Managed by B&C® Consortia Management, L.L.C.

{00620.002 / 111 / 00167439.DOC 4}

2200 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. Suite 100W (202) 833-6580

Washington, D.C. 20037 www.braginfo.org

October 5, 2015

Via E-Mail

The Honorable Gina McCarthy

Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

Re: Section 21 Petition for Equivalency Determinations for Class 2 

Substances under TSCA

Dear Administrator McCarthy:

The Biobased and Renewable Products Advocacy Group (BRAG®)

1 submits this 

petition under the authority of Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)2 to 

initiate a rulemaking under TSCA Section 83 that would establish a process to amend the list of 

natural sources of oil and fat in the “Soap and Detergent Association” (SDA) nomenclature 

system by considering the chemical equivalency of additional natural sources. 

Great strides have been made over the last decade in the development of 

renewable chemical products from novel biobased sources. As further detailed below, the key 

hindrance to commercialization of these biobased chemical products is the limited list of natural 

sources of fats and oils in the SDA nomenclature system. This petition requests that the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) address the disproportionate regulatory burden 

imposed on those companies striving to address the critical needs for sustainability within the 

 1 BRAG provides a platform for organizations engaged in biobased chemistries to promote 

their products, identify and address regulatory barriers for their unique products, and 

work collectively to address them. BRAG tackles regulatory hindrances related to 

commercialization of biobased products and works to improve public awareness of the 

benefits of these products.

2 TSCA § 21, 15 U.S.C. § 2620.

3 TSCA § 8, 15 U.S.C. § 2607.
The Honorable Gina McCarthy

October 5, 2015

Page 2

{00620.002 / 111 / 00167439.DOC 4}

chemical sector. BRAG believes this can be accomplished without compromising EPA’s 

mission to protect human health and the environment.

Background

Many chemical substances, including many biobased substances, are not 

substances with a single molecular structure, but instead are mixtures that are referred to as 

“unknown or variable composition, complex reaction products, or biological” (UVCB) materials. 

TSCA requires that all chemical substances manufactured or processed in the United States, 

including UVCBs, be listed on the TSCA Inventory with a scientifically valid chemical name 

and description. In most cases, UVCB substances include their source as part of the chemical 

identity. The source also appears in the identities of downstream intermediates and products. As 

depicted in Figure 1 below, while the list of sources on the left starts simply, the source-based 

naming requirements create a downstream myriad of essentially duplicate chemicals with 

different names.

Figure 1. Depiction of how source species names propagate through a supply chain. 

SDA nomenclature is an alternate nomenclature convention for UVCB substances 

that reduces this supply chain complexity and provides some source flexibility within specific 
The Honorable Gina McCarthy

October 5, 2015

Page 3

{00620.002 / 111 / 00167439.DOC 4}

groups. The SDA nomenclature system classifies 35 natural sources of fatty acids, and their 

synthetic equivalents, into a variety of alkyl group ranges that are based on the constituent fatty 

acid chain lengths present in those sources, without naming the source organisms. This allows a 

chemical producer to identify its product using that alkyl range, when it is made from any plant 

oil included in the SDA system that has a corresponding fatty acid profile. This reduces the 

burden on chemical manufacturers, as they change between these equivalent oil sources based on 

price and availability. It also reduces EPA’s burden, as it eliminates the need to review dozens 

of new chemicals as manufacturers develop new, otherwise identical, downstream intermediates 

and products that can be made from any of these SDA-eligible sources. 

The problem for newly developed biobased chemicals is that the existing 

nomenclature system limits source flexibility to the 35 natural sources of fats and oils (and their 

petroleum synthetic equivalents). As the name implies, the nomenclature system was developed 

by SDA (now known as the American Cleaning Institute (ACI)) when the TSCA Inventory was 

initially compiled. TSCA Section 8(b)(2) allows EPA to list substances in the TSCA Inventory 

by category instead of listing them individually. The 35 natural sources were included in the 

listed categories established using the SDA nomenclature because they were identified as being 

in commerce in 1978 when the system was developed. At that time, EPA set up the SDA alkyl 

ranges and determined in which alkyl range each of the 35 sources belonged. This was, 

effectively, a determination of chemical equivalency. Since its adoption of the SDA system in 

1978, EPA has not attempted to amend the list of 35 sources or made equivalency determinations 

for other natural sources.

Most of the 35 sources eligible for SDA nomenclature are derived from food 

crops, such as corn or soy. Many in the biobased chemical sector have focused their current 

efforts on finding new sources of fats and oils. Some new sources are isolated from nontraditional plants, like camelina and jatropha. Some are derived from algae and some are derived 

from microbes. These novel sources yield oils that are functionally equivalent to, and may be 

chemically indistinguishable from, oils listed in the SDA nomenclature system. Because novel 

sources of chemically equivalent fats and oils are not among the 35 sources already listed, 

however, new oils cannot be named using the SDA alkyl ranges. Without access to the alkyl 

range names, novel biobased chemical producers and their customers must submit a 

premanufacture notification for fats and oils derived from each new source and for all of the 

downstream intermediates and products. This delays commercialization of novel sources of fats 

and oils and, more importantly, creates a disincentive for customers to switch from traditional 

oils to these novel sources because the customers would be forced to submit new chemical 

notifications for substances that would be existing chemicals if only they were made from SDAeligible sources. 
The Honorable Gina McCarthy

October 5, 2015

Page 4

{00620.002 / 111 / 00167439.DOC 4}

Figure 2. SDA nomenclature simplifies supply chain nomenclature. In this case, 

thirteen sources, including the four shown in Figure 1, or a petroleum equivalent, may 

use the C16-C18, C18 unsatd. alkyl descriptor. 

For example, a new oil that was chemically equivalent to corn oil, with the same 

properties and characteristics, but was derived from algae, could not rely on the existing SDA 

name “C16-C18 and C18 unsaturated fatty acids” because the algae is not included on the existing 

SDA nomenclature list. A company producing the fatty acid ethoxylates from this new oil would 

have to submit a notification to EPA for each substance derived from the novel oil source even 

though these derivatives are otherwise chemically equivalent to derivatives made from corn or 

soy oil. Each new source would add another layer to the diagram in Figure 1, above, rather than 

being able to use the simplifying system depicted in Figure 2. 

This limitation of source categories in the SDA system results in inequitable 

regulatory treatment for chemical substances that are functionally the same and chemically 

nearly identical. 

TSCA Section 21 Authorizes EPA to Issue a Rule 

to Set Equivalency Determinations for Class 2 Substances

Under TSCA Section 21, any person may petition the EPA Administrator to 

“initiate a proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule” under TSCA Sections 4, 
The Honorable Gina McCarthy

October 5, 2015

Page 5

{00620.002 / 111 / 00167439.DOC 4}

6, or 8, or an order issued under TSCA Sections 5(e) or 6(b)(2).4 A TSCA Section 21 petition 

must set forth facts that the petitioner believes “establish that it is necessary to issue, amend, or 

repeal a rule” subject to the petition.5 

In prior decisions responding to Section 21 petitions, EPA has focused on 

different elements as to whether a petitioner has set forth sufficient facts demonstrating that it is 

“necessary” for EPA to act as requested. In denying a Section 21 petition seeking a Section 6 

rule, for example, EPA stated that TSCA Section 21 implicitly incorporates the statutory 

standards that apply to the requested actions, and the petitioner had not set forth sufficient facts 

to demonstrate the Section 6 standard could be satisfied.6

 In another petition asking EPA to, in 

part, issue a TSCA Section 8(d) rule to obtain information on “exposure of consumers to air 

fresheners,” EPA found the broad scope of the proposal and the resources to be expended a 

factor in determining that petitioners had not persuaded EPA that it is necessary or appropriate to 

issue the requested TSCA Section 8(d) rule.7

As set forth in this letter, BRAG has identified sufficient facts demonstrating that 

the existing source-based nomenclature system is unfairly restrictive and should allow for new 

sources to be added. The reasoning for adding the new sources is the same as when EPA 

decided to list categories using the initial 35 sources; there are no significant differences between 

chemicals in the various alkyl categories, nor are there differences between substances derived 

from the listed sources in each range. The rulemaking that BRAG seeks is focused, and will 

ensure that EPA’s regulations are equitable in their treatment of substantially similar substances.

 4 TSCA § 21(a), 15 U.S.C. § 2620(a).

5 TSCA § 21(b)(1), 15 U.S.C. § 2620(b)(1).

6 73 Fed. Reg. 32573 (June 9, 2008).

7 72 Fed. Reg. 72886 (Dec. 21, 2007). See also 79 Fed. Reg. 13968, 13970 (Mar. 12, 

2014) (“Based on the expected limitations in the availability and utility of the records to 

EPA’s analysis of lead-based paint hazards created by renovations in P&CBs, EPA does 

not believe that the expenditures of time and resources inherent in proposing and 

finalizing a TSCA section 8(d) rule are justified”).
The Honorable Gina McCarthy

October 5, 2015

Page 6

{00620.002 / 111 / 00167439.DOC 4}

EPA Should Initiate a Rulemaking to Expand the Plant and Animal Sources 

Listed in the SDA Nomenclature

The SDA nomenclature system is currently limited to the fats, oils and synthetic 

equivalents of the specific plant and animal sources listed in the SDA procedures. Because alkyl 

descriptors are used instead of specific sources, manufacturers have some flexibility to switch 

from one source to another listed in the SDA nomenclature, as long as the alkyl range descriptors 

for the two sources are the same. The SDA system specifically states, however, that alkyl groups 

derived from natural sources not listed in the SDA procedures are not eligible to use the SDA 

nomenclature. The SDA procedures currently list 35 plant and animal sources, which were 

presumably representative of the sources used in the late 1970s. To date, EPA has not modified 

that initial list of 35 plant and animal sources.

BRAG believes that EPA is authorized under TSCA Section 8 to commence a 

rulemaking, the object of which would establish a procedure by which EPA can add new sources 

of fats and oils to the SDA-eligible list. This petition under TSCA Section 21 requests that EPA 

initiate such a rulemaking. In the requested rule, EPA would establish a process by which a new 

fat or oil source can be reviewed, following a premanufacture notice or other appropriate 

notification to EPA, to determine if its make-up is sufficiently similar to existing fat or oil 

sources with the same alkyl range. Upon finding such similarity, EPA would add that source to 

the list of sources eligible to use SDA nomenclature and assign the appropriate alkyl range 

descriptor code. Once the new source is deemed eligible for SDA nomenclature, the 

manufacture of the fat or oil and customers converting the fat or oil into chemical derivatives 

could rely on the appropriate SDA alkyl range identity for purposes of Inventory listing and 

TSCA nomenclature. 

By allowing the list of SDA sources to expand, EPA would treat the original and 

novel sources equally, and remove the burden of industry reporting and of EPA reviewing many 

chemical substances that are effectively identical both in terms of performance and 

environmental and human health risk. 

This petition sets forth sufficient facts demonstrating that it is “necessary” for 

EPA to act as requested. The standard EPA utilized when it decided that nomenclature 

flexibility was warranted for the original 35 natural sources of fats and oils is equally applicable 

to novel sources, once they are reviewed by EPA. There are no significant expenditures of time 

and resources inherent in proposing to establish such equivalency that could cause EPA to 

determine this rule is not justified. To the contrary, establishing such equivalency could relieve 

EPA from the burden of reviewing premanufacture notices for numerous nearly identical 

substances.
The Honorable Gina McCarthy

October 5, 2015

Page 7

{00620.002 / 111 / 00167439.DOC 4}

BRAG members look forward to the opportunity to discuss with EPA any 

questions regarding this petition, and to EPA’s response to the petition request. Please call me at 

443-964-4653 or e-mail me at kroberts@bc-cm.com for further information or to schedule a 

meeting.

Sincerely,

Kathleen M. Roberts

BRAG Executive Director