List of Alternative Test Methods and Strategies (or New Approach Methodologies)

On this page:

• Introduction
• List of NAMs
• NAMs Nomination Process
• June 2026 List of NAMs

Introduction 

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) directs EPA to use modern, non-animal "new approach methodologies" (NAMs) whenever scientifically appropriate when evaluating chemicals, and to reduce, refine, or replace vertebrate animal testing. Using NAMs, like human cell models and advanced computer methods, helps EPA identify hazards and exposures faster and often with results that are more relevant to people. These tools can cut costs and time, reduce animal use, and provide clearer insight into how a chemical works in the body. The result is quicker, more transparent safety decisions that better protect families, workers, and communities while giving businesses clear, up-to-date expectations 

TSCA also requires EPA to maintain and regularly update a list of NAMs. This list is not exhaustive, and EPA may consider additional NAMs, on a case-by-case basis.

Learn more about using NAMs in EPA's chemical safety decisions.

List of NAMs

The list contains several categories of methods and approaches that generate new data or information without the use of vertebrate animals. These categories include methods based on internationally accepted test guidelines, such as those adopted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), as well as EPA-specific NAMs. 

The NAMs presented in this list are not meant to be an exhaustive list of NAMs that could be used for TSCA decisions. Rather, the list provides representative NAMs that EPA may consider. Many of the NAMs have been reviewed and established by different organizations (e.g., OECD, ICCVAM, and ICATM) and meet the Section 4(h)(2)(C) criteria for scientific relevance (i.e. accuracy) and reliability (i.e., repeatability/reproducibility). The extensive test method evaluation process, developed by EURL-ECVAM and ICCVAM is an internationally accepted process that was designed to identify NAMs for regulatory acceptance, and is considered scientifically robust. In addition, there are some NAMs on the list that represent existing practices or policies within EPA. 

The "Other Useful Information" section provides tools, resources, and approaches that can support or enhance the application of NAMs for TSCA regulatory decision-making. These materials include tools developed outside of EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), relevant findings from advisory committees, and internationally recognized OECD guidance documents. 

NAMs Nomination Process

Stakeholders can submit NAMs and related data to EPA through the agency's NAMs Nomination Process (LINK). EPA reviews these methods to make sure they are scientifically sound, looking at transparency of the approach, relevance to human biology, reliability and reproducibility of results, and whether the method is fit for its intended purpose. 

Receiving NAMs from stakeholders helps EPA make faster, more reliable chemical safety decisions that better reflect human biology. Stakeholders bring cutting-edge scienced, real-world data, and fit-for-purpose methods tailored to specific chemicals and use patterns, which can fill data gaps and improve accuracy. High-quality NAMs can reduce the need for animal testing, lower costs, and speed timelines, benefits that align with TSCA's direction to use scientifically appropriate non-animal approaches. Submitting NAMs also increases transparency and predictability by showing how companies generate evidence, supporting clearer, more consistent regulatory decisions and encouraging innovation across the sector. 

As described in the NAMs Nomination Process (LINK), when a NAM is submitted to EPA, the agency considers three main factors: context of use, biological relevance, and reliability. Context of use focuses on how the NAM will support a specific TSCA risk decision context (such as screening new chemicals, prioritizing existing chemicals, or conducting risk evaluations) and the type of endpoint it addresses (e.g. physicochemical properties, fate, exposure, ecological effects, or human health). EPA also evaluates whether the NAM is fit-for-purpose, meaning the information it provides is adequate for the intended regulatory application. For biological relevance, EPA examines the scientific basis of the method, including biological or mechanistic understanding, and the reference chemicals used to evaluate and anchor the NAM. For reliability, EPA considers factors such as quality assurance practices, applicability domain, predictivity and statistical performance, reproducibility within and across laboratories, and whether the method has undergone independent review. 

EPA anticipates considering nominated NAMs across multiple TSCA decision contexts, such as prioritization, screening, and informing risk determinations for new or existing chemicals, while applying a fit-for-purpose approach, recognizing that a method is suitable for one context may not be appropriate for another. Most NAMs currently on the List are expected to contribute as part of a weight of scientific evidence framework for characterizing modes of action or hazards, though some may be combined to meet specific regulatory needs, such as OECD defined approaches that integrate results from multiple methods 

June 2026 List of NAMs

The table of NAMs below are organized into three categories: OECD test guidelines and EPA test guidelines; non-OECD methods, computational tools and models; and policy related documents that might be relevant to TSCA. This structure highlights the distinction between internationally harmonized OECD methods and all other approaches. Within each table, all newly added NAMs are denoted with "NEW" so stakeholders can easily see what has changed and where new content has been incorporated. 

Description of Categories

OECD/EPA Test Guidelines: Identifies both OECD and EPA Test Guidelines that have gone through their respective Test Guidelines Programs and therefore met the relevance and reliability criteria specified under TSCA Section 4(h)(2)(C). The included Health Effects NAMs consist of experimental methods that identify or evaluate adverse human health effects or endpoints and do not use intact vertebrate animals. The Other Information or Strategies section also provides links illustrating how some may be combined with Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA) or used with Defined Approaches (DAs) for specific regulatory applications. The Biotic Systems NAMs similarly encompass experimentally based methods designed to evaluate adverse effects or endpoints in environmental organisms; while many rely on plants or invertebrate species, these data help inform species' sensitivity and distribution and can, in some cases, reduce or eliminate the need for vertebrate testing in ecological assessments.

Non-Test Guidelines, Data Integration Tools, Predictive Models, and Assessment Frameworks: This includes NAMs such as computational toxicology tools, chemical category approaches, tiered testing strategies, and screening methods of relevance to OPPT. EPA has been using, and will continue to use, models and approaches developed both within the Agency and by external organizations as they become available and are considered appropriate for TSCA decision-making. OPPT, for example, applies tools available through internationally recognized platforms such as the OECD QSAR Toolbox, which includes several EPA-developed models that have been evaluated through the OECD. Links to two comprehensive compilations of alternative methods maintained and regularly updated by ECVAM and NICEATM are also provided.

EPA NAM-Related Guidance Documents/Policies Which May Be Relevant to TSCA: Includes EPA NAM guidance documents/policies adopted by EPA's OCSPP; four are more relevant to OPP but may be used/relevant to OPPT (i.e., the acute dermal toxicity waiver guidance, the acute toxicity waiver for birds, the acute toxicity waiver/bridging guidance, and the eye irritation alternative testing framework); and one is relevant for screening for endocrine activity under OPP's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. The OCSPP Skin Sensitization Policy is currently in sue by OPP/OPPT and explains OCSPP's general approach to replace vertebrate animal tests for skin sensitization with non-animal tests. Each of the tests incorporated under the policy are existing OECD Test Guidelines (i.e., 442C, D, and E). The OCSPP Skin Sensitization Policy uses two DAs that OECD accepted for use in a regulatory context (see "Other Useful Information"). This update includes two Decision Frameworks for Hazard Identification of Eye and Skin Irritation and Corrosion. 

Other Information or Strategies

This section includes non-specific tests/experimental methods and includes tools developed by entities outside of OPPT, important findings reported by advisory committees formed under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) for OCSPP evaluations/work products that use NAMs, and OECD guidance documents (GD) considered as international consensus documents. 

As with the TSCA Section 4(h)(2)(C) list above, the "Other Useful Information" below is not meant to be exhaustive. It includes information/tools that OPPT has knowledge of and experience with under TSCA. Links and a brief description of the source of information identified. General information on the publications from the OECD can be found under the OECD's Series on Testing and Assessment/Adopted Guidance and Review Documents.