Proposed Chemical Safety Improvement Act Seeks Modernization of Chemical Regulation

01 July 2013 Dashboard Insights Blog

On May 22, 2013, a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators (including Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) and the recently deceased Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)) introduced the “Chemical Safety Improvement Act of 2013” (“CSIA”) in an effort to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act and make dramatic changes to the current regulatory structure governing the manufacturing, sale, and use of new and existing chemicals.  Perhaps most significantly, the proposed CSIA would give the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) considerable new authority to regulate both existing and newly introduced chemicals, including the use of administrative orders and consent agreements to require additional chemical testing and restrict or prohibit the manufacture and sale of chemicals that do not meet certain safety standards.  Given its relatively broad bipartisan support, chemical manufacturers, importers, processors, and distributors should follow closely the CSIA’s path through Congress.

Among other requirements, the CSIA would: 

  • Establish a new “safety standard” for U.S. EPA’s evaluation of risks posed by new and existing chemicals, namely to ensure that “no unreasonable risk of harm to human health or the environment will result from exposure to a chemical substance”;
  • Require U.S. EPA to establish a risk-screening process in order to create lists of existing chemicals that are “high priority” or “low priority” for determining whether the chemicals meet the new safety standard;
  • Authorize U.S. EPA to ban chemicals that do not meet the safety standard, which bans would be subject to judicial review;
  • Grant U.S. EPA additional authority to require chemical manufacturers to provide information regarding new and existing chemicals; and
  • Impose significant public disclosure requirements on information regarding chemicals submitted to U.S. EPA, including establishing specific procedures for protection of confidential business information.

A copy of the proposed Chemical Safety Improvement Act of 2013, as posted by the American Chemical Society, is available here.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

California Statute Offers Dramatic Change to Independent Contractor, Franchise-Franchisee Relationships
20 September 2019
Legal News: Distribution & Franchise
AI Ouch! AI Job Interview Law Starting in 2020!
20 September 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.