February 21, 2026
The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee has released a discussion draft to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), signaling potential structural changes to the primary U.S. industrial chemical regulatory framework.
With TSCA fee authorization set to expire and concerns surrounding new chemical review backlogs, lawmakers are proposing what they describe as “targeted and measured reforms” to improve regulatory predictability, strengthen domestic chemical manufacturing, and refine Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implementation processes.
For chemical manufacturers, importers, and compliance leaders, this development may reshape new chemical approvals, existing substance risk evaluations, fee structures, and regulatory timelines under TSCA Sections 5 and 6.
Understanding the Proposed TSCA Updates in 2026
The draft legislation focuses on:
- Addressing backlog in Section 5 new chemical reviews
- Revisiting implementation of Section 6 risk evaluations for existing chemicals
- Stabilizing or reauthorizing EPA user fee authority
- Clarifying risk evaluation methodologies
- Improving regulatory predictability for industry
The proposal is positioned as a structural refinement rather than a full overhaul, but stakeholder reactions remain divided.
How This Differs from the 2016 TSCA Reform (Lautenberg Act)
The last major amendment occurred in 2016 under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act. The 2026 proposal appears to adjust implementation mechanics rather than rewrite core authority.
Key Differences
| Area | 2016 Amendment | 2026 Draft Proposal |
| Risk Evaluation Framework | Mandated EPA risk evaluations without cost consideration | Potential adjustments to evaluation methodology and pace |
| New Chemical Reviews (Section 5) | Expanded EPA authority, longer review timelines | Emphasis on reducing backlog and improving timeliness |
| Fee Authorization | Established industry fee collection authority | Fee authority expiring reauthorization under review |
| Regulatory Predictability | Expanded oversight and precautionary approach | Focus on manufacturing competitiveness and process efficiency |
| EPA Discretion | Broader authority for restrictions | Discussion on refining scope and application |
The 2026 proposal aims to rebalance chemical safety oversight and industrial competitiveness while maintaining statutory public health protections.
Industry and Environmental Reactions
Industry Perspective
Manufacturing and trade groups argue:
- TSCA processes have slowed innovation
- Section 5 reviews face significant delays
- Regulatory unpredictability affects investment decisions
- Streamlined processes could improve U.S. competitiveness
Environmental & Public Health Perspective
Advocacy groups express concern that:
- Accelerated reviews could weaken chemical safety standards
- Risk evaluation changes may reduce precautionary protections
- Existing toxic chemical controls could be diluted
Section 5 & Section 6: Why These Provisions Matter
| Section | Regulatory Scope | 2026 Focus |
| Section 5 | Premanufacture Notice (PMN) for new chemicals | Addressing review backlog & predictability |
| Section 6 | Risk evaluation of existing chemicals | Clarifying methodology & regulatory burden |
| Fee Authorization | Funding EPA chemical program | Renewal required to sustain review capacity |
Backlog resolution and fee structure clarity are central to the reform discussion.
Potential Benefits for Chemical Manufacturing Companies
If implemented as described, reforms may offer:
1. Improved Regulatory Timelines
Reduced delays in PMN reviews support faster commercialization.
2. Greater Predictability
Clearer review standards improve compliance planning.
3. Enhanced Investment Stability
Manufacturers may face fewer regulatory uncertainties.
4. Competitive Positioning
Domestic chemical manufacturing could benefit from streamlined procedures.
5. Reduced Administrative Burden
Structured and clarified data requirements may simplify submissions.
However, companies must prepare for transitional compliance adjustments.
2026 Trending TSCA Regulatory Themes
- Risk-based chemical evaluation frameworks
- Regulatory backlog management
- Data transparency and digital reporting
- Domestic chemical supply chain resilience
- ESG-driven chemical risk governance
- Sustainable chemistry compliance
- EPA modernization initiatives
Compliance Strategy for Chemical Manufacturers
Chemical companies should:
- Conduct TSCA portfolio impact analysis
- Review PMN submission pipelines
- Assess Section 6 risk exposure
- Monitor fee reauthorization developments
- Align internal data governance with EPA expectations
- Prepare scenario planning for regulatory shifts
Proactive compliance readiness reduces exposure during legislative transitions.
How Maven Regulatory Solutions Supports Chemical Manufacturers
Maven Regulatory Solutions provides specialized support for:
- TSCA regulatory strategy and impact assessments
- PMN submission preparation and review
- Section 6 risk evaluation support
- Chemical inventory compliance analysis
- EPA engagement strategy
- Regulatory intelligence monitoring
- Global chemical regulation alignment (REACH, UK REACH, etc.)
Our experts help chemical manufacturers navigate evolving U.S. chemical law with risk-based, science-driven compliance strategies.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Is TSCA being fully rewritten?
No. The 2026 discussion draft proposes targeted reforms, not a full repeal.
Will Section 5 timelines change?
The intent is to address review backlogs and improve efficiency.
Does this weaken chemical safety protections?
Debate continues. Supporters say it enhances predictability; critics warn of reduced oversight.
Why does fee authorization matter?
Without reauthorization, EPA chemical review capacity could be impacted.
How should manufacture prepare?
Through impact analysis, regulatory intelligence tracking, and compliance system updates.
Post a comment