Nano-C Inc. (Board decision, July 17, 2025)
In re Nano-C Inc. (EAB TSCA Appeal No. 25-04Q): $64,138 penalty paid and matter resolved
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Board precedent from 2025, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
EPA alleged that Nano-C Inc. violated Sections 12(b) and 13 of the Toxic Substances Control Act and related reporting requirements at 40 C.F.R. part 707. EPA's complaint sought a $64,138 penalty. Nano-C paid the full proposed penalty, which waived its rights to contest the allegations and appeal the final order. The Environmental Appeals Board then resolved the matter under 40 C.F.R. § 22.18(a)(3).
Decision snapshot
- Cited authorities: TSCA §§ 12(b) and 13; 15 U.S.C. §§ 2611 and 2612; 40 C.F.R. parts 22 and 707
- Outcome: Nano-C paid the full $64,138 proposed penalty, and the matter was resolved.
- Key point: Full payment of a penalty proposed in an EPA complaint can resolve a Headquarters enforcement proceeding and waive contest and appeal rights.
Full text (EPA EAB public release)
F I L E D
Jul 17, 2025
Clerk, Environmental Appeals Board
ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD INITIALS ________________________
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
)
)
In re Nano-C Inc. ) Docket No. TSCA-HQ-2025-5010
)
______)
FINAL ORDER
On May 19, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA’s”) Waste and
Chemical Enforcement Division, Office of Civil Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, filed a complaint against Nano-C Inc. (“Respondent”) alleging that
Respondent had violated Sections 12(b) and 13 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”), 15
U.S.C. § 2611(b) and § 2612, respectively, and the requirements at 40 C.F.R. §§ 707.60, .65, and
.67 as well as § 707.20(b)(2)(i). The Complaint sought a penalty of $64,138.
EPA’s Consolidated Rules of Practice, codified at 40 C.F.R. part 22, govern this
administrative enforcement proceeding. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 22.18(a), a respondent may opt
for a quick resolution of an enforcement proceeding at any time by paying the penalty proposed
in the Complaint. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 22.18(a)(1) and (2). The rules further provide that upon
payment in full of the penalty, in cases initiated at EPA Headquarters, the Environmental
Appeals Board (“Board”) must issue a final order. See 40 C.F.R. § 22.18(a)(3).
On July 14, 2025, EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance notified the
Board that EPA has received a copy of the instrument of payment for the full amount of the
penalty ($64,138) from Respondent to resolve the above-captioned matter. Payment by
Respondent constituted a waiver of Respondent’s rights to contest the allegations in the
Complaint and to appeal this final order. See 40 C.F.R. § 22.18(a)(3). In accordance with
40 C.F.R. § 22.18(a)(3), the above-captioned matter is hereby RESOLVED.
So ordered.1
ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
Date: July 17, 2025 By: _
Aaron P. Avila
Environmental Appeals Judge
1
The panel deciding this matter is composed of Environmental Appeals Judges Aaron P. Avila and
Ammie Roseman-Orr.
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Final Order in the matter of Nano-C Inc.,
Docket No. TSCA-HQ-2025-5010, were sent to the following persons in the manner indicated:
By E-Mail:
Alexander N. DerGarabedian, Attorney-Advisor
Chemical Risk and Reporting Enforcement Branch
Waste and Chemical Enforcement Division
Office of Civil Enforcement
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20460
E-mail: [email protected]
Headquarters Hearing Clerk
Office of Administrative Law Judges
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Mail Code 1900R
Washington, DC 20460
E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
By First Class Certified Mail/
Return Receipt Requested:
Tom Berger
Keller and Heckman, LLP
1001 G Street NW, Suite 500 West
Washington DC, 20001
Jul 17, 2025
Dated: ___ _________
Annette Duncan
Administrative Specialist
Does this precedent still control your case?
Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace