The Coalition For Chemical Innovations Offers Four Principles To Guide Congress's Efforts To Modernize TSCA

As reported in our January 27, 2026,  memorandum, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment held a legislative hearing on January 22, 2026, focused on a draft bill entitled  Discussion Draft of Legislation to Modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act (Discussion Draft). On February 9, 2026, the Coalition for Chemical Innovations (CCI)  offered four principles to guide Congress's efforts to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). CCI notes that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) implementation of the 2016 amendments to the review process for new chemicals “have unnecessarily strained supply chains and domestic manufacturing, and inhibited the American ingenuity that keeps our economy strong and our communities safer.” To help guide Congress's ongoing deliberations, CCI offers the following principles:

• Sustained and Adequate EPA Resources: EPA must be provided with sustained and adequate levels of funding to implement TSCA effectively, including a reauthorization of TSCA fee collection authority and baseline minimum appropriations commensurate with EPA's significant responsibilities under TSCA;

• Adherence to Deadlines: Clear statutory deadlines for EPA to complete required actions were a key feature of the 2016 TSCA amendments. Yet EPA continues to miss new chemical deadlines, with little practical recourse for submitters. The lack of timely review perpetuates use of older, often more risky, existing chemicals in the United States, further undermining TSCA's aim to improve health and environmental protections. Congress should direct EPA to revise and publish the program's policies, procedures, guidance, and related statutory interpretations with the express goal of ensuring timely reviews that adhere to established deadlines;

• Defined Scope of New Chemical Reviews: Perhaps more than any other issue, EPA's interpretation and application of the statutory phrase “conditions of use” have led to inconsistent and confusing approaches as to which uses, exposure pathways, and other circumstances that EPA must or may consider within the scope of chemical assessments. The vast majority of new chemicals are restricted based on hypothetical exposure scenarios, some of which are extremely unlikely to ever occur. Congress should clarify the intended scope of EPA's new chemical reviews, empower EPA to protect against potentially problematic exposures, and ensure EPA's premanufacture notification (PMN) review process and the associated regulatory outcomes are tailored to address real-world risks, rather than theoretical; and

• Clear Statutory Terms and Requirements: Ambiguities in TSCA's terms and requirements have invited years of discussion and disagreement, including at EPA, and shifting approaches that confuse the public and regulated stakeholders, stymie innovation, unnecessarily consume taxpayer resources, and ultimately slow progress toward actions that can improve protections against chemical risks. Clarity in key statutory terms is needed.

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.