Governors Urge EPA to Add Microplastics to UCMR 6 Drinking Water Monitoring

/in ,

Democratic governors from seven states have petitioned EPA to include microplastics in its upcoming Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 6 (UMCR 6), triggering a Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandate for EPA to include microplastics in the rule unless the administrator determines it “would prevent the listing of other contaminants of a higher public health concern.”

In the petition, dated November 26, 2025, the governors argue that monitoring microplastics under UCMR 6 would establish a foundation for the future promulgation of drinking water standards.  “[T]he potential risks to public health posed by this contaminant, its expected prevalence, the need for a nationwide testing standard in order to better understand the foregoing, and the great public interest in this contaminant together warrant monitoring under the UCMR for future regulation under SDWA,” the petition states.

“[I]nformation on [microplastics’] prevalence, health impact, and public interest is ahead of other aspects of the scientific and policy state of play, especially consistent definitions and testing methodologies,” it adds.  “By including microplastics in UCMR 6, EPA can provide leadership to the scientific and regulatory community on consistent definitions and testing methodologies that lag behind.”

The petition identifies several potential public health concerns associated with microplastics, including their ability to act as vectors for toxic chemicals.  Other cited risks include cellular and tissue damage and potential developmental effects in children.

The petition also highlights the role of consumer products in the generation of microplastics.  It distinguishes between primary microplastics, which are intentionally manufactured for use in cosmetics and in plastic production processes, and secondary microplastics, which result from the degradation and wear of products such as textiles, tires, paints, fertilizers, mulch films, and food packaging.

Statutory Context

EPA issues the UMCR every five years to require public water systems to collect occurrence data for contaminants that are not yet subject to SDWA drinking water standards.  The most recent UMCR, promulgated in 2021, required monitoring for lithium and 29 PFAS.

Despite microplastics’ heterogeneity, the governors—representing New Jersey, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Connecticut—argue that microplastics qualify as a “contaminant,” under SDWA, which broadly defines the term as “any physical, chemical, biological, or radiological substance or matter in water.”

A petition from seven governors is sufficient to require EPA to include a contaminant in a UCMR unless the administrator determines that another contaminant presents a higher public health priority.  No more than 30 contaminants may be included in a single UCMR.

Additional information on UCMR 6 is available on EPA’s website.

First TSCA CBI Claims Will Expire in 2026—Companies Should Prepare Now

/in , ,

Companies with confidential business information (CBI) claims under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) should mark their calendars—prompt action may soon be required to maintain their claims.  CBI claims asserted under amended TSCA will begin to expire in June 2026, and submitters must reassert their claims prior to expiration to prevent the public disclosure of commercially sensitive chemical information.

Update – January 7, 2026

On January 6, 2026, EPA published a Federal Register notice describing its intended process for implementing the statutory requirements governing CBI expirations and reassertions.  This post has been updated to reflect new information provided by EPA in the notice.

The notice states that “EPA expects to provide further guidance [on CBI claim expirations], to solicit and answer questions, and potentially to host a webinar with information on notices of expiration and instructions for requesting extensions.”

When Will My CBI Claim Expire?

In 2016, Congress passed the Lautenberg Amendments to TSCA, which overhauled the statute’s CBI provisions.  Under amended TSCA, most CBI claims—including claims for specific chemical identities—expire after ten years.  As a result, many CBI claims asserted in 2016 will expire in 2026.

Under TSCA section 14(e)(1)(B), the ten-year protection period starts when a submitter asserts a claim, not when the submitter provides substantiation.  Although substantiation is generally required at the time a claim is submitted, some submitters may have provided substantiation at a later date.  This is especially true of claims that were submitted soon after the statute was amended.  Submitters should therefore calculate expiration dates based on the date of assertion and note that claims might expire before the ten-year anniversary of their substantiation.

Expiration dates for some chemical identity CBI claims are available on the TSCA Inventory.

Update: EPA’s January 2026 notice clarifies that claims for specific chemical identities expire ten years from the date the first claim for that substance was asserted.  If a chemical identity is claimed as confidential by multiple companies, this may result in a claim expiring less than ten years after it was asserted by a subsequent submitter.

For example, if Company A asserted a CBI claim for a chemical identity in 2016, and Company B asserted a CBI claim for the same chemical identity in 2019, CBI protection for the chemical identity would expire in 2026—even though only seven years have passed since Company B asserted its claim.

At present, it is unclear whether EPA would provide CDX notice of the impending expiration to both companies or only to the submitter that asserted the first claim.  (Notice procedures are discussed below.)

What Do I Have to Do to Reassert and Re-Substantiate my CBI Claim?

Submitters may extend CBI claims for subsequent ten-year periods by submitting a request for extension to EPA.  Section 14(e)(2).  A request for extension must include substantiation and must be submitted to EPA at least 30 days before the claim is set to expire.  Section 14(e)(2)(B)(i).

The substantiation requirements for a request for extension are the same as those that apply when asserting a claim initially.  Under 40 CFR 703.7(g), submitters have the option to either submit new substantiation or rely on substantiation that was provided with the initial submission, certifying that the substantiation remains true and correct.

The CBI regulations require that claims be submitted through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX).  40 CFR 703.5(f).  In a response to comments document from the 2023 rulemaking that developed those regulations, the agency indicated that it anticipated developing a new CDX reporting form for submitters to reassert expiring claims.  EPA’s CBI FAQ page, last updated in August 2025, continues to signal that an electronic reporting tool is planned.

In some cases, submitters may find that it is no longer necessary to maintain a CBI claim, or that the subject information is no longer eligible for CBI protections because it has become publicly available.

Update: In the January 2026 notice, EPA confirmed that it is currently developing a CDX reporting tool for requests for extension and expects to have the tool in place before the first claims expire.  If implementation is delayed, EPA instructs submitters to postpone submitting requests for extension until the tool becomes available.  The notice states that “EPA will not release any information subject to expiring claims until the notice and review requirements of section 14(e) are met.”

On a CBI expiration guidance webpage updated January 5, 2026, EPA added that it will not disclose information covered by a timely request for extension if the agency does not complete its review of the request before the expiration date.  Under section 14(g)(1)(D), “the information will continue to be protected until the review is complete and any applicable appeal period under section 14(g) has elapsed,” the webpage states.

Will EPA Provide Advance Notice of My CBI Claim’s Expiration?

Section 14(e)(2)(A) provides that EPA “shall provide to the person that asserted the claim a notice of the impending expiration of the period” at least sixty days before a CBI claim expires.  EPA will address this provision by publishing a list of TSCA submissions with expiring confidentiality claims on its website or other appropriate platform.  40 CFR 703.5(h)(3).  Submissions must be added at least 60 days prior to expiration, along with instructions for reasserting and substantiating expiring claims.

In the response to comments document, EPA asserted that “Section 14(e) does not specify that EPA must provide individual notice of claim expiration.”  Nonetheless, during the rulemaking the agency stated its intent to provide individual notice via CDX, which is authorized under 40 CFR 703.5(h)(2).

EPA’s CDX notification system is imperfect.  Submitters may miss CDX notifications if the contact information associated with CBI claims is outdated.  Companies should therefore review their TSCA submissions to assess whether contact information is current.  Companies may need to contact the CDX Helpdesk for assistance gaining access to submissions made by former employees.  This process may take several weeks if a company needs to create a new CDX account and get that account connected to filings submitted by a former employee.  If the original filing was submitted by an entity that was not part of the company at the time of the submission, additional steps may be required, such as filing a notice of transfer.  40 CFR 703.5(h)(1).  That said, EPA’s response to comments document indicated that companies will not need access to the original CDX submission to reassert claims.

In general, TSCA requires EPA to provide actual notice before disclosing information claimed as CBI, such as information covered by a denied CBI claim or a denied request for extension.  Section 14(g)(2).  However, the statute makes an exception for expired CBI.  Where no timely request for extension is submitted, TSCA does not require EPA to provide actual notice before disclosing expired CBI, provided EPA has given the 60-day notice described above.  Section 14(g)(2)(C)(iii)(II).  As a result, a company that does not receive a CDX notification and does not monitor EPA’s list of expiring claims may not learn that a CBI claim has expired until after the covered information has been publicly disclosed.

Update: EPA’s January 2026 notice reiterates that the agency anticipates providing notice of impending CBI claim expirations via CDX, “[a]lternatively, or in addition” to the website listing.  The notice also reflects EPA’s view that publication of the website listing satisfies the 60-day notice requirement in section 14(e)(2)(A).  Whether a court would agree that a website posting—as opposed to personal notice—is legally sufficient remains an open question.

The notice further affirms that a “notice of disclosure [is] not required where a CBI claim has expired and no person submitted a timely extension request following [a] timely notice of expiration.”  EPA also observes that some companies may have submitted information claimed as CBI outside of CDX, such as paper filings predating electronic filing requirements or physical material provided to EPA pursuant to a TSCA subpoena or inspection.

Considering that:

  • CDX contact information may be outdated;
  • CBI claims may have been made outside of CDX; and
  • It is unclear whether all companies with CBI claims for a specific chemical identity will be notified via CDX when the first claim expires;

It is highly advisable that companies regularly review EPA’s list of expiring claims, rather than relying solely on CDX notifications, to avoid inadvertent expiration of CBI protections.

Are Any CBI Claims Exempt from the Reassertion and Re-Substantiation Requirements?

Pursuant to section 14(e)(1)(A), no action is necessary to maintain CBI claims that are exempt from substantiation and review according to sections 14(c)(2) and 14(g).  These include claims for specific information describing manufacturing processes, marketing and sales information, information identifying suppliers or customers, and specific production volumes, among others.

This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

EPA Formalizes “Compliance First” Enforcement Framework

/in ,

On December 5, 2025, the acting assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) issued a “compliance first” directive to the agency’s enforcement staff.  A memo detailing this directive was issued to personnel both at headquarters and in regional EPA offices.  The memo, obtained by POLITICO’s E&E News, signals a paradigm shift in the agency’s enforcement philosophy.

“The primary focus for the Agency in all inspection, investigation, EPA enforcement, state/tribal enforcement coordination, and compliance assistance activities must be on achieving and ensuring timely compliance,” the memo reads.  OECA adds that compliance should be attained in “the most efficient, most economical, and swiftest means possible, while ensuring that our actions align with the clearest, most defensible interpretations of our statutory and regulatory mandates.”

OECA outlines six factors that will underpin the agency’s enforcement philosophy:

  1. Deployment of compliance assistance tools,
  2. State partner coordination,
  3. Open communication,
  4. Clear and well-tailored findings of violation,
  5. Restrained use of injunctive relief, and
  6. Reasoned decision-making.
Key Changes to Enforcement Practice

Several provisions in the memo mark notable departures from previous practice.

First, EPA inspectors and enforcement staff must now immediately elevate concerns raised by regulated entities about how the agency has applied a statute or regulation in enforcement actions at their facilities.  Decisions on how to proceed will be made at the national level, with regional counsel required to consult with the relevant Office of General Counsel (OGC) and OECA offices.

With respect to injunctive relief—court orders to compel or cease specific actions—the directive substantially narrows EPA’s authority.  Approval from the OECA assistant administrator will now be required for injunctive relief that falls outside “clear regulatory or statutory requirements,” which will only “be appropriate in limited, case-specific circumstances.”  The memo rescinds the agency’s earlier policy—issued in 2021—that allowed for more expansive injunctive relief.  Under the 2021 policy, EPA could use tools such as advanced monitoring, third-party auditing and monitoring, electronic reporting, and enhanced public reporting.  These tools are now generally discouraged.

In addition, the directive tightens settlement procedures.  The memo explains that agency personnel must now obtain approval from the OECA assistant administrator prior to initiating negotiation on any proposed settlement that could include mitigation or a stipulated remedy until additional guidance is issued.  Similarly, the memo prohibits the use of supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) in settlements until further guidance is developed.

Finally, in the memo EPA states that it plans to develop consolidated criteria across all media to categorize violations and assign appropriate enforcement responses to improve consistency across programs and regions.  OECA says that existing enforcement response policies, “together with the best reading of each requirement,” will inform the basis of the consolidated criteria.  The memo also notes that EPA “must act swiftly to limit actions from third parties who, through citizen suit litigation, unfairly impact policy through abusive litigation tactics.”

Implications for Industry

OECA’s compliance first framework—particularly its emphasis on achieving timely compliance through efficient and economical means—signals renewed support for industry self-policing.

The memo expressly directs enforcement staff to “promote voluntary compliance through self-reporting and voluntary audits.”  That instruction, coupled with the memo’s focus on open communication, early issue elevation, and restrained use of injunctive relief, suggests an enforcement environment more receptive to self-identified violations that are promptly disclosed and corrected.

For companies that manufacture chemicals or use chemicals to produce consumer, commercial, or industrial products, self-auditing offers an opportunity to establish a clear compliance baseline and move potential violations off of balance sheets.  EPA’s Audit Policy, discussed below, provides substantial protection to entities that systematically discover, disclose, and correct violations.

Given OECA’s new approach, companies facing compliance questions should strongly consider whether self-auditing and voluntary disclosure can help manage enforcement risk while demonstrating good-faith compliance efforts.

* * *

EPA’s long-standing Audit Policy, last revised in 2000, remains the primary mechanism for obtaining credit for self-auditing.  Under the policy, regulated entities that systematically discover, disclose, and correct violations may be eligible for significant enforcement incentives, including:

  • Up to 100% mitigation of gravity-based penalties.
  • No recommendation for criminal prosecution.
  • No routine requests from EPA for the audit report.

More information on EPA’s Audit Policy can be found on EPA’s website.

EPA Moves to Dismiss Novel TSCA CBI Challenge as Untimely

/in , ,

A lawsuit seeking to prevent EPA from disclosing chemical identity information under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was not timely filed, the agency told the District Court for the Middle District of Georgia on November 24, 2025.

Plaintiff Burgess Pigment Co. filed suit after receiving a 2025 notification from EPA stating that the agency would soon make a specific chemical identity publicly available.  However, EPA argues that Burgess was actually required to file years earlier, when the agency first informed the company that the chemical identity was not entitled to confidential business information (CBI) protection.

At issue is TSCA section 14(g), which provides claimants 30 days to appeal a CBI denial after receiving notice from EPA.  According to the agency, that notice was provided in 2020, when EPA issued an initial determination denying CBI claims Burgess had made in its 2016 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) submission.  The 2025 notification merely restated EPA’s earlier conclusion that the information was ineligible for CBI protection, the agency says.

“Allowing Burgess to challenge EPA’s determination five years later would not only undermine the statutory scheme contemplated by Congress, but it would also prove administratively unworkable,” EPA states in a memo accompanying its motion to dismiss.  “Such a rule would permit companies to restart the ‘30-day clock’ simply by asking EPA to protect the confidentiality of information that EPA has already decided is not entitled to confidentiality.”

According to EPA, after the initial determination, Burgess and EPA entered into a toll agreement to extend the 30-day deadline while the parties discussed the CBI denial.  EPA ultimately affirmed its determination in January 2022, which, the agency says, triggered a new 30-day appeal period ending in February 2022.

The 2025 notification was issued in response to Burgess’s 2024 CDR submission, which again asserted that the chemical identity was CBI.  EPA notes that it sent a similar notification in 2023 in response to Burgess’s 2020 CDR submission.

Nondiscretionary Duty

Even if the suit had been timely filed, EPA contends that there is no basis for Burgess’s claim.

The CBI denial resulted from Burgess’s failure to timely respond to the statutorily mandated 2017 Inventory Reset Rule, which required manufacturers to take affirmative steps to maintain existing CBI claims.  Because Burgess did not do so, EPA says that TSCA required EPA to make the chemical identity public.

“EPA had no discretion to choose not to move the chemical to the nonconfidential portion of the list,” the memo reads.  “EPA acted in accordance with its statutory directive, and it would have been inconsistent with TSCA for EPA to decline to move the chemical.”

Although Burgess later submitted materials intended to support confidentiality, EPA contends those efforts came too late.  “[W]hen Burgess belatedly attempted to seek confidentiality in 2020 and beyond, there was no longer a confidentiality claim because EPA had already determined the information was not confidential,” the agency says.

Burgess has argued that EPA continues to treat the chemical identity as confidential despite the notification letters.  EPA disputes that characterization, noting that although the chemical identity has not yet appeared on the nonconfidential TSCA Inventory, it is not being treated as CBI.

“If, for instance, EPA received a [Freedom of Information Act] request for the information in the years since the claim was denied, EPA would provide the chemical identity in response to that request,” the memo states.

APA Claims

EPA also argues that Burgess has no recourse outside of TSCA section 14.  The agency contends that Burgess’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA) arguments fail because the APA limits judicial review to “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in court.”

“Because Burgess had an adequate remedy under TSCA, it may not pursue its claim under the APA,” the memo states.

The case is Burgess Pigment Co. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 5:25-cv-00309 (M.D. Ga.), filed July 18, 2025.  More information on the case is available in a previous post.  Burgess’s response to the motion to dismiss is due December 30, 2025.

EPA Enforcement Under Trump 2.0: What Regulated Industries Need to Know

/in , , ,

The Trump administration’s second term has brought notable changes to environmental enforcement priorities at the Environmental Protection Agency. Recent data shows a shift in the mix of enforcement actions, with changes to both agency resources and enforcement philosophy that chemical manufacturers and other regulated industries should understand.

Enforcement Activity: A Mixed Picture

Recent enforcement data shows divergent trends across different types of actions:

Civil Judicial Cases Down: In the administration’s first six months, the Justice Department initiated 14 lawsuits for environmental violations, compared to 42 in Trump’s first term and varying numbers under previous administrations, as reported by USA Today. By eight months, DOJ had initiated 9 major civil cases on behalf of EPA, compared to 46 in the same timeframe under Biden and 53 during the equivalent period in Trump’s first term, according to the Washington Post.

Settlements have also decreased. Through the first eight months, Justice completed 28 environmental enforcement cases, compared with 81 under Biden and 80 in the first Trump administration during the same period.

Administrative Actions Stable: EPA maintains that administrative enforcement actions—which handle smaller offenses without court involvement—have remained steady or increased. The agency’s administrative case metrics match or exceed past presidencies, according to EPA statements. According to figures EPA provided to Inside EPA, the agency concluded 126 national-priority civil enforcement cases between January 20 and May 7, 2025, up from 97 cases over the same period in 2024.

Criminal Enforcement Claims: EPA asserts it has opened more environmental criminal cases in its first six months than the Biden administration. However, publicly available data does not yet confirm this—the most recent criminal cases in public databases date to 2023, making independent verification difficult at present.

Long-Term Context: Civil judicial cases have trended downward for over a decade. The Obama administration filed 102 lawsuits in the first six months of its first term in 2009, representing the peak of this enforcement metric. Every subsequent administration has seen declines, partly reflecting resource constraints across multiple administrations.

Staffing and Resource Changes

EPA and DOJ enforcement offices are undergoing significant personnel changes. EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance budget has decreased by approximately $200 million since 2011 (inflation-adjusted), with staffing reduced by over 500 employees across multiple administrations, USA Today reported. The current administration is pursuing a 23 percent staff reduction at EPA—approximately 4,000 positions.

The Department of Justice’s environmental enforcement section has also experienced staff reductions. Reports indicate the unit’s attorney count dropped from approximately 120 earlier in 2025 to an estimated 65-70 lawyers by mid-year.

The government shutdown in late 2025 temporarily furloughed approximately two-thirds of surveyed EPA enforcement staff, according to union data. These furloughs affected inspections and case work during the shutdown period.

Policy Changes and Enforcement Priorities

The administration has established new enforcement priorities through formal guidance:

Environmental Justice Considerations: A March 2025 EPA memo states that “environmental justice considerations shall no longer inform EPA’s enforcement and compliance assurance work.” The memo specifies that enforcers will not consider whether affected communities are overburdened or vulnerable when making enforcement decisions.

In a statement to USA Today, the EPA described this as promoting equal treatment, adding that the agency will “make sure that enforcement targets the worst pollution and threats to human health, wherever they occur.”

Energy Production: The March memo establishes that “enforcement and compliance assurance actions shall not shut down any stage of energy production (from exploration to distribution) or power generation absent an imminent and substantial threat to human health.”

Enforcement Philosophy: In its statement, EPA added that its current focus is on “efficiently resolving violations and achieving compliance as quickly as possible rather than pushing for broad injunctive relief that goes beyond what the law requires.” The agency also told the Washington Post that it is “focused on statutory obligations and Presidential priorities.”

EPA defends its approach by noting that “civil judicial complaints filed are not the best measure of law enforcement or compliance with environmental laws” and points to administrative and criminal metrics as better indicators of enforcement activity. The agency states: “A focus on quick return to compliance and addressing clear violations will increase efficiency and ensure that the Agency is accountable to the American people for every dollar spent.”

Targeted Regulatory Relief

The administration has pursued an aggressive deregulatory agenda through executive orders and agency actions. Key developments include:

  • Air Quality Standards: EPA recently moved to roll back stricter particulate matter standards implemented under Biden, arguing the previous administration exceeded its authority without sufficient review. The Biden-era standard lowered acceptable soot levels from 12 to 9 micrograms per cubic meter—a change EPA projected would prevent up to 4,500 premature deaths by 2032.
  • Water Protections: EPA released a proposal to dramatically narrow Clean Water Act protections, potentially stripping safeguards from between 38 and 70 million acres of wetlands and countless stream miles. The proposed rule would limit federal jurisdiction only to wetlands with surface water during the wet season that directly connect to continuously flowing water bodies.
  • Industry-Specific Relief: President Trump has issued proclamations granting two-year regulatory exemptions to facilities deemed vital to national security, including coke oven operations, copper smelters, coal plants, and certain chemical manufacturers. These facilities can comply with pre-Biden standards during this relief period.
  • TSCA Delays: EPA delayed the effective date of several Toxic Substances Control Act rules to March 2025, including the TCE risk management rule, providing additional time for regulatory review.
The FIFRA Exception

Notably, EPA enforcement under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) has remained robust—and even intensified. As discussed in a previous post, from February through July 2025, EPA opened 84 FIFRA administrative enforcement cases with civil penalties, compared to 59 during the same period in 2024. Several 2025 FIFRA settlements rank among the largest on record.

This aggressive FIFRA enforcement continues despite broader budget cuts and deregulatory initiatives, suggesting pesticide compliance remains a priority focus area. EPA has also implemented an Expedited Settlement Agreement pilot program for minor FIFRA violations, offering discounted, non-negotiable settlements to streamline enforcement.

Strategic Implications for Compliance

The current enforcement environment presents several considerations for regulated entities:

Civil Judicial Enforcement: With fewer civil lawsuits being filed, companies face reduced likelihood of federal court actions in the near term.

Administrative Enforcement Continues: EPA maintains that administrative enforcement remains active and reportedly exceeds previous levels. These actions should not be underestimated—administrative penalties can reach high six- and low seven-figure amounts. Additional costs include attorneys’ fees, consultant expenses, and implementation of corrective measures. For product-based programs like TSCA, violations can result in loss of market access, stop-sale orders, and significant business disruption.

Alternative Enforcement Mechanisms:

State Enforcement: State agencies have primary enforcement authority for many environmental programs. However, many states have also experienced budget and staffing constraints in recent years, creating variability in state-level enforcement capacity.

Citizen Suits: Environmental statutes authorize private parties to bring enforcement actions. Organizations like the Environmental Integrity Project have filed federal lawsuits against industrial facilities for air and water violations. These citizen suits can result in penalties and requirements to install pollution controls.

Recent citizen suit examples include actions against petroleum coke plants in Louisiana, the Shell plastics plant in Pennsylvania, and food processing facilities for Clean Water Act violations.

Practical Considerations

For TSCA-regulated manufacturers and other chemical industry clients:

Compliance Planning: Environmental statutes and regulations remain in effect. Violations occurring now remain subject to administrative enforcement, citizen suits, and future enforcement actions. For TSCA matters, violations risk market access restrictions.

FIFRA Enforcement: Pesticide and antimicrobial enforcement remains robust, with an uptick in enforcement compared to 2024.

Alternative Enforcement: State agencies and citizen suits continue as enforcement mechanisms. Recent citizen suits have targeted petroleum coke plants, chemical facilities, and food processors.

Regulatory Relief: The administration has provided targeted relief including two-year exemptions for certain industrial facilities and delays of TSCA rule effective dates. Companies should evaluate whether their operations qualify.

Recommended Actions: Monitor regulatory developments, maintain compliance programs, document compliance efforts, assess citizen suit exposure, and consult counsel before operational changes.

This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

EPA to Reconsider TSCA Section 8(d) Reporting Rule

/in , ,

On November 24, 2025, EPA announced that it will reconsider a December 2024 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rule requiring manufacturers of sixteen chemical substances to submit unpublished health and safety information to the agency.

In the press release, EPA said that it “expects to consider additional exemptions for manufacturers required to report, a regulatory threshold for reporting, and a change to the duration of the lookback period for reporting.”  However, “EPA is not considering changing the 16 chemicals named in the rule as part of this action.”

EPA also noted that it “anticipates taking appropriate action on the reporting deadline (May 22, 2026) associated with the current” rule.

On the same day, EPA asked the D.C. Circuit go continue holding a legal challenge to the rule in abeyance while the agency reconsiders the rule.  The court granted EPA’s motion on November 25, 2025.

A list of the sixteen chemical substances listed by the rule can be found in a previous post.

Current Requirements

The rule, promulgated under TSCA section 8(d), requires manufacturers that manufactured (or proposed to manufacture) any of the listed substances during a ten-year lookback period to submit copies of health and safety studies in their possession.  In addition, manufacturers currently manufacturing (or proposing to manufacture) any of the substances must submit lists of ongoing studies, initiated studies, studies that are known to the manufacturer but not in its possession, and studies previously submitted to a federal agency without confidentiality claims.

Studies previously submitted to EPA under TSCA are exempt.  However, the rule does not exempt companies that imported one of the substances in an article, companies that manufactured one of the substances only as a byproduct or impurity, or include a de minimis threshold.

EPA initially set March 13, 2025, as the reporting deadline for most submissions, but later extended the deadline twice. The current reporting deadline is May 22, 2026.

More information on the rule can be found here.

EPA Releases Default Values Guide for TSCA New Chemical Risk Assessments

/in , , ,

On November 24, 2025, EPA released a guide listing common “default values” for environmental releases and worker exposures used by the agency in risk assessments of new chemical substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

What Are Default Values?

Default values are assumed engineering values used by EPA when chemical-specific information is unavailable.  For example, the guide shows that EPA assumes that 3% of a new chemical substance remains in a 55-gallon drum as residue if the drum is emptied by pumping, while 0.6% remains if it is emptied by pouring.

“This initiative marks another step forward in the agency’s ongoing commitment to transparency by providing valuable information to stakeholders involved in the review of new chemicals,” an EPA press release states.  “The publication of the default values is also expected to improve efficiency, reducing the likelihood that submissions need to be reworked or resubmitted.”

What’s Included

The guide includes default values used to model environmental releases the following situations:

  • Transferring liquid material to/from transport containers
  • Transferring solid material to/from transport containers
  • General industrial/commercial processes
  • Transferring solid materials (e.g., transferring/unloading/loading of solid powders)
  • Industrial/commercial use of coatings

The guide also includes default values used to model inhalation or dermal worker exposures from situations involving handling solids (e.g., raw materials or formulated products) or liquids containing the new chemical substance.

EPA provides two example situations demonstrating how the default values are applied to real-world scenarios, including how the assumptions change if submitters provide additional information.

In the press release, EPA said that it considers the guide to be an evolving document that may be updated in the future.  The guide, and other guidance for new chemical submissions, can be found at EPA’s New Chemicals Division Reference Library.

EPA Outlines New AI Strategy and Governance Framework

/in ,

EPA plans to accelerate the development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) throughout the agency’s operations, according to two documents released in October 2025.

The documents—an AI strategy and associated “compliance plan”—come in response to the Trump administration’s Executive Order 14179: Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence and a related memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

“EPA is investing in its overall architecture to deploy more robust AI tools. These investments include data fabric, cloud infrastructure, network infrastructure, and additional security, operational, financial, and post deployment monitoring tools,” the compliance plan states.

According to the AI strategy, EPA is investigating “Expanding a pilot into a coding-focused generative AI tool” for software development, “Procuring more American Generative AI tools,” and “Expanding Generative AI capabilities in its cloud vendors.”

Current AI projects include a machine learning model that predicts pollution exposure pathways, a model that assists with records scheduling, and a model to aid in facility inspections, according to the AI strategy.  In addition, in May 2025, EPA introduced an internal generative AI chat tool for employee use.

Neither document discusses whether AI may be used to speed new chemical or pesticide reviews, though EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin noted that it was a possibility earlier this year.

AI Governance and Risk Management

To comply with OMB’s memo, EPA established a political-level AI Governance Board chaired by the Deputy Administrator, which will oversee and coordinate the responsible use of AI across the agency.  The board is assisted by a subcommittee with “delegates from the many diverse offices across EPA,” the AI strategy states.

EPA says these governance structures will implement risk-mitigation controls for “high-impact” AI use cases.  Additional risk-management efforts include employee training, development of a “Generative AI Rules of Behavior” guide, and ongoing monitoring and feedback cycles for AI systems.

The agency also emphasized its commitment to transparency, pointing to its practice of making code publicly available on platforms such as Data.gov and GitHub.  According to the compliance plan, “EPA’s GitHub site is one of the more popular federal government GitHub repositories for staff development, collaboration, and code sharing.”

More on EPA’s active projects, and other AI use cases, can be found on EPA’s AI Use Case Inventory.

Senate EPW Committee to Examine the Future of PFAS Cleanup and Disposal

/in , ,

On November 19, 2025, at 10am, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) will hold a hearing to “Examine the Future of PFAS Cleanup and Disposal Policy.”

The hearing will include the following panelists:

  • Eric Gerstenberg, Co-CEO of Clean Harbors, an environmental and industrial services company
  • Leah Pilconis, General Counsel of Associated General Contractors of America
  • Kate R. Bowers, Supervisory Attorney at the Congressional Research Service

Clean Harbors conducted a PFAS incineration study in 2024 in conjunction with EPA and the Defense Department (DOD).  According to EPA, the incinerator’s tested PFAS destruction and removal efficiencies “ranged from 99.95 to 99.9999 percent.”

The study followed procedures outlined in EPA’s 2024 interim guidance on PFAS destruction and disposal, discussed in a previous post.  EPA must update this guidance as necessary and at least every three years.  The forthcoming hearing is likely to shape the direction of those updates.

Union Says EPA’s New Chemicals Rule Fails Transparency Mandate Under TSCA

/in , , , ,

EPA’s 2024 new chemicals procedural rule fails to satisfy Congress’s intent that Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) new chemical and significant new use reviews be transparent, a workers union told the Ninth Circuit on October 16, 2025.

In its opening brief, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) cites its own experience attempting to secure information about the health hazards facing employees in one of its bargaining units.  Although a UAW representative was told by the company that it was producing two new chemicals, he was unable to locate any information on them on ChemView, EPA’s database of new chemical information, the brief states.

“EPA’s disclosures about new chemicals do not routinely include…two key factual components – employer name and location – since the employer is not necessarily the submitter, the submitter’s name is often claimed as CBI, and facility location is not among the fields that can be searched in ChemView,” UAW states.

“Without access to information about who may produce a new chemical and where it may be manufactured, potentially exposed workers and their unions cannot – as a practical matter – engage with EPA before the Agency imposes occupational controls that may or may not adequately protect the workers,” which is their right under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the brief reads.

UAW and other unions jointly raised these concerns in August 2023 comments on EPA’s proposed new chemicals procedural rule.  However, according to the brief, EPA completely ignored the comment during the rulemaking—a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), according to the brief.

Proposed Disclosure Requirements

In their 2023 comments, the unions proposed a mechanism through which EPA could mandate the disclosure of information to unions or workers, which they argue would preserve the information’s confidential status.

“EPA can require entities submitting new chemical or significant new use applications to notify their affected employees that they are submitting these applications and to make the applications, the health and safety studies submitted with the application, and any risk evaluations completed by EPA available to the employees and their unions upon request, contingent on the requester agreeing to confidentiality protections,” the comments state.

Reiterating arguments made in the comments, UAW’s brief contends that this process would not run afoul of TSCA section 14, which governs CBI protections: “While Section 14, like [Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)]  Exemption 4, allows EPA to withhold confidential information submitted to the federal government…neither Exemption 4 nor TSCA Section 14 prohibits EPA from mandating third party disclosure of CBI.”

UAW argues that unions and workers routinely enter into similar confidentiality agreements to access other sensitive information, like financial information about corporate profits.  The union also points to a 1985 Third Circuit decision, which it argues “directed OSHA to permit direct employee access to claimed trade secret information if the workers signed a confidentiality agreement” under OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard.

Case Details

The suit is consolidated with other challenges to the 2024 new chemicals procedural rule brought by environmental groups.  As discussed in a previous post, those groups are arguing that the rule’s failure to categorically exempt new persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals (PBTs) from certain expedited reviews violates TSCA.

The case is Alaska Community Action on Toxics v. EPA, No. 25-158 (9th Cir.), filed 1/10/2025.