Act, the Toxic Release Inventory chemicals. The second, more complicated part would involve development of a stewardship plan, incorporating the above assessments and showing the company intended to address any concerns. Specifically, EPA thinks the plan should document how the company intends to inform customers and distributors of potential hazards, its provisions for technical assistance and possible modifications of the product or marketing to reduce potential for release or exposure, and how it will provide assistance in waste minimization. The chemical industry, of course, is already heavily involved in product stewardship. CMA's Responsible Care initiative includes a major segment on product stewardship. When the regulations are published, all CMA member companies will have to comply to remain members. A substantial amount of communication already exists between chemical producers and their customers, Currie says, and some firms are concerned that EPA's proposals might be at odds with what is already being done. Although CMA supports the concept of product stewardship, it wants EPA to make sure a careful stepwise approach is used in its development, not something quick to satisfy agency critics. A major concern in the industry is just what kind of extra liability such a plan would impose on companies. And how far down the product line would stewardship extend? It isn't feasible for a manufacturer to go into another company's facility to see if a product is being used properly. Another worry is that the smaller manufacturers, and even processors and formulators, won't have the knowledge or money needed to follow their products very far downstream. Moos says enthusiasm for these proposals is fairly high at EPA and they have a high priority at the Office of Toxic Substances. At the meetings held so far to discuss possible proposals, the hazard communication rule has garnered the support of most parties involved. The product stewardship regulation is meeting with more criticism, possibly because more is at stake. David Hanson
U.S. immigration eased for professionals In its closing days, the 101st Congress enacted legislation, S. 358, that opens new doors for legal immigration into the U.S., including immigration by more scientists and other professionals. The bill is expected to increase the number of legal immigrants entering the U.S. over the next three years from the current level of about 490,000 to 700,000. In 1995 and thereafter the annual level is set at 675,000. These new immigrants will be admitted under two separate preference systems for obtaining immigration visas set up in the legislation. One system is for close family members of U.S. residents. The other system—greatly expanded in the bill— is for independent immigrants who have jobs in the U.S. President Bush is expected to sign the legislation, which the White House supported. In a letter to the House following final Senate approval of S. 358, Roger B. Porter, assistant to the President for economic and domestic policy, strongly endorsed passage of the legislation. He praised the increase in employmentbased immigration provided for in the bill and the new criteria it establishes "which will ensure most of these immigrants are highly skilled." Porter pointed out that these additional workers will help relieve labor shortages in key technical areas and improve the competitiveness of the U.S. work force. One of the bill's chief Senate sponsors, Edward M. Kennedy (D.Mass.), chairman of the threemember Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration & Refugee Affairs, concurred in the Administration's view of the bill. He believes that "by placing more emphasis on the particular skills and qualities that independent immigrants possess, we will bring our laws more in line with the nation's economic needs." The bill increases by nearly fourfold the number of skilled workers and so-called diversity immigrants who can be admitted to the U.S. each year. Admission of persons on the basis of their skills and talents will go from 54,000 each year to 140,000.
Of that number 40,000 visas are reserved for priority workers— persons of "extraordinary ability," managers, and university professors. Another 40,000 visas are designated for persons of exceptional ability as demonstrated by their advanced degrees or the equivalent. An additional 40,000 are designated for skilled and unskilled workers, with a 10,000 limit for unskilled. The remaining 20,000 are split evenly between immigrants with $1 million to invest and who will employ at least 10 U.S. workers and special immigrants, such as religious workers. For the purposes of S. 358, a person of "extraordinary ability" is defined as one who has demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics and who will continue to work in his or her field to the benefit of the U.S. The equivalent of an advanced degree is defined as a bachelor's degree with at least five years of progressive experience in the professions. In addition, the bill reopens the door, shut 25 years ago when the immigration law was last revised, for immigrants from countries that traditionally supplied the majority of U.S. immigrants. Thus, 55,000 visas are set aside each year for immigrants from countries such as Germany, Italy, Ireland, and Poland. To qualify for admission under this category a person needs a high school degree or its equivalent or two years' experience in an occupation that requires at least that much training. However, the bill, while providing for streamlined processing of intracompany transferee visas, strengthens controls on the issuance of H-l temporary professional visas by tightening the definition of "professionals of exceptional merit and ability" and placing a cap of 65,000 visas annually on this category. The bill also makes it easier to deny aliens access to sensitive information or technology that could compromise national security. The bill for the first time permits the exclusion from this country of, or the imposition of restrictions on, aliens who attempt to evade laws relating to the export of sensitive material. Janice Long November 19, 1990 C&EN
13
