At the One-Year Mark, the EPA’s Existing Chemical Review Process is Taking Shape: What Does That Mean for Your Business?

Jul 12, 2017

Reading Time : 2 min

For existing chemicals, the sheer number of substances on the TSCA inventory and in commerce, and the varying levels of data available for reviews created unique challenges, requiring the EPA to promulgate a number of procedural “framework” rules for selecting, prioritizing and conducting reviews. Many of these rules faced a one-year deadline, and the EPA’s action follows through on these obligations, establishing procedures for:

  • industry reporting on which of the 84,000 chemicals listed in the current TSCA inventory of existing chemicals remain in active commerce, and which substances remain subject to claims of confidentiality (the “Inventory Rule)
  • identification and selection of high and low-priority chemicals for further risk evaluation (the “Prioritization Process Rule)
  • evaluation of risks associated with “high-priority” priority chemicals (the “Risk Evaluation Process Rule”)
  • identification of which conditions of use will be within the scope of the risk evaluations for each of the first 10 chemicals already designated for risk evaluation (“Scope Documents”)
  • Manufacturer’s development and submission of external party draft risk evaluations for EPA’s consideration in supporting chemical reviews (“Draft Risk Evaluation Guidance).

Compliance with statutory deadlines is often a challenge for the EPA and other regulatory agencies tasked with implementing ambitious congressional mandates. As such, the EPA’s successful compliance with five concurrent one-year deadlines is a notable achievement, indicating that, at a time when the EPA’s new leadership is slowing, if not backtracking, on many environmental programs, the administration is still willing to dedicate the resources (staff and otherwise) needed to identify and manage risks from existing chemicals in the marketplace.

These one-year regulations are important first steps in the EPA’s implementation of its existing chemical review authority. The precedent and processes established in the framework rules and guidance will shape and guide EPA policy for years to come. If your company is covered by these rules, either directly or as a downstream chemical user relying on the availability of specific substances, you will want to read the policies in detail or obtain assistance from counsel who can walk you through the definitions, deadlines, requirements and procedures.


1 The LSCA also introduced a number of changes to definitions, standards and processes for new chemicals not yet in commerce that have already created challenges for manufacturers seeking to bring new substances to market.

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 24, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) directing NYISO and NYISO transmission owners to show cause as to why NYISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,216 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 23, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) directing MISO and MISO transmission owners to show cause as to why MISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,212 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.