The US EPA has outlined plans to publish as many as ten major TSCA rules in proposed or final form this month, which would represent a significant uptick in regulatory activity for the nation’s chemicals scheme.
The ten actions targeted for this month are among more than two dozen TSCA regulatory initiatives set out in a 3 July update to the unified regulatory agenda, spanning proposed and final rules expected through early 2027.
The EPA’s plans reflect the current administration’s efforts to advance long-awaited revisions of Biden-era regulations, chip away at overdue statutory deliverables and pursue further deregulatory measures.
At the same time, the initiatives spelled out in the agency’s regulatory agenda – the first published since a ‘spring 2025’ edition was released last September – often slip past their projected dates. Additionally, the agency faces other headwinds this year.
Beyond the plans laid out in the agenda, the EPA faces a court-ordered deadline to complete ten outstanding TSCA risk evaluations by February 2027. To date, it has issued draft evaluations for only three of the substances, along with draft technical support documents or hazard assessments for six others.
Meanwhile, the EPA faces the potential loss of its authority to collect fees under TSCA after 30 September, unless Congress can pass a deal to reauthorise the agency’s fee authority. Without the ability to collect TSCA fees, the agency could start feeling additional budgetary pressures that would strain its already stretched resources.
All told, the regulatory agenda suggests there could be many busy weeks ahead for the TSCA community, and hurdles for the EPA to clear if it wants to deliver on all its goals.
Revisiting Biden-era rules
The 2026 regulatory agenda calls for the EPA to publish six proposed or final rules this month aimed at unwinding regulations adopted in the Biden administration.
Among these is the risk evaluation framework rule, a procedural regulation dictating the agency’s policies for reviewing existing chemicals that has seesawed back and forth across different presidential administrations.
As proposed last September, the latest revision to the framework rule could reshape the risk evaluations that the EPA is due to publish in the coming months and open the door to further legal challenges over the agency’s approach.
Also expected this month is the highly anticipated overhaul to the TSCA section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting rule. If adopted as proposed last November, the revamped rule would exempt a variety of entities and activities, dramatically diminishing the universe of companies responsible for reporting.
The EPA also said it plans to propose amendments this month to its TSCA section 8(d) data call-in for 16 substances in the risk evaluation pipeline, following multiple deadline extensions.
Rounding out the EPA’s agenda for revisiting Biden-era regulations are plans to issue proposed revisions to the TSCA section 6(a) risk management rules for perchloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE) and carbon tetrachloride (CTC).
Those proposals, all slated for July, follow pledges by the Trump administration to reconsider certain aspects of the underlying rules, which drew legal challenges after their adoption in the waning days of the Biden administration.
Further risk management rules
The regulatory agenda also predicts forward momentum on a range of overdue risk management rules for existing chemicals designated as high priorities for review in 2016 and 2019.
The coming weeks could see final TSCA risk management rules for three of the remaining substances from the ‘first ten’ tranche, building off proposals developed under the previous administration. The agenda forecasts final rules for pigment violet 29 (PV29) and n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) later this month, with 1-bromopropane (1-BP) to follow in August.
A proposed risk management rule for the flame retardant HBCD is scheduled for September, while the asbestos ‘part 2’ proposed rule addressing legacy uses is scheduled for February 2027.
A proposed risk management rule for the final ‘first ten’ chemical – 1,4-dioxane – remains on the agency’s long-term action list, as work continues to revisit the underlying risk evaluation.
Looking to the ‘next 20’ tranche of substances prioritised in 2019, the EPA said it plans to publish a proposed risk management rule for formaldehyde in August, followed by a proposed rule for the flame retardant TCEP in December.
Two phthalates that were subject to manufacturer-requested risk evaluations (MRREs) are also included in the agency’s plans, with a proposed risk management rule for DIDP expected later this month and one for DINP in November.
New risk management initiatives
In addition to these statutorily mandated rules, the EPA also laid out plans to pursue TSCA section 6 rules for specific scenarios that merit special considerations.
One such rule, included for the first time in the 2026 regulatory agenda, would address the risks posed by laboratory uses of chemicals evaluated under TSCA, following calls from academic labs for the agency to adopt a ‘harmonised’ approach.
According to the agency, this cross-chemical rule would ensure "that the requirements for laboratories are consistent for all chemicals evaluated under TSCA section 6". The proposal, slated for October, would factor in existing Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards, including OSHA's laboratory standard, the EPA said.
Separately, the agency indicated plans to revive a rulemaking floated in past agendas that would allow federal agencies or their contractors to temporarily continue using a restricted substance to avoid significant disruptions to the national economy, national security or critical infrastructure.
The ‘critical uses for federal agencies’ proposal is forecast to come out in December.
Formaldehyde emissions standards review
A final addition to the EPA’s latest regulatory agenda is a planned initiative to review the 2016 formaldehyde emissions standards for composite wood products.
The review, which the EPA said it plans to carry out under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), would involve considering factors such as:
- the continued need for the rule;
- complaints or comments received concerning the rule;
- the complexity of the rule;
- the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other federal, state or local requirements; and
- the degree to which the technology, economic conditions or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule.
The EPA said it plans to begin its review later this month.