Document rxm57xLG51rEnEybYQkYMzaZr

NanoManufaeturing Association April 13. 2o! 7 i he 1 lonorable Scott Pruitt Administrator l .S, fm ironmemui Protection Agcnc) i I2U0 Penn>\ httniu A\e.,, \ AN'. W ashinuum. I).(2tMoo Re: Request tor Agencv Slav of Rule Pending (iuidancc: Chemical Substances When Manufactured or Processed as Nanoscale Materials: I'St'A Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements. 82 feu. Reg. 3641 (Januar) 12.2017) Dear Administrator Pruitt; . 1 he Nanomanufaeturing Association t AVI At is an alliance of private companies and i trade associations established to advocate i'or a responsible and reasonable regulator) . climate I`or I AS. products in which nunumaterials arc used or arc essential.' NM \ I respectful l> requests that the IAS. Pm imnmentai Protection Agencv (f PA) sta) t lie effective date of die final rule entitled Chemical Substances \\ licit Maiuit'acturcd or Processed as Nanoscale Materials: 1SCA Reporting and Recordkeeping ! Requirements (hereinafter the "Nurioscaie Reporting Rule"), published in the f ederul ! Register on Jarman 12. 2ol 7. NMA requests a meeting at >our earliest convenience to discuss the need to star this rule. ' the final Nanoscale Reporting Rule indicated that PPA intends to issue guidance within six months of issuing the rule <b\ Jul\ 201 7). which could He months alter the Mm 12 effective date, and NMA requests that this rule he staved at least until the ; guidance is issued. Issuing a sta\ of (Ids rule is consistent v.itli the Rump : Administration's policv of te\ iew ing previous!) issued regulations, as outlined in the 1 Januar) 20. 2017 Priebus Memorandum. I hat Memorandum instructed the heads of all executive agencies to extend the effective dale for 60 da> s for rules that have been published in the federal Register but not \ci taken effect, which includes the - Nanoscale Reporting Rule, furthermore, a sta) is neeessarv because NMA and its 1 members are concerned that the WlminisirutioiiA Aptil 5 guidance on implementing tltc Januar) 30. 2017 Presidential fxecutive Order on Reducing Regulation and . Controlling Regulator) ( osls tl xeeutivc Order (!.<).) 13771 i. which clarifies that j "substantia! guidance" is within its scope, will cause further Jelavs in PPA issuing I hi piiiic i!iH'ri!ialio*i. visit ini; neboiew hup: a \s o .uanom.irmf.uiut mciisvn. i,tl or si.in aiumt i .mm. 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00007904-00001 w NanoManufaclurtrtg Asspoatte guidance on the Xanoscak* Reporting Rule, which would leasc companies in the dark about compliance with the rule for even longer. \M\ continues to base seiious reservations with this jule. which was issued in the final class of the < ihama Administration user numerous object ions so the rule's lack * of clarit\ in mans kev aspects. I 'nlcss the effective date is extended, companies will be forced to com pis with reporting requirements that bv I PA's own admission 1 are not clear and warrant the issuance of further guidance. j While companies who arc ahead} tin the market do not have to report until 201K. starting on Mas 12. 2W A new market entrants must submit detailed reports before tltes can commercialize a natiomaterial. 'I his rule is expected to impact business I development and will require greater control over product distribution. ! Bv I-,PA's own estimate, over halfol the companies diced witii this reporting burden are small businesses. Processors that lane never had to submit these tv pcs of reports , under TS(`A comprise another significant segment of the companies affected b\ the I rule, it is unreasonable to require these companies to report before the promised , guidance is issued. \s consistent!} reflected in the public comments on this - rulemaking, the agenev has failed to provide indusirv with a clear understanding of the sub,stances that arc subject to reporting. lor example, in response to indu.strv requests to prov tdc exemptions for low risk products such as pop merx and pigments, j f'.PA simp!} withdrew the exemptions it had proposed so that reporting is exclusive!} I based on subjective concepts that are open to challenge by I PA and that will result ' its uneven teporting, such as eompanv intent and whether the reportable substance , contributes one or more ''unique and novel" properties. Pelamng the effective dale until JuK 20! 1 or later complies with the Administration's directive and prov ides the f PA with additional time to consider the substantial questions of law am! police this Rule raises, such as. Ma} f PA ignore the statutory directive that warns against imposing duplicative reporting requirements on processors? Why docs the wording of the final rule fail to earn out ! PA's stated intent to let companies go to market as soon as these flings are made? Wh} divl l;PA create a permanent reporting regime unique for nanomateriaK against the express directive of the Policy Principles for the I ?Y Decision- Mukiny ( DttccnPmy Rcyuludan and (h'cisjyhi ol. Ipp/icutions ol A'(inotechnolop) and Sanomulcrials issued by the Office of Science and I echnulog) Polie} on .kmc A 201 I? 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00007904-00002 NanoManufac turlrif Association Win do companies belies e l he> ha\ e to test he tore making these reports, even though 1 j*A stated it did not intend to require am new testing in this rule and does not have this auihorin in section Kta) off NCd.\? Win didn't I P \ provide the public with tin opportunity to comment on the detirmion of "utiique and rune! properties" that fundamental h underpins the need to submit reports under the rule, or !h other ureas of Jdmition ambiguity te.g.. reportable substances) identified b> the public. Wise does the rule use the same "small business'* dehniiion that i.P \ prev iouslv aeknou lodged is out-of-date, subjecting mum small businesses who should not have to report to the notification requirements of the rule?' \\f \ thinks this rule should be rev tewed lot consistence with the Administration's regulators re form goals. We also believe the rule if a poorly designed mid written regulation tfiat would be u good candidate for rescission under 1 \ceuti\e (taler (3371, \\fA asks that this rule be stayed until July 201 7 or longer to provide I,PA u ith time to examine this rule and consider whether its burdens are warranted. Please contact me with urn questions you nut) have. Respect! tills Sulim if led. ' M ' '' , -W Jf ' s ' 0 ^ iohff \\. Hilbert 11 f NanoMitnufacturinu Wsociatiun 1770 k Street \W* Washing,ton, I)(' 20000 jhiiberi a klweoitsuiftmls.com cc: Martha Marrapese. ( Munsel to \MA w iflt \\ tley Rein Id ,P Michael Flynn. Acting Deputy Administrator, 1 .PA John Reeder. Acting C'hiefof Stall'. b.PA Wendy (,'ieland-l lamnctt. .Acting Assf mm Administrator. (tffice ol ( hctnical Safety and Pollution prevention (OCNPPi Jeffrey Morris, \cting 1 director. (iflicc of Pollution Prevention and I o.xies fOl'Pi ! Maria f )oa. Ph.lI )irector. ('hemicai ( mitroi 1 )iv ismn t(VI)). ()PP P Ray mond J. .Alwood. 1'(1). < >PP 1 ; \oii.c. 1 n\ii'tsmoini1 !`i-'Well-!! Auetuy, 1 sc \ Kepiiiuie ,i'ki Rcwiiff ecpsne Rwiiiieitieoi-. ! staiiJ.ieK Iif Vtutl Mahutu.liiivi . jik.1 1`ii/u-si is. H ! 1 .a, Kec. `MiS4h. WiX-i.' i Skv I' A)! t> i 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00007904-00003