In 1976, President Gerald R. Ford signed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) , giving the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to regulate production and use of industrial chemicals in U.S. commerce in the interest of protecting health and the environment from unreasonable risks. Thirty-seven years of experience with TSCA implementation and enforcement have demonstrated the strengths and weaknesses of the law and led many to propose legislative changes to TSCA's core provisions in Title I. Based on hearing testimony, a diverse set of stakeholders generally concur that TSCA needs to be updated, although there is disagreement about the extent and nature of any proposed revisions. For a summary of TSCA provisions and history, see CRS Report RL31905, The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): A Summary of the Act and Its Major Requirements , by [author name scrubbed] . Legislation to amend TSCA Title I was introduced in the 111 th and 112 th Congresses. The Safe Chemicals Act (SCA), S. 847 , was reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in the 112 th Congress. In the 113 th Congress, Senator Lautenberg reintroduced the reported bill as S. 696 . A few weeks later, Senator Lautenberg and 14 co-sponsors introduced a second comprehensive bill, the Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA), S. 1009 . This CRS report compares key provisions of S. 696 and S. 1009 with provisions of TSCA Title I (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) that would be affected if either bill became law. These provisions are summarized in Tables 1 through 6 of this report. Neither S. 1009 nor S. 696 would affect Titles II through VI of TSCA (except that S. 696 would change the definition of "asbestos" in Title II), nor would they change the basic organization of TSCA Title I. For example, provisions related to testing would remain in Section 4, requirements for notifying EPA when a new chemical or new use is proposed would remain in Section 5, and regulatory authorities would remain in Section 6. Also unaffected would be changes to TSCA Title I that were enacted during the 110 th Congress, such as a provision that bans exports of elemental mercury. However, S. 696 would amend or delete most of the original Title I provisions and would make substantial additions to the current statute. S. 1009 also would amend TSCA Title I provisions significantly but without adding most of the new provisions in S. 696 . Some key differences between the current statute and the bills are summarized in the following sections. S. 696 , as introduced, would direct the EPA Administrator to establish, by rule, various "minimum information sets" that would be required for different chemical substances or categories of substances. The bill would direct EPA to include in each minimum information set any information that the EPA deems necessary for the conduct of a screening-level risk assessment, "sufficient for the Administrator to administer this Act" with regard to categorization of new and existing chemical substances, assignment of priority classes, and safety standard determinations and redeterminations. S. 696 would require submission to EPA of a minimum information set by each manufacturer and processor of a new chemical substance or, as specified by the Administrator, of an existing chemical. The bill would authorize EPA to require, by rule or order, testing and submission by a specified date of additional results of tests not included in any applicable minimum information set "as necessary for making any determination or carrying out any provision" of TSCA. S. 696 would authorize EPA, by order, to take regulatory action if a manufacturer or processor failed to submit required information. Finally, S. 696 would direct EPA to accommodate use of testing methods and strategies to generate information quickly, at low cost, and with reduced use of animal-based testing, to the extent that such methods and strategies would yield information of equivalent quality and reliability. Neither S. 1009 nor the current statute requires development and submission of specified data for either new or existing chemicals. Instead, S. 1009 would direct the Administrator to develop a general framework, policies, and procedures for collecting, evaluating and developing data, and would require integration of relevant information from multiple sources into a tiered testing framework. The bill would authorize EPA to require manufacturers to develop new data if the agency promulgates a rule, enters into a testing consent agreement, or issues an order based on a determination that additional data are needed to perform a safety assessment, make a safety determination, or meet testing needs of an "implementing authority under another Federal statute." S. 1009 would require EPA to publish a statement identifying and explaining the need for data. It also would require EPA to specify a period for test data submission, "which period must not be of an unreasonable duration." Failure to submit any required information is a prohibited act and subjects the manufacturer or processor to penalties. Finally, S. 1009 would direct the Administrator to minimize the use of animals in testing of chemical substances or mixtures through various means. The bill would require the Administrator to promote the development and timely incorporation of new testing methods that are not laboratory animal-based. S. 1009 would authorize the Administrator to adapt or waive animal-testing requirements on request from a manufacturer or processor under specified circumstances. Under the current statute, there is no specific framework or minimum information set, but EPA has the authority to require data submission if it promulgates a rule, including a finding that a chemical "may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment," or is produced in very large volume and there is a potential for substantial quantity to be released into the environment or for substantial or significant human exposure. The agency also must demonstrate a need for data. EPA also may promulgate such rules for categories of chemicals, but is prohibited by Section 25(c)(2) from promulgating a rule for a group of chemicals that are grouped together solely on the basis of their being new chemical substances. Failure to submit any required information is a prohibited act and subjects the manufacturer or processor to penalties. Under the current statute, EPA maintains an inventory of all chemicals that have been in U. S. commerce since 1976. Manufacturers and importers must notify the EPA prior to manufacturing or importing a chemical not on the EPA inventory (that is, a "new" chemical). Based on information submitted with that notice (see TSCA 5(d) in Table 3 under the heading "Notice content for new chemical substances"), EPA has up to 90 days to determine whether a new chemical may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. In addition, under the current statute EPA has authority to require notification 90 days prior to a significant new use of a chemical on the inventory, but the agency first must promulgate a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) naming the chemical and defining the uses for which notice is required. Based on information submitted with that notice (see TSCA 5(d)), EPA must decide whether the new use may present an unreasonable risk. S. 696 and S. 1009 would continue the new chemical pre-manufacture notification requirement. S. 1009 is similar to the current statute in that it also would require notice prior to a significant new use of a chemical, if EPA has issued a SNUR. S. 696 would add a notification requirement for all chemicals already on the inventory prior to manufacture or processing for any new use or at a new production volume. For chemicals that had undergone a safety evaluation and determination by EPA, notice also would be required prior to a change in the manner of production or processing under S. 696 as introduced. In response to a pre-manufacture notice from a manufacturer to EPA, both bills would require EPA to categorize chemicals based on available information within 90 days of receiving a notice (but the period may be extended). S. 1009 also requires categorization of chemicals with proposed new uses. S. 696 would establish the following categories for new chemicals: Substances of Very High Concern, Substances Unlikely to Meet the Safety Standard, Substances with Insufficient Information, and Substances Likely to Meet the Safety Standard. S. 1009 would categorize new substances and uses as Not Likely to Meet the Safety Standard, Additional Information Is Needed, or Substances Likely to Meet the Safety Standard under Intended Conditions of Use. Under the current statute, the Interagency Testing Committee (ITC) advises the EPA Administrator regarding chemicals that should receive priority consideration for promulgation of a test rule. The ITC reports to EPA biannually, establishes a prioritized list of chemicals, and designates up to 50 chemicals on the list as the highest priority. In selecting chemicals, the committee is authorized to consider all relevant factors, including "the extent to which the substance or mixture is closely related to a chemical substance or mixture which is known to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment." Priority attention is to be given to chemicals "known to cause or contribute to or which are suspected of causing or contributing to cancer, gene mutations, or birth defects." The EPA Administrator also is authorized under TSCA 5(b)(4) to compile and keep current a list of chemical substances that the Agency has determined present or may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This list of chemicals of concern must be promulgated by notice and comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) and must provide opportunity for oral and written presentation of data, views, or arguments. In addition, EPA routinely prioritizes chemicals in commerce using its knowledge of chemistry and biology. S. 696 would eliminate the ITC provisions as well as the provision at TSCA 5(b)(4). Instead the bill would direct the Administrator to establish a system for assigning chemical substances into batches, categorizing them, and assigning priorities for testing and regulation. The bill would require the EPA Administrator to screen and prioritize all chemicals on the inventory for the purposes of risk assessment, safety standard determinations, and risk management. EPA would initially assign chemicals to batches. The first batch generally would include chemicals currently in commerce in the United States--that is, chemicals for which manufacturers submitted information to EPA in response to the most recent Chemical Data Reporting rule (issued under TSCA 8(a)). The bill then would direct EPA to assign all of the chemicals in the first batch to one of four categories based on available information: Substances of Very High Concern, Substances with Insufficient Information, Substances of Very Low Concern, and Substances to Undergo Safety Standard Determinations. S. 696 also would direct EPA to add new chemical substances categorized previously by EPA as Substances Likely to Meet the Safety Standard to the inventory of existing chemicals, assign each to a batch, and further categorize each as a Substance of Very Low Concern or a Substance to Undergo a Safety Standard Determination. All chemicals on the inventory categorized as Substances to Undergo a Safety Standard Determination would be prioritized further (Priority 1, Priority 2, or Priority 3) for risk assessment. After the initial categorization and prioritization, S. 696 would direct EPA to review information continually with an eye toward revising chemical assignments. S. 1009 retains the ITC but would require it to advise EPA with regard to testing consent agreements and test orders in addition to test rules. S. 1009 eliminates the chemicals of concern listing provisions of TSCA 5(b)(4), but would direct the Administrator to establish a risk-based screening process as well as criteria for identifying whether existing chemical substances are a high or a low priority for a safety assessment and determination. Priorities would be determined based on: (1) the ability of EPA to schedule and complete safety assessments and determinations in a timely manner; and (2) reasonably available data and information concerning the hazard, exposure, and use characteristics at the time the decision is made. The agency's proposed prioritization screening process and criteria would be published for public comment. Using the screening process, EPA would be required "in a timely manner" to evaluate all existing chemical substances or categories of substances on the active inventory (created under proposed TSCA 8(b)). Substances would be removed from the list of high-priority substances when a safety determination is published. The current statute allows chemicals to remain in U.S. commerce until EPA promulgates a rule and publishes a finding that a chemical presents or will present an "unreasonable risk" to human health or the environment. If EPA demonstrates that a risk associated with a chemical is unreasonable (relative to the benefits provided by the chemical and the estimated risks and benefits of any alternatives), the Agency is required to initiate rulemaking, but only to the extent necessary to reduce that risk to a reasonable level and using "the least burdensome" restriction. Under S. 696 , as introduced, continued production and use of a chemical would be permitted only if EPA made, or expected to make, an affirmative safety determination for the chemical. S. 696 would require manufacturers of chemicals to supply scientific data sufficient for EPA to conclude, based on a risk assessment, that the chemical would meet the safety standard: "there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to human health or the environment from aggregate exposure to the chemical substance" under the use conditions evaluated and specified by EPA. The bill would require EPA to base these safety determinations "solely on considerations of human health and the environment, including the health of vulnerable populations." An EPA determination that a chemical would not meet the safety standard would not require a risk assessment. S. 696 would prohibit manufacture, processing, and distribution of a chemical substance that EPA decided did not meet the safety standard; assigned to the category Substances of Very High Concern; assigned to the category Substances Unlikely to Meet the Safety Standard; or assigned to the category Substances with Insufficient Information (pending submission of the applicable minimum information set and re-categorization). In addition, S. 696 would prohibit manufacture of a chemical for any proposed new use that had not been considered in the safety determination issued for that chemical. S. 696 would allow production and use of a chemical determined by EPA to meet the safety standard; pending completion of the safety standard determination for a chemical assigned to the category Substances to Undergo Safety Standard Determinations; or assigned to the category Substances of Very Low Concern. S. 696 would authorize EPA to impose restrictions on the manufacture, processing, use, distribution in commerce, or disposal of a chemical substance, mixture, or article containing a chemical substance to ensure that a chemical use would meet the safety standard. S. 1009 is similar to the current statute in that it would allow manufacture and processing of, and commerce in, a chemical until EPA identified it as high priority and determined that it did not meet the safety standard for the intended conditions of use. EPA would be required to base its safety determinations on risk-based safety assessments considering hazard, use, and exposure (including exposure of vulnerable populations) for the chemical substance under the intended conditions of use. Under S. 1009 , the safety standard that each chemical would be required to meet "ensures that no unreasonable risk of harm to human health or the environment will result from exposure to the chemical." Before conducting the safety assessment, S. 1009 would require that EPA develop a science-based framework for making decisions, including a methodology for conducting safety assessments that addresses specified issues and that is subjected to public comment and scientific peer review. Also included in the framework would be procedural rules for safety determinations. S. 1009 would direct EPA to impose various restrictions on high-priority chemicals that do not meet the safety standard for the intended conditions of use. To ban or phase out manufacture, processing, or use of a chemical substance, EPA would first have to consider and publish a statement discussing "availability of technically and economically feasible alternatives for the substance under the intended conditions of use;" relative risks posed by those alternatives; "economic and social costs and benefits of the proposed regulatory action and options considered, and of potential alternatives; and" "the economic and social benefits and costs of" "the chemical substance," "alternatives to the chemical substance," and "any necessary restrictions on the chemical substance or alternatives." The current statute provides EPA with broad authority, as well as mandates, to require data and to restrict chemical use to prevent unreasonable risk of injury. In the exercise of this authority, manufacturers and processors produce and provide data, while EPA bears responsibility for collecting, analyzing, and evaluating the information and making a case in the public record for each of its risk management decisions for each chemical substance. Under the current statute, EPA is obligated to follow procedures laid out in the Administrative Procedure Act and to provide opportunities for persons to present data, views, or arguments orally and in written submissions. The current statute requires that a transcript be made of oral presentations, and the EPA Administrator must publish findings. TSCA Section 19 [15 U.S.C. 2618 ] authorizes any person to file a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or for the circuit in which the person resides or in which the person's principal place of business is located, for judicial review of specified TSCA rules within 60 days of issuance. The appropriate circuit court is directed to set aside specified rules if they are not supported by "substantial evidence in the rulemaking record ... taken as a whole." "Rulemaking record" is defined at length in TSCA 19(a)(3). S. 696 would expedite regulatory action relative to the process under the current statute by authorizing EPA to issue administrative orders with respect to specific chemical substances instead of rules (which must be promulgated under the current statute). In addition, S. 696 would exempt certain EPA decisions from judicial review and remove TSCA rulemaking requirements not specified in the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) for informal notice and comment rulemaking. The proposed amendments to TSCA also would increase public access to information about EPA's decisions and to some information about chemicals that currently is treated as confidential business information. S. 696 provides for judicial review of safety determinations, in addition to all rules and orders. In the event that a safety determination is challenged in court, S. 696 would require that each manufacturer and processor "at all times bear the burden of proof in any legal proceeding relating to a decision of the Administrator regarding whether the chemical substance meets the safety standard." The bill imposes a duty on the manufacturer or processor of a chemical to provide sufficient information for EPA to determine whether the chemical meets the safety standard, and imposes a duty on EPA to determine whether a chemical meets the safety standard. The scope of EPA oversight also would be expanded by S. 696 . As introduced, the bill includes language that would allow EPA to define various distinct forms of substances that are the same in terms of molecular identity but differ in structure and function, such as manufactured nanoscale forms of carbon and silver. S. 696 also might broaden the scope of environmental risks that EPA is authorized to manage by defining "environment" to include the indoor environment. S. 696 would authorize EPA activities not currently authorized under TSCA to allow implementation of three international agreements pertaining to persistent organic pollutants and other hazardous chemicals. For example, the proposal would authorize EPA to regulate chemicals manufactured solely for export. The authority provided by the bill would be specific to three international agreements, rather than more generally authorizing regulatory activity to implement any ratified international agreement concerning chemicals. The bill would prohibit production and use of chemicals when it was inconsistent with U.S. obligations under any of the three international agreements after they had entered into force for the United States. S. 1009 is similar to the current statute, providing EPA with broad authority and mandates to require data and to restrict chemical use to ensure no unreasonable risk of harm from exposure. In the exercise of this authority, manufacturers and processors would produce and provide data, while EPA would bear responsibility for collecting, analyzing, and evaluating the information and making a case on the public record for each of its risk management decisions for each chemical substance. S. 1009 would allow EPA to negotiate consent agreements or to issue orders rather than rules in some cases. EPA uses consent agreements currently. Under S. 1009 , EPA would be required to justify its use of orders. The proposed legislation would direct EPA to develop and use a framework for decision making that incorporates most of the analytic, data quality control, publication, and notice and comment requirements of rulemaking and the Information Quality Act (Section 515 of P.L. 106-554 ). Under S. 1009 , EPA would still be obligated to follow procedures laid out in the Administrative Procedure Act when promulgating a rule but TSCA requirements beyond those in the APA would be eliminated. Like the current statute, S. 1009 would authorize any person to file a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or for the circuit in which the person resides or in which the person's principal place of business is located, for judicial review of a Title I rule (not an order) requiring data development, imposing a restriction or prohibition, including restriction or prohibition for elemental mercury, or requiring information reporting. Judicial review would not be authorized for significant new use determinations, rules regarding PCBs, or rules regarding asbestos or lead-based paint under Titles II and IV, respectively. Proposed TSCA Section 19 would retain the current standard of evidence for rules requiring data development or imposing a restriction or prohibition (including a restriction or prohibition for elemental mercury), but would define "evidence" to mean any matter in the rulemaking record and would prohibit review of the contents and adequacy of the statement of basis and purpose, except as part of the rulemaking record as a whole. Currently, TSCA Section 18 includes certain preemptions of state and local authority, and limitations to those preemptions. If EPA requires testing of a chemical under Section 4, no state may require testing of the same substance for similar purposes. Similarly, if EPA prescribes a rule or order under Section 5 or 6, no state or political subdivision may have a requirement for the same substance to protect against the same risk unless the state or local requirement is identical to the federal requirement, is adopted under authority of another federal law, or generally prohibits the use of the substance in the state or political subdivision. TSCA authorizes states and political subdivisions to petition EPA, and authorizes EPA to grant petitions by rule to exempt a law in effect in a state or political subdivision under certain circumstances. A petition may be granted if compliance with the requirement would not cause activities involving the substance to be in violation of the EPA requirement, and the state or local requirement provides a significantly higher degree of protection from risk than the EPA requirement does, but does not "unduly burden interstate commerce." S. 696 would significantly simplify this section of TSCA. As amended, TSCA would not preempt laws relating to a chemical substance, mixture, or article unless compliance with both federal and the state or local laws was impossible. S. 1009 would preempt state laws, new and existing , that (1) require testing or information "reasonably likely to produce the same data and information required" by rule, consent agreement, or order under proposed TSCA Section 4, 5, or 6; (2) prohibit or restrict the manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, or use of a chemical after issuance of a completed safety determination under proposed TSCA Section 6; or (3) require notification for a significant new use of a chemical if EPA requires notification under proposed TSCA Section 5. Proposed TSCA Section 18 also would preempt new state prohibitions or restrictions for any high-priority and low-priority substance. Exceptions to the general preemption provision would include laws--adopted under the authority of any other federal law; implementing a reporting or information collection requirement not redundant of federal law; or adopted pursuant to state authority related to water quality, air quality, or waste treatment or disposal, as long as it does not impose a restriction on the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, or use of a chemical and is not redundant or inconsistent with an EPA action under proposed TSCA Section 5 or 6. TSCA Section 14 [15 U.S.C. 2613] protects proprietary confidential information submitted to EPA about chemicals in commerce. Disclosure by EPA employees of such information generally is not permitted, except to other federal employees or when relevant in any proceeding under TSCA. Manufacturers, processors, or distributors in commerce may designate information that they believe is entitled to confidential treatment. If EPA proposes to release such data to the public (in the limited cases where it is authorized to do so), then the EPA Administrator must notify the manufacturer, processor, or distributor who designated the information confidential. Disclosure of confidential business information (CBI) is required when "necessary to protect health or the environment against an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment." S. 696 would increase public access to information about EPA's decisions and to some information about chemicals that currently is treated as CBI. Like the current statute, S. 696 would prohibit disclosure of CBI by EPA employees except to other federal agencies and EPA contractors or if the disclosure is necessary to protect human health or the environment (the qualifier "against an unreasonable risk" is omitted). Proposed TSCA Section 14 also would direct EPA to disclose information upon request to a state or tribal government for the purpose of administration or enforcement of a law, if an agreement ensured that appropriate steps would be taken to maintain the confidentiality of the information. EPA also would be directed to disclose information to public health or environmental health professionals or medical personnel under certain conditions. S. 696 would categorize and specify types of CBI as (1) information always eligible for protection, (2) information that may be eligible for protection, and (3) information never eligible for protection. The bill would direct EPA to promulgate rules specifying acceptable bases on which written requests to maintain confidentiality might be approved and documentation and justification that must accompany such a request. The Administrator would be required to review and respond to requests for confidentiality within 90 days of receiving the information. S. 696 would require those designating CBI to justify such claims and to certify that the information is not otherwise publicly available. If approved, submitted information generally would be protected from disclosure for up to five years. S. 1009 is similar to the current statute, but the bill would require persons to substantiate any claim that information qualifies for disclosure protection. As in the current statute, the proposed requirements of S. 1009 would not apply if the Administrator determined that disclosure was necessary to protect human health or the environment (the qualifier "against an unreasonable risk" is omitted) nor to disclosure of information to an officer, employee, contractor or employees of that contractor of the United States. Information also may be disclosed to a state or political subdivision of a state, or to a health professional under specified circumstances. Information may be disclosed when necessary in a proceeding under proposed TSCA or to any duly authorized committee of the Congress. If enacted, the bill would prohibit the Administrator from disclosing trade secrets and other information defined as presumed to be protected. Also, S. 1009 would identify information not protected from disclosure, including identity of a chemical unless the person meets substantiation requirements; specified health and safety information and determinations; and certain general information. The bill would require the submitter to justify why information qualifies for confidentiality protection, and to certify that the information submitted is true and correct. In addition, for claims related to chemical identity, S. 1009 would require the submitter to provide specified information demonstrating that confidentiality of the identity has been and is likely to be protected, and disclosure is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the person. In such cases, the submitter would have to identify a time period for which disclosure protection is necessary and a generic name for the chemical. S. 1009 would require the Administrator to protect CBI from disclosure for the period of time requested by the person submitting and justifying the claim, or for such period of time as the Administrator determines to be reasonable. The Administrator would be authorized to request "redocumentation" of a claim. S. 1009 would dictate a process for receiving and acting on claims for protection from information disclosure, and for providing recourse in the event the Administrator decides to release such data. Finally, S. 1009 would ensure that EPA may not require substantiation of a confidentiality claim for protection from disclosure of information submitted to EPA prior to the date of enactment of S. 1009 or to require more substantiation than proposed TSCA Section 14 requires. Several new provisions would be included in an amended TSCA under S. 696 , but not under S. 1009 . One provision under S. 696 , for example, would require definition and listing of localities with populations that are "disproportionately exposed" to toxic chemicals. EPA would be directed to develop an action plan to reduce exposure in such "hot spots." S. 696 also would require EPA to establish a program to create market incentives for the development of safer alternatives to existing chemical substances that reduce or avoid the use and generation of hazardous substances. The program would be required to expedite review of a new chemical substance if an alternatives analysis by a manufacturer or processor indicated the substance was a safer alternative, and to recognize a substance or product determined by EPA to be a safer alternative. Another new provision of S. 696 would direct the EPA Administrator to coordinate with the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a biomonitoring study for any chemical that research indicated might be present in human tissues and that could have adverse effects on human development. The study would be designed to determine whether the chemical in fact was present in pregnant women and infants. If the chemical were found to be present, manufacturers and processors would have to disclose to EPA, commercial customers, consumers, and the general public all known uses of the chemical and all articles in which the chemical was expected to be present. Children's environmental health also is addressed by S. 696 . It would establish a children's environmental health research program at EPA and an advisory committee to provide independent advice relating to implementation of TSCA and protection of children's health. S. 696 also would establish at least four research centers to encourage the development of safer alternatives to existing hazardous chemical substances. In addition, "green chemistry and engineering" would be promoted through grants. In the remainder of this CRS report, Tables 1 through 6 summarize selected provisions of S. 696 and S. 1009 , as introduced, and current TSCA.

Summary:
Thirty-seven years of experience implementing and enforcing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) since its enactment have demonstrated the strengths and weaknesses of the law and led many to propose legislative changes to TSCA's core provisions. The Safe Chemicals Act (S. 696) and the Chemical Safety Improvement Act (S. 1009) introduced in the 113th Congress would amend TSCA Title I. This CRS report compares key provisions of S. 696 and S. 1009 with the language of the current statute (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.). Existing Law TSCA as enacted authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to require manufacturers to develop data about chemical toxicity and exposure if EPA determines that a chemical may pose an unreasonable risk, or if chemical exposure is expected to be substantial. TSCA allows a chemical to enter and remain in commerce unless EPA can show that it poses "an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment." EPA then must regulate to control unreasonable risk, but only to the extent necessary using the "least burdensome" means of available control. This TSCA standard has been interpreted to require cost-benefit balancing. The current statute preempts state and local laws regarding chemicals specifically regulated by EPA. Proposed Legislation S. 696 would amend TSCA to require chemical manufacturers and processors to submit specified information about the toxicity and usage of chemicals in commerce to EPA. The information would be used by EPA to determine whether a chemical would meet the safety standard of "a reasonable certainty of no harm from aggregate exposure," given the imposition of any needed restrictions on manufacture, processing, distribution, use, or disposal. S. 696 would prohibit uses of evaluated chemical substances unless they were determined by EPA to meet the safety standard. S. 696 would increase public access to information about EPA's decisions and to some information about chemicals that currently is treated as confidential business information. S. 696 would rarely preempt state and local laws. S. 1009 would authorize EPA to require manufacturers to develop new information if EPA can show need in the context of an evaluative framework for chemical risk assessment and management. The bill would require EPA to screen all chemicals in commerce and assign each to one of three categories: high priority for risk assessment, low priority for risk assessment, or in need of additional information. S. 1009 would require EPA regulation, by rule or order, ensuring "no unreasonable risk of harm from exposure" to a chemical under the intended conditions of use. S. 1009 would preempt new state and local laws for chemicals identified as high or low priority. Both Senate bills would evaluate the existing inventory of chemicals in U.S. commerce since 1976 to allow prioritization of the estimated 9,000 chemicals currently produced and used in the United States. In addition, both bills would explicitly require manufacturers to substantiate some requests for protection of confidential business information from public disclosure. S. 696 (but not S. 1009) also would add a new section to TSCA to allow U.S. implementation of three international agreements. S. 1009 would amend an existing section of TSCA to allow implementation of one treaty. Other provisions included in S. 696 would authorize EPA to support research in "green" engineering and chemistry, promote alternatives to toxicity testing on animals, encourage research on children's environmental health, require biomonitoring of pregnant women and infants, require EPA to identify "hot spots" where residents are exposed disproportionately to pollution, and direct EPA to develop strategies for reducing their risks. Key provisions of S. 696 and S. 1009 are compared with current statute in Tables 1 through 6 of this CRS report.