Nanotechnology Lawyer & Attorney : Bergeson & Campbell Law Firm : Nanotechnology Law Blog

On July 6, 2010, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) published a Request for Information (RFI) on the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). According to OSTP, the purpose of the RFI is to enhance the value of the NNI “by reaching out to the nanotechnology stakeholder community for specific input for the next NNI Strategic Plan to be published in December 2010.  The RFI refers to the NNI goals identified from the 2007 Strategic Plan as a starting point for questions covering themes such as research priorities, investment, coordination, partnerships, evaluation, and policy. OSTP states that it is interested in responses that address one or more of its questions, which are broadly categorized under goals and objectives; research priorities; investment; coordination and partnerships; evaluation; and policy, as related to the NNI.  Responses are due August 15, 2010.  OSTP states that submissions prior to the July 13-14, 2010, NNI Strategic Plan Stakeholder Workshop “may also inform dialogues” at the Workshop. OSTP intends to hold an “online public comment event” July 13-August 15, 2010, to solicit input on the NNI Strategic Plan.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 28, 2010, the House passed, by a vote of 262-150, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (H.R. 5116), which would authorize funding for the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), as well as the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science activities. The bill includes language from H.R. 554, the NNI Amendments Act of 2009, which the House passed in February 2009. H.R. 5116 would require NNI to work toward developing “standards related to methods and procedures for detecting, measuring, monitoring, sampling, and testing engineered nanoscale materials for environmental, health, and safety impacts.” The bill would fund research on “green nanotechnology” by creating research centers that would focus on methods and approaches to develop environmentally benign nanoscale products and nanoscale manufacturing processes; foster the transfer of the results of such research to industry; and provide for the education of scientists and engineers through interdisciplinary studies in the principles and techniques for the design and development of environmentally benign nanoscale products and processes. The bill would create a position, within the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), for a Coordinator for Societal Dimensions of Nanotechnology. The Coordinator would ensure that a research plan for the environmental, health, and safety (EHS) research activities is developed, updated, and implemented.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

During the National Nanotechnology Initiative’s (NNI) March 30-31, 2010, conference regarding “Risk Management Methods & Ethical, Legal, and Societal Implications of Nanotechnology,” Tom Kalil, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), announced that the OSTP would create a new interagency group on emerging technologies, including nanotechnology. Kalil’s announcement is reported in an American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) policy alert, which notes that OSTP intends the group to provide agencies a forum in which to discuss emerging policy issues.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an August 7, 2009, letter to the White House Office of Science Technology and Policy (OSTP), the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) expressed its interest in working with OSTP and other federal agencies regarding the “human health and ecological impacts and lifecycle consequences of intentional and unintentional releases of engineered nanoparticles into the environment.” According to ECOS, state environmental agencies want to participate in national efforts to develop best assessment and management practices. ECOS suggests that one option is for ECOS to join one or more of the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee Working Groups within the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) framework. ECOS asked OSTP for a meeting, “preferably this summer,” to obtain feedback on its key areas of interest and to discuss the best opportunities for its involvement in national efforts.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On April 24, 2008, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled Nanotechnology: Accuracy of Data on Federally Funded Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Could Be Improved, which contains the testimony of Robert A. Robinson, Managing Director, Natural Resources and Environment, before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Innovation. Robinson provided a summary of GAO’s findings as reported in its March 31, 2008, report entitled Nanotechnology: Better Guidance Is Needed to Ensure Accurate Reporting of Federal Research Focused on Environmental, Health, and Safety Risks. GAO was asked to focus on: (1) the extent to which selected agencies conducted environmental, health, and safety (EHS) research in fiscal year (FY) 2006; (2) the reasonableness of the agencies’ and the National Nanotechnology Initiative’s (NNI) processes to identify and prioritize EHS research; and (3) the effectiveness of the agencies’ and the NNI’s process to coordinate EHS research. According to NNI, in FY 2006, federal agencies devoted $37.7 million -- or three percent of the $1.3 billion total nanotechnology research funding -- to research primarily focused on the EHS risks of nanotechnology, according to the NNI. GAO found that about 20 percent of this total could not actually be attributed to this purpose, however. GAO states that 22 of the 119 projects identified as EHS in FY 2006 were not primarily related to understanding the extent to which nanotechnology may pose an EHS risk. Instead, many of the projects focused on how to use nanotechnology to remediate environmental damage or detect hazards not related to nanotechnology. GAO states that, at the time of its review, federal agencies and NNI were in the process of identifying and prioritizing EHS risk research needs, and the overall process they were using appeared reasonable. NNI also was engaged in an iterative prioritization effort through its Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) working group. NEHI identified five general research categories as a priority for federally funded research. GAO found that most of the research projects that were underway in FY 2006 were generally consistent with agency and NEHI priorities. NEHI released its new EHS research strategy on February 13, 2008. According to GAO, agency and NNI processes to coordinate activities related to potential EHS risks of nanotechnology have been generally effective. In its March 2008 report, GAO recommended better guidance to improve the accuracy of data reported by NNI. Although the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) asserted that it provides extensive guidance, it agreed to review how the agencies respond to the current guidance. Robinson made no new recommendations in his statement before the Subcommittee.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On November 8, 2007, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued a memorandum regarding “Principles for Nanotechnology Environmental, Health, and Safety Oversight.” According to the memorandum, OSTP and CEQ “led a multi-agency consensus-based process” to develop principles intended to guide the development and implementation of policies for nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety oversight at the agency level.  The memorandum says that federal agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) “must implement sound policies to protect public health and the environment,” and “agencies that perform nanotechnology research and development or that use nanotechnology in accomplishing their mission must provide appropriate oversight.”

The memorandum states that these agencies should follow the following principles in developing policies for environmental, health, and safety oversight related to nanotechnology:

• Purpose:  Federal oversight approaches should be cognizant of the potential benefits of nanotechnology, including health, economic, and environmental benefits, while recognizing uncertainties surrounding the evolving science and technology.  The purpose of considering environmental, health, and safety oversight approaches in the context of nanotechnology is to protect human health and the environment.
• Current Understanding:  The federal government’s current understanding is that existing statutory authorities are adequate to address oversight of nanotechnology and its applications.  As with any developing area, as new information becomes available the federal government will adapt or develop additional oversight approaches, as necessary, to address the area of nanotechnology.
• Information Development:  Adequate information should be developed with respect to the effects of nanomaterials on human health and the environment.  To the extent practicable and respecting confidential information (e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)), this information should be developed in an open and transparent manner by stakeholders, including the federal government and developers of nanomaterials.
• Risk Assessment and Risk Management:  The federal government should use standard oversight approaches to assess risks and benefits, and manage risks, considering safety, health and environmental impacts, and exposure mitigation.  As experience is gained, these approaches can be refined.  The federal government should strive to reach an appropriate level of consistency in risk assessment and management approaches across the government.
• International:  Recognizing the global efforts to develop nanotechnology, the federal government should proactively promote international cooperation.  The federal government should encourage coordinated and collaborative health and environmental research and test data development across the international community.  The federal government should also promote access to information across the international community.  These efforts will allow the federal government to contribute to, and take advantage of, risk assessment and risk management approaches, as appropriate, across the international community.
• Regulatory Path Forward:  In light of the “Purpose” of oversight as described above, the federal government should consider the following, to the extent permitted by law and where applicable, in establishing environmental, health, and safety regulations for nanotechnology:
  • Regulation should focus where need exists and where scientific information supports action (e.g., targeted to specific groups and classes of materials instead of a “one-size-fits-all” approach);
  • Decisions should be based on the best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and other information;
  • Where possible, regulatory approaches should enable rather than hinder innovation;
  • Regulatory approaches should be performance based to the extent feasible and provide predictability and flexibility in the face of evolving science and technology;
  • Benefits of regulation should justify their costs;
  • Regulations should be developed in an open and transparent manner; and
  • Regulations and guidance should consider established requirements and guidance such as the following:
    • Executive Order (EO) 12866 -- Regulatory Planning and Review (Oct. 4, 1993);
    • Information Quality Act and Information Quality Guidelines: OMB Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies (2002);
    • National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995;
    • Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119, Transmittal Memorandum, Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Standards (Feb. 10, 1998);
    • OMB Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (Dec. 16, 2004);
    • OMB Final Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance Practices (Jan. 18, 2007); and
    • OMB/OSTP Memorandum:  Updated Principles for Risk Analysis (Sept. 19, 2007).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link