Comment submitted by Persistence Analytics Group LLC

Comment on EPA–HQ–OPPT–2026–0499 Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances (26–1) The Environmental Protection Agency is correct to use Significant New Use Rules as an implementation-control mechanism under TSCA. The issue is not only whether a chemical substance has been reviewed once. The issue is whether future manufacturing, processing, use, distribution, disposal, import, or export conditions remain within the assumptions EPA evaluated. That is an implementation-integrity problem. EPA explains that these proposed SNURs would require persons intending to manufacture or process covered chemical substances for a significant new use to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. EPA further states that the activity may not begin until EPA has reviewed the notice, made the appropriate determination, and taken any required action. That is the right control structure. Persistence Analytics Group LLC / United Grid supports this approach because the absence of protective measures can convert a reviewed use into a materially different risk profile. EPA should strengthen the final rule by making the implementation expectations especially clear: 1. A significant new use should not proceed merely because the original PMN was reviewed. 2. Protective measures required under TSCA Orders should be treated as core operating assumptions, not optional compliance language. 3. EPA should preserve clear evidence trails showing which exposure controls, release limits, hazard-communication requirements, personal-protective-equipment requirements, and use restrictions are essential to the Agency’s risk posture. 4. EPA should ensure that importers, processors, downstream users, and exporters understand that changed use conditions can trigger review obligations. 5. EPA should make clear that confidentiality claims should not prevent legitimate manufacturers or processors with bona fide intent from understanding the conditions necessary to avoid unauthorized significant new uses. 6. EPA should track whether proposed significant new uses create new exposure pathways, higher release levels, consumer-product pathways, worker inhalation risks, aquatic toxicity concerns, disposal risks, or gaps in hazard communication. This rulemaking is a useful example of implementation-assumption verification. The core question is: What must remain true for the chemical use to stay within the risk assumptions EPA reviewed? EPA should preserve that question as the organizing principle of the final rule. Trust the initial review. Verify the use condition. Prove the controls before scale. Respectfully submitted, Neil P. Osnato Founder Persistence Analytics Group LLC | United Grid National Security & Infrastructure Risk Analytics Demand Durability | Grid Stress | Load Integrity neil@persistenceanalyticsgroup.com 609-464-9055 https://persistenceanalyticsgroup.com/ SAM.gov Registered Vendor UEI: D3VYU39H6DX9 | CAGE: 19T34 D-U-N-S: 142849930