- within Finance and Banking, Intellectual Property and Technology topic(s)
On March 4, 2026, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) held a legislative hearing to examine a discussion draft of the Toxic Substances Control Act Fee Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2026. The hearing focused on reauthorizing Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) user fees that support the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) chemical review programs and exploring potential reforms to the Agency's new chemicals review process.
The TSCA fee provisions established in the 2016 Lautenberg amendments currently fund roughly one-quarter of EPA's New Chemicals Program and are scheduled to expire on September 30, 2026. Members of the Committee from both parties acknowledged that reauthorization will be necessary to ensure EPA has resources to carry out its statutory responsibilities.
At the same time, the discussion draft released by Committee leadership proposes additional structural changes aimed at improving predictability and efficiency in EPA's review of new chemicals. These proposed reforms sparked debate among lawmakers and witnesses about how best to balance innovation, regulatory certainty, and protection of public health.
Chair Kevin Cramer (R-ND) emphasized concerns that the current TSCA implementation framework may be slowing the introduction of innovative chemistries and discouraging domestic investment. He noted that delays and uncertainty in the New Chemicals Program can have broader economic implications, particularly for industries such as semiconductor manufacturing that rely on specialized chemical inputs.
Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), however, cautioned that any legislative changes must preserve the core public health protections established in the bipartisan 2016 amendments. Whitehouse expressed concern that some provisions in the discussion draft could weaken EPA's authority to review and regulate new chemicals, particularly in situations where the Agency lacks sufficient data to determine risk.
Witness testimony reflected these competing perspectives. Richard E. Engler, Ph.D., Director of Chemistry at Bergeson & Campbell, P.C., testified on behalf of the Coalition for Chemical Innovations, highlighting concerns from industry stakeholders about delays and uncertainty in EPA's New Chemicals Program. Dr. Engler noted that the Agency currently restricts the vast majority of new chemical submissions, in part because of how EPA interprets key statutory terms such as "may present an unreasonable risk" and "reasonably foreseen conditions of use."
Other witnesses emphasized the importance of maintaining rigorous safety review. Michal Freedhoff, Ph.D., former Assistant Administrator for EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), warned that several provisions in the discussion draft could, in her opinion, inadvertently allow certain new chemicals to bypass review or enter commerce before EPA completes its assessment. She also stressed that recent staffing losses at EPA could make it more difficult for the Agency to implement new statutory requirements while meeting existing deadlines. Dr. Freedhoff returned to the subject of program resources at a variety of places during her testimony and in answering questions from the Committee members.
Available resources for efficient operation of EPA's TSCA program was a repeated subject by members of the Committee from both sides of the aisle. There was also discussion of broader issues affecting the New Chemicals Program, including appropriate scientific standards to use in risk evaluations to ensure both protective standards and decisions made in a more timely and predictable fashion, along with the potential role of streamlined pathways for low-volume or highly controlled (closed loop/totally enclosed) industrial uses.
The hearing marks an early step in what could become a broader congressional debate over the future of TSCA implementation. To some degree, the rhetoric of the hearing repeated much of the same binary arguments that characterized much of the legislative gestation of the Lautenberg amendments, now ten years ago: the need for timely reviews of new chemical submissions while ensuring protection of health and the environment. The most positive theme of the hearing was that members of both parties did agree on the goal of attempting to reach a bipartisan consensus — which is not always a theme heard at many congressional hearings in the past year.
While there appears to be bipartisan agreement on the need to reauthorize TSCA fees, the scope of additional statutory changes remains uncertain as lawmakers continue to evaluate the discussion draft and gather stakeholder input.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
