The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s use of its authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act is expanding. Its use of TSCA Section 5 ‘‘significant new use rule’’ (SNUR) authority is clearly on the increase, as most recently demonstrated by the important role that significant new use rules have in Chemical Action Plans. This article describes SNURs, their issuance and legal background, and a few key issues of which regulated entities need to be aware in responding to a...
September 2, 2011
Lynn L. Bergeson, “Targeting Priority Chemicals Under TSCA,” Law360, September 2, 2011.
Embracing new social media tools, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Aug. 18, 2011, invited stakeholders to provide feedback on its new approach for identifying priority chemicals for review and assessment under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Noting that the EPA’s online discussion forum will remain open until Sept. 14, 2011, the EPA invited public input on its “Discussion Guide: Background and Discussion Questions for Identifying Priority Chemicals for Review and...
September 1, 2011
Lynn L. Bergeson, “EPA Issues Chemical Data Reporting Rule,” Chemical Processing, September 2011.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued on August 16, 2011, the final Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Rule, previously referred to as the Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Modifications Rule. More information is available at http://www.epa.gov/cdr/. Set forth below are key components of the CDR Rule, how reporting will change from prior IUR reporting, and potential issues.
August 17, 2011
Lynn L. Bergeson and Kathleen M. Roberts, “Deconstructing EPA’s Chemical Data Reporting Rule,” Law360, August 17, 2011.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced on Aug. 2, 2011, the final Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Rule, previously referred to as the Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Modifications Rule. Proposed revisions to the rule were the subject of considerable debate, which helps explain the rule’s long (nearly a year and a half) gestation period and extensive review by the Office of Management and Budget. The rule was published on Aug. 16 in the Federal...
August 1, 2011
Lynn L. Bergeson, “EPA Moves Ahead with BPA Action Plan,” Chemical Processing, August 2011.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued on July 26, 2011, an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) concerning testing of bisphenol A (BPA). The notice applies to EPA’s chemical action plan issued under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) on BPA in March 2010. The ANPR shows the EPA is moving forward, sending a strong message that the agency isn't backing off plans to regulate BPA under TSCA, or any other chemical action plans.
On 14th July 2011, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation's Science and Space Subcommittee held a hearing on national nanotechnology investment. The hearing was held to examine the potential of nanotechnology, federal initiatives to coordinate research investments, barriers to commercialization, possible environmental and health risks, and steps Congress can take to improve the return on federal nanotechnology investments as the Committee works on drafting a...
July 1, 2011
Lynn L. Bergeson, “U.S. Issues Guidance for Regulating Nanotechnology,” Chemical Processing, July 2011.
On June 9, 2011, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released principles specific to the regulation and oversight of nanotechnology applications. The principles are intended to guide the development and implementation of policies, as described in “U.S. Decision-Making Concerning Regulation and Oversight of Application of Nanotechnology and Nanomaterials.” This column discusses the principles and outlines their role in the governance of nanotechnology in the United States.
July 1, 2011
Lynn L. Bergeson, “Protect Yourself: OSHA Releases a New Guidance,” Manufacturing Today, Summer 2011.
For the manufacturing work force, selecting and requiring the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is one of the most important elements of assuring a safe and healthful work environment. What PPE to wear, who pays for it and how to determine which is the right PPE to protect against a known hazard in the workplace are all critically important issues, both from the perspective of an employee’s personal safety and an employer’s freedom from allegations of non-compliance. Eliminating the...
On June 17, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released a much-anticipated notice describing possible approaches for obtaining information on the potential presence of nanoscale materials in registered pesticide products.
For the manufacturing work force, selecting and requiring the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is one of the most important elements of assuring a safe and healthful work environment. What PPE to wear, who pays for it and how to determine which is the right PPE to protect against a known hazard in the workplace are all critically important issues, both from the perspective of an employee’s personal safety and an employer’s freedom from allegations of non-compliance. Eliminating the...
The federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has remained largely unchanged since its adoption in 1976, some 35 years ago. Congressional inaction has not gone unnoticed by state governments, which are increasingly dismayed by their federal counterpart’s seeming indifference to the public’s demand for stricter chemical controls and its growing distrust of federal chemical-control measures. As a result, states are taking matters into their own hands by adopting laws, resolutions, and...
June 15, 2011
Lynn L. Bergeson, James V. Aidala, and Charles M. Auer, “Principles For Regulating Nanotech,” Law 360, June 15, 2011.
On June 9, 2011, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) announced that the White House Emerging Technologies Interagency Policy Coordination Committee (ETIPC) has developed a set of principles specific to the regulation and oversight of applications of nanotechnology. The principles are intended to guide the development and implementation of policies, as described in the title "U.S. decision-making concerning regulation and oversight of nanotechnology and nanomaterials" that occur at...
The European Union's REACH regulation is a complex chemical management regulation intended to replace approximately 40 previously existing legal instruments with a single EU regulatory scheme for all chemical substances (both new and existing substances). It also creates a data compensation scheme for entities that must rely upon studies another entity generated to complete their registration for a particular chemical substance. This article provides background on REACH registration, data...
June 1, 2011
Lynn L. Bergeson, “U.S. Wants More Transparency in Trade,” Chemical Processing, June 2011.
On May 19, 2011, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) jointly issued a memorandum to U.S. departments and agencies highlighting the importance of regulatory transparency and openness to promoting international trade. The memorandum telegraphs the Administration’s renewed emphasis on the significant role international collaboration has in domestic policy development.
As nano aficionados know, last October the Australian Chemical Gazette included a notice that the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS) announced that it was introducing new administrative processes for the notification and assessment of industrial nanomaterials that are considered to be "new" chemicals. The new administrative provisions were effective on January 1, 2011, and apply to any new chemical that falls under the working definition of "industrial...
On April 14, 2011, Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 (S. 847) to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Lautenberg initiated similar legislation, S. 3209, in the 111th Congress. Below is a summary of key differences between Lautenberg's S. 847 and S. 3209.
On April 14, 2011, Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011. The bill is intended to amend and modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to require chemical companies to demonstrate the safety of industrial chemicals and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate safety based on the best available science. The bill is co-sponsored by Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Charles Schumer (D-NY), and Barbara Boxer (D-CA).
April 27, 2011
Lynn L. Bergeson, James V. Aidala, Charles M. Auer, “The Devilish Details Of TSCA Reform,” Law360, April 27, 2011.
On April 14, Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J., introduced the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011, which is intended to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act to require chemical companies to demonstrate the safety of industrial chemicals and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate safety based on the best available science.
On April 14, 2011, the House Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Research and Science Education held a hearing entitled 'Nanotechnology: Oversight of the National Nanotechnology Initiative and Priorities for the Future.' According to the hearing charter, the purpose of the hearing was to examine the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and address the Nation's research and development priorities for the future.
On the 7th March 2011, the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that it sought comments and information on the types of hazard identification and risk management research that it should consider in updating the NIOSH 2009 nanotechnology strategic plan. What follows is an explanation of why NIOSH's continuing research is essential, and why stakeholders are urged to help shape the content and direction of the...