Senate Republicans have introduced draft Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform legislation, which will be examined at a Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee hearing on March 4, 2026.

The “Toxic Substances Control Act Fee Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2026” takes a narrower approach than its House counterpart released in January, focusing primarily on the regulation of new chemicals under TSCA section 5.  As its title suggests, the discussion draft would also reauthorize the TSCA fee program, which is set to expire at the end of fiscal year 2026, for another 10 years.

“We need to improve our current systems so we can bring better, safer and more innovative chemicals to market — with the predictability and resources to get it right,” EPW Chair Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) said in a statement to E&E News. “This discussion draft is a step in the right direction, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on this during next week’s hearing.”

Tiered Review for New Chemicals

A central feature of the draft is the creation of a four-tiered framework for new chemical notices under section 5:

1. Tier 1: New chemicals and new uses that satisfy Safer Choice and Design for the Environment criteria.
2. Tier 2: New chemicals and new uses that fall into a chemical category “for which the Administrator has developed established scientific methodology for review.”
3. Tier 3: New chemicals and new uses intended to serve as an alternative to a riskier existing chemical where modeling or other information demonstrates potential risk reduction.
4. Tier 4: All other new chemicals and new uses.

Although each tier would be assigned its own EPA review timeframe, the draft does not specify the number of review days applicable to any category.  The tiered structure appears designed to address longstanding industry concerns regarding the growing backlog of new chemical submissions, which frequently extend beyond the current statutory 90-day review period (extendable to 180 days).

Third-Party Assessors

Another proposed change presumably designed to address the new chemical submission backlog is a mechanism by which third parties could provide a preliminary review of section 5 submissions.

Accredited third-party assessors would be authorized to review submissions for completeness and determine whether any risk assessment included in the submission was conducted using EPA assumptions, models, and procedures.  Submissions that receive a third-party risk assessment review would be eligible for expedited review periods, which are unspecified but vary by tier.

Notably, if EPA fails to make a determination within the expedited review period for a dual-certified submission—one that received both a completeness and risk assessment review—the applicant would be allowed to commence manufacture consistent with the conditions described in the submission.  EPA would retain authority to order cessation of manufacture upon completing its review.

Stewardship Pathway Authorization

Separate from the tiered review framework, the draft proposes a “stewardship pathway authorization” as an alternative route to the manufacture and distribution of a new chemical.

Applicants would submit a detailed stewardship implementation plan outlining intended conditions of use, engineering controls, disposal practices, PPE requirements, and downstream communication measures.  Manufacturers of chemicals approved under this pathway would be required to obtain contractual commitments from immediate recipients of the substance that they will comply with the approved stewardship implementation plan.  Approved chemicals would not be placed on the TSCA Inventory.

The draft does not specify how many days EPA would have to review stewardship pathway applications.  As with dual-certified third-party submissions, if EPA fails to act before the deadline and no extension has been granted, the requirements of the section would be deemed fulfilled for the conditions of use described in the submission.

Section 5 Exemptions

In addition to restructuring the review process, the draft proposes codifying versions of the low volume exemption (LVE) and low releases and low exposures (LoREX) exemption.  EPA has long allowed these exemptions by rule, which ease section 5 requirements for eligible chemicals.  The draft would make certain PFAS ineligible for either exemption, and only allow other PFAS and persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals (PBTs) to qualify if certain conditions were met.

Again, the draft does not specify the EPA review timeframe for these exemption submissions, which would differ for PFAS and PBTs.  Exemption timeframes when expedited via third-party assessment are also unspecified.

The draft would also establish a brand-new Section 5 exemption for de minimis quantities, allowing the manufacture or processing of any chemical in quantities of less than 500 kilograms per year if the manufacturer or processor notifies EPA within 30 days of commencing manufacture.  A variety of substances would be ineligible, including substances with at least one fully fluorinated atom, nanomaterials, and mercury, lead, and cadmium compounds, among others.

Other Section 5 Revisions

Another subtle but important change is the replacement of the term “may present” unreasonable risk with “is more likely than not to present” unreasonable risk in section 5.  Currently, if EPA determines that a new chemical or new use “may present” unreasonable risk in the absence of sufficient information to permit a reasoned evaluation, EPA must issue an order to address that risk.  Raising that bar to “more likely than not” would require greater certainty before issuance of an order, known as a 5(e) order.

Similarly, the draft proposes to change the standard for granting section 5 exemptions from “will not present” unreasonable risk to “is not likely to present” unreasonable risk.

The draft also addresses incomplete submissions.  Under the proposal, EPA would have a limited time to determine whether a submission is complete and issue a deficiency notice; its ability to do so after that window expires would be restricted.

Environmental groups and EPA have often pointed to incomplete section 5 submissions and associated rework as a significant contributor to new chemical delays.

Other provisions in the draft require EPA to maintain a program similar or identical to the Sustainable Futures Program and consider information voluntarily provided in submissions, including whether the chemical may reduce greenhouse gas emissions among other criteria.

Key Definitions

Cutting across each of these reforms are proposed revisions to two foundational TSCA terms that would have significant implications for both new and existing chemical regulation.

First, the draft would narrow the scope of “conditions of use,” which are the reasonably foreseeable chemical uses evaluated by EPA to determine whether restrictions on a chemical are necessary.  While preserving the existing definition, the draft would add the following qualifications to what circumstances are considered conditions of use by:

• Excluding “merely hypothetical circumstances.”
• Requiring that EPA “have a cognizable basis to foresee [a] condition of use”
• Excluding uses that violate other federal laws as “not within the meaning of what is reasonably foreseen.”
• If a submitter provides information demonstrating that “broadly applied and effective exposure control measures are routinely used,” it would create a “rebuttable presumption that the lack of such measures is not reasonably foreseen.”

Second, the draft proposes to add bounds to “unreasonable risk,” a crucial, currently undefined term that serves as the basis for regulation under TSCA.  The draft would exclude “risks that may arise from common, well-understood hazards, such as irritation, corrosion, flammability, unreactive dust, and other physical effects” from the meaning of unreasonable risk.  It would also clarify that the phrase “includes consideration of both the hazard of a substance and the quantity, frequency, and duration of the exposure to the environment.”