State and Local Regulation of Nanotechnology

This post falls into the category of shameless self-promotion . . .

Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP is pleased to announce that John Monica has recently signed a contract with Law Journal Press, a division of ALM Media, Inc. to publish his new book "State and Local Regulation of Nanotechnology" -- a full length treatise surveying the complete non-federal nano-regulatory landscape in the US.  The entire country will be covered by region, with special emphasis placed on California; Massachusetts; New York; Wisconsin; Cambridge, Massachusetts; Berkeley California; and other hot spots of activity.  The book is also designed to be updated periodically in order to capture the ever evolving state of nano-regulatory affairs across the country.

The state/local-specific focus of the book is a particularly good fit for ALM Media which also publishes the best-known legal journals in the country: The American Lawyer, The National Law Journal, Corporate Counsel, Law Technology News, Focus Europe, Minority Law Journal, New York Law Journal, The Legal Intelligencer, Texas Lawyer, Delaware Law Weekly, Connecticut Law Tribune, Daily Report (Georgia), The Recorder (California), New Jersey Law Journal, and Daily Business Review (South Florida).

A large part of the new manuscript is complete and John hopes to finish the entire book during the first half of 2011.  The book should also provide a good topical counter-weight to "Nanotechnology Lawwhich is currently published annually by West/Thomson/Reuters and is the only full-length, comprehensive treatise on nanotechnology legal issues.

Tags:

ABA Program on Nano Governance

Presenting what looks to be a very interesting line-up of top-rate speakers, the American Bar Association's Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources (Pesticides, Chemical Regulation, and Right-to-Know Committee) is presenting a webinar on January 27, 2011:

Nano Governance: The Current State of Federal, State, and International Regulation

Here is a summary of the webinar from ABA's online announcement:

States, federal agencies, and foreign governments are challenged to address the risks and promote the benefits of evolving technologies, including nanotechnology. Companies globally are continuing to harness the properties of nanomaterials for use in products from airplanes to pharmaceuticals and from cosmetics to food packaging. Nano Governance: The Current State of Federal, State, and International Regulation will address these issues in a half-day program. This program will explore the new and creative applications of existing regulatory tools and governance approaches to address the potential risks of nanotechnologies, implement new risk assessment approaches to evolving technologies, and maximize the potential benefits of these materials. Panelists will report on new and emerging federal, State, and international nanomaterials regulations and governance strategies. Attendees will gain insight into potential public health and environmental impacts and the approaches various government agencies and industrial stakeholders are pursuing to address these issues while also promoting nanotechnology. The program is open to attorneys and other professionals with chemical regulatory compliance practices.

Educational Objectives:

  • Develop familiarity with new and emerging federal, State, and international nanomaterials regulations and governance strategies
  • Understand Potential Public Health and Environmental Impacts and the approaches various government agencies are pursuing to promote nanotechnology while also addressing potential public health and environmental risks
  • Appreciate complexities of addressing potential risks with existing governance tools and strategies while also embracing new approaches to accommodate evolving technologies

I hope to attend by telephone and encourage any interested readers to do the same.  It should be a great conference.

 

Request for Public Comment on Draft NNI Strategy for Nanotechnology Related Environmental, Health and Safety Research

On 01/13/2011, the Office of Science and Technology Policy published a notice in the Federal Register extending the time for filing comments for the Draft NNI Strategy for Nanotechnology Related Environmental, Health and Safety Research to 01/21/2011. The 2011 Draft Strategy is designed to replace and update  the 2008 Strategy and is the product of a series of stakeholder workshops, responses to a request for information published in the Federal Register on 07/06/2010 and comments filed online in response to questions posted on the NNI Strategic Portal.

The Draft Strategy, dated 12/06/2010, notes NNI's EHS "Research Strategy provides guidance to the federal agencies as they develop their agency specified nanotechnology EHS research priorities implementation plans, and timelines." Added to that guidance

. . . is the inclusion of ethical, legal and societal implications (ESLI) of EHS research. . . .How nanotechnology research and applications are introduced into society, how transparent decisions are; how sensitive and responsible policies are to the needs and perceptions of the full range of stakeholders; and how ethical, legal and social issues are address will determine public trust and the future of innovation driven by nanotechnology.

Chapter 1 of the draft is introductory. Chapter 2 discusses the need to develop "A Comprehensive Measurement Infrastructure Consisting of a Suite of Complementary Tools", defined here as protocols, standards (reference materials), instruments, models and Data (further defined as "benchmark data that have been measured using validated protocols and reference materials  . . . or other well-characterized test materials . . .for accurate. precise and reproducible measurements . . . ." and identifies five "Research Needs" for the development of measurement tools:

1 - Determination of physico-chemical properties of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) and nanotecnhology enable products (NEPs) in relevant media and during the lifecycles of ENMs and NEPs

2 - Detection and Monitoring of ENMs in realistic exposure media and conditions during the life cycles of the ENMs and NEPs

3 - Evaluation of transformations of ENMs in relevant media and during the life cycles of ENMs and NEPs

4 - Evaluation of biological responses to ENMs and NEPs in relevant media and during the life cycles of ENMs and NEPs

5 - Evaluation of response mechanisms in ENMS and NEPs in relevant media and during the life cycles of NEPs

Chapter 3. "Human Exposure Assessments" notes that

"The number of products in commerce and development that contain nanomaterials has grown rapidly . . . .Hence, research on potential exposure must evaluate whether, and to what degree, exposure will occur for each nanomaterial or NEP at each stage of its life cycle. . . .As the likelihood for exposure for key population segments is determined, care should be taken in determining what constitutes a "key segment" of the population, who is empowered to define groups of people, and what implications may arise from placing people in particular categories. In addition, subpopulations among the "general population" that are disproportionally exposed or more vulnerable to impacts from exposure should be identified."

"Because of the relative newness of nanotechnology" there is little reliable data regarding exposure to NEPs in the workplace (typically, in manufacturing facilities) or by consumers purchasing, handling, using, or wearing NEPs (for example, socks with nanosilver woven into them). Chapter 3 Identifies four research needs:

1- Understanding of the  processes and factors that determine exposures to nanomaterials

2- Identify population groups exposed to ENMs and NEPs

3- Characterization of individual exposures to nanomaterials

4- Conduct health surveillance of exposed populations

While Chapter 3 focused on populations and subpopulations, Chapter 4, "Human Health", focuses on the individual. Chapter 4, as did previous chapters, notes the lack of "Critical data sets needed to understand fully the rise of exposure and develop science based" health and safety guidelines.

Six research needs are identified in this chapter:

1- Identify or develop appropriate, reliable, and reproducible in vitro and in vivo assays and models to predict in vivo human responses to ENMs

2 - Quantify and characterize ENMs in exposure matrices and biological matrices

3 - "Understand the relationship between the physio-chemical properties of engineered nanomaterials and their transport, distribution, metabolism, excretion and body burden in the human body"

4 - Understand the relationship between the physico-chemical properties of ENMs and their uptake through "port of entry" tissues in the human body

5 - Determine the "modes of action" beneath human biological response to ENMs at levels ranging from the molecular to that of the whole body

6 - Determine the extent to which life stages and/or susceptibility factors modulate health effects associated with ENMs/NEPs exposure

Chapter 5, "Environment", focuses on what, after the potential effects of nanomaterials on the human body, may be the most controversial aspect of nanotechnology and the growth of nanoindustry, the potential effect on ENMs and NEPs on the environment. As the draft notes:

Understanding . . . potential environmental implications is critical to implementing good product stewardship and to instilling public confidence in the safety of nanomaterials and nano-enabled products that could benefit society. . . .Fundamental studies of the potential hazards from nanomaterials . . .should be guided by a view of how nanomaterials behave in environmental systems. To Understand ecosystem-wide effects, the sources (production/use/disposal), the pathways, and the key environmental receptors need to be understood.

 

Chapter 5 identifies five Research Needs:

1-  Understand environmental exposures through identification of principal sources of exposure and exposure routes

2 - Determine factors affecting the environmental transport of nanomaterials

3 - Understand the transformation of nanomaterials under different environmental conditions

4 - Understand the effects of engineered nanomaterials on individuals of a species and the applicability of testing schemes to measure effects

5 - Evaluate the effects of ENMs/NEPs at the population, community. and ecosystem levels

Chapter 6 is focused on "Risk Assessment and Risk Management Methods", defined here as (1) ". . . the application of analytical tools, data, and expert knowledge to the evaluation of potential exposures of humans and the environment to nanomaterials and the hazards . . . exposure might engender" and (2) the use of risk management methods to identify and implement strategies to address potential hazards. The draft report notes that while there are "A number of national and international activities relevant to RA and RMM. . . . most projects are in early stages" of information collection and evaluation.

Chapter 6 discusses five Research Needs:

1 - Incorporate relevant risk characterization information, hazard identification, exposure science, and risk modeling and methods into the safety evaluation of nanomaterials

2 - Understand, characterize, and control workplace exposures to nanomaterials

3 - Integrate life cycle considerations into risk assessment and risk management

4 - Integrate risk assessment into decision making frameworks for risk management

5 - Integrate and standardize risk communication within the risk management framework

Chapter 7, "Informatics and Modeling for NanoEHS Research" discusses the need to (1) improve the quality and availability of data, (2) expand theory, modeling, and simulation capabilities, and (3) build a collaborative informatics infrastructure.

Chapter 8, " The Path Forward", focuses on "near-term opportunities to target and accelerate progress in NanoEHS R&D, to maintain close accord with the overall goals and objectives of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, and effectively coordinate agency research activities and share their result."

Details on filing comments may be found in the FR notice. Comments need to be filed no later than 11:59PM on 01/21/2011.

 

California Delays Implementation of "Safer Consumer Product Alternatives" Regulations

At the request of Linda S. Adams, California's Secretary for Environmental Protection, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has postponed implementation of the controversial Safer Consumer Product Alternatives Regulations. The regulations, the result of legislation passed by the California State Assembly in 2008 (Chapter 559, Acts of 2008), were designed  to 

to establish a process by which chemicals of
concern in products, and their potential alternatives, are evaluated
to determine how best to limit exposure or to reduce the level of
hazard posed by a chemical of concern. The regulations would be
required to specify actions that the department may take following
the completion of the analysis, including imposing requirements to
provide additional information, requirements for labeling or other
types of product information, controlling access to or limiting
exposure, managing the product at the end of its useful life, or
funding green chemistry challenge grants, restrictions on the use of
the chemical of concern in the product, or prohibitions on use.
 

The proposed regulations drew criticism from both the environmental and industrial communities as being both not stringent enough or too stringent and broad. For example, Renee Sharp, California Director of the Environmental Working Group, has been quoted as stating that ". . . we cannot support these [regulations] . . . . they are so far away from anything they are supposed to do. These are worse than nothing.", while John Ulrich, Executive Director of the Chemical Council of California earlier this year criticized the proposed regulations for creating a potential situation where ". . . every chemical in the state of California becomes a potentially regulated chemical and every industry becomes a potentially regulated industry".

In a letter to Assembly Member Mike Feuer, author of the legislation that lead to the proposed regulations, Secretary Adams noted the criticism of the proposed regulations:

A wide range of stakeholders, including those from industry, environmental groups, scientists and legislative leaders, have raised substantive and valid concerns about the most recent draft of the regulations. . . .

. . . . DTSC has agreed to take additional time to be responsive to the concerns raised and revisit the proposed regulations. I believe this extra time will allow us to create a workable program and address critical policy issues . . . .

I have asked DTSC and its regulation development team to reconvene the Green Ribbon Science Panel early next year to further vet the programmatic issues that have been brought to our attention via the public comment process.

As currently proposed, nanomaterials would have been exempted from the regulations, a change which occurred following hearings and public comment. To read the original proposed regulations, see here and here for the revised proposed regulations.