hold on there's just too much going on in Congress lmao...
Modifies how EPA tests and evaluates chemical risks under TSCA.
Sen. Ricketts (R-NE) introduced it.
In committee, no House vote yet.
Senator Pete Ricketts from Nebraska, a Republican, introduced this bill. It proposes changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), focusing on how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assesses and regulates chemical safety. The bill is currently in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, meaning it's being reviewed and debated there before it can move forward for a full Senate vote.
Introduced Apr 27, 2026
This bill was introduced in the Senate by Senator Ricketts on April 27, 2026, and has been referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. For it to become law, it must first pass through this committee, be voted on and approved by the full Senate, then pass the House of Representatives, and finally be signed by the President. It has not yet had any votes.
If this bill becomes law, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would have new requirements for how it tests chemicals found in consumer products and workplaces. It would need to consider if testing methods are 'technically feasible' and factor in costs when deciding on testing requirements. EPA's risk evaluations would also need to specifically consider existing worker safety rules set by agencies like OSHA and get input from various federal departments and industry experts early in the process. Additionally, these risk evaluations would undergo a more rigorous, in-person peer review process with longer review periods.
Supporters Say
Supporters would argue the bill improves scientific rigor, transparency, and interagency coordination in chemical risk assessment, leading to more sound and balanced regulations.
Critics Say
Critics might argue the bill creates new hurdles and delays for EPA, potentially weakening its ability to quickly regulate harmful chemicals and protect public health and the environment.
Those in favor might highlight that requiring 'technically feasible' methods and considering costs, along with input from other agencies and industry experts, ensures that EPA's decisions are based on comprehensive data and practical considerations. Conversely, opponents could claim that adding new requirements for risk evaluations, like considering only 'more likely than not' risks or assuming compliance with other laws, could make it harder for the EPA to identify and address chemical dangers effectively or might slow down necessary regulatory actions.