ERROR 1
ERROR 1
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
Password and Confirm password must match.
If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)
ERROR 2
ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.
Signaling an interest in reforming the U.S. law that governs commercial chemicals, a House of Representatives Energy & Commerce subpanel in mid-June kicked off a series of hearings on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Among the issues discussed at the first hearing was TSCA’s mandate that EPA demonstrate that it has selected the least burdensome regulatory alternative when it bans or requires labeling for a substance. Lawmakers also raised concern about confidential business information provisions in TSCA. Under other federal laws, firms seeking protections must substantiate their trade secret assertions, the agency receiving the information must verify confidentiality claims, and the public must have an opportunity to challenge firms’ claims, noted Rep. Diana L. DeGette (D-Colo.), a subcommittee member. TSCA has none of these requirements. The House subcommittee hearing follows the Senate introduction of a bipartisan TSCA reform bill (S. 1009) that has attracted widespread support (C&EN, May 27, page 8).
Join the conversation
Contact the reporter
Submit a Letter to the Editor for publication
Engage with us on X