House subcommittee opens review of Lautenberg TSCA implementation as GAO flags review delays and fee deadline approaches

The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment held a hearing examining implementation of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), with members and witnesses focusing on delays at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the upcoming expiration of TSCA fee authority, and possible implementation changes.

The hearing’s purpose was to assess what has worked under the Lautenberg Act and what has not, and to gather a record members said is necessary before any congressional adjustments. Subcommittee leadership said the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report provided to the committee made clear there are implementation problems to address. The committee also noted that Section 26 fee authority that allows EPA to collect user fees to supplement appropriations is scheduled to expire in June 2026.

Witnesses included Chris Jahn (President and CEO, American Chemistry Council), Jeff Moody (Senior Vice President, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers), Dr. Richard Engler (director of chemistry, ACTA Group), and Dr. Maria Doa (Senior Director for Chemical Policy, Environmental Defense Fund). Witnesses and members generally agreed TSCA’s direction — an affirmative safety determination for new chemicals and more robust review of existing chemicals — remains important, but they sharply disagreed about how EPA has been implementing the statute.

Industry witnesses said EPA’s new-chemical program has missed statutory timeframes and applied overly conservative assumptions that have led to restrictions or prolonged reviews. Mr. Jahn told the committee EPA’s updated public data showed 394 chemicals in the review queue in January (as cited to the subcommittee), 93% of which he said were past statutory deadlines and 63 of which had been in review more than a year. He and other industry witnesses urged clearer performance expectations and stronger accountability tied to the 90‑day statutory review timeframe.

Environmental and public‑health witnesses defended the Lautenberg reforms, noting that they enabled EPA to take actions the agency previously could not — for example, recent EPA rules restricting uses of asbestos, methylene chloride and trichloroethylene (TCE). They also said that delays often stem from insufficient information in some new‑chemical submissions that require repeated rounds of supplemental data, and that EPA must retain authority to require information needed to reach an affirmative safety determination.

Members from both parties pressed for better data on causes of delay and for options the committee could pursue, including: clearer statutory language about what constitutes a ‘‘not likely to present unreasonable risk’’ standard; administrative fixes at EPA to improve consistency and communication with submitters; better interagency coordination where workplace exposures overlap with OSHA jurisdiction; and reauthorization of the fees that help fund TSCA implementation. Several members also noted the GAO’s conclusions about program management and staff turnover as factors to address.

The hearing record will be used as the committee considers whether to pursue legislative changes, oversight remedies, or budget requests to address the implementation shortcomings the GAO and witnesses described.

Two provenance excerpts from the hearing help locate the committee’s framing of the review and the GAO/fee timing discussed: the subcommittee chair opened the hearing noting the session would examine the Lautenberg Act, and later the full‑committee chair referenced the GAO report and the June 2026 fee expiration.