate fully with its investigation.
By Richard E. Engler, Ph.D., and Carla N. Hutton
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on November 23, 2021, legally mandated changes to the fee requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This is not the fee adjustment we have been awaiting. It is a routine increase that TSCA directs EPA every three years to adjust the fees. The adjustment will go into effect on January 1, 2022, and will apply to all TSCA fees. The fee adjustment will not be retroactive and will not impact previous fee invoicing. According to EPA, separate from this action, EPA plans to propose additional revisions in 2022 to the 2018 TSCA fees rule to supplement its January 2021 proposal to ensure that TSCA fee amounts capture up to 25 percent of the actual costs of TSCA activities, fees are distributed equitably, and fee payers are identified through a transparent process.
In its announcement, EPA states that the TSCA program “has been and remains seriously underfunded.” The 2016 amendments to TSCA provided EPA with expanded authority to collect fees from chemical manufacturers and processors to help defray up to 25 percent of the costs associated with eight categories of TSCA implementation activities, including risk evaluations, new chemical notices, test rules, consent agreements, and test orders, as well as the cost of reviewing and managing confidential business information (CBI). EPA published a final TSCA fees rule in October 2018, meaning that EPA did not collect any fees under the rule until fiscal year 2019, and excluded 100 percent of the costs of the first ten risk evaluations. According to EPA, as a result of this and other factors, TSCA fees collected since the 2016 amendments have covered only half of the 25 percent target. EPA states that it “estimates it has less than half of the resources needed to review and approve new chemicals in the manner Congress intended and observes that the statutory deadlines for completing nine of the first 10 risk evaluations were missed.”
According to EPA’s TSCA Fees Table, consistent with the formula in the 2018 final rule, EPA will increase fees by the inflation rate, calculated to be 18.9 percent. EPA calculated the inflation rate by dividing the Producer Price Index (PPI) for September 2021 (348.8) by the PPI for January 2019 (293.4).
EPA states that consistent with the formula in the proposed rule, in any scenario where there is not a single consortium comprised of all manufacturers subject to a single fee, it will take the following steps to allocate fees:
- Count the total number of manufacturers, including the number of manufacturers within any consortia;
- Divide the total fee amount by the total number of manufacturers and allocate equally on a per capita basis to generate a base fee;
- Provide all small businesses who are either (a) not associated with a consortium, or (b) associated with an all-small business consortium with an 80 percent discount from the base fee referenced previously;
- Calculate the total remaining fee and total number of remaining manufacturers by subtracting out the discounted fees and the number of small businesses identified; and
- Reallocate the remaining fee across those remaining individuals and groups in equal amounts, counting each manufacturer in a consortium as one person.
EPA notes that it is providing an approximately 80 percent reduction in TSCA administration fees to submitters who qualify as small businesses. EPA states that small business fees are only applicable to qualifying small businesses that are either not associated with a consortium or associated with an all-small business consortium.
This announcement appears to be a routine increase in the TSCA fees based on the regulations in 40 C.F.R. Section 700.45, which requires that every three years, fees be adjusted for inflation. This action is independent from the rulemaking that EPA initiated in January 2021.
By Lynn L. Bergeson
The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change held a hearing on October 27, 2021, on “TSCA and Public Health: Fulfilling the Promise of the Lautenberg Act.” The October 25, 2021, briefing memorandum notes that the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (the Lautenberg Act) comprehensively amended TSCA, “including key reforms to increase EPA’s authority to mandate testing, require EPA to make affirmative decisions about the safety of new chemicals, and require the evaluation, and where merited, the regulation of existing chemicals.”
Dr. Michal Ilana Freedhoff, Assistant Administrator for OCSPP, was the Subcommittee’s only witness. In her testimony, she emphasized several critical building blocks of a sustainable TSCA program:
- Resources: EPA needs meaningful new funding to reflect its new responsibilities under the Lautenberg Act. Freedhoff estimates that EPA has less than 50 percent of the resources necessary to review and approve new chemicals in the way Congress intended;
- Strong science and scientific integrity; and
- Policies and processes that will lead to legally and scientifically defensible and protective chemical safety actions. The previous Administration issued ten final risk evaluations. While some EPA policy changes made under the Biden Administration will require revision to some of these risk evaluations, EPA’s intent is to do only what is necessary. These policy changes include reversing the assumption that all workers always use personal protective equipment (PPE) and reversing the decision to exclude exposures to chemicals from air, drinking water, and disposal.
Freedhoff stated that EPA’s goal is to move to rulemaking as soon as possible. She expects that the proposed rule for asbestos will be the very first of the first ten chemicals assessed under the Lautenberg Act that will be sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for interagency review later in 2021. According to Freedhoff, the scope for the next part of the asbestos risk evaluation that addresses uses and fiber types that the previous Administration excluded will be ready “roughly” by the end of 2021. EPA expects to complete that risk evaluation by the end of 2024.
Freedhoff described EPA’s work to improve implementation of the new chemicals program. Freedhoff noted that EPA has made policy changes intended to protect workers and ensure that the scope of new chemical reviews aligns with Congress’s expectations. EPA has also revised the process for reviewing and issuing final human health risk assessments and established a new internal advisory body to review and consider scientific policy issues related to new chemical submissions. Freedhoff stressed that she does not believe ensuring that new chemicals be used safely and reviewing new chemicals quickly are mutually exclusive. EPA can do both, and the Lautenberg Act states that EPA should. When questioned about the delay in review of premanufacture notices (PMN) within the allotted 90 days, Freedhoff stated that EPA is operating under the typical workload, as has been the case the past few years. According to Freedhoff, when EPA takes more than 90 days, it is typically because the companies have asked EPA to do so. Sometimes that is because the companies are providing new information late in the process and sometimes, especially in the past few years, it is because they disagree with EPA’s risk assessment and want to change EPA’s mind. Freedhoff reiterated her earlier point about needing resources, noting that EPA is operating with less than 50 percent of the resources that it thinks it needs to operate the NCD in the way that Congress intended.
Freedhoff stated that in April 2021, she and the scientific integrity official found a way to initiate a review of a small number of human health assessments about which concerns were raised, and she shared the information with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). She learned that sometimes very serious questions were raised about how hazardous a new chemical is found to be, even when there is agreement that hazard exists. She heard that changes to the scientific basis of the assessments is not always well explained or understandable. Freedhoff stated that there are legitimate questions about the process and science associated with reviewing new chemicals and that she takes these concerns seriously. She personally let the OIG know that OCSPP will cooperate fully with its investigation; launched a series of scientific integrity trainings; put into place new ways for scientists who believe that there is disagreement can elevate their concerns and obtain a review; and hired someone to come in and talk about ways to improve recordkeeping practices.
Freedhoff highlighted one of OCSPP’s contributions to the Biden Administration’s multi-agency plan to address PFAS contamination, the national PFAS testing strategy. According to Freedhoff, most of the thousands of PFAS have no toxicity data, and if EPA continues to work on one PFAS at a time, EPA will not get through them. Freedhoff stated that the first TSCA test orders to manufacturers for about 20 different PFAS in 20 different categories will go out in a matter of months. EPA expects to extrapolate the information that it receives to more than 2,000 other PFAS in similar categories. EPA is currently determining what tests to require. The timeline for industry to conduct the testing and provide results to EPA depends on what tests are required.
After Freedhoff completed her opening statement, Committee and Subcommittee members had an opportunity to ask questions. During the question and answer period, Freedhoff agreed that the Lautenberg Act requires that EPA make health and safety studies public, such as those for Colour Index (C.I.) Pigment Violet 29 (PV29) that were initially declared confidential, and EPA is going to do that. EPA has updated the confidential status of almost 400 chemicals and will include those chemicals on the next update of the TSCA Inventory. EPA is also working to provide more information about new chemicals and make it more public as quickly as possible.
To address risks to communities that live near industrial facilities, EPA is creating a fenceline screening methodology to ensure that communities are not inadvertently left out of the risk evaluation process. According to Freedhoff, EPA will release the methodology for public comment and peer review in fall 2021. EPA also expects to release a new draft systematic review methodology for both public comment and peer review later in 2021.
When asked about the final rules for five persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals -- 2,4,6-tris(tert-butyl)phenol (2,4,6-TTBP), decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE), hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD), pentachlorothiophenol (PCTP), and phenol, isopropylated phosphate (3:1) (PIP (3:1)) -- that have caused concerns about the supply chain, Freedhoff noted that these final rules were issued under the Trump Administration. She stated that she believes that the former Administration made every effort to reach out to industry, but industry realized what the implications would be on their supply chains only after the final rules were issued. The Biden EPA immediately took action to extend the PIP (3:1) compliance date and is still working to address industry’s concerns and will continue to do so.
Under the previous Administration, EPA completed the risk evaluation of methylene chloride and banned it in all paint removers for consumer use. According to Freedhoff, EPA is now considering its commercial uses and working to ensure that the rule will not leave fenceline communities with additional exposures. EPA expects to send a proposed rule addressing these uses for interagency review sometime in 2022.
There were not many surprises in the hearing. Freedhoff largely reiterated statements EPA has made in the past, rather than providing new information or additional clarity. Criticism from members followed fairly well-trodden lines of critique that have been raised since 2016, and Freedhoff responded predictably, asserting that EPA would follow the law and the science and urging repeatedly that EPA needs additional resources to fulfill its mission.
For critics on both sides, there was little assurance that OCSPP will take action timely on the many issues that have been delayed, including the Section 6 risk evaluations, new chemicals notices, and PBT regulations.
By Lynn L. Bergeson
On October 1, 2021, EPA announced a series of virtual meetings of the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Chemical Safety for Sustainability and Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (CSS HERA) Subcommittee to review recent progress and activities of the Chemical Safety Analytics (CSA) and Emerging Materials and Technologies (EMT) research areas. Meetings are open to the public, and EPA accepted comments until November 3, 2021.
The initial meeting will be held over a two-day period via videoconference on November 4 and 5, 2021, 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (EDT). Registration was required by November 3, 2021. The following meetings are also scheduled:
- BOSC Deliberation Videoconference: November 18, 2021, 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. (EST) -- Registration is required by November 17, 2021.
- Final BOSC Deliberation Videoconference: December 10, 2021, 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. (EST) -- Registration is required by December 9, 2021.
Meeting times are subject to change.
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change will hold a hearing on October 27, 2021, on “TSCA and Public Health: Fulfilling the Promise of the Lautenberg Act.” According to the October 20, 2021, press release issued by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Representatives Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), Chair of the Committee, and Paul Tonko (D-NY), Chair of the Subcommittee, stated that the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg Act) made “crucial” reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) “that improve how the federal government protects Americans from dangerous chemicals, and now we must ensure those reforms are implemented effectively and honestly.” Pallone and Tonko stated that during the previous administration, “chemical risk evaluations were skewed in favor of industry to the detriment of workers and communities. We must protect consumers from exposure to toxic substances and ensure the Environmental Protection Agency is using the tools Congress granted it to protect public health.” The Subcommittee will discuss the implementation of the Lautenberg Act and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “efforts to get TSCA back on track.”
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Ligia Duarte Botelho, M.A.
On September 22, 2021, as part of Pollution Prevention Week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognized 33 Safer Choice Partner of the Year award winners for their achievements in design, manufacture, selection, and use of products with safer chemicals. Michal Freedhoff, Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), commented on the winners’ achievements, stating: “Today, we recognize the leadership and accomplishments of Safer Choice partners and stakeholders for their work helping consumers and commercial buyers identify products with safer chemical ingredients, without sacrificing quality or performance. Additionally, I’m excited to see that the work done by many of this year’s awardees support the Biden-Harris Administration’s goals of addressing climate change and advancing environmental justice.”
This year, award applicants were encouraged to demonstrate how their work with safer chemistry bolsters resilience to the impacts of climate change, promotes environmental justice, and results in cleaner air or water. In the upcoming year, EPA hopes to build on award winners’ work by expanding the Safer Choice program to make products containing safer chemicals increasingly available to underserved communities. Winners of this year’s award include small- and medium-sized companies, women-owned companies, state and local governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and associations.
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on August 10, 2021, that it added 36 chemicals to the Safer Chemical Ingredients List (SCIL). EPA states that the SCIL “is a living list of chemicals, by functional-use class, that EPA’s Safer Choice program has evaluated and determined meet Safer Choice criteria.” Listed chemicals “are among the safest for their functional use.” According to EPA, the SCIL is a “critical resource” that can be used by many different stakeholders, including:
- Product manufacturers that use the SCIL to help them make high-functioning products that contain safer ingredients;
- Chemical manufacturers that use the SCIL to promote the safer chemicals they manufacture;
- Retailers that use the SCIL to help shape their sustainability programs; and
- Environmental and health advocates that use the SCIL to support their work with industry to encourage the use of the safest possible chemistry.
EPA’s Safer Choice program certifies products containing ingredients that have met the program’s human health and environmental safety criteria. Companies can use the Safer Choice label on products that meet the Safer Choice Standard. EPA’s website contains a complete list of Safer Choice-certified products. EPA states that in the coming year, it hopes to expand the Safer Choice program “to make products containing safer chemicals increasingly available to underserved communities, including communities of color and low-income communities.”