Bipartisan Agreement: EPA Chemical Reviews Under TSCA Are Too Slow

What Happened

At a January 2026 congressional hearing on potential changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Republican and Democratic lawmakers agreed on one thing: the EPA's reviews of new chemicals before they enter the U.S. market are too slow. The 2016 TSCA update, intended to modernize chemical safety oversight, has instead created a bottleneck that delays innovation and supply.

Rep. Gary Palmer stated bluntly: "EPA does not meet the 90-day review deadline for the vast majority of all new chemicals."

The statutory deadline for premanufacture notice (PMN) reviews is 90 days, but the EPA routinely exceeds it, keeping new materials in regulatory limbo while manufacturers wait for approval to begin production.

Why This Matters for Chemical Suppliers

Every new chemical substance introduced in the United States must go through the PMN process under TSCA Section 5. When the EPA takes months or years instead of the mandated 90 days, the downstream effects ripple across the supply chain:

• Delayed product launches — Manufacturers can't produce or sell chemicals that haven't completed PMN review
• Innovation bottleneck — Materials needed for artificial intelligence hardware, military applications, and advanced manufacturing sit in queue
• Competitive disadvantage — International competitors in the EU, China, and South Korea can bring new chemicals to market faster when the U.S. process stalls
• Supply chain planning — Distributors and end-users can't reliably forecast when new products will become available

Where Congress Disagrees

While both parties want faster reviews, they sharply disagree on how to get there:

Republican Proposal

• Change the risk standard from eliminating "all unreasonable risks" to minimizing risks to what's "reasonably feasible" — a cost-benefit approach
• Require EPA to prioritize industry-generated safety data in reviews
• Set hard deadlines with consequences for EPA if it misses review timelines

Democratic Concerns

• Rep. Paul Tonko warned that prioritizing industry data could create "a biased regulatory program"
• Shifting to a "reasonably feasible" standard could weaken worker safety protections, since current rules assume employer compliance with exposure limits
• Democrats want to increase EPA's capacity (more staff, more funding) rather than lower the review bar

The Republican Draft Bill

House Republicans have circulated a draft bill that would:

• Impose enforceable deadlines on PMN reviews
• Shift the risk evaluation standard toward cost-benefit analysis
• Give EPA more flexibility to accept industry-submitted data
• Streamline reviews for chemicals with established safety profiles in other jurisdictions

The bill has not yet been formally introduced, but the hearing signals that TSCA reform legislation could move in 2026.

What to Watch

• Draft bill timeline — If formally introduced, it could see committee action by mid-2026
• EPA administrative changes — The agency could also speed reviews through internal process reforms without waiting for legislation
• Industry coalition activity — Chemical industry trade groups (ACC, SOCMA) are expected to push for the reform bill
• Existing chemical reviews — TSCA also mandates risk evaluations for existing high-priority chemicals, and those deadlines are being missed too