Rail Merger Threatens Economy

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): Effective Implementation for Chemical Safety and Innovation

CONTACT US
Telly Lovelace
CONTACT US

As the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) marks its 50th year, it remains the nation’s primary chemicals management law. TSCA guides how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviews new and existing chemicals to protect human health and the environment while promoting American innovation, manufacturing, and economic growth in the United States.

Updated in 2016 by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, TSCA was intended to deliver a more effective, science-based, and predictable regulatory system. Realizing that promise requires implementation that is timely, transparent, and consistent with both the law and the best available science.

Microscope Examining Slide

Why TSCA Modernization Matters

The Lautenberg Act was a major step forward for U.S. chemical regulations. It updated a law that had not seen significant reform in decades and created a stronger framework for protecting public health and the environment while promoting American innovation, manufacturing, and economic growth.

That work did not end with enactment. Successful TSCA implementation depends on how the law is put into practice, and EPA plays a central role in making that happen. As EPA continues working to strengthen TSCA implementation, there is a meaningful opportunity to build a TSCA program that is more predictable, more transparent, and more firmly grounded in science and the statutory framework as Congress intended.

* Based on results from a Morning Consult poll on behalf of the American Chemistry Council that ran March 20-24, 2025 and has a margin of error +/-2%.

Priorities for Effective TSCA Implementation

A strong TSCA program benefits everyone, from consumers and communities to manufacturers and the broader U.S. economy. For TSCA to function as intended, EPA must implement it effectively, transparently, and in accordance with its statutory obligations

Apply Best Available Science

EPA must ground its decisions in real-world exposure scenarios, rely on the best available data, and follow the scientific standards required under TSCA to avoid overestimating risk. Overestimating risk can stifle innovation, resulting in job losses reduced affordability of products, and diminished U.S. competitiveness with no further benefit to protecting public health and the environment.

Conduct Timely New Chemical Reviews

EPA’s review process for new chemicals should be timely, predictable, transparent, completed within the statutory deadline and include regular engagement and data exchange between EPA and PMN (Pre-Manufacture Notice) submitters.

Evaluate Actual Conditions of Use

Regulatory determinations must reflect how chemical substances are actually used in commerce, with full recognition of existing safety protocols and available exposure data instead of defaulting to hypothetical and overly conservative models and assumptions.

Improve Communication and Transparency

EPA should modernize its communication processes, ensure consistency in decision-making, and incorporate relevant data from industry and downstream users to improve outcomes and regulatory confidence.

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Implementation Improvements: Key Sections and Recommendations

Issue: Reviews of new chemicals have been plagued by delays, lack of transparency, and conservative assumptions that do not reflect actual conditions of use.

Solutions:

  • Reinforce the 90-day statutory deadlines to review new chemistries and discourage repeated suspensions.
  • Improve EPA communications with stakeholders during review to clarify data needs early.
  • Require EPA to consider actual exposures and intended uses when assessing potential risks.
  • Clarify that “reasonably foreseen uses” must be supported by credible, concrete evidence.

Issue: Risk assessments have too often relied on default assumptions and worst-case scenarios, diverging from TSCA’s mandate for science-based, risk-based decision-making.

Solutions:

  • Reaffirm TSCA’s requirement to consider actual conditions of use and existing exposure controls.
  • Encourage consistent, transparent application of the weight-of-the-evidence approach.
  • Base prioritization on available hazard, use, and exposure data—not speculation.
  • Allow for greater input from stakeholders during the scoping and evaluation phases.

Issue: EPA has not consistently implemented a tiered screening and testing process when issuing test orders under TSCA Section 4. This has led to orders for testing that would not inform the risk evaluation and, in some cases, were not able to be conducted.  

Solutions:  

  • Direct EPA to identify and evaluate risk evaluation data needs before developing and/or issuing TSCA Section 4 test orders to fill (necessary) data gaps and discuss with potential recipients prior to the development of TSCA Section 4 test orders. This will help ensure that the testing is feasible for the chemistry being studied.  
  • EPA should use tiered testing strategies informed by actual use conditions and that align with the feasibility of the target chemistry when determining whether test orders are necessary.  

Issue: Companies have faced uncertainty about protection of legitimate CBI claims, especially when submitting data to EPA voluntarily or as part of collaborative industry efforts or consortia.

Solutions:

  • Provide greater clarity and consistency in the treatment of CBI claims.
  • Reinforce statutory protections for confidential chemical identity, formulations, supply chain relationships, and customer data.

Issue: EPA has the authority to require companies to report data on chemical production, use, and safety. But current implementation is often burdensome, inconsistent, and disconnected from actual risk. Recent rules have required broad reporting without clear alignment to EPA’s priorities or consideration of cost and feasibility.

Solutions:

  • Target reporting to chemical substances that support EPA’s risk evaluation priorities
  • Streamline requirements to eliminate duplication and reduce confusion
  • Provide flexibility for low-risk, low-volume, and R&D substances
  • Modernize EPA’s reporting systems for efficiency and effectiveness
  • Ensure new rulemakings are practical, cost-effective, and informed by stakeholder input

Issue: EPA’s implementation of TSCA often has not aligned with the law’s mandated standards for scientific integrity, transparency, and objectivity.

Solutions:

  • Reaffirm use of the best available science and weight-of-the-scientific-evidence standards in all decisions.
  • Promote peer review and data transparency.
  • Base regulatory decisions on real-world data, not worst-case defaults.

Issue: TSCA user fees have increased while EPA has missed statutory deadlines and provided little to no transparency into how funds are being utilized

Solutions:

  • Link fees to EPA performance — timely reviews, transparency, and statutory compliance
  • Require regular public reporting on TSCA user fee expenditures and program performance
  • Ensure that industry is not charged twice for the same work (e.g., under both TSCA and other statutes)
  • Adjust the fee structure to reflect actual costs, improve fairness, and support efficient implementation of TSCA.