EPA’s Battery-Cathode SNURs Test the Limits of “Significant New Use”
EPA has proposed two significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that would extend restrictions across the full lifecycle of the cathode substances in lithium-ion batteries, including recycling and reclamation. Industry stakeholders note that this is a departure from ordinary SNUR practice. The rules, published on April 24, 2026, cover two generically identified “cobalt lithium manganese nickel oxide, metals-doped” substances used as cathode active materials (CAMs) in lithium-ion batteries. The comment period, extended once, closed July 10, 2026. As of this writing, EPA has not finalized, withdrawn, or re-proposed the rules.
What the Proposal Would Do
Under the proposed rules, EPA would regulate the CAMs even after the substances have been manufactured into articles. Usually, the agency exempts substances in articles from SNUR obligations.
The proposed rules impose a labeling requirement for the articles—the batteries—that contain these substances. In addition, recycling and reclamation restrictions would apply when the batteries are shredded or otherwise handled in a manner that generates dust. These restrictions include 99% dust-control efficiency, no release to water, hazardous-waste disposal, and respiratory protection. In other words, it would be a significant new use to manufacture, process, recycle, or reclaim the material without these controls.
The Federal Register notice explained that the proposed SNURs merely extend restrictions from the Section 5(e) consent orders imposed on the original premanufacture notice (PMN) submitters to all manufacturers and processors.
Why the Approach is Contested
Comments on the proposed rule assert that much of what EPA proposed is impracticable if not impossible. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation argued that the proposed SNUR would “impose responsibility for the future management of individual chemical constituents throughout a downstream recycling infrastructure that is outside of the manufacturer’s ownership or control.” Their comments note that while such regulation may be permissible under TSCA, regulating an article through its lifecycle base on the chemicals within the article is not the intent of the statute.
The Chemical Users Coalition—whose members include Airbus, Boeing, Intel, Lockheed Martin, and RTX—asked EPA to withdraw the proposal. Their comments argued that the terms “processing” and “use” are unclear as applied to repair, import of batteries containing the SNUR substances, either by themselves or as part of larger articles, and recycling. In addition, according to the Coalition, EPA failed to satisfy the threshold requirement of TSCA Section 5(a)(5) which requires that the Administrator make an affirmative finding that the reasonable potential for exposure to the chemical substance through the article “justifies notification” before imposing a SNUR for the “import or processing of a chemical substance as part of an article. The Coalition also flagged that it is possible that there are ongoing uses of the substance that would not have been subject to TSCA Section 5 notice requirements—e.g., the import of the substances when incorporated into an article and the subsequent recycling of such articles. This, the Coalition argues, was not addressed in the proposed rule.
Who is Affected, and What to Watch
The proposed rule reaches broadly beyond chemical manufacturers to battery producers, automakers, and recyclers, and importers of batteries and battery-containing articles. The regulation would be especially onerous for importers. In most cases chemical composition of articles is not readily available, which may make it hard to know whether an imported battery contains a covered substance or if one needs to request an applicability determination from the supplier.
If the final rule keeps the article and recycling requirements in their current form, industry is likely to challenge the agency’s statutory authority for the rulemaking.
