Senate Republicans Release Draft TSCA Reform Legislation Ahead of EPW Hearing

/in , ,

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.”

House Subcommittee to Hold Hearing on New TSCA Reform Bill

/in ,

On January 22, 2026, at 2pm ET, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Environment Subcommittee will hold a hearing to examine newly released Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform legislation.

The hearing, titled “Chemicals in Commerce: Legislative Proposal to Modernize America’s Chemical Safety Law, Strengthen Critical Supply Chains, and Grow Domestic Manufacturing,” will focus on a discussion draft released on January 15, 2026.  No witnesses are currently listed on the hearing webpage.

The discussion draft would make structural changes to key provisions of the statute, including revisions to TSCA section 4 testing requirements, section 5 new chemical reviews, and section 6 reviews of existing chemicals.  It would also reauthorize EPA’s authority to collect fees from manufacturers, which is set to expire later this year.

“Targeted and measured reforms [to TSCA] will increase accountability, strengthen domestic manufacturing, and safeguard the health and safety of our communities,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-KY-02) and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Gary Palmer (R-AL-06) in a joint statement.

“The legislation we’ll be discussing in this hearing would support these goals and help to ensure TSCA processes are working effectively to evaluate chemical safety and support American innovation,” they added.

A livestream of the hearing will be available online.

House Science Committee to Hold January 8 Hearing on Chemical Regulation

/in ,

On January 8, 2026, at 10am ET, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will hold a hearing entitled “Chemistry Competitiveness: Fueling Innovation and Streamlining Processes to Ensure Safety and Security.”

According to Inside EPA, the committee said in an announcement that the hearing will “examine the state of chemical research and development in the United States and how the regulatory environment affects progress.”  It comes after an October Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on chemical regulation, which included substantial discussion regarding possible Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform.

The hearing will feature the following witnesses:

  • Charlotte Bertrand, Senior Director, Chemical Management, Regulatory Policy and Strategy, American Chemistry Council
  • Stan Meiburg, Former Acting Deputy Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency
  • Gwen Gross, Ph.D., Senior Technical Fellow, The Boeing Company
  • Keith Corkwell, Senior Vice President and President of Lubrizol Additives, The Lubrizol Corporation

A livestream of the hearing will be available on YouTube.

ACI Pushes Senate to Address EPA Bottlenecks in New Chemical Reviews

/in , ,

In an October 23, 2025, letter to leaders of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and its Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, the American Cleaning Institute (ACI) called for “targeted changes” to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to accelerate new chemical reviews under the statute.

“ACI members are experiencing considerable challenges with [EPA’s] ability to meet its statutory deadlines under [TSCA], namely, to review and make final determinations on new chemicals within 90 days,” hindering innovation and the development of more eco-friendly products, the letter reads.

ACI also asked the committee to consider the “adverse impact” of significant new use rules (SNURs), which it claims are being applied to restrict “most” new chemicals.

“EPA has taken this route as TSCA requires EPA to consider ‘reasonably foreseen’ uses in new chemical reviews,” ACI wrote.  “The lack of a clear definition in the TSCA for the term ‘reasonably foreseen’ has led EPA staff to take an overly conservative approach that focuses heavily on theoretical hazards instead of utilizing a risk-based approach that prioritizes the specific conditions of use provided by manufacturers about the intended use of new chemistries.”

Meanwhile, ACI’s general counsel, Douglas Troutman, has been nominated by President Trump to lead EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee advanced his nomination to the full Senate on October 29, 2025, in a party-line vote.

EPW to Hold October 23 Hearing on Chemical Regulation

/in ,

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) will hold a hearing on chemical regulation this week, offering potential insight into Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform legislation reportedly being developed in the Senate.

The hearing, titled “Examining the Beneficial Use and Regulation of Chemicals,” is scheduled for 10:30am on October 23, 2025.  It will be convened by EPW’s Chemical Safety Subcommittee, which is chaired by Senator John Curtis (R-Utah).

According to EPW’s website, the hearing will include the following panelists:

  • Peter Huntsman, President and CEO of Huntsman Corporation, a chemical manufacturer.
  • Gwen Gross, Senior Technical Fellow at The Boeing Company.
  • Tracey Woodruff, Professor and Director of the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment at the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Woodruff previously worked as a scientist at EPA.

The hearing was originally scheduled for July but was postponed.

Coalition Letter to Congress Calls for Streamlined TSCA Chemical Reviews

/in ,

A collection of over 100 trade associations is calling on Congress to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to “ensure a regulatory system that balances human health and environmental concerns with domestic supply chain and innovation needs and supports growth in our manufacturing sector.”

The American Alliance for Innovation (AAI) letter, sent to congressional leaders on September 8, 2025, suggests a number of “improvements and clarifications” to the statute, including:

  • Ensuring timely and predictable reviews of new chemicals;
  • Avoiding unnecessary regulation, including overuse of Consent Orders (COs) and Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) that discourage adoption of innovative and sustainable chemicals;
  • Following a risk-based approach to regulating a chemical’s intended use in commerce that is rooted in actual uses and real-world scenarios;
  • Strengthening the scientific standards included in TSCA for what constitutes “the weight of the scientific evidence;” and,
  • Providing additional clarity to other sections of TSCA that govern testing, regulatory petitions, and data sharing.

AAI suggests that these changes be incorporated into any legislation to extend TSCA’s fee authority, which expires at the end of fiscal year 2026.

EPA Releases Supplemental Proposed Rulemaking to Modify TSCA Fees Rule

/in ,

On November 16, 2022, EPA published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) (87 FR 68647) addressing fees for the administration of TSCA. The SNPRM modifies and supplements the Agency’s proposed TSCA fees rule issued on January 11, 2021. The 2021 proposed rule was released pursuant to TSCA section 26(b)(4)(F), which requires EPA to review and, if necessary, adjust fees every three years. EPA determined this SNPRM was necessary based on comments on the proposed rule, adjustments to EPA’s cost estimates, and additional experience in implementing the 2018 Fee Rule. Modifications include:

  • Increasing fee amounts and the estimates of EPA’s costs for TSCA administration.
  • Expansion of the fee requirements to companies required to submit information for test orders.
  • Narrowing the proposed exemptions for the test rule fee activities to only: (1) importers of articles containing a chemical substance; (2) producers of a chemical substance as a byproduct; (3) manufacturers (including importers) of a chemical substance as an impurity; (4) producers of a chemical as a non-isolated intermediate; (5) manufacturers (including importers) of small quantities of a chemical substance solely for research and development and; (6) manufacturers (including importers) of chemical substances with production volume less than 1,100 lbs of a chemical subject to a TSCA section 4 test rule.
  • Adjustments to the self-identification and reporting requirements of EPA-initiated risk evaluation and test rule fees to reduce the burden of calculating and reporting production volumes to comply with the 2021 proposed recordkeeping requirements. EPA is considering using ranking methodologies and reporting production volume ranges instead of averages.
  • The proposal of a partial refund of fees for PMNs withdrawn any time after the first 10 business days during the assessment period for the chemical.
  • Adjustment of the fee payment obligations to require payment by processors subject to test orders and enforceable consent agreements.
  • Extending the time frame for test orders and test rule payments.

The proposed fee increases are as follows:

Fee Category 2018 Fee Rule Current Fees* 2022 Supplemental Proposed Rule
Test order $9,800 $11,650 $25,000
Test rule $29,500 $35,080 $50,000
Enforceable consent agreement $22,800 $27,110 $50,000
PMN and consolidated PMN, SNUN, MCAN, and consolidated MCAN $16,000 $19,020 $45,000
LoRex, LVE, TME, Tier II exemption, TERA, Film Articles $4,700 $5,590 $13,200
EPA-initiated risk evaluation $1,350,000 Two payments totaling $2,560,000 Two payments totaling $5,081,000
Manufacturer-requested risk evaluation on a chemical included in the TSCA Work Plan Initial payment of $1.25M with final invoice to recover 50% of actual costs Two payments of $945,000, with final invoice to recover 50% of actual costs Two payments of $1,497,000, with final invoice to recover 50% of actual costs
Manufacturer-requested risk evaluation on a chemical not included in the TSCA Work Plan Initial payment of $2.5M, with final invoice to recover 100% of actual costs Two payments of $1.89M, with final invoice to recover 100% of actual costs Two payments of $2,993,000, with final invoice to recover 100% of actual costs

*The current fees reflect an adjustment for inflation required by TSCA and went into effect on January 1, 2022.

EPA states that increased fees will ensure recovery of 25% of implementation costs, consistent with the direction of the Fiscal Year 2022 appropriations bill. The Agency also states that the fee increases will strengthen its ability to successfully implement TSCA in a manner that is both protective and sustainable.  Furthermore, EPA asserts that the fee increases will improve on-time performance and quality significantly.

EPA officials have repeatedly argued that the 2016 Lautenberg Amendments tasked the Agency with many new responsibilities but did not increase the TSCA budget accordingly. According to the Agency, while there was a fee increase in 2018, EPA was only able to collect about half of the 25% target fees since the 2018 rule’s finalization. Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Michal Freedhoff commented, “[f]or the last six years, we’ve lacked the needed resources to build a sustainable chemical safety program that’s grounded in science, protects communities from dangerous chemicals, and supports innovation; with today’s action, we’re continuing to adjust TSCA fees to account for the full costs of running the program the way that Congress intended.”

EPA will hold a webinar on December 6, 2022, from 1:00 PM to 2:30 PM to provide stakeholders with an overview of the SNPRM and accept public comments. Registration closes on December 1, 2022; you can register for the webinar here.

EPA Publishes TSCA User Fee Proposed Rule

/in ,

Under the proposed TSCA User Fee Rule, submitters would pay $16,000 for each PMN. This was announced on February 8, 2018, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt signed a proposed rule regarding user fees for the administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The current fee for a PMN submission is $2,500. EPA estimates the average cost of a PMN for processing, reviewing, making determinations, and taking any regulatory action such as with a SNUR or an order is approximately $55,000. Fees would also apply to submissions related to risk evaluation and EPA mandated testing of chemical substances and mixtures.

The proposed rule was published on February 27, 2018. Comments on the rule must be received on or before April 27, 2018 (Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0401).

Amended TSCA provides EPA the authority to charge fees to chemical manufacturers, including importers, and processors to “provide a sustainable source of funding to defray resources that are available for implementation of new responsibilities under the amended law.” These fees are to be used for “developing risk evaluations for existing chemicals; collecting and reviewing toxicity and exposure data and other information; reviewing Confidential Business Information (CBI); and, making determinations in a timely and transparent manner with respect to the safety of new chemicals before they enter the marketplace.” However, EPA is not proposing to assess greater fees for submissions containing CBI claims.

Under the amendments to TSCA, EPA has authority to require payment from manufacturers and processors who:

  • Are required to submit information by test rule, test order, or enforceable consent agreement (ECA) under section 4;
  • Submit a PMN, SNUR, LVE or other notification under section 5); or
  • Manufacture or process a chemical substance that is subject to a risk evaluation under section 6, including a risk evaluation conducted at the request of a manufacturer.

Beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2019 , EPA will be required to adjust fees every three years to reflect inflation and ensure that fees are sufficient to collect 25 percent of the costs to EPA in administering TSCA sections 4, 5, 6, and 14, up to $25 million. The proposed rule provides a description of proposed TSCA fees and fee categories for FYs 2019, 2020, and 2021, and explains the basis for its proposal.

TSCA Inventory Reset Deadline Is Approaching

/in ,

The TSCA Inventory Reset process is designed to identify which listed chemical substances are and which are not actively used in commerce. Substances identified as “in commerce” will be placed on the “Active Inventory.” Substances not currently in commerce will be placed on the “Inactive Inventory.” Companies will not be able to lawfully manufacture, import, or process any chemical substance on the “Inactive Inventory” without first notifying the substance to EPA.

The rule establishes “retrospective” (as well as “forward-looking”) reporting requirements. During the initial retrospective reporting period, companies must report on each Inventory-listed substance that they manufactured or imported for a non-exempt purpose during the ten-year look back period (June 21, 2006 and June 21, 2016). The deadline for this reporting period is February 7, 2018.

A subsequent reporting period, beginning April 9, 2018, is designated for reporting by processors. Companies may report substances that they processed during the ten-year look back period if the substances are not already on EPA’s Active Inventory or Interim Active Inventory.

EPA Releases the 2018 Plan for Chemical Risk Evaluations under TSCA

/in , , ,

As required under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, EPA has released its annual plan for chemical risk evaluations. The annual plan identifies the next steps for the first 10 chemical reviews currently underway, and describes EPA’s work in 2018 to prepare for future risk evaluations.

EPA was required to initiate ten risk evaluations in 2016, and is required to initiate at least 20 more within 3 years after enactment of the Lautenberg Act, or by December 2019. EPA designated the first ten chemical substances on December 19, 2016. By the end of 2018, the EPA will initiate prioritization for 40 chemicals – at least 20 Low-Priority and 20 High-Priority candidates. By December 22, 2019, EPA will designate 20 substances as Low-Priority and initiated risk evaluations on 20 High-Priority substances.

In order to support these risk evaluations and other key aspects of TSCA implementation, EPA stated that it will be proposing a draft TSCA Fees Rule in early 2018, which will provide estimates of the resources required to undertake risk evaluations.