Does EPA Aim To Stop Nanotechnology?
EPA, as a matter of express policy, has not yet made common cause with the NGOs that aim to stop nanotechnology. 
But it seems the agency has definitely shifted course, aggressively interpreting its legal authorities to justify increased regulation of, and limits on, commercial nanotechnology use.
Recent remarks by Steve Owens, EPA's Assistant Administrator for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, make it clear EPA will, if possible, circumvent TSCA to expand its authority over nanotechnology in order to regulate more aggressively. Owens said EPA will not wait for Congress to amend TSCA to provide the authority it seeks, instead, the agency will propose a reporting rule under TSCA section 8(a) "to require companies to report a range of information on nanoscale materials" and a test rule under TSCA section 4 requiring companies "to test several manufactured nanomaterials for health and environmental effects." He also stated EPA's existing policy that a nanoscale substance with the same molecular identity as a substance listed on EPA’s TSCA Inventory is considered to be an existing chemical is under review, suggesting it likely will be changed.
Owen's statements follow on EPA's "Essential Principles" of TSCA reform, which demand, in essence, more EPA command and control authority and more money to assert that authority. EPA seemingly aims to complicate nanotechnology investment, development, and deployment due to what Owens called "significant questions about [nanotechnology's]potential health and environmental risks," although no study has ever shown commercial nanoproducts pose any significant health or environmental risk. Nevertheless, EPA has determined to increase the cost and complexity of the approval process, creating potentially insurmountable barriers to small and medium size companies and stifling innovation.
It is possible, of course, to justify an aggressive regulatory posture when there is a demonstrated need to do so. However, given the FY 2010 Federal Budget includes over $1.6 billion for nanotechnology research, and given the Nanotechnology National Initiativehas long acted as the central node for the nanotechnology-related activities of 25 separate Federal agencies, EPA's unilateral agenda, without meaningful coordination with or input from other Federal agency stakeholders, is very difficult to understand.
tion Act of 2009
ay be on the way, though. First, the Department of Energy is aggressively fun
ding feedstock 