The House Energy and Commerce Committee leadership met on Jan. 22 regarding legislation to reauthorize the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to collect administrative fees for chemical reviews under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) while proposing additional changes to the statute.  

Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, led a hearing titled Chemicals in Commerce: Legislative Proposal to Modernize America’s Chemical Safety Law, Strengthen Critical Supply Chains and Grow Domestic Manufacturing.

“The process for reviewing new chemicals – which was a significant focus of the 2016 effort – is broken. This regulatory uncertainty makes it difficult for the chemical industry to bring safer alternatives or new technology to the market in the U.S. and impacts human health and the environment by slowing the transition to safer alternatives,” said Chairman Palmer. “The bill would reauthorize the fee provision for another 10 years and require increased transparency and accountability in how fees are used by EPA.”

About TSCA

TSCA defines how new and existing chemicals are regulated by EPA, which has jurisdiction over implementing the TSCA law by overseeing the chemical management process for both new and existing chemicals.

According to the TSCA statute signed into law in 2016, EPA must review and decide on a pre-manufacture notice (PMN) submission within 90 to 180 days. And while the bill was successfully signed into law with bipartisan support, the implementation has encountered challenges. 

Industry Organizations Get Involved

The American Chemistry Council (ACC) testified at the hearing.

ACC Vice President of Regulatory and Scientific Affairs Dr. Kimberly Wise White, Ph.D. underscored the “urgent need to restore predictability, scientific rigor and efficiency to TSCA implementation.”

“Congress rightly envisioned a risk-based, science-driven system under TSCA, not the speculative, opaque system we have now,” Dr. White stated in her testimony. “Over ninety percent of active new chemical reviews already exceed their ninety-day statutory deadline and over sixty percent remain pending for more than a year.

“Additionally, EPA’s use of overly cautious assumptions and unlikely exposure scenarios has led to flawed and inflated risk estimates of existing chemicals, resulting in every evaluated chemical being labeled an unreasonable risk since 2016. These delays and scientific inconsistencies discourage investment in new technologies and materials in the United States,” Dr. White said.

“We appreciate Chairmen Guthrie and Palmer and committee members for convening this important hearing and for their leadership on strengthening America’s chemical safety framework,” said Dr. White. “TSCA can and should protect health and the environment while also supporting innovation, supply chain resilience, and U.S. competitiveness. By pairing TSCA fee reauthorization with targeted common-sense actions to address persistent implementation challenges, Congress can drive accountability and reaffirm the statute’s bipartisan intent.”

ACI, the trade association for the U.S. cleaning product supply chain, submitted a letter to the Chairs of the Subcommittee in advance of the hearing.

“ACI strongly supports the Committee’s continued attention to targeted, practical, science-based improvements that deliver a TSCA program that is predictable, transparent, and innovation-forward,” Blake Nanney, ACI Director of Government Affairs, wrote in the letter. “The discussion draft thoughtfully addresses longstanding concerns shared by manufacturers engaged in both the EPA’s new and existing chemicals programs.”

With member companies facing delays in the review processes, slowing down the ability to bring new and innovative chemistries to market, ACI is encouraged to see proposed improvements to the new chemical review process.

Video Coverage

Watch the full video from the hearing below.