The Subcommittee on Environment will hold a hearing on Thursday, January 22, 2026, at
2:00 p.m. (ET) in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building. The hearing is entitled, “Chemicals in
Commerce: Legislative Proposal to Modernize America’s Chemical Safety Law, Strengthen
Critical Supply Chains, and Grow Domestic Manufacturing.”
Hearing memo
Witnesses:
- Dimitrios Karakitsos, Esq., Partner, Holland & Knight LLP
- Dr. Kimberly Wise White, Vice President, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs, American Chemistry Council
- John Carey, Esq., Regulatory Director, dsm-firmenich
- Tracey Woodruff, Ph.D., MPH, Professor and Director, University of California, San Francisco
On January 22, 2025, the Subcommittee on Environment held a hearing, “A Decade
Later: Assessing the Legacy and Impact of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st
Century Act,” to assess how the law was functioning and to identify challenges with its
implementation, with both Democratic and Republican administrations having had an
opportunity to administer TSCA since it was amended.
The proposed TSCA Fee Reauthorization and Improvement Act introduces higher evidentiary standards, such as a “more likely than not” threshold for regulating toxic risks, which could hinder the EPA from taking action against harmful chemicals. The draft also narrows the scope of risk reviews to manufacturer-defined uses, limits worker protections by restricting the EPA from assuming noncompliance with outdated OSHA standards, and introduces fast-track exemptions that prioritize industry data.
Discussion at the hearing will focus on a discussion draft of legislation to amend several
sections of TSCA, including:
Section 2
This bill amends the definition of the term “conditions of use” to clarify that, when EPA
is considering the safety or risk of a chemical for specific uses, those uses must be intended,
known, or reasonably foreseen as more likely than not to occur.
Section 3
The bill makes several amendments to section 4 of TSCA, which provides EPA authority
and outlines procedures for requesting a manufacturer to develop and submit data to EPA about
the health or environmental effects of a chemical substance or mixture. It would clarify
circumstances in which EPA may request a manufacture conduct additional testing; require EPA
to make specific findings to justify an order or rule requiring additional testing; clarify that
testing should be used to determine the impacts of the target chemical, not impurities or
unintentional byproducts; and eliminate a provision added in the 2016 amendments that allowed
EPA to require testing on behalf of another Federal agency acting under its non-TSCA
authorities. Additionally, it clarifies that an order or rule requiring the development of data be
based on protocols and methods that are technologically achievable for developing information
about how a chemical will be used or is intended to be used. Finally, it specifies that EPA should
consider alternative test methods for reducing animal tests developed or approved by the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Section 4
The bill includes changes to TSCA’s procedures for EPA in evaluating new chemicals, or
new uses of existing chemicals, which are prescribed in section 5 of TSCA. It requires that the
Administrator’s safety determination regarding a chemical must be in writing and that any
finding that a chemical poses an unreasonable risk include consideration of the likelihood that
such risk will occur based on the uses identified by the manufacturer. This bill also directs the
Administrator to make best efforts to prioritize the review of premanufacture notices for reduced
risk chemicals, chemicals eligible for the Safer Choice program, and chemicals necessary to
improve the security or resiliency of a U.S. domestic critical material supply chain identified by
the Secretary of Commerce. In the event the Administrator does not complete its safety review of
a new chemical or new use within the required time period, this bill would add a requirement for
the EPA Administrator to issue a written notice explaining why the review deadline was not met,
a requirement which may not be delegated to a subordinate official.
The bill would require the Administrator to assign appropriate staff, including industrial
hygienists and human health risk assessors, to review a notice within 10 days of receipt and to
provide an opportunity for the manufacturer to meet and confer with the assigned staff within 30
days of receipt.
This bill’s amendments allow a manufacturer to voluntarily request that EPA (but not
EPA to request) to suspend the review of a notice for a period not to exceed 180 days.
The bill also clarifies requirements for manufacturers submitting premanufacture notices,
including by adding a new requirement that a manufacturer seeking review under one of the
priority categories above identify whether it falls into one of those categories.
The bill amends language concerning EPA’s regulation of a chemical pending
development of new information to clarify that the Administrator must determine that a risk
during the interim period is more likely not to occur, and the chemical could be produced in
substantial quantities or carry significant potential for human exposure, in the time periods when
the interim action would be effective pending completion of the safety review and issuance of the
ultimate regulation.
The bill requires that when issuing a rule to regulate a new chemical, EPA must
determine that the chemical (or new use) presents not only an unreasonable risk but also that the
risk is more likely than not to occur. The bill would also streamline the rulemaking process,
allowing EPA to issue a direct final rule, which would be considered final agency action upon
publication in the Federal Register.
The bill grants EPA the authority to exempt, upon application, a manufacturer of a
chemical already approved by a competent regulatory authority of a country that is a member of
the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development from the premanufacture notice
and review requirements to allow the chemical to be manufactured (but not imported) in the
U.S., subject to the same restrictions imposed by the other country’s regulatory system. It also
establishes additional procedures and requirements for this exemption authority.
Section 5
The bill includes several amendments to section 6 of TSCA, which governs EPA’s
prioritization of review, evaluation, and management of existing chemicals. It clarifies that when
conducting a risk evaluation, EPA should prioritize the review and consideration of exposures
that are more likely than not to result in unreasonable risk, and aggregate exposures only when
necessary for greater clarity or precision. This amendment also directs EPA to consider exposure
limits issued by other federal agencies and to not assume non-compliance with applicable laws
and regulations when conducting a risk assessment. The bill also expands public comment period
on a draft risk evaluation from 30 days to 60 days.
The bill adds a new provision to require EPA to establish a process for other federal
agencies to submit information on critical uses, alternatives, and supply chain impacts during the
development of a risk assessment before it is made available for public review and comment.
The bill clarifies the effective date of a risk management rule that is subject to judicial
review under section 19 of TSCA.
The bill clarifies that when selecting among requirements for a risk management rule, the
Administrator shall consider to the extent practicable certain factors, including any health or
safety standards issued under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, and to select
requirements that are cost-effective in relation to the amount of risk reduced and that do not
result in greater risks to health or the environment. The bill would also clarify that the
Administrator is to consider the technical and economic feasibility of specific risk reduction
measures based on each specific condition of use. The bill also clarifies that a restriction on a
specific condition of use that is not technically or economically feasible shall be considered to
substantially prevent that condition of use, for purposes of considering whether alternatives are
available.
This bill also amends the provision for replacement parts to clarify that the safety review
of chemicals used in a replacement part for a complex durable good should consider whether the
replacement part by itself contributes significantly to the risk identified in the risk evaluation.
The bill would also provide for a 10-year transition period for when an alternative replacement
part could be required under a risk management rule.
The bill also adds a provision preventing EPA from regulating chemicals that are
alternatives to halon used in aerospace fire suppression that are certified or required by other
federal agencies.
The bill extends the public comment period for proposed risk management rules from 60
days to 90 days.
The bill adds new language authorizing a data compensation process for companies to
compensate a manufacturer for the use of data about an existing chemical generated by that
manufacturer.
Section 6
The bill amends section 8 of TSCA to require, rather than simply allow as under current
law, EPA to identify multiple listings as a single chemical to avoid confusion and clarifies how
identical or equivalent chemicals are tracked, regardless of feedstock or reactive process.
Section 7
The bill amends section 9 of TSCA to clarify that EPA may not impose a restriction on an
existing chemical under section 6 of TSCA (governing evaluation and regulation of existing
chemicals) that is inconsistent with a requirement that is applied on that chemical by another
agency.
Section 8
The bill amends section 21 of the current law, which allows a person to petition EPA to
review other existing chemicals outside of the regular prioritization process, to clarify that a
person cannot use the petition process to require EPA to review other existing chemicals that
were not selected through the public prioritization process.
Section 9
This amendment would amend section 22 of TSCA, which grants EPA a national defense
waiver authority, to require notice to the House Energy & Commerce Committee and Senate
Environment & Public Works Committee, in addition to the existing requirement to notify the
House and Senate Armed Services Committees about the issuance of a national defense waiver.
Section 10
The bill imposes additional accounting and Congressional reporting requirements on how
user fees are tracked and reauthorizes the user fee provision for 10 years under section 26 of
TSCA. It also requires EPA to identify an office to provide technical assistance to manufacturers
regarding implementation and compliance with TSCA, and requires EPA to provide interested
manufacturers with the opportunity to meet and confer with Agency prior to submitting a
premanufacture notice under section 5 of TSCA.
The bill amends language that requires EPA to make available to the public certain
categories of information, including information about test orders or rules requiring data under
section 4 and risk evaluations for existing chemicals under section 6. This bill adds additional
categories of information to be made available about EPA’s review of new chemicals under
section 5. It also requires EPA to establish an online dashboard where such information would be
easily accessible.
The bill also amends language that requires EPA to consider reasonably available
information when taking actions under sections 4, 5, or 6. This bill clarifies that EPA should
prioritize review of reasonably available information that directly relates to the chemical that is
the subject of EPA’s action over categorical information or information from models.
House Energy and Commerce Committee
Environment Subcommittee
2123 Rayburn
01/22/2026 at 02:00PM