EPA has scheduled a stakeholder meeting in Washington, D.C. on June 11 to discuss its proposed nanoscale materials rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  The proposed rule would require manufacturers of nanoscale materials to provide EPA certain information, including health and safety-related information, regarding their nanoscale materials.  Public comments are due by July 6, 2015.  EPA’s proposed rule is significant in part because EPA intends to use the information gathered under the proposed rule to determine whether to take further action under TSCA regarding nanoscale substances.

EPA issued its proposed rule on April 6, 2015.  The rule would require entities that manufactured nanoscale substances during the three years prior to the rule to provide the required information to EPA within six months after the rule is finalized.  EPA also proposes a continuing requirement that manufacturers who begin to produce nanoscale materials after the date of the rule provide the same information to EPA at least 135 days before they commence manufacturing.  The information required to be reported to EPA includes chemical identity, production volume, methods of manufacture, exposure and release information, and health and safety information.

Information gathered through this proposed reporting rule will be used to “determine if any further action under TSCA,” such as additional information collection or regulation, is necessary.  EPA has requested comments on a number of aspects of the proposed rule, including regarding a potential future rule that would require regular, periodic reporting of the manufacture of nanoscale substances, and has invited participants at the upcoming stakeholder meeting to provide input on these issues.

The proposed rule recognizes that nanoscale materials have “a range of potentially beneficial” applications, such as “clean energy, pollution reduction and environmental cleanup,” but also states that nanomaterials can raise “questions” as to whether the material can “present increased hazards to humans and the environment.”  That a material is nanoscale is not “an indication of, or criterion for, hazard or exposure potential,” that the proposal does not make any finding about the potential risks of nanoscale material, and that all evaluations of nanomaterials “will be based on the specific nanoscale chemical substance’s own properties.”   Nevertheless, an underlying premise of EPA’s rulemaking efforts is that nanoscale substances may have significantly different characteristics from the same substances on a more conventional scale.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Wendy L. Feng Wendy L. Feng

Wendy Feng represents corporate policyholders seeking recovery from their insurers for significant and complex coverage claims. She provides strategic advice to clients with novel policies on a range of issues, including policy interpretation and claim valuation. Wendy also advises clients on issues of…

Wendy Feng represents corporate policyholders seeking recovery from their insurers for significant and complex coverage claims. She provides strategic advice to clients with novel policies on a range of issues, including policy interpretation and claim valuation. Wendy also advises clients on issues of compliance and liability under a range of environmental statutes and regulations, including CERCLA, the Clean Air Act, and California’s Proposition 65. She has negotiated settlements, consent decrees and orders with EPA and California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control.

Leveraging her experience representing clients in both insurance and environmental matters, Wendy advises clients on environmental coverage issues, including coverage for claims of environmental contamination.

Wendy is one of the lawyer leads for the firm’s Asian Pacific Islander Affinity Group.

Photo of Thomas Brugato Thomas Brugato

Thomas Brugato is a partner in the firm’s Washington, DC office. His practice focuses on environmental matters, as well as civil and administrative litigation. He has experience advising clients on a wide variety of environmental issues, including under the Clean Air Act, Clean…

Thomas Brugato is a partner in the firm’s Washington, DC office. His practice focuses on environmental matters, as well as civil and administrative litigation. He has experience advising clients on a wide variety of environmental issues, including under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, RCRA, CERCLA, EPCRA, TSCA, FIFRA, the Endangered Species Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and EPA’s Renewable Fuel Standard program.

Thomas has extensive experience in representing companies on FIFRA matters relating to a wide range of products—such as antimicrobials, devices, treated articles, and traditional pesticides—including in EPA enforcement actions. He also has particular expertise in advising companies on a wide range of Administrative Procedure Act (APA) issues, including in litigation involving agencies in federal court. Finally, Thomas has significant experience advising clients on Indian law related issues, particularly relating to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and tribal sovereign immunity.