Senator Introduces CRA Resolution to Nullify EPA’s PFAS Reporting Extension

/in , ,

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has introduced a joint resolution to disapprove EPA’s April extension of the start PFAS Reporting Rule’s reporting period start date.

The Congressional Review Act resolution, filed as S.J.Res. 187 on April 27, 2026, would immediately nullify EPA’s extension rule if passed.  The resolution currently has no cosponsors.

EPA’s extension pushed the start of the reporting period to January 31, 2027, or 60 days following the effective date of amendments narrowing the rule’s scope, whichever is earlier.  EPA proposed those amendments in November 2025, which would add exemptions for de minimis concentrations and imported articles, among others.

The extension was published on April 13, the same day the reporting period was scheduled to open.  EPA had already delayed the start of the period twice before, citing technical difficulties.

The PFAS Reporting Rule is a one-time PFAS reporting obligation under TSCA section 8(a)(7) for persons who manufactured or imported PFAS for commercial purposes between 2011 and 2022.  More on the rule is available in our archive.

EPA to Host May 6 Webinar on TSCA CBI Claim Expirations

/in , ,

On May 6, 2026, at 4:00 p.m. EDT, EPA will host a webinar on expiring confidential business information (CBI) claims under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

According to EPA, the webinar will help companies, stakeholders, and the public understand the regulatory requirements governing the lifecycle of CBI claims, including how to determine whether a claim is expiring and how to request an extension.  EPA will also demonstrate the Central Data Exchange (CDX) application that TSCA submitters must use to request extensions, address frequently asked questions, and outline effective ways to communicate with the agency about the CBI claim expiration process.

Registration is available here.

Last week, EPA released the first list of expiring CBI claims and announced the deployment of the CDX extension request tool in advance of the first expirations, which begin on June 22, 2026.  Additional details on the list of expiring claims and the CDX tool are available in a previous post.

EPA Releases List of Expiring CBI Claims, CDX Tool for Extensions

/in , ,

On April 23, 2026, EPA announced the release of the first list of expiring confidential business information (CBI) claims under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Each claim on the list is identified by TSCA case number, expiration date, and submission type.  The inaugural list includes 294 claims that are set to expire between June 22 and August 1, 2026.  EPA says it will update the list monthly.

The list is intended to help meet TSCA’s requirement that EPA notify submitters at least 60 days before a claim expires.

According to the press release, EPA has also deployed a new “TSCA Section 14(e) CBI Claim Extension Request” tool in CDX, its electronic filing system.  Companies can use this tool to request a 10-year extension for an expiring claim, which must include substantiation of the need for continued CBI protection.

Requests for extension must be submitted at least 30 days before a claim’s expiration date.  EPA warns that failure to submit a timely request may result in public disclosure of the CBI without further notice to the submitter.

In addition to publishing the list, EPA is notifying submitters directly through CDX as claim expirations approach.  EPA advises companies to ensure their contact information in CDX is current to receive these notices.

CBI claims appear across a wide range of TSCA submissions.  The first list includes claims made on new chemical applications (such as PMNs and LVEs), Chemical Data Reporting submissions, import and export materials, and section 8(e) substantial risk notifications, among others.

Expiration Dates

As discussed in detail in a previous post, 2016 amendments to TSCA now mean most CBI claims expire ten years after assertion.  Because those amendments were enacted on June 22, 2016, the first expirations under the revised statute will occur on June 22, 2026.

Companies should be mindful, however, that CBI claims for specific chemical identities can expire less than 10 years after assertion if another company has also asserted a claim for the same chemical.  That is because expiration dates for chemical identity claims are set 10 years from the first approved confidentiality claim for the chemical identity.

Companies should also note that certain CBI claims are exempt from expiration: specifically, those that are statutorily exempt from substantiation requirements and EPA CBI review.

More information on CBI expirations can be found in a January 2026 Federal Register notice and on EPA’s website.

Update (May 7, 2026)

Yesterday, May 6, 2026, EPA published a revised list of expiring claims.  The revised list strikes out a number of submissions that are actually not subject to expiration.  According to EPA, these include submissions where:

  • All CBI claims were withdrawn in the submission at some point after it was filed
  • The submission contains only exempt CBI claims
  • The initial submission was made prior the enactment of the Lautenberg Act
  • The submission is of a type excluded from CBI review
  • All claims were denied

EPA also published two other lists: a list of CBI chemical identities that are expiring in June or July 2026, and a list of companies with claims expiring in June or July 2026.  All three lists can be found on EPA’s website.

PFAS Reporting Rule Delayed Again Amid Ongoing Rulemaking

/in , ,

EPA has delayed the start of the PFAS Reporting Rule reporting period for the third time as the agency finalizes amendments that would narrow the rule’s scope.

The reporting period will now begin January 31, 2027, or 60 days following the effective date of the final rule implementing the amendments, whichever is earlier.  EPA says that it expects to release the final rule “well before” the January 31, 2027, fallback date.

The extension will be published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2026, the same day the reporting period had been scheduled to begin.

Background

Promulgated under section 8(a)(7) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the PFAS Reporting Rule requires all persons who manufactured or imported PFAS for commercial purposes between 2011 and 2022 to report chemical information to EPA.  For most manufacturers and importers, the original reporting deadline was May 13, 2023.  However, EPA delayed the start of the reporting period in 2024 and again in 2025, citing technical difficulties with the reporting tool.

In the 2025 postponement, EPA also signaled that it was considering reopening the rule’s reporting requirements.  Subsequently, in November 2025, EPA released a proposed rule introducing various exemptions to the reporting requirements.  These include exemptions for mixtures and products containing de minimis PFAS concentrations, imported articles, and certain byproducts and impurities.

More on the PFAS Reporting Rule can be found in our topic archive.

Manufacturer Challenges Court-Ordered CBI Disclosure

/in , , , ,

A specialty materials manufacturer is suing EPA to prevent the release of its unredacted premanufacture notices (PMNs) under seal in separate litigation challenging the transparency of EPA’s new chemicals program under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

A March 23, 2026, court deadline for EPA to produce the documents has now passed without EPA compliance, as the agency, environmental groups, and the manufacturer battle over the appropriate course of action.

The five environmental groups brought the original suit in 2020, alleging that EPA violates TSCA by withholding certain information from the public and allowing overly broad confidential business information (CBI) claims.  In December 2025, over EPA’s objections, the D.C. District Court ordered the agency to produce unredacted PMNs under a protective order as part of the administrative record.

Arkema, Inc. submitted two of those 84 PMNs.  After EPA notified the company of the impending disclosure, Arkema filed suit on March 13, 2026, to block it.

While TSCA allows EPA to disclose CBI as required by a court order, Arkema argues that the scope of the disclosure encompasses information beyond what is at issue in the case.  EPA’s failure “to narrow appropriately the scope of CBI disclosures to only those necessary and related to the claims at issue is both arbitrary and capricious,” the complaint states.

Arkema further contends that “the terms of the protective order are insufficiently protective of proprietary information” and impose “substantially less stringent requirements than EPA itself requires to protect CBI” because they lack provisions for safe storage and handling, training, designated work areas, limits on the number of recipients, a central oversight contact, or recourse for inadvertent disclosures.

Arkema’s suit prompted EPA to move for a stay of the disclosure order on March 17.  While “Arkema seeks relief only as to the information that it claims is CBI,” EPA argues that the lawsuit implicates all CBI-designated materials at issue in the case.  In addition, the agency warns that allowing separate production of Arkema’s PMNs could inadvertently reveal which PMNs belong to Arkema and thereby compromise its CBI claim.

Environmentalists’ Response

In a March 19 response, the plaintiffs argue that Arkema’s suit and EPA’s motion are a delay tactic in the long-running litigation.

EPA should never have notified Arkema of the impending disclosure, the plaintiffs contend, because multiple statutory notification exceptions apply.  Under the plaintiffs’ reading of TSCA, notification is a precondition to filing suit—meaning there is “no basis for” the new challenge.

This “should have been evident to EPA,” the plaintiffs allege.  “Nevertheless, EPA voluntarily sent a letter to Arkema incorrectly stating they had a right to appeal….Now that a single manufacturer has submitted such an appeal, EPA turns around and asks this Court yet again to halt production of all 84” contested PMNs, not just Arkema’s.

If EPA believed that a manufacturer could challenge the disclosure and enjoin EPA from complying with the court’s order, it should have said so, the plaintiffs argue.  “Instead, it remained silent, thereby inviting the current procedural mess.”

Nor has EPA met its burden to receive its requested relief, since it has not alleged any hardship, the response continues.  And despite the company’s CBI claims, the plaintiffs note that it may already be apparent which of the sanitized PMNs—already provided to the court—belong to Arkema: one contains an attached safety data sheet identifying the company by name, and another includes “a number of documents with Arkema’s letter head.”

The plaintiffs further argue that six years of media coverage make it implausible Arkema was unaware its PMNs might be disclosed, alleging the company “has slept on its rights.”  Arkema “never claims that it did not know of this lawsuit or the potential implications for its PMNs, but instead has carefully worded its allegations” to say only that it was never informed of active discussions about the scope and terms of releasing its CBI.

EPA’s Reply

In a March 20 reply, EPA says it is agreeable to the environmental groups’ suggestion that the parties meet and confer about potential consolidation or modification of the protective order to address Arkema’s concerns.  But EPA reiterates its request for a stay, arguing that the agency “is caught in an untenable situation” that demonstrates “clear hardship.”

“Requiring EPA to produce any of the unredacted PMNs would prematurely decide Arkema before the parties (EPA, Plaintiffs, and Arkema) have an opportunity to resolve the competing positions and defeat the purpose of coordination and possible consolidation or modifications to the protective order,” the reply states.

EPA contends its disclosure notifications to Arkema and other companies were required, arguing that none of the statutory exemptions apply.  The agency also notes that, due to difficulties confirming receipt, a subset of companies are still within TSCA’s 30-day window—triggered by notification—to file suit to enjoin disclosure.

EPA further argues that whether it can selectively withhold only Arkema’s PMNs is a legal question that should be resolved in the new litigation.  “Until the parties or the Court resolve that legal question, EPA proceeds cautiously,” the reply states, citing TSCA provisions imposing criminal penalties for wrongful CBI disclosures.

On March 25, the environmental groups notified the court that EPA failed to produce the unredacted PMNs by the March 23 deadline.

The case is Arkema Inc. v. EPA, No. 26-cv-886 (D.D.C.).  The underlying case is Environmental Defense Fund v. Zeldin, No. 20-cv-762 (D.D.C.).

Senate Republicans Release Draft TSCA Reform Legislation Ahead of EPW Hearing

/in , ,

Senate Republicans have introduced draft Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform legislation, which will be examined at a Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee hearing on March 4, 2026.

The “Toxic Substances Control Act Fee Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2026” takes a narrower approach than its House counterpart released in January, focusing primarily on the regulation of new chemicals under TSCA section 5.  As its title suggests, the discussion draft would also reauthorize the TSCA fee program, which is set to expire at the end of fiscal year 2026, for another 10 years.

“We need to improve our current systems so we can bring better, safer and more innovative chemicals to market — with the predictability and resources to get it right,” EPW Chair Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) said in a statement to E&E News. “This discussion draft is a step in the right direction, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on this during next week’s hearing.”

Tiered Review for New Chemicals

A central feature of the draft is the creation of a four-tiered framework for new chemical notices under section 5:

  1. Tier 1: New chemicals and new uses that satisfy Safer Choice and Design for the Environment criteria.
  2. Tier 2: New chemicals and new uses that fall into a chemical category “for which the Administrator has developed established scientific methodology for review.”
  3. Tier 3: New chemicals and new uses intended to serve as an alternative to a riskier existing chemical where modeling or other information demonstrates potential risk reduction.
  4. Tier 4: All other new chemicals and new uses.

Although each tier would be assigned its own EPA review timeframe, the draft does not specify the number of review days applicable to any category.  The tiered structure appears designed to address longstanding industry concerns regarding the growing backlog of new chemical submissions, which frequently extend beyond the current statutory 90-day review period (extendable to 180 days).

Third-Party Assessors

Another proposed change presumably designed to address the new chemical submission backlog is a mechanism by which third parties could provide a preliminary review of section 5 submissions.

Accredited third-party assessors would be authorized to review submissions for completeness and determine whether any risk assessment included in the submission was conducted using EPA assumptions, models, and procedures.  Submissions that receive a third-party risk assessment review would be eligible for expedited review periods, which are unspecified but vary by tier.

Notably, if EPA fails to make a determination within the expedited review period for a dual-certified submission—one that received both a completeness and risk assessment review—the applicant would be allowed to commence manufacture consistent with the conditions described in the submission.  EPA would retain authority to order cessation of manufacture upon completing its review.

Stewardship Pathway Authorization

Separate from the tiered review framework, the draft proposes a “stewardship pathway authorization” as an alternative route to the manufacture and distribution of a new chemical.

Applicants would submit a detailed stewardship implementation plan outlining intended conditions of use, engineering controls, disposal practices, PPE requirements, and downstream communication measures.  Manufacturers of chemicals approved under this pathway would be required to obtain contractual commitments from immediate recipients of the substance that they will comply with the approved stewardship implementation plan.  Approved chemicals would not be placed on the TSCA Inventory.

The draft does not specify how many days EPA would have to review stewardship pathway applications.  As with dual-certified third-party submissions, if EPA fails to act before the deadline and no extension has been granted, the requirements of the section would be deemed fulfilled for the conditions of use described in the submission.

Section 5 Exemptions

In addition to restructuring the review process, the draft proposes codifying versions of the low volume exemption (LVE) and low releases and low exposures (LoREX) exemption.  EPA has long allowed these exemptions by rule, which ease section 5 requirements for eligible chemicals.  The draft would make certain PFAS ineligible for either exemption, and only allow other PFAS and persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals (PBTs) to qualify if certain conditions were met.

Again, the draft does not specify the EPA review timeframe for these exemption submissions, which would differ for PFAS and PBTs.  Exemption timeframes when expedited via third-party assessment are also unspecified.

The draft would also establish a brand-new Section 5 exemption for de minimis quantities, allowing the manufacture or processing of any chemical in quantities of less than 500 kilograms per year if the manufacturer or processor notifies EPA within 30 days of commencing manufacture.  A variety of substances would be ineligible, including substances with at least one fully fluorinated atom, nanomaterials, and mercury, lead, and cadmium compounds, among others.

Other Section 5 Revisions

Another subtle but important change is the replacement of the term “may present” unreasonable risk with “is more likely than not to present” unreasonable risk in section 5.  Currently, if EPA determines that a new chemical or new use “may present” unreasonable risk in the absence of sufficient information to permit a reasoned evaluation, EPA must issue an order to address that risk.  Raising that bar to “more likely than not” would require greater certainty before issuance of an order, known as a 5(e) order.

Similarly, the draft proposes to change the standard for granting section 5 exemptions from “will not present” unreasonable risk to “is not likely to present” unreasonable risk.

The draft also addresses incomplete submissions.  Under the proposal, EPA would have a limited time to determine whether a submission is complete and issue a deficiency notice; its ability to do so after that window expires would be restricted.

Environmental groups and EPA have often pointed to incomplete section 5 submissions and associated rework as a significant contributor to new chemical delays.

Other provisions in the draft require EPA to maintain a program similar or identical to the Sustainable Futures Program and consider information voluntarily provided in submissions, including whether the chemical may reduce greenhouse gas emissions among other criteria.

Key Definitions

Cutting across each of these reforms are proposed revisions to two foundational TSCA terms that would have significant implications for both new and existing chemical regulation.

First, the draft would narrow the scope of “conditions of use,” which are the reasonably foreseeable chemical uses evaluated by EPA to determine whether restrictions on a chemical are necessary.  While preserving the existing definition, the draft would add the following qualifications to what circumstances are considered conditions of use by:

  • Excluding “merely hypothetical circumstances.”
  • Requiring that EPA “have a cognizable basis to foresee [a] condition of use”
  • Excluding uses that violate other federal laws as “not within the meaning of what is reasonably foreseen.”
  • If a submitter provides information demonstrating that “broadly applied and effective exposure control measures are routinely used,” it would create a “rebuttable presumption that the lack of such measures is not reasonably foreseen.”

Second, the draft proposes to add bounds to “unreasonable risk,” a crucial, currently undefined term that serves as the basis for regulation under TSCA.  The draft would exclude “risks that may arise from common, well-understood hazards, such as irritation, corrosion, flammability, unreactive dust, and other physical effects” from the meaning of unreasonable risk.  It would also clarify that the phrase “includes consideration of both the hazard of a substance and the quantity, frequency, and duration of the exposure to the environment.”

Court Orders EPA to Release PMNs in TSCA Transparency Case

/in , ,

The D.C. District Court has ordered EPA to provide Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) premanufacture notices (PMNs) in litigation challenging the agency’s new chemical review procedures as insufficiently transparent.

The lawsuit, brought by five environmental groups, alleges that EPA fails to timely publish complete notices of receipt of PMNs and applications for test marketing exemptions (TMEs).  The groups also allege that the agency routinely violates TSCA by failing to make health and safety studies, safety data sheets (SDSs), and other information in PMNs publicly available, including information claimed as confidential business information (CBI) that facially does not qualify as CBI.

In August 2024, the court partially granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel the administrative record.  However, EPA argued that the agency did not consider unredacted PMNs when it assembled public files, and that their contents would therefore shed no light on the agency’s decision-making.  The plaintiffs countered by arguing that the court already rejected those arguments when it partially granted the motion to compel and that the unredacted PMNs are necessary to determine whether EPA withheld test data or health and safety studies.

In an order filed December 24, 2025, the court agreed with the environmental groups.  “The court finds that Plaintiffs have carried their burden of showing that the unredacted versions of PMNs were ‘before the agency’ when the EPA assembled public files, notwithstanding the agency’s assertions that it did not rely on unredacted PMNs,” the order reads.

The order requires EPA to produce public versions of the PMN files by January 23, 2026, and unredacted versions under a protective order by March 23, 2026.

The case is Environmental Defense Fund v. Zeldin, No. 20-cv-00762 (D.D.C.).  A previous post on the case can be found here.

House Subcommittee to Hold Hearing on New TSCA Reform Bill

/in ,

On January 22, 2026, at 2pm ET, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Environment Subcommittee will hold a hearing to examine newly released Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform legislation.

The hearing, titled “Chemicals in Commerce: Legislative Proposal to Modernize America’s Chemical Safety Law, Strengthen Critical Supply Chains, and Grow Domestic Manufacturing,” will focus on a discussion draft released on January 15, 2026.  No witnesses are currently listed on the hearing webpage.

The discussion draft would make structural changes to key provisions of the statute, including revisions to TSCA section 4 testing requirements, section 5 new chemical reviews, and section 6 reviews of existing chemicals.  It would also reauthorize EPA’s authority to collect fees from manufacturers, which is set to expire later this year.

“Targeted and measured reforms [to TSCA] will increase accountability, strengthen domestic manufacturing, and safeguard the health and safety of our communities,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-KY-02) and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Gary Palmer (R-AL-06) in a joint statement.

“The legislation we’ll be discussing in this hearing would support these goals and help to ensure TSCA processes are working effectively to evaluate chemical safety and support American innovation,” they added.

A livestream of the hearing will be available online.

House Science Committee to Hold January 8 Hearing on Chemical Regulation

/in ,

On January 8, 2026, at 10am ET, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will hold a hearing entitled “Chemistry Competitiveness: Fueling Innovation and Streamlining Processes to Ensure Safety and Security.”

According to Inside EPA, the committee said in an announcement that the hearing will “examine the state of chemical research and development in the United States and how the regulatory environment affects progress.”  It comes after an October Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on chemical regulation, which included substantial discussion regarding possible Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform.

The hearing will feature the following witnesses:

  • Charlotte Bertrand, Senior Director, Chemical Management, Regulatory Policy and Strategy, American Chemistry Council
  • Stan Meiburg, Former Acting Deputy Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency
  • Gwen Gross, Ph.D., Senior Technical Fellow, The Boeing Company
  • Keith Corkwell, Senior Vice President and President of Lubrizol Additives, The Lubrizol Corporation

A livestream of the hearing will be available on YouTube.

EuroChem Faces TSCA Lawsuit Over Alleged CDR Reporting Failures

/in , ,

On December 15, 2025, the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) filed suit against EuroChem, alleging that the fertilizer giant failed to report billions of pounds of chemicals imported into the US between 2016 to 2019.

EPA’s Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule, promulgated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), requires that manufacturers and importers report all chemicals manufactured or imported in volumes of 25,000 pounds or more per site per year.  According to CEH, EuroChem failed to submit CDR reports by the 2021 reporting deadline for at least nine chemicals that allegedly exceeded this threshold during the 2016–19 reporting period.

The chemicals at issue include ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate, which CEH claims “cause respiratory irritation if inhaled and can lead to serious health problems with significant exposure,” according to a press release announcing the lawsuit.  Another chemical, monoammonium phosphate, was allegedly imported in quantities of over 45 billion pounds in 2018 alone.

“Eurochem’s failure to report these imports undermines EPA’s efforts under TSCA to evaluate and address chemical risks,” the complaint reads.  “It also prevents the public from tracking the movement of unsafe chemicals in commerce as well as monitoring their presence in communities”

The lawsuit is the latest in a series of actions brought by CEH, which systematically cross-references publicly available import data with CDR submissions to identify potential violations.  According to the press release, CEH has settled with fourteen companies to date over their CDR omissions.

Chemium Settlement

In the press release, CEH also notes that it recently reached a settlement with Chemium International Corporation, a Texas-based chemical supplier, for similar alleged CDR violations.  According to CEH, Chemium submitted CDR reports to EPA for eight chemicals imported between 2016 and 2019 and agreed to conduct an internal audit.

A post discussing another recent CEH CDR settlement, with Wego Chemical Group, can be found here.