TSCA Fee Reauthorization Forces Congress to Confront Chemical Review Reform

The Toxic Substances Control Act — the federal law that governs how new industrial chemicals enter U.S. commerce — is approaching a legislative deadline that is forcing Congress to act. TSCA's fee authority, which funds EPA's chemical review program, expires in September 2026. Without reauthorization, the agency's ability to process new chemical submissions and complete risk evaluations could stall.

At a March 2026 Senate hearing covered by C&EN, experts and stakeholders debated a Republican discussion draft titled the Toxic Substances Control Act, Fee Reauthorization, and Improvement Act of 2026. The draft uses the fee reauthorization vehicle to pursue broader changes to how EPA reviews chemicals — drawing both industry support and environmental pushback.

What the Draft Proposes

The Senate Republican draft focuses primarily on EPA's process for reviewing new chemicals under TSCA Section 5, where the industry has argued the agency faces a backlog that delays product launches and investment decisions. Key provisions include:

• Expedited new chemical review timelines with statutory deadlines for EPA action.
• Third-party contractor authority allowing EPA to hire outside parties — including industry reviewers — to help complete approvals.
• Revised risk management language requiring EPA to mitigate risk "to the extent reasonably feasible," replacing prior language requiring that risks "no longer present" after agency action.
• Fee reauthorization that extends EPA's authority to collect fees from manufacturers, keeping the review program funded.

Industry Position: Targeted Reform

The American Chemistry Council has urged Congress to pursue targeted TSCA improvements, citing a backlog in EPA's new chemical reviews that the trade group argues hampers U.S. competitiveness. The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) has echoed this position, calling 2026 "a critical opportunity" for structural fixes.

Industry's structural concerns focus on three areas: the pace of new chemical reviews, the criteria EPA uses to prioritize existing chemicals for risk evaluation, and the transparency of EPA's decision-making. All three, industry groups argue, can be addressed without weakening core TSCA protections.

Environmental Opposition

Hundreds of environmental and public health groups have urged Congress not to weaken TSCA through the draft. The Environmental Defense Fund has specifically criticized the "reasonably feasible" language change, arguing it gives EPA — and, through contractor authority, industry — too much discretion to leave known risks in place.

Critics also point to the third-party contractor provision as a potential conflict of interest: allowing chemical manufacturers' contractors to participate in reviewing those same chemicals could undermine the integrity of the approval process. Environmental advocates emphasize that TSCA's existing language is the backstop for restrictions on chemicals linked to cancer, learning disabilities, and reproductive harm.

The Fee Problem Everyone Agrees On

Both sides of the debate acknowledge that TSCA fees must be reauthorized before September 2026. EPA collects roughly $25 million annually from chemical manufacturers to fund the review program; without fees, EPA's chemical evaluation capacity shrinks dramatically.

That shared deadline is what makes broader reform possible. Historically, narrow fee reauthorization bills have struggled to attract attention. Combining fees with substantive reform creates a legislative vehicle that both parties may be willing to move — provided the final language splits the difference between industry and environmental positions.

What It Means for Chemical Suppliers and Distributors

Chemical suppliers that import, manufacture, or distribute regulated substances should track the TSCA reform process on three dimensions:

• New chemical submissions: If the draft advances, review timelines may shorten — but submission requirements and data obligations could shift.
• Existing chemical evaluations: Prioritization criteria changes could move specific substances up or down EPA's review queue, affecting downstream compliance timelines.
• Fee structure: Reauthorized fees may come with revised rates that affect the cost of introducing new substances to the market.

Expect markup activity in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee through summer 2026, with a final legislative push tied to the fee expiration in September.