“EPA’s proposed rule recognizes Washington’s stringent, but attainable standards to protect human health for all communities, and we will work to see that this dynamic is ultimately maintained,” said Harman. “Washington has a long record of scientifically-based environmental stewardship. The 2016 rule proposed for withdrawal imposed federally-mandated, unachievable standards that provide no measurable human health improvement.” BACKGROUND: AF&PA has long advocated that the Obama Administration’s federal rule wrongfully over-rode Washington’s comprehensive approach to high water quality standards. In February of 2017, AF&PA joined with eight other organization in filing a joint petition with EPA, arguing that the Washington state standards provided a more attainable, yet protective approach to water quality. Click Read More below for additional information.
The draft FSC US Controlled Wood National Risk Assessment for Alaska and Hawaii (US NRA-Part 2) is now available for public consultation. All stakeholders are invited to provide input on the draft NRA. Comments are due on December 23, 2019. Please find additional information on the consultation web page.
The previously approved FSC US National Risk Assessment (NRA) for the conterminous United States (Part 1) did not address the states of Alaska or Hawaii, or US territories. This ‘Part 2’ NRA mostly closes that gap by assessing the risk of ineligible materials entering the FSC system from forests in Alaska and Hawaii. FSC certificate holders that wish to control non-certified forest materials from Alaska and Hawaii (so that those materials may be mixed with FSC certified materials for use in certified products that carry the FSC Mix label) will be required to incorporate the approved version of the Part 2 risk assessment into their due diligence system.
This draft US NRA-Part 2 follows similar methodologies as the Part 1 risk assessment. When assessments within the Part 1 risk assessment were based on information and data applicable to the entire United States, the draft US NRA-Part 2 builds on those conclusions. However, as the contexts and additional information sources used are different, the conclusions of this draft US NRA-Part 2 are also different from those in the Part 1 risk assessment.
Additionally, the proposed approach to risk mitigation is different than that in the Part 1 risk assessment, as the US NRA-Part 2 Working Group concluded that the risk mitigation approach being implemented in the conterminous US would not be feasible or effective in the contexts of Alaska or Hawaii. Instead, the draft US NRA-Part 2 does not include mandatory control measures, providing certificate holders with the flexibility to develop their own approach to risk mitigation.
more at: https://us.fsc.org/en-us/newsroom/newsletter/id/1114