Why It Matters

The authority for the Environmental Protection Agency to collect TSCA Title I fees from chemical manufacturers and processors expires at the end of FY2026, and Congress is running out of time to act.

A new Congressional Research Service report, published May 11, lays out the stakes clearly: if lawmakers don't reauthorize the fee collection authority created by the 2016 Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, EPA's chemical safety review program would rely entirely on discretionary appropriations, a funding model that predates the agency's significantly expanded workload under that law.

The tension at the center of this report is straightforward. Congress gave EPA a bigger job in 2016, requiring the agency to review every new chemical for unreasonable risk, rather than screening and prioritizing, and gave it a fee mechanism to help pay for that expanded mandate. That mechanism now expires in roughly four months.

At the same time, the current administration has pursued reductions in EPA staffing and program budgets. If fees lapse and discretionary appropriations fall, the agency could face a compounding funding problem at the precise moment it is managing a growing backlog of chemical reviews.

TSCA compliance costs don't disappear because a funding mechanism does. EPA still carries statutory obligations to complete risk evaluations on schedule, and missing those deadlines creates legal exposure.

The Big Picture

Under TSCA Section 26(b), EPA is authorized to collect fees capped at 25 percent of the agency's annual costs for administering key TSCA activities, covering new chemical submissions, risk evaluations of existing chemicals, testing requirements, and confidential business information requests. The remaining roughly 75 percent of costs are covered by congressional appropriations.

The fee authority has a built-in condition: EPA can only collect fees in a given fiscal year if appropriations to the Chemical Risk Review and Reduction program match or exceed what was allocated in FY2014, which was $58.6 million. Since FY2017, annual appropriations have included a provision directing EPA to meet that floor.

EPA has issued two major fee rules under this authority. In October 2018, the agency finalized its first rule based on an estimated $80.2 million per year in program costs. Under that rule, the fee for submitting a new chemical notice was set at $16,000, and the fee for an EPA-initiated risk evaluation of an existing chemical was set at $1.35 million combined across all entities subject to the fee.

By February 2024, EPA had revised its cost estimate to $146.8 million per year, an 83 percent increase from the 2018 figure. The updated rule raised the new chemical notice fee to $37,000 and the EPA-initiated risk evaluation fee to $4.29 million combined. EPA estimated it would collect $36.7 million per year under the revised rule.

In practice, actual fee collections have been inconsistent. From FY2019 through FY2024, EPA collected between $2.7 million and $5.5 million annually, with one exception: FY2021, when collections spiked to $28.6 million due to the initiation of risk evaluations for existing chemicals under Section 6. EPA estimates fee receipts of $4.8 million for FY2025 and $26.2 million for FY2026, with the expected increase again driven by a new round of existing chemical risk evaluations.

Meanwhile, EPA's allocations to the Chemical Risk Review and Reduction program have grown steadily. The agency averaged $59.7 million per year in allocations between FY2016 and FY2022. For FY2023 and FY2024, that figure rose to $82.8 million per year. In its FY2026 budget justification, EPA reported allocating $96.4 million to the program in FY2025.

Timeliness and the Limits of Additional Funding

The CRS report also flags a long-standing concern about the timeliness of EPA decisions under TSCA. The 2016 law retained a 90-day review window for new chemicals while simultaneously requiring EPA to review all of them, a combination EPA has said significantly increased its workload and contributed to delays.

The report notes, however, that additional funding does not automatically resolve the timeliness problem. Reviews involving chemicals with complex exposure scenarios or higher toxicity are inherently more time-consuming, and more resources don't necessarily accelerate that work.

Political Stakes

For the Administration

The current administration's deregulatory posture and EPA budget priorities create a direct tension with TSCA's statutory requirements. If the fee authority lapses and appropriations to the CRRR program fall below the FY2014 baseline of $58.6 million, EPA would lose the legal ability to collect fees at all, even if Congress later acts to reauthorize them. That would leave the agency with fewer resources to meet congressionally mandated review timelines, a situation that invites litigation and creates friction with manufacturers waiting on product approvals.

For Congress

Both the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works have circulated discussion drafts in the 119th Congress, signaling bipartisan recognition that the fee authority needs to be addressed.

The House discussion draft, dated January 14, 2026, would reauthorize TSCA fees for 10 years upon enactment. It would also require EPA to submit more detailed accounting information on the TSCA Service Fee Fund to Congress, including the amount of funding used for each category of activity and the number of actions EPA took per category. The draft would further require EPA's annual audit of the fund to include analysis of rules, orders, and consent agreements issued under Section 4, and the number of notices received, reviewed, and pending under Section 5.

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works discussion draft, dated February 26, 2026, would reauthorize fees until September 30, 2036, tying the expiration to 20 years after LCSA's enactment.

The two chambers are aligned on the need for reauthorization but differ on the duration and the level of congressional oversight to build into the statute.

For the Public and Industry

Chemical substance regulation fees affect both sides of the regulated community. Manufacturers and processors bear the direct cost, though small businesses receive an 80 percent discount under current EPA rules. The CRS report notes Congress could choose to clarify or codify those small business standards, or set a fee schedule directly in statute rather than delegating that authority to EPA rulemaking.

For the public, the stakes are about whether EPA can continue to evaluate the safety of chemicals in commerce at a pace consistent with its legal obligations.

The Bottom Line

Congress has until September 30 to act on EPA TSCA Title I reauthorization before a critical funding mechanism disappears. The CRS report makes clear that allowing the fee authority to lapse would shift the entire financial burden of chemical safety reviews onto discretionary appropriations, at a moment when those appropriations are under pressure.

The two discussion drafts show Congress is aware of the deadline. Whether they can move legislation to the floor, reconcile the House and Senate approaches, and get it signed before the fiscal year ends is the open question. With EPA's cost estimates for chemical risk review nearly doubling over the past eight years, the consequences of inaction are not abstract.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.