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