UPDATE: EPA Intends to Postpone Effective Date of Nano Rule
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.10.17
In a Federal Register notice that is scheduled to be published tomorrow, EPA will announce a delay in the effective date of the new nano reporting rule until August 14, 2017. A pre-publication copy of the notice, available here, indicates that the delay is intended to allow EPA to issue interpretive guidance on the rule before the new reporting requirements take effect. The lack of interpretive guidance had previously been criticized by various stakeholders.
New Nano Reporting Rule Takes Effect This Friday
Manufacturers, importers and processors of nanoscale materials face new requirements -- without robust guidance from EPA
New regulations imposing reporting obligations on manufacturers, importers and processors of nanoscale materials take effect on May 12, 2017, five months after the final rule was published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the Federal Register.
As previously explained here, the new regulations establish reporting and recordkeeping requirements for “discrete forms” of nanoscale materials. For purposes of the regulations, a “discrete form” is defined as a nanoscale substance that, when compared to another form of the same substance, (a) has a different morphology or shape; (b) a different coating; or (c) satisfies certain other criteria.
Two types of reporting are required under the new regulations:
- Prospective Reporting - Any person who proposes to manufacture or process a nanoscale material must provide EPA with information required under the rule at least 135 days before commencing manufacture or processing of a discrete form of the substance, or within 30 days of forming the intent to manufacture or process the material, whichever is later.
- Retrospective Reporting - Any person who has manufactured or processed a covered nanoscale material during the three years prior to the effective date of the final rule (i.e., since May 12, 2014) must provide EPA with the required information by no later than May 12, 2018.
More detailed information regarding the specific requirements of the new regulations, and the types of information that will have to be reported to EPA, are provided in our previous client alert on the final rule, available here.
Because this regulation is the first of its kind for nanomaterials, it is anticipated that a number of unique and challenging issues of interpretation and implementation will arise as companies attempt to comply with the rule. And despite calls from stakeholders, EPA has not yet published any formal interpretive guidance on the regulations. For this reason, clients – including companies that process nanomaterials into articles or other materials -- should familiarize themselves with the rule well in advance of any reporting deadlines.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25



