EPA’s Battery-Cathode SNURs Test the Limits of “Significant New Use”

/in , , ,

EPA has proposed two significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that would extend restrictions across the full lifecycle of the cathode substances in lithium-ion batteries, including recycling and reclamation.  Industry stakeholders note that this is a departure from ordinary SNUR practice.  The rules, published on April 24, 2026, cover two generically identified “cobalt lithium manganese nickel oxide, metals-doped” substances used as cathode active materials (CAMs) in lithium-ion batteries.  The comment period, extended once, closed July 10, 2026.  As of this writing, EPA has not finalized, withdrawn, or re-proposed the rules.

What the Proposal Would Do

Under the proposed rules, EPA would regulate the CAMs even after the substances have been manufactured into articles.  Usually, the agency exempts substances in articles from SNUR obligations.

The proposed rules impose a labeling requirement for the articles—the batteries—that contain these substances.  In addition, recycling and reclamation restrictions would apply when the batteries are shredded or otherwise handled in a manner that generates dust.  These restrictions include 99% dust-control efficiency, no release to water, hazardous-waste disposal, and respiratory protection.  In other words, it would be a significant new use to manufacture, process, recycle, or reclaim the material without these controls.

The Federal Register notice explained that the proposed SNURs merely extend restrictions from the Section 5(e) consent orders imposed on the original premanufacture notice (PMN) submitters to all manufacturers and processors.

Why the Approach is Contested

Comments on the proposed rule assert that much of what EPA proposed is impracticable if not impossible.  The Alliance for Automotive Innovation argued that the proposed SNUR would “impose responsibility for the future management of individual chemical constituents throughout a downstream recycling infrastructure that is outside of the manufacturer’s ownership or control.”  Their comments note that while such regulation may be permissible under TSCA, regulating an article through its lifecycle base on the chemicals within the article is not the intent of the statute.

The Chemical Users Coalition—whose members include Airbus, Boeing, Intel, Lockheed Martin, and RTX—asked EPA to withdraw the proposal.  Their comments argued that the terms “processing” and “use” are unclear as applied to repair, import of batteries containing the SNUR substances, either by themselves or as part of larger articles, and recycling.  In addition, according to the Coalition, EPA failed to satisfy the threshold requirement of TSCA Section 5(a)(5) which requires that the Administrator make an affirmative finding that the reasonable potential for exposure to the chemical substance through the article “justifies notification” before imposing a SNUR for the “import or processing of a chemical substance as part of an article.  The Coalition also flagged that it is possible that there are ongoing uses of the substance that would not have been subject to TSCA Section 5 notice requirements—e.g., the import of the substances when incorporated into an article and the subsequent recycling of such articles.  This, the Coalition argues, was not addressed in the proposed rule.

Who is Affected, and What to Watch

The proposed rule reaches broadly beyond chemical manufacturers to battery producers, automakers, and recyclers, and importers of batteries and battery-containing articles. The regulation would be especially onerous for importers.  In most cases chemical composition of articles is not readily available, which may make it hard to know whether an imported battery contains a covered substance or if one needs to request an applicability determination from the supplier.

If the final rule keeps the article and recycling requirements in their current form, industry is likely to challenge the agency’s statutory authority for the rulemaking.

Coalition Argues TSCA Bars EPA From Weighing Data-Center Benefits in a New-Chemical Review

/in , , , , ,

A coalition of seventeen environmental organizations, led by Earthjustice, has asked EPA to deny a premanufacture notice (PMN) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for a fluorinated immersion-cooling fluid intended to cool data-center equipment.  The comments press three lines of attack: that the substance poses an unreasonable risk EPA must act on, that the substance’s asserted benefits for data centers are legally irrelevant to that judgment, and that the applicant redacted health and safety information it was required to disclose.

The comments, filed July 15, 2026, respond to EPA’s notice of receipt of the PMN.  The substance is 3-Hexene, 1,1,1,2,2,5,5,6,6,6-decafluoro-, (3E) (CASRN 1256353-26-0), also known as Opteon 2P50.  The PMN applicant’s identity was claimed as confidential business information (CBI).

The Risk the Comments Describe

The coalition’s core argument is that the fluid presents an unreasonable risk that TSCA section 5 obligates EPA to prevent.  It characterizes the substance as a PFAS and urges EPA to find unreasonable risk on that basis alone, citing concerns including persistence, mobility, bioaccumulation potential, and toxicity.  The substance’s status as a PFAS is contested: when chemical supplier Chemours launched the fluid in 2023, it stated that it does not consider the compound a PFAS, describing it as a hydrofluoroolefin (HFO) that degrades quickly in the atmosphere.  The coalition, on the other hand, characterizes HFOs as PFAS and argues that HFOs break down in the atmosphere into shorter-chain PFAS—principally perfluoropropanoic acid (PFPrA) and trifluoroacetic acid (TFA)—that are persistent, highly mobile in water, and difficult to remediate.  They also cite a recent European Chemicals Agency risk assessment committee’s June 2026 opinion—adopted by consensus, now before the European Commission—proposing that TFA be classified as toxic to reproduction.

The comments also argue that the limited information available on the substance raises additional concerns about its risks.  Available toxicity data, they say, come largely from rat studies that understate PFAS risk to humans, and a workplace exposure limit derived by a group the comments describe as industry-linked relied on assumptions it did not disclose.  They add that the fluid is acutely toxic to aquatic life and not readily biodegradable, and that a hyperscale data center could hold tens of thousands of liters of dielectric fluid, with routine evaporative losses and disposal creating recurring releases near workers, fenceline communities, and waters around data centers and disposal sites.

How EPA Must Conduct the Review

A second line of argument concerns EPA’s review process.  TSCA section 5 directs EPA to decide whether a new chemical presents an unreasonable risk “without consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors.” EPA announced in September 2025 that it would prioritize review of new chemicals intended for data-center projects, inviting manufacturers to seek that treatment under Executive Order 14318.  The applicant filed a request for priority review premised on an urgent national need for AI infrastructure, which the coalition contends is irrelevant to the risk determination.  Priority review, they argue, affects when EPA takes up a submission, not the standard it must apply.

Two related arguments target how EPA models exposure.  The comments say EPA cannot assume workers will wear protective equipment, because under the occupational hierarchy of controls such equipment is a last line of defense and, in any event, accounting for its use would violate TSCA by conflating risk evaluation with risk management.  They also argue that EPA must weigh aggregate exposures from many facilities and other reasonably foreseen uses in its analysis.  As an example, the comments claim that the substance is marketed for other cooling applications, including use in electric-vehicle batteries.

The Confidentiality Dispute

The comments separately challenge the applicant’s CBI redactions.  They contend that TSCA generally bars confidentiality claims over health and safety information, yet the filing withheld entire toxicity-profile slides, the toxicological section of the safety data sheet, the applicant’s occupational exposure assessment, and its list of prior substantial risk notices under TSCA Section 8(e).  Other redactions concern information available on Chemours’ website, the coalition argues.

These arguments coincide with litigation brought by Earthjustice-represented environmental groups, which contends that EPA systemically fails to disclose information in PMNs claimed as CBI when the covered information does not facially qualify as confidential.

The comment period for the notice of receipt of the PMN closed July 15, 2026.

Manufacturer Challenges Court-Ordered CBI Disclosure

/in , , , , ,

A specialty materials manufacturer is suing EPA to prevent the release of its unredacted premanufacture notices (PMNs) under seal in separate litigation challenging the transparency of EPA’s new chemicals program under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

A March 23, 2026, court deadline for EPA to produce the documents has now passed without EPA compliance, as the agency, environmental groups, and the manufacturer battle over the appropriate course of action.

The five environmental groups brought the original suit in 2020, alleging that EPA violates TSCA by withholding certain information from the public and allowing overly broad confidential business information (CBI) claims.  In December 2025, over EPA’s objections, the D.C. District Court ordered the agency to produce unredacted PMNs under a protective order as part of the administrative record.

Arkema, Inc. submitted two of those 84 PMNs.  After EPA notified the company of the impending disclosure, Arkema filed suit on March 13, 2026, to block it.

While TSCA allows EPA to disclose CBI as required by a court order, Arkema argues that the scope of the disclosure encompasses information beyond what is at issue in the case.  EPA’s failure “to narrow appropriately the scope of CBI disclosures to only those necessary and related to the claims at issue is both arbitrary and capricious,” the complaint states.

Arkema further contends that “the terms of the protective order are insufficiently protective of proprietary information” and impose “substantially less stringent requirements than EPA itself requires to protect CBI” because they lack provisions for safe storage and handling, training, designated work areas, limits on the number of recipients, a central oversight contact, or recourse for inadvertent disclosures.

Arkema’s suit prompted EPA to move for a stay of the disclosure order on March 17.  While “Arkema seeks relief only as to the information that it claims is CBI,” EPA argues that the lawsuit implicates all CBI-designated materials at issue in the case.  In addition, the agency warns that allowing separate production of Arkema’s PMNs could inadvertently reveal which PMNs belong to Arkema and thereby compromise its CBI claim.

Environmentalists’ Response

In a March 19 response, the plaintiffs argue that Arkema’s suit and EPA’s motion are a delay tactic in the long-running litigation.

EPA should never have notified Arkema of the impending disclosure, the plaintiffs contend, because multiple statutory notification exceptions apply.  Under the plaintiffs’ reading of TSCA, notification is a precondition to filing suit—meaning there is “no basis for” the new challenge.

This “should have been evident to EPA,” the plaintiffs allege.  “Nevertheless, EPA voluntarily sent a letter to Arkema incorrectly stating they had a right to appeal….Now that a single manufacturer has submitted such an appeal, EPA turns around and asks this Court yet again to halt production of all 84” contested PMNs, not just Arkema’s.

If EPA believed that a manufacturer could challenge the disclosure and enjoin EPA from complying with the court’s order, it should have said so, the plaintiffs argue.  “Instead, it remained silent, thereby inviting the current procedural mess.”

Nor has EPA met its burden to receive its requested relief, since it has not alleged any hardship, the response continues.  And despite the company’s CBI claims, the plaintiffs note that it may already be apparent which of the sanitized PMNs—already provided to the court—belong to Arkema: one contains an attached safety data sheet identifying the company by name, and another includes “a number of documents with Arkema’s letter head.”

The plaintiffs further argue that six years of media coverage make it implausible Arkema was unaware its PMNs might be disclosed, alleging the company “has slept on its rights.”  Arkema “never claims that it did not know of this lawsuit or the potential implications for its PMNs, but instead has carefully worded its allegations” to say only that it was never informed of active discussions about the scope and terms of releasing its CBI.

EPA’s Reply

In a March 20 reply, EPA says it is agreeable to the environmental groups’ suggestion that the parties meet and confer about potential consolidation or modification of the protective order to address Arkema’s concerns.  But EPA reiterates its request for a stay, arguing that the agency “is caught in an untenable situation” that demonstrates “clear hardship.”

“Requiring EPA to produce any of the unredacted PMNs would prematurely decide Arkema before the parties (EPA, Plaintiffs, and Arkema) have an opportunity to resolve the competing positions and defeat the purpose of coordination and possible consolidation or modifications to the protective order,” the reply states.

EPA contends its disclosure notifications to Arkema and other companies were required, arguing that none of the statutory exemptions apply.  The agency also notes that, due to difficulties confirming receipt, a subset of companies are still within TSCA’s 30-day window—triggered by notification—to file suit to enjoin disclosure.

EPA further argues that whether it can selectively withhold only Arkema’s PMNs is a legal question that should be resolved in the new litigation.  “Until the parties or the Court resolve that legal question, EPA proceeds cautiously,” the reply states, citing TSCA provisions imposing criminal penalties for wrongful CBI disclosures.

On March 25, the environmental groups notified the court that EPA failed to produce the unredacted PMNs by the March 23 deadline.

The case is Arkema Inc. v. EPA, No. 26-cv-886 (D.D.C.).  The underlying case is Environmental Defense Fund v. Zeldin, No. 20-cv-762 (D.D.C.).

Court Orders EPA to Release PMNs in TSCA Transparency Case

/in , ,

The D.C. District Court has ordered EPA to provide Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) premanufacture notices (PMNs) in litigation challenging the agency’s new chemical review procedures as insufficiently transparent.

The lawsuit, brought by five environmental groups, alleges that EPA fails to timely publish complete notices of receipt of PMNs and applications for test marketing exemptions (TMEs).  The groups also allege that the agency routinely violates TSCA by failing to make health and safety studies, safety data sheets (SDSs), and other information in PMNs publicly available, including information claimed as confidential business information (CBI) that facially does not qualify as CBI.

In August 2024, the court partially granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel the administrative record.  However, EPA argued that the agency did not consider unredacted PMNs when it assembled public files, and that their contents would therefore shed no light on the agency’s decision-making.  The plaintiffs countered by arguing that the court already rejected those arguments when it partially granted the motion to compel and that the unredacted PMNs are necessary to determine whether EPA withheld test data or health and safety studies.

In an order filed December 24, 2025, the court agreed with the environmental groups.  “The court finds that Plaintiffs have carried their burden of showing that the unredacted versions of PMNs were ‘before the agency’ when the EPA assembled public files, notwithstanding the agency’s assertions that it did not rely on unredacted PMNs,” the order reads.

The order requires EPA to produce public versions of the PMN files by January 23, 2026, and unredacted versions under a protective order by March 23, 2026.

The case is Environmental Defense Fund v. Zeldin, No. 20-cv-00762 (D.D.C.).  A previous post on the case can be found here.

EPA Releases Default Values Guide for TSCA New Chemical Risk Assessments

/in , , ,

On November 24, 2025, EPA released a guide listing common “default values” for environmental releases and worker exposures used by the agency in risk assessments of new chemical substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

What Are Default Values?

Default values are assumed engineering values used by EPA when chemical-specific information is unavailable.  For example, the guide shows that EPA assumes that 3% of a new chemical substance remains in a 55-gallon drum as residue if the drum is emptied by pumping, while 0.6% remains if it is emptied by pouring.

“This initiative marks another step forward in the agency’s ongoing commitment to transparency by providing valuable information to stakeholders involved in the review of new chemicals,” an EPA press release states.  “The publication of the default values is also expected to improve efficiency, reducing the likelihood that submissions need to be reworked or resubmitted.”

What’s Included

The guide includes default values used to model environmental releases the following situations:

  • Transferring liquid material to/from transport containers
  • Transferring solid material to/from transport containers
  • General industrial/commercial processes
  • Transferring solid materials (e.g., transferring/unloading/loading of solid powders)
  • Industrial/commercial use of coatings

The guide also includes default values used to model inhalation or dermal worker exposures from situations involving handling solids (e.g., raw materials or formulated products) or liquids containing the new chemical substance.

EPA provides two example situations demonstrating how the default values are applied to real-world scenarios, including how the assumptions change if submitters provide additional information.

In the press release, EPA said that it considers the guide to be an evolving document that may be updated in the future.  The guide, and other guidance for new chemical submissions, can be found at EPA’s New Chemicals Division Reference Library.

Union Says EPA’s New Chemicals Rule Fails Transparency Mandate Under TSCA

/in , , , ,

EPA’s 2024 new chemicals procedural rule fails to satisfy Congress’s intent that Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) new chemical and significant new use reviews be transparent, a workers union told the Ninth Circuit on October 16, 2025.

In its opening brief, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) cites its own experience attempting to secure information about the health hazards facing employees in one of its bargaining units.  Although a UAW representative was told by the company that it was producing two new chemicals, he was unable to locate any information on them on ChemView, EPA’s database of new chemical information, the brief states.

“EPA’s disclosures about new chemicals do not routinely include…two key factual components – employer name and location – since the employer is not necessarily the submitter, the submitter’s name is often claimed as CBI, and facility location is not among the fields that can be searched in ChemView,” UAW states.

“Without access to information about who may produce a new chemical and where it may be manufactured, potentially exposed workers and their unions cannot – as a practical matter – engage with EPA before the Agency imposes occupational controls that may or may not adequately protect the workers,” which is their right under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the brief reads.

UAW and other unions jointly raised these concerns in August 2023 comments on EPA’s proposed new chemicals procedural rule.  However, according to the brief, EPA completely ignored the comment during the rulemaking—a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), according to the brief.

Proposed Disclosure Requirements

In their 2023 comments, the unions proposed a mechanism through which EPA could mandate the disclosure of information to unions or workers, which they argue would preserve the information’s confidential status.

“EPA can require entities submitting new chemical or significant new use applications to notify their affected employees that they are submitting these applications and to make the applications, the health and safety studies submitted with the application, and any risk evaluations completed by EPA available to the employees and their unions upon request, contingent on the requester agreeing to confidentiality protections,” the comments state.

Reiterating arguments made in the comments, UAW’s brief contends that this process would not run afoul of TSCA section 14, which governs CBI protections: “While Section 14, like [Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)]  Exemption 4, allows EPA to withhold confidential information submitted to the federal government…neither Exemption 4 nor TSCA Section 14 prohibits EPA from mandating third party disclosure of CBI.”

UAW argues that unions and workers routinely enter into similar confidentiality agreements to access other sensitive information, like financial information about corporate profits.  The union also points to a 1985 Third Circuit decision, which it argues “directed OSHA to permit direct employee access to claimed trade secret information if the workers signed a confidentiality agreement” under OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard.

Case Details

The suit is consolidated with other challenges to the 2024 new chemicals procedural rule brought by environmental groups.  As discussed in a previous post, those groups are arguing that the rule’s failure to categorically exempt new persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals (PBTs) from certain expedited reviews violates TSCA.

The case is Alaska Community Action on Toxics v. EPA, No. 25-158 (9th Cir.), filed 1/10/2025.

ACI Pushes Senate to Address EPA Bottlenecks in New Chemical Reviews

/in , ,

In an October 23, 2025, letter to leaders of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and its Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, the American Cleaning Institute (ACI) called for “targeted changes” to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to accelerate new chemical reviews under the statute.

“ACI members are experiencing considerable challenges with [EPA’s] ability to meet its statutory deadlines under [TSCA], namely, to review and make final determinations on new chemicals within 90 days,” hindering innovation and the development of more eco-friendly products, the letter reads.

ACI also asked the committee to consider the “adverse impact” of significant new use rules (SNURs), which it claims are being applied to restrict “most” new chemicals.

“EPA has taken this route as TSCA requires EPA to consider ‘reasonably foreseen’ uses in new chemical reviews,” ACI wrote.  “The lack of a clear definition in the TSCA for the term ‘reasonably foreseen’ has led EPA staff to take an overly conservative approach that focuses heavily on theoretical hazards instead of utilizing a risk-based approach that prioritizes the specific conditions of use provided by manufacturers about the intended use of new chemistries.”

Meanwhile, ACI’s general counsel, Douglas Troutman, has been nominated by President Trump to lead EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee advanced his nomination to the full Senate on October 29, 2025, in a party-line vote.

Groups Challenge EPA Rule Allowing PBTs in TSCA Exemption Reviews

/in , ,

New persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals (PBTs) should not be eligible for expedited reviews under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) known as the low volume exemption (LVE) and low releases and exposures exemption (LoREX), environmental groups told the Ninth Circuit on October 17, 2025.

The lawsuit challenges EPA regulations finalized in December 2024 that allow companies to continue to continue to apply those exemptions for certain PBTs.  In their opening brief, the petitioners argue that the rule violates TSCA’s requirement that exemptions protect against unreasonable risk.

“The record, including EPA’s own findings, establishes that the category of new PBTs may—indeed, will likely—present unreasonable risk even when complying with the terms of the LVE and LoREX Exemptions,” the brief states.

Disputed Eligibility Standards

The 2024 rule made PFAS categorically ineligible for the exemptions, as well as PBTs “with anticipated environmental releases and potentially unreasonable exposures to humans or environmental organisms.”  The petitioners contend that this “turns the statute on its head” because it requires that EPA affirmatively determine “that a specific PBT is unsafe” for it to be ineligible.

“In effect, the rule treats an absence of evidence as a reason to expedite the approval of a new PBT chemical, rather than a reason to deny an exemption application,” their brief states.

EPA justified its decision to allow certain PBTs to remain eligible by suggesting that PBT use may not always result in exposure, “such as chemical substances used in a closed system to make semiconductors.”  In the rule, EPA also stated that it “expects that most exemptions for PBT chemical substances will not be granted.”

The petitioners, however, describe EPA’s “zero-release-zero-exposure” scenarios as “fanciful.”   All “new PBTs will eventually be released into the environment, cause exposures, and thereby result in serious injury,” they argue.

Speedier Reviews

LVE and LoREX applications are subject to a 30 day review period, compared to 90-to-180 days for standard reviews, though review backlogs mean reviews often take much longer in practice.  The petitioners claim that LVE and LoREX reviews are less “detailed and comprehensive” than standard reviews, and observe that EPA does not require testing or impose additional restrictions on approved exemption applications—incentivizing companies to use them.

Publicly available EPA data shows that 221 valid LVEs were submitted in fiscal year 2025, which was greater than the number of standard review applications.  No LoREX submissions were received during the year, however.

In August 2025, EPA announced that it had made substantial progress on the LVE backlog thanks to process improvements.  However, its continued progress may be jeopardized by the ongoing government shutdown.

More on EPA’s 2024 new chemicals procedural rule can be found in a previous post.  The case is Alaska Community Action on Toxics v. EPA, No. 25-158 (9th Cir.), filed 1/10/2025.

EPA to Fast-Track Chemical Reviews for AI and Data Center Projects

/in , , ,

EPA will prioritize review of premanufacture notices (PMNs) for chemicals tied to artificial intelligence (AI) and data center projects, the agency announced on September 18, 2025.

“We inherited a massive backlog of new chemical reviews from the Biden Administration which is getting in the way of projects as it pertains to data center and artificial intelligence projects,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said.  “The Trump EPA wants to get out of the way and help speed up progress on these critical developments, as opposed to gumming up the works.”

The policy implements President Trump’s Executive Order 14318, “Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure,” which directs the agency to expedite permitting for qualifying projects under a variety of environmental statutes, including the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

What Projects are Eligible?

Two types of projects can qualify for expedited review:

  1. Data center projects requiring more than 100 megawatts (MW) of new load dedicated to AI inference, training, simulation, or synthetic data generation.
  2. Covered component projects, which include the materials, products, and infrastructure needed to build or operate such facilities—such as energy infrastructure, power plants, semiconductors, networking equipment, and data storage systems or software.

To be eligible, a project must also meet at least one of the following criteria:

  • A commitment of $500 million or more in capital expenditures.
  • An incremental electric load addition of more than 100 MW.
  • Direct relevance to national security.
  • Official designation as a qualifying project by a federal department.
How to Request Priority Review

According to updated EPA guidance, the new priority review process will take effect on September 29, 2025. To request it, PMN submitters must:

  • Attach a cover letter to their PMN submission via EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX).
  • Identify the specific data center or covered-component project the chemical will support.
  • Show that the project meets at least one of the executive order’s qualifying criteria.
  • Provide supporting documentation, such as permitting records, project announcements, or letters of support, plus details on how the chemical will be used.

EPA has posted detailed instructions for companies seeking priority review on its PMN guidance webpage.

Coalition Letter to Congress Calls for Streamlined TSCA Chemical Reviews

/in ,

A collection of over 100 trade associations is calling on Congress to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to “ensure a regulatory system that balances human health and environmental concerns with domestic supply chain and innovation needs and supports growth in our manufacturing sector.”

The American Alliance for Innovation (AAI) letter, sent to congressional leaders on September 8, 2025, suggests a number of “improvements and clarifications” to the statute, including:

  • Ensuring timely and predictable reviews of new chemicals;
  • Avoiding unnecessary regulation, including overuse of Consent Orders (COs) and Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) that discourage adoption of innovative and sustainable chemicals;
  • Following a risk-based approach to regulating a chemical’s intended use in commerce that is rooted in actual uses and real-world scenarios;
  • Strengthening the scientific standards included in TSCA for what constitutes “the weight of the scientific evidence;” and,
  • Providing additional clarity to other sections of TSCA that govern testing, regulatory petitions, and data sharing.

AAI suggests that these changes be incorporated into any legislation to extend TSCA’s fee authority, which expires at the end of fiscal year 2026.