House Subcommittee Holds Hearing On Legislation To Modernize TSCA

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce held a hearing on January 22, 2026, on "Chemicals in Commerce: Legislative Proposal to Modernize America's Chemical Safety Law, Strengthen Critical Supply Chains, and Grow Domestic Manufacturing." The hearing focused on a draft bill titled Discussion Draft of Legislation to Modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act (Discussion Draft). As reported in our January 17, 2026, memorandum, the Discussion Draft would impose sweeping changes to many of the key sections of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), including those pertaining to definitions, testing authorities, review of new chemicals, review and management of existing chemicals, TSCA Inventory nomenclature, relationship to other federal laws, citizens' petitions, TSCA fees, and more.

Opening Statements from Subcommittee Witnesses

The Subcommittee heard from the following witnesses:

• Dimitrios Karakitsos, Partner, Holland & Knight LLP (witness testimony);

• John Carey, Regulatory Director, dsm-firmenich (witness testimony);

• Tracey Woodruff, Ph.D., MPH, Professor and Director, University of California, San Francisco (witness testimony); and

• Kimberly Wise White, Ph.D., Vice President, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs, American Chemistry Council (ACC) (witness testimony).

Karakitsos was the lead chemical staffer on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works during the negotiations and passage of the 2016 Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg Act). He noted that he was testifying on his own behalf and as someone who worked extensively on what ultimately become the Lautenberg Act. Karakitsos testified that the Lautenberg Act was not intended to change the new chemical review process. Instead, Congress based the language on its understanding of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) new chemicals practice as it existed at the time. According to Karakitsos, the Section 21 citizen's petition provision could allow EPA, after receiving a petition, to skip the prioritization and risk evaluation phase of the existing chemicals process and move directly to the risk management phase.

Carey stated that in 2015, before the Lautenberg Act was enacted, EPA received 593 premanufacture notices (PMN). In 2025, EPA received only 154, a 70 percent decline. Carey noted that in the same timeframe, research and development (R&D) spending in the United States fell 77 percent. Innovation is occurring, it has simply moved outside of the United States. Carey highlighted the ability of EPA's Safer Choice program, which is "unencumbered" by EPA's interpretation of TSCA Section 5 review, to affirm the safety of thousands of fragrance chemicals.

Woodruff testified that the changes in the Discussion Draft would make it harder for EPA to obtain the data that it needs to identify harmful exposures and unreasonable risks and take action to protect human health and the environment. According to Woodruff, EPA has approved the "overwhelming" majority of new chemicals submitted since the Lautenberg Act, including low-volume exemptions for over 600 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Woodruff criticized language in the Discussion Draft that would amend TSCA so that EPA reviews only uses and exposures identified by the PMN submitter rather than all reasonably foreseen uses and exposures.

According to Wise White, over 80 percent of active new chemical reviews exceed the 90-day statutory deadline, and 60 percent remain pending for more than one year. Wise White testified that due to EPA's delayed review process, 70 percent of ACC's members have introduced new chemicals outside of the United States. The Discussion Draft would introduce new milestones for new chemical reviews: assigning a human health risk assessor within ten days; meeting with the submitter within 30 days; and mandating explanations for deadlines missed by EPA.

Comments on the Discussion Draft

Carey testified that his company has nine PMNs pending with EPA since 2020 and 2021. One substance is biodegradable, has an increased carbon efficiency, and similar chemistry would be approved by the Safer Choice program. It remains under review in the new chemicals program, however. Wise White testified that allowing the introduction for new chemicals approved by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries would allow EPA to focus on reviewing completely new chemistries.

Woodruff stated that the Discussion Draft would require EPA to prioritize industry-submitted data over analog data and EPA models. According to Woodruff, it would then be difficult for EPA to use these other kinds of information while allowing industry to select what data to submit to EPA. Woodruff also noted that the Discussion Draft would also allow the PMN submitter to identify the uses that will be reviewed by EPA rather than EPA determining and reviewing uses that are reasonably foreseen. According to Wise White, since the Lautenberg Act was enacted, for every new chemical that EPA has reviewed, EPA has determined that it presents an unreasonable risk. Wise White states that this is because EPA focuses on conditions of use (COU) that are not relevant, leading to flawed assessments. The Discussion Draft would direct EPA to focus on how the chemical will actually be used.

Under the Discussion Draft, EPA would be prohibited from assuming noncompliance with existing federal regulatory limits, including permissible exposure limits (PEL) set by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). According to Woodruff, this would harm workers by prohibiting EPA from imposing requirements inconsistent with OSHA's outdated PELs. Wise White stated that EPA has not used data provided by manufacturers on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) or the implementation of emission controls. As a result, Wise White stated that EPA has mischaracterized occupational exposures. Wise White also noted that EPA has not used the expertise of other federal agencies such as OSHA.

According to Karakitsos, when Congress was drafting legislation to amend TSCA and revise the existing chemical process, not all of those changes were carried over to the TSCA Section 21 provision. The Discussion Draft would ensure that EPA's regulatory decisions are supported through scientific review. Karakitsos noted that Section 21 is not solely for activists but is also open to industry. Depending on the presidential administration, industry could begin filing Section 21 petitions.

Commentary

As Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C^®) reported in its January 17 memorandum, the breadth and scope of contemplated changes in the Discussion Draft — 37 pages of amendatory text covering nearly every major section of the law — is a far cry from the narrow set of reform measures that we have heard some cautious support for in this Congress. With a few exceptions, the substance of most of those changes is not surprising and includes many of the top issues industry stakeholders have been voicing concern about over the years. The hearing, however, made clear that the text did not include Democratic priorities and that bipartisan agreement — to the extent it is attainable — was still a long way out.

As Congressman Tonko (D-NY), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the Environment, noted in his opening remarks, the 2016 amendments started from a bipartisan consensus that TSCA was broken. The overall sentiment from Democratic lawmakers at the hearing, however, was that the "sweeping overhaul" proposed by Republicans in the Discussion Draft would weaken EPA's ability to protect the public against chemical risks, rather than improve EPA's implementation. Lawmakers were also quick to point out that the expiration of the TSCA fee collection authority at the end of Fiscal Year 2026 should not be used as a political chip to further erode health protections. Nevertheless, the fact remains that over the almost ten years since enactment of the Lautenberg Act, stakeholders have learned that there are implementation issues that may not have been contemplated in 2016. The expiration of the fee authority is an opportunity for Congress to weigh in on whether EPA is interpreting and implementing TSCA as Congress intended and whether the 2016 amendments have had some unintended consequences.

If one listened carefully, however, or read the transcript closely, there were some quiet signs of life on the Democratic side. Ranking Member Tonko, for example, noted support for fees reauthorization, increasing the transparency in new chemical review status, and creating more opportunities for pre-submission consultation. Ranking Member Pallone (D-NJ) acknowledged EPA's implementation challenges, including delays in new chemical reviews, and expressed support for ensuring EPA had adequate resources to fulfill its mission. Representative Landsman (D-OH) discussed the challenges facing businesses seeking to bring safer products to market; review processes that are taking too long; and underscored the need for bipartisan discussions to move the bill forward. These statements suggest to us a shared understanding that the status quo is not acceptable. We hope lawmakers can work hard to find common ground, at a minimum, in identifying and resolving some of the root causes of EPA's TSCA implementation challenges. This will better position EPA to carry out its responsibilities consistently and efficiently without compromising protections for American communities. Hope springs eternal.

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.