EPA Reverses Course and Promises to Withdraw TSCA Section 8(d) Cadmium Rule
Client Alert | 2 min read | 12.14.12
By email dated December 14, 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew its controversial direct final rule requiring the reporting of existing and unpublished health and safety data for cadmium and cadmium compounds used in consumer products pursuant to section 8(d) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). In its email, EPA admitted that "there is significant confusion and uncertainty within certain industrial sectors concerning the rule." EPA went on to indicate that it "will withdraw the immediate final rule and will sign a Federal Register notice announcing this decision no later than the January 2, 2013, effective date of the immediate final." EPA will be considering the questions and concerns raised in response to the immediate final rule and next steps with regard to this rule.
Several concerns that have been expressed about the rule involve its scope. The rule was aimed at manufacturers and importers of articles which, by itself is unusual under TSCA; it encompassed articles well beyond those that might present an exposure risk during normal and foreseeable use; it would have applied to applied to any consumer product for use in a home or school, not just children's products and metal jewelry; and it would have applied to a broad range of industries that are not typically covered under Section 8(d), including manufacturers, importers and retailers of consumer electronics, home furnishings, apparel and more. Moreover, the economic analysis EPA prepared in support of the rule failed to address the economic costs to importers of the articles (i.e., consumer products) covered by the rule; it only examined costs to manufacturers and importers of basic chemicals. The withdrawal is a significant change in course and particularly important given the precedent setting nature of the rule's impact on consumer product regulation.
EPA stated in its announcement today that it "will also continue to work with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to reduce exposure to cadmium in consumer products generally, and especially those consumer products used by or around children, such as children's metal jewelry." The CPSC has been particularly diligent in avoiding the application of its chemical regulations to inaccessible parts of consumer products and focusing its attention based on the risk of exposure such as the risk of harm presented by ingestible components of children's toys and metal jewelry.
Insights
Client Alert | 8 min read | 06.06.25
Litigation Funding Reforms: Clarity for UK Funders and Litigants Post-PACCAR
On 2 June 2025 the Civil Justice Council (a UK public body that advises on civil justice and civil procedure) (“CJC”) issued its Review of Litigation Funding Final Report (the “Report”). The CJC has provided comprehensive recommendations on the regulation and reform of litigation funding in England and Wales. The highlight recommendation of the Report is for the UK Government to remove third party litigation funding from the regulations and requirements of the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (“DBA Regulations”), reversing the judgment of the Supreme Court in PACCAR.[1] Meanwhile, the UK Court of Appeal has recently endorsed a position that the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”) may order that third party funders of collective proceedings be paid first from litigation proceeds before claimants according to waterfall provisions in their funding agreements.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.06.25
Supreme Court Dismisses Cert Petition On Uninjured Class Members As Improvidently Granted
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.06.25
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.06.25
USPTO Director Clarifies Burden on IPR Petitioners Relying on Prior Art Cited During Prosecution