Jenner & Block

Corporate Environmental Lawyer Blog

October 17, 2018 Trump Administration Releases Fall 2018 Regulatory Agenda

Torrence_jpgBy Allison A. Torrence

The Trump Administration has released its Fall 2018 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. This regulatory agenda “reports on the actions administrative agencies plan to issue in the near and long term [and] demonstrates this Administration’s ongoing commitment to fundamental regulatory reform and a reorientation toward reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens on the American people.”

According to the Trump Administration, the regulatory agenda reflects the following broad regulatory reform priorities:

  • Advancing Regulatory Reform
  • Public Notice of Regulatory Development
  • Transparency
  • Consistent Practice across the Federal Government

The EPA-specific regulatory agenda lists 148 regulatory actions in either the proposed rule stage or final rule stage, and provides information about the planned regulatory actions and the timing of those actions. Notable regulatory actions under consideration by EPA include:

More information, and EPA's Statement of Priorities, can be found here.

CATEGORIES: Air, Cercla, Climate Change, FIFRA, Greenhouse Gas, Hazmat, RCRA, TSCA, Water

PEOPLE: Allison A. Torrence

September 29, 2017 EPA Announces Smart Sectors Program to Ease Regulatory Burden on Industry

Torrence_jpgBy Allison A. Torrence

US EPAOn September 26, 2017, EPA announced its new Smart Sectors program, a program aimed at easing the regulatory burden on industry. The official notice for this program was published in the Federal Register on September 26th (82 FR 44783), with a correction published on September 29th (82 FR 45586). EPA explained the purpose behind the Smart Sectors program in the notice:

EPA’s Smart Sectors program will re-examine how EPA engages with industry in order to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden, create certainty and predictability, and improve the ability of both EPA and industry to conduct long-term regulatory planning while also protecting the environment and public health.

EPA has initially identified 13 sectors of industry to work with under this program, based on each sector’s potential to improve the environment and public health:

  • Aerospace
  • Agriculture
  • Automotive
  • Cement and concrete
  • Chemical manufacturing
  • Construction
  • Electronics and technology
  • Forestry and paper products
  • Iron and steel
  • Mining
  • Oil and gas
  • Ports and marine
  • Utilities and power generation.

EPA will designate staff-level points of contact for each industry who will act as liaisons among industry trade associations and companies, EPA program and regional offices, state and local governments, and other stakeholder groups.

Under this program, EPA will focus on three main areas:

  • Building relationships and improving customer service to sectors;
  • Developing additional expertise in each industry’s operations and environmental performance; and
  • Informing the planning of future policies, regulations, and Agency processes.

EPA is inviting participating industries to engage in dialogue and offer their own ideas to reduce environmental impacts. In addition, EPA will work to find creative ways to document environmental progress and regulatory burden reductions.

CATEGORIES: Air, Climate Change, FIFRA, Greenhouse Gas, RCRA, TSCA, Water

PEOPLE: Allison A. Torrence

September 12, 2017 Third-Annual Environmental Attorney Reception at Jenner on Thursday 9/14

Torrence_jpgBy Allison A. Torrence

On Thursday, September 14th, from 5 pm to 7 pm, environmental attorneys and professionals will come together for a networking reception at Jenner & Block's offices in Chicago. Complimentary food and drinks will be provided thanks to the event’s sponsors. This is the third year Jenner & Block has hosted this event, which continues to grow every year. Jenner & Block will be joined by a number of bar associations and organizations:

  • CBA Environmental Law Committee
  • CBA Young Lawyers Section Environmental Law Committee
  • ISBA Environmental Law Section
  • ABA Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources
  • Air & Waste Management Association Lake Michigan States Section
  • DRI Toxic Tort and Environmental Law Committee

Jenner & Block partner Allison Torrence is a former Chair of the CBA Environmental Law Committee and will be giving brief welcome remarks.

Details for this event are below. If you would like to join us at this reception, please RSVP here.

Environmental Attorney Reception

September 14, 2017 | 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm

Jenner & Block Conference Center | 45th Floor | 353 N. Clark St. | Chicago, IL 60654

RSVP

Reception Sponsors:

Sponsors

CATEGORIES: Air, Cercla, Climate Change, Consumer Law and Environment, FIFRA, Greenhouse Gas, Hazmat, OSHA, RCRA, Real Estate and Environment, Sustainability, Toxic Tort, TSCA, Water

PEOPLE: Allison A. Torrence

February 28, 2017 Gay Sigel, Steve Siros, and Allison Torrence Speak at March 7 CLE Program

Lynn Grayson Photo

Jenner Block logo

By E. Lynn Grayson

Jenner & Block Partners Gay Sigel, Steve Siros, and Allison Torrence will speak at the upcoming program Environmental, Health, and Safety Issues in 2017: What to Expect From the Trump Administration, hosted by Jenner & Block’s Environmental, Workplace Health & Safety Practice Group on Tuesday, March 7 from 12:00 pm to 1:00 p.m. With the Trump Administration beginning to take shape, federal environmental, health, and safety (EHS) policy is certain to shift to the right. This CLE program will provide an overview of the Trump Administration’s actions impacting EHS matters to date and prognosticate on changes that may be forthcoming. You are invited to join us for this special program in person or via webinar. If you plan to participate, please RSVP as indicated below.

Program Details:

Tuesday, March 7, 12:00—1:00 p.m. with lunch starting at 11:45 a.m.

Jenner & Block, 353 North Clark, Chicago, IL—45th Floor Conference Center 

For more information about the program and to RSVP, please connect here.

CATEGORIES: Cercla, Climate Change, Consumer Law and Environment, FIFRA, Greenhouse Gas, Hazmat, OSHA, RCRA, Sustainability, Toxic Tort, TSCA, Water

PEOPLE: Allison A. Torrence, Steven M. Siros, Gabrielle Sigel

February 17, 2017 Scott Pruitt Confirmed by Senate to Lead EPA

EPA logoAllison A. Torrence PhotoBy Allison A. Torrence

Friday afternoon, Scott Pruitt was confirmed by the Senate to serve as the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 52 Senators voted for Mr. Pruitt’s confirmation, while 46 Senators voted against him. The vote was largely along party lines, with Democratic Senators Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia voting for Pruitt and Republican Susan Collins of Maine voting against him.

As we previously reported here, Mr. Pruitt has been the Attorney General of Oklahoma since his election to that post in 2011. As Oklahoma Attorney General, Mr. Pruitt has sued EPA numerous times to challenge EPA regulations, including current litigation over the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan. Oklahoma is part of the coalition of 28 states challenging EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants – a key component of the Clean Power Plan – in the case of West Virginia v. EPA, Case No. 15-1363. This case is currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Mr. Pruitt’s confirmation came after a flurry of activity related to his nomination over the past several days. On Thursday, a federal judge ordered the Oklahoma Attorney General’s office to release thousands of emails related to Mr. Pruitt’s communications with fossil fuel companies while Attorney General. Senate Democrats wanted to delay Mr. Pruitt’s confirmation vote until after those emails were made public, and held an all-night session of the Senate to voice their concerns over Mr. Pruitt. However, when a motion to extend debate and delay Mr. Pruitt’s confirmation vote until February 27th was put forward by the Senate Democrats, the motion was voted down and the confirmation vote went forward today.

One of the first orders of business for Administrator Pruitt will be to review recent and pending EPA regulations that have been subject to the Trump Administration’s “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review.” As we previously reported here, all pending EPA regulations that have not yet been published in the Federal Register are on hold, and all EPA regulations that have been published in the Federal Register but had not reached their effective date (as of January 26, 2017) have be delayed until March 21, 2017.

Administrator Pruitt’s biography is already posted at EPA’s website. The biography sates that:

Administrator Pruitt believes that promoting and protecting a strong and healthy environment is among the lifeblood priorities of the government, and that EPA is vital to that mission.

As Administrator, Mr. Pruitt’s overarching goal is to lead EPA in a way so that our future generations inherit a better and healthier environment, as he works with the thousands of dedicated public servants at EPA who have devoted their careers to helping realize this shared vision, while faithfully administering environmental laws.

The EPA website also invites the public to join the new Administrator on Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at noon ET, as he addresses EPA employees, and to “stay tuned” for more information.

CATEGORIES: Air, Cercla, Climate Change, FIFRA, Greenhouse Gas, Hazmat, RCRA, Sustainability, TSCA, Water

PEOPLE: Allison A. Torrence

February 17, 2016 Jenner & Block Webinar: The Top Environmental, Health and Safety Issues for 2016 - What You Need to Know

Torrence_Allison_COLOR

By Allison A. Torrence

On Tuesday, February 23rd, from 12:00– 1:15 pm CT, Jenner & Block Partners Lynn Grayson and Steven Siros will present a CLE webinar on The Top Environmental, Health and Safety Issues for 2016 - What You Need to Know.  The webinar will provide an overview of key environmental, health and safety issues in 2016 including the following topics:

  • Issues relating to the Corps’ jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act;
  • Fallout under the Safe Drinking Water Act after Flint;
  • U.S. EPA’s Clean Power Plan regulations, UNFCCC COP 21, and the potential regulation of aircraft GHG emissions;
  • Status of TSCA reform efforts;
  • Litigation relating to GMOs under FIFRA;
  • RCRA waste regulation amendments;
  • OSHA penalty updates;
  • U.S. EPA challenges;
  • Water scarcity and sustainability; and
  • Technological innovation and its impact on environmental practitioners.

To register for this free Webinar click here.

 

CATEGORIES: Air, Cercla, Climate Change, Consumer Law and Environment, FIFRA, Greenhouse Gas, Hazmat, OSHA, RCRA, Real Estate and Environment, Sustainability, Toxic Tort, TSCA, Water

PEOPLE: Allison A. Torrence, Steven M. Siros

January 8, 2016 Are Stricter U.S. EPA Pesticide Registration Reviews on the Table for 2016?

Bees and poppies photo Siros_Steven_COLORBy Steven M. Siros

In 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit vacated U.S. EPA’s registration of the insecticide sulfoxaflor, finding that U.S. EPA lacked adequate data to ensure that its registration would not harm non-target species, and more specifically, bees.  Following the 9th Circuit’s decision in September 2015, U.S. EPA reversed its position on two other pesticide registrations.  In October 2015, U.S. EPA indicated that it planned to ban the agricultural use of chlorpyrifos notwithstanding U.S. EPA's previously stated intention to work with industry to mitigate the risks as opposed to an outright ban.  In November 2015, U.S. EPA sought to voluntarily vacate its prior registration of Enlist Duo on the basis that U.S. EPA had obtained new data suggesting that the combined toxicity of its two ingredients (glyphosate and 2,4-D) was higher than originally believed.  U.S. EPA was facing litigation in the 9th Circuit with respect to both of these pesticides which likely played a role in those decisions.  In addition, U.S. EPA’s anticipated decision with respect to the reregistration of glyphosate has been delayed on multiple occasions and is now expected sometime in 2016. 

These actions are all suggestive that U.S. EPA has elected to adopt a more stringent approach with respect to its risk reviews of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodentcide Act (FIFRA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  Such an approach is likely to result in significant delays in getting pesticide products registered and to the market. We will continue to follow these issues as we await U.S. EPA’s glyphosate reregistration decision which is likely to be the next significant U.S. EPA action in the FIFRA arena.

 

CATEGORIES: Air, Climate Change, FIFRA, Hazmat, Sustainability, Toxic Tort, TSCA, Water

PEOPLE: Steven M. Siros

December 29, 2015 U.S. EPA Releases 2015 Enforcement Statistics

Siros_Steven_COLORBy Steven M. Siros

The United States Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA") recently announced its 2015 enforcement statistics, noting that for fiscal year 2015, U.S. EPA initiated enforcement actions resulted in $404 million in penalties and fines.  In addition, companies were required to invest more than $7 billion to control pollution and remediate contaminated sites; convictions for environmental crimes resulted in 129 years of combined incarceration for convicted defendants; and there was a total of $39 million committed to environmental mitigation projects that benefited communities throughout the United States. 

The largest single penalty was the result of a Clean Air Act settlement with two automobile manufacturers that resulted in a $100 million penalty, forfeiture of emissions credits and more than $50 million being invested in pollution control and abatement measures.  U.S. EPA's 2015 enforcement numbers were up from 2014 ($100 million in fines and penalties collected in 2014).  

Please click here to go to U.S. EPA's 2015 enforcement statistics website.

 

 

CATEGORIES: Air, Cercla, Climate Change, Consumer Law and Environment, FIFRA, Greenhouse Gas, Hazmat, OSHA, RCRA, Sustainability, Toxic Tort, TSCA, Water

PEOPLE: Steven M. Siros

November 11, 2015 Lynn Grayson and Steven Siros Publish Article on U.S. Legal and Regulatory Developments in Nanotechnology

Allison Torrence photo

 By Allison A. Torrence

 

Lynn Grayson and Steven Siros have published an article in the most recent issue of DRI’s Toxic Tort and Environmental Law Newsletter titled Nanotechnology: U.S. Legal and Regulatory Developments. In the article, Ms. Grayson and Mr. Siros discuss how nanotechnology affects every sector of the U.S. economy and impacts our lives in a myriad of ways through the 1,600 nanotechnology-based consumer goods and products we use on a daily basis. The article provides an overview of how nanotechnology is defined, insights on the regulatory framework and recent developments, possible concerns about nanomaterial use, and risk management considerations for U.S. businesses utilizing nanotechnology.

The full article is available here.

CATEGORIES: Air, Consumer Law and Environment, FIFRA, Hazmat, OSHA, RCRA, Sustainability, Toxic Tort, TSCA, Water

PEOPLE: Steven M. Siros

June 1, 2015 Corporate Environmental Lawyer celebrates five years of blogging with a new design!

In honor of the fifth anniversary of our entry into the blogosphere, we are excited to announce a major revamp of the Corporate Environmental Lawyer’s design. In addition to the blog’s sophisticated new look, our readers will enjoy:

  1. Mobile and tablet responsive technology
  2. A trending-categories cloud list
  3. Easy-to-use social sharing buttons
  4. Streamlined navigation menus

  5. Access to all five years of posts

In the five years since our Environmental and Workplace Health & Safety (EHS) practice created the Corporate Environmental Lawyer, we have written more than 500 posts, provided critical updates and insights on issues across the EHS legal sectors, and been ranked among LexisNexis’s top 50 blogs. As we wish to continue to grow the blog and provide our readers with the information they want to know, Corporate Environmental Lawyer editors, Steven M. Siros and Genevieve J. Essig, encourage you to participate by suggesting new topics.  We look forward to continuing to provide content covering the issues that are driving changes in environmental law.

CATEGORIES: Air, Cercla, Climate Change, Consumer Law and Environment, FIFRA, Greenhouse Gas, Hazmat, OSHA, RCRA, Real Estate and Environment, Sustainability, Toxic Tort, TSCA, Water

PEOPLE: Keri L. Holleb Hotaling, Stephen H. Armstrong, Kristen M. Boike, Robert L. Byman, Anne Samuels Kenney (Andi), Allison A. Torrence, Steven M. Siros, Gabrielle Sigel, Alexander J. Bandza

May 31, 2015 EPA Denies Request to Ban Trisclosan

Grayson photoBy E. Lynn Grayson

EPA has denied the January 14, 2010 petition submitted by the Food & Water Watch and Beyond Pesticides to ban the antimicrobial pesticide triclosan. The petition requested that EPA take the following regulatory actions:

  • Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA): (1) reopen the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED); (2) issue a notice of cancellation of the registrations of all products containing triclosan; and (3) concurrently issue an emergency order to immediately suspend the existing triclosan registrations.

  • Clean Water Act (CWA): (1) impose technology-based effluent limitations; (2) establish healthbased toxic pollutant water quality pretreatment requirements; and (3) impose biosolids regulation for triclosan.

  • Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): conduct a comprehensive assessment of the appropriateness of regulating triclosan under SDWA.

  • Endangered Species Act (ESA): (1) conduct a biological assessment; and (2) engage in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce.

CATEGORIES: Climate Change, Consumer Law and Environment, FIFRA, Sustainability, Water

May 19, 2015 EPA Lacks Authority to Regulate Plastic Microbeads in Water

Grayson photoBy E. Lynn Grayson

Tiny microbeads are introduced everyday into waterways from many personal care products and over the counter drugs. The plastic microbeads (often made of polyethylene or polypropylene) are recent additions in facial scrubs, soaps, toothpastes and other personal care products as abrasives or exfoliants. A single product may contain as many as 350,000 of these nanoparticles. Last week, EPA’s Janet Goodwin, Chief of the EPA Office of Wastewater’s Technology and Statistics, confirmed again that EPA lacks regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act to  regulate consumer use of plastic microbeads entering wastewaters, despite growing concern over impacts to the environment.

According to Ms. Goodwin, most of the plastic microbeads that are found in wastewater effluent come from consumer use. The EPA only has authority to regulate plastic microbeads that enter wastewater from industry, either through effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards.

CATEGORIES: Cercla, Climate Change, Consumer Law and Environment, FIFRA, Hazmat, Sustainability, TSCA, Water

May 19, 2015 New Report Confirms Environmental Sustainability is Good Business

Grayson photoBy E. Lynn Grayson

A new study released by Morgan Stanley confirms that investors appear to place a premium on sustainability yet believe that sustainable investments require some financial sacrifice. Two key findings include: 1) nearly three-quarters (72%) of those surveyed believe that companies with good environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices can achieve higher profitability and are better long-term investments; and 2) 54% believe that sustainable investing involves a financial trade off.

The study set out to analyze potential performance and risk differences between sustainable and traditional investments. A range of studies on sustainable investment performance were reviewed along with performance data for 10,228 open-ended mutual funds and 2,874 Separately Managed Accounts (SMAs) based in the U.S.  Through the review, Morgan Stanley concluded that investing in sustainability has usually met, and often exceeded, the performance of comparable traditional investments. Specific findings include:

  1. Sustainable equity mutual funds met or exceeded the median return of traditional equity funds for 64% of the time periods examined.
  2. Sustainable equity mutual funds also had equal or lower median volatility for 64% of the time periods examined.
  3. For the longest time period (seven years trailing, 2008-2014), sustainable equity mutual funds met or exceeded median returns for five out of six different equity classes examined (for example, large-cap growth).
  4. Long-term annual returns of the MSCI KLD 400 Social Index, which comprises firms scoring highly on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria, exceeded the S&P 500 by 45 basis points between its inception in 1990 to the end of 2014.

The study was conducted by the Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing. The Institute seeks to accelerate mainstream adoption of sustainable investing by developing industry-leading insights and scalable finance solutions to address global challenges.

CATEGORIES: Air, Cercla, Climate Change, FIFRA, Hazmat, Sustainability

April 30, 2015 Revised TSCA Reform Bill Approved by Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Siros photoBy Steven M. Siros

At long last, with a 15-5 bipartisan vote, a Senate bill that would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) moved out of the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee.  Notwithstanding continuing objections from Senator Boxer, the bill that came out of the committee contained a host of changes from the original bill that were intended to address concerns that had been raised by democrats, environmental and public health advocates and U.S. EPA.

Several of these key changes include:

Existing Information to Increase Efficiency

  • U.S. EPA will incorporate existing information regarding hazard and exposure published by other Federal agencies or the National Academics into safety assessments, with the objective of increasing the efficiency of the safety assessments and determinations where that information is available, relevant, and scientifically reliable.

Unreasonable Risk

  • The term "unreasonable risk" is either clarified to exclude consideration of costs or other non-risk factors to conform with the safety standard definition, or the word "unreasonable" is dropped.

Deadline for Implementing Restrictions and Prohibitions

  • Compliance deadlines for risk management rules are to be "as soon as practicable," and bans and phase-outs are to be implemented "in as short a period as is practicable."

Access to CBI Information

  • If U.S. EPA bans or phases out a chemical, there is a rebuttable presumption that information on that chemical should no longer be protected as confidential business information.

State Co-enforcement

  • States allowed to co-enforce, with condition that penalties can be collected from either Federal government or State and penalties at the state level cannot be greater than under federal TSCA.

Pre-emption

  • Clarification that State air and water laws are not pre-empted.
  • State information collection and disclosure laws are protected from pre-emption.
  • Any State chemical regulation is permanently protected from pre-emption that is in effect before August 1, 2015. 

Designation of a Low Priority Chemical

  • 90 days of public comment for all listing decisions.
  • Public can challenge a low priority decision within 60 days of listing.

Clarifications of High Priority Designation

  • U.S. EPA required to designate a chemical as high priority based on "significant" hazard and "significant"  exposure, and may designate a chemical as high priority if it has either characteristic.

PBTs

  • When setting the initial list of high priority chemicals, U.S. EPA must give preference to TSCA Work Plan Chemicals that are persistent and bioaccumulative.
  • PBTs added as a criteria for U.S. EPA to consider when making prioritization determinations.
  • In risk management, U.S. EPA is required to select restrictions for PBTs that reduce exposure "to the maximum extent practicable."

State Waivers

  • Pre-emption of new state regulatory actions starts when the scope of uses of a chemical is defined (maximum 6 months after a substance is identified as a high priority) and ends when the safety determination is made (no more than 5 years after a substance is identified as a high priority).
  • If the deadline for the safety determination is missed, State waivers are automatically granted.
  • In addition, U.S. EPA "shall" approve a state request for a waiver if the state meets the following criteria:
    • The State requirement doesn't violate Federal law.
    • The State requirement doesn't unduly burden interstate commerce.
    • The State's concern about the chemical substance or the use of the chemical substance is based in peer-reviewed science.
  • If U.S. EPA fails to make a decision on a state waiver within 90 days, the waiver is approved.

Industry Petitioned Chemicals

  • In addition to high-priority chemicals designated by U.S. EPA, manufacturers and processors can petition U.S. EPA to designate additional non-high priority chemicals for safety assessments and determinations.
  • The industry would pay 100% of the cost of the assessment.
  • These chemicals can amount to a minimum of 25% and a maximum of 30% of the cumulative total number of high priority chemicals.

U.S. EPA Work Plan Chemicals

  • For chemicals that U.S. EPA has already identified as high risk chemicals on the TSCA Work Plan, manufacturers can petition for those chemicals to move to a safety assessment and determination, and pay 50% of the cost. U.S. EPA has full discretion to approve or deny these industry petitions.

The revised Senate bill seems to enjoy wide bi-partisan support and has been embraced by several advocacy groups, including the Environmental Defense Fund  However, Senator Boxer has already indicated that she intends to pursue additional changes to the bill, stating "if anyone thinks the fight is over, it is just beginning." 

Another bill to amend TSCA is also making its way through the House of Representatives.  The discussion draft, captioned the "TSCA Modernization Act of 2015" was released by Representative John Shimkus.  The House's discussion draft is much narrow in scope than the bill making its way through the Senate and has yet to make its way out of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Economy. 

Assuming that the House bill makes it out of committee, the expectation is that the two chambers will have to reconcile the differences in the two bills in a conference committee.

CATEGORIES: Cercla, Climate Change, FIFRA, Hazmat, RCRA, Sustainability, Toxic Tort, TSCA

PEOPLE: Steven M. Siros

March 31, 2015 EPA Proposes New Nanoscale Chemical Reporting Rule

Grayson_Lynn_COLORBy E. Lynn Grayson

EPA has proposed one-time reporting and record keeping requirements on nanoscale chemical substances in the marketplace. The proposed rule contains a 90-day public comment period. After the comment period, EPA will review and consider those comments before issuing any final rule. EPA also anticipates a public meeting during the comment period to obtain additional public input.

Specifically, EPA proposed requiring companies that manufacture or process (or intend to manufacture or process) chemical substances in the nanoscale range to electronically report information, including the specific chemical identity, production volume, methods of manufacture, processing, use, exposure and release information, and available health and safety data. The proposed rule would apply to chemical substances that have unique properties related to their size. The proposed rule contains exclusions for chemical substances in the nanoscale range that would not be subject to the rule. In addition to this proposed one-time reporting on chemical substances manufactured or processed as nanoscale materials already in commerce, EPA currently reviews new chemical substances manufactured or processed as nanomaterials prior to introduction into the marketplace to ensure that they are safe.

Chemical substances that have structures with dimensions at the nanoscale -- approximately 1-100 nanometers (nm) -- are commonly referred to as nanoscale materials or nanoscale substances. A human hair is approximately 80,000-100,000 nanometers wide. These chemical substances may have properties different than the same chemical substances with structures at a larger scale, such as greater strength, lighter weight, and greater chemical reactivity. These enhanced or different properties give nanoscale materials a range of potentially beneficial public and commercial applications; however, the same special properties may cause some of these chemical substances to behave differently than conventional chemicals under specific conditions.

EPA is proposing this new requirement under TSCA Section 8(a) to determine if further action, including additional information collection, is needed.

More information about the proposed rule, including the Federal Register notice, EPA fact sheet and press release, are available at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/nano/.

CATEGORIES: Cercla, Climate Change, Consumer Law and Environment, FIFRA, Hazmat, RCRA, Sustainability, TSCA