Last year, the Obama Administration’s single piece of environmental legislation was passed after receiving enormous bipartisan support. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (or LCSA, for short – go figure!) was signed into law in June 2016, revising the Toxic Substances Control Act. But it may have a doubtful effect on innovation and U.S. leadership in the chemical marketplace.
NACD did yeoman’s work on behalf of its members in advocating for positive changes to current regulations on Capitol Hill, advocacy that helped shape this bill. Now the EPA the larger chemical industry are faced with creating proposed rules that put a regulatory structure into action that’s fair to both consumers and the industry. You can read Allison Tuszynski’s excellent overview of the history behind the Toxic Substances Control Act, and the mandates now facing the EPA.
What it boils down to is that the EPA has proposed a set of four rules that will directly affect every company in the industry. One of those rules will require a review of the EPA’s own registry of over 80,000 chemicals. Manufacturers, including importers, will potentially need to report on any chemicals they’ve made, held, bought or sold over the last ten years, so the EPA can have a better idea of what chemicals are currently on the market and actually in application.
If that sounds like a huge amount of work, you’d be right. Consider, too, that only three of the four rules have been publicly proposed for comment and review. But those three rules are supposed to go into effect tomorrow, June 22, but there’s been very little opportunity for all parties concerned, not least the EPA, to properly assess the new rules and their potential impact.
Some observers also feel the agency is in the grip of “paralysis,” some of which might be attributable to the recent seismic shifts at the White House, and may be creating a regulatory climate that might stifle innovation and drive chemical industry innovation to other countries – a bad outcome all around, if it happens.
The NACD’s POV on this? That hastening to meet Congress’ deadlines for implementation might create issues that are best avoided with just a little circumspection. Or as they put it, “the EPA should strive to recognize that it may be more important to have a workable rule that is a little late than a hugely problematic rule that is on time.”
Sensible regulations provide the ground rules for innovation
It’s not only badly written rules, or rules that actively work against innovation, that can stifle creativity. When there’s an absence of clarity, it’s difficult for manufacturers, product planners and formulators to move confidently ahead, because the regulatory landscape may yet shift beneath their feet. That has a chilling effect on work that we all should take pains to encourage and support, now more than ever, since innovation is incredibly critical in an explosively expansive global marketplace.
So NACD is right on the mark in advocating for the EPA to avoiding rushing imperfect regulation into law, especially when it can have such a profound impact on an industry that’s been a sincere participant and compliant partner in serving the needs of both safety and commerce. Let’s take the time to make sure we’re not creating a bigger headache than the ones we set out to cure.
