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.
FDA Withdraws Asbestos Testing Proposal for Talc Cosmetics
/in Chemical Screening, Chemicals of Concern, Cosmetic Products, FDA, FFDCAOn November 28, 2025, in response to adverse comments, FDA published a notice announcing its withdrawal a December 2024 proposed rule that would have required manufacturers of talc-containing cosmetic products to test for asbestos.
The rulemaking is required by section 3505 of the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA), which directs FDA to “promulgate proposed regulations to establish and require standardized testing methods for detecting and identifying asbestos in talc-containing cosmetic products.” FDA’s notice makes clear that the agency plans to issue a new proposed rule in the future.
FDA cites “Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) priorities to ensure safe additives in the American food and drug supply, the highly scientific and technical issues addressed in public comments the Agency has received, and the complexity of asbestos testing and legal considerations under the Administrative Procedure Act” as good cause for the withdrawal.
The concern underlying the rulemaking stems from the geological relationship between asbestos and talc. According to FDA, asbestos is found in the same rock types that host talc deposits, which sometimes results in the presence of asbestos in talc cosmetics.
Although the testing requirements will not take effect, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) continues to prohibit the sale of adulterated cosmetics, including those that contain “any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render [the product] injurious to users.” FDA has previously taken action in this area: testing in 2019 led to recalls of talc cosmetics potentially containing asbestos, while testing in 2023 did not detect asbestos in any of fifty sampled products.
December 2024 Proposal
The December 2024 proposed rule would have required manufacturers to test talc-containing cosmetic products—or the talc ingredient before use—and maintain records demonstrating compliance. Manufacturers would have needed to test a representative sample of each batch or lot using both:
Noncompliance would have rendered a cosmetic adulterated. A talc cosmetic product would also have been deemed adulterated if any asbestos was present—even if only a single fiber was detected.
Issues Raised by Commenters
In the withdrawal notice, FDA notes several provisions of the proposed rule that were contested by commenters, including:
In addition, commenters raised concerns about the proposed test methods, although FDA did not address these in the withdrawal notice. For example, the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) questioned whether TEM was superior to other test methods, arguing that it might yield more false positives. USP also asserted that a single-fiber threshold for positive samples diverges from generally accepted TEM fiber counting procedures and would pose challenges for reproducibility.
More information on talc and asbestos can be found on FDA’s website.
Prop 65 Updates: New MFH Listing and BPS Developmental Toxicity Endpoint Added
/in California, Prop. 65, State PolicyOn December 5, 2025, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced the addition of N-methyl-N-formylhydrazine (MFH) to the Prop 65 list as a carcinogen. On the same day, OEHHA also announced that it is adding the developmental toxicity endpoint to the listing for bisphenol S (BPS). Both listings took effect December 8, 2025.
MFH (CAS RN 758-17-8)
MFH was added to the Prop 65 list via the “state’s qualified experts” mechanism following a November 18, 2025, determination by the Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC). The warning requirement for significant exposures to MFH will take effect one year after its listing, on December 8, 2026.
According to an August 2025 OEHHA document describing the evidence of MFH’s carcinogenicity, MFH is naturally occurring in edible Gyromitra mushrooms. MFH is also used in the production of marbofloxacin (an antibacterial agent used in veterinary medicine) and for research purposes.
BPS (CAS RN 80-09-1)
The developmental toxicity endpoint for BPS was also added via the state’s qualified experts mechanism after an October 9, 2025, meeting by the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DRTIC). OEHHA’s evidence document for BPS’s developmental toxicity can be found here.
BPS has been included on the Prop 65 list since December 2023, when it was listed for female reproductive toxicity. The warning requirement for significant exposures to BPS took effect in 2024. In January 2025, OEHHA also added the male reproductive toxicity endpoint for BPS.
OEHHA has not established a maximum allowable dose level (MADL) safe harbor for BPS (under which a warning is not required). As of the date of this post, private enforcers have sent over nine hundred 60-day notices to companies, alleging that customers may be receiving significant exposures to BPS from receipt papers without warning.
In recent out-of-court settlements, including an October 2025 settlement with Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc., companies have committed to using “BPS free” thermal receipt paper. In these settlements, BPS free is typically defined as less than 100 or 200 parts per million BPS and no intentionally added BPS, with some agreements also requiring no intentionally added bisphenol A (BPA).
The complete, updated Prop 65 list can be found here.
Conopco Can’t Shake “X% Naturally Derived” Mislabeling Suit
/in Green MarketingA proposed class action challenging “X% Naturally Derived” label claims on Conopco’s “Love Beauty & Planet,” “Dove Men + Care,” and “babyDove” brand shampoos, conditioners, and other bath products can move forward, the California Northern District Court ruled on November 26, 2025.
The suit alleges that the provided percentages, which vary by product, mislead customers because they encompass synthetic industrial chemicals. According to the plaintiffs, the percentages are calculated using a complex, proprietary, and arbitrary formula developed by the British Standards Institute (BSI) known as ISO 16128, which is not intended for marketing purposes.
In its order, the court concluded that consumers could plausibly read “naturally derived” to mean “non-synthetic.” Although Conopco pointed to clarifying information on the products’ back labels, the court ruled that it was not necessary to consider the back labels because the statement on the front was plausibly unambiguous. If consumers understand naturally derived as non-synthetic, “the back-label definition is essentially ‘fine print’ that undercuts the statements on the front labels,” the order states.
The court also held that the plaintiffs’ allegations were sufficiently detailed to survive dismissal, despite their reliance on allegations based on information and belief.
Dismissed Claims
Other claims were dismissed without prejudice, including the plaintiffs’ argument that Conopco’s omission of a definition of naturally derived on the front label could serve as a separate basis for its false advertising claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL).
The court held that this omission theory was insufficiently pled because it was not set forth in the complaint. Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to explain why the alleged omission “‘relates to an unreasonable safety hazard’ or is ‘material’ and ‘central to the product’s function,’” the order states.
The court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims. Under California’s economic loss rule, those torts require that the plaintiffs allege losses in addition to economic loss, and they have not done so, the court held.
The case is Kent v. Conopco, Inc., No. 25-cv-03660 (N.D. Cal.), filed Apr. 25, 2025. Plaintiffs have until January 7, 2026, to file an amended complaint.
SBA Calls for Federal Scrutiny of State EPR Laws
/in EPR, State Policy, TransparencyIn comments submitted October 30, 2025, the Small Business Administration’s (SBA’s) Office of Advocacy is calling for the federal government to take action against state extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs “as barriers to interstate commerce.”
SBA’s comments are part of a larger document submitted in response to an August 2025 Department of Justice (DOJ) request for information on state laws that may adversely affect the national economy. The agency highlights EPR programs’ fees and complexity, which SBA argues disproportionately burden small businesses.
Oregon’s EPR Program
SBA directs much of its criticism on Oregon’s EPR program for packaging, paper, and serviceware, which it describes as especially burdensome.
The law’s broad definition of “producers,” which includes wholesalers and distributors, affects businesses “who have no control over packaging design,” SBA writes. In addition, while many state EPR laws require producers to join a producer responsibility organization (PRO) that collects fees and administers the program, SBA contends that Oregon’s PRO structure is monopolistic.
“Unlike traditional EPR programs that target specific products with transparent fees, Oregon’s system delegates vast regulatory authority to a single private entity, the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), which operates with a confidential fee methodology and minimal oversight,” the comments state.
SBA’s recommendations extend beyond Oregon, however. The agency advocates for EPR laws to be struck down, calls for a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigation into whether PRO fees violate federal antitrust laws, and urges greater fee transparency and state oversight.
“Most importantly, other states should avoid Oregon’s model of delegating broad regulatory power to private monopolistic entities without adequate procedural protections,” SBA writes. “Future EPR legislation should maintain direct state oversight, provide competitive alternatives to single PROs, and ensure that compliance costs are proportionate to businesses’ actual control over packaging decisions and ability to bear regulatory burdens.”
Addressing State Inconsistencies
Other commenters echoed concerns about the economic impacts of EPR laws, emphasizing inconsistencies among state programs. The American Chemistry Council (ACC), the American Institute for Packaging and the Environment (AMERIPEN), and the National Restaurant Association all cited conflicting definitions, requirements, and program structures as drivers of cost and compliance challenges.
Notably, in its September 15 comments, ACC suggested that a federal EPR program may be the solution to these difficulties. “EPA could establish a federal framework that promotes a common approach to EPR and recycling,” ACC stated. “Setting common definitions, metrics, and data collection standards, could support compliance and stimulate the domestic economy.”
ACC also urged federal preemption of other state chemical restrictions, including PFAS laws and California’s Proposition 65.
The docket for DOJ’s request for information is available here.
BBB Finds Bamboo Tissue Maker’s Environmental Claims Lack Support
/in Green MarketingPlant Paper Inc. will modify or discontinue certain green marketing claims on its bamboo toilet and facial tissues following recommendations from the Better Business Bureau (BBB) National Programs’ National Advertising Division (NAD), according to a decision summary posted November 3, 2025.
On its website and social media, Plant Paper claimed its bamboo products were superior to conventional tissues because they contain no toxic chemicals and are better for the environment. These claims were challenged by the American Forest & Paper Association, and NAD concluded that Plant Paper lacked sufficient evidence that competitor products were worse for human health and the environment.
For example, although Plant Paper presented test data showing its products contain no bleach, PFAS, or formaldehyde—and cited studies showing that conventional paper can contain formaldehyde and PFAS—it did not provide “reliable, product-specific data demonstrating that most or all conventional tissue brands contain” these substances, the decision summary states.
Similarly, while Plant Paper had evidence of bamboo harvesting’s environmental advantages, such as lower carbon impacts, NAD determined such evidence was “not a good fit” to substantiate its claims that conventional tissue manufacturing harms the environment.
As a result, NAD recommended that Plant Paper modify its claims to avoid implying that conventional tissues contain intentionally added toxic chemicals, are worse for human health, or are more environmentally destructive than its bamboo products. However, NAD emphasized that Plant Paper is free to continue highlighting that its products are unbleached and free of PFAS and formaldehyde.
Plant Paper agreed to comply with the decision, but said it “respectfully disagrees with NAD’s finding that there was not enough evidence to show the comparative harms of competitor toilet paper products.”
More on BBB National Programs can be found here.
DTSC Releases Microplastics Background Document Ahead of December Workshop
/in California, DTSC, Microplastics, Safer Consumer Products, State PolicyThis month, California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) released a public background document summarizing its research on products that contain or generate microplastics. DTSC is requesting comment on the specific product categories evaluated in the document through January 16, 2026. The department will also hold a virtual workshop to receive public input on December 11, 2025, at 9:30am PT.
Background
The background document and workshop are part of DTSC’s rulemaking to add microplastics to the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) program candidate chemicals list. As discussed previously, adding microplastics to the list would not itself create new regulatory requirements, but it would allow DTSC to pursue restrictions in specific products that contain or generate microplastics in the future.
According to DTSC, the background document is part of its “external engagement process, which helps us decide whether to conduct additional research or potentially list one or more products that contain or have the potential to generate microplastics as Priority Products.” The department also notes that, based on its evaluation, it is “concerned about the potential for adverse impacts from exposure to microplastics in consumer products frequently used by the general public, workers, and children.”
Evaluated Product Categories
DTSC outlines preliminary screening results for the following product categories:
For each evaluated product category, DTSC describes the type of microplastics present (primary/secondary), the potential for exposure, potential alternatives, and relevant US and international regulations. An appendix lists additional evaluated product categories that may be considered for further research.
These categories fall under DTSC’s current work plan product category of products that contain or generate microplastics, discussed in a previous post.
Requested Information
The background document identifies a number of data gaps for which DTSC seeks public input. For example, regarding water-based interior wall paints, DTSC requests information on whether manufacturers are developing non-plastic alternatives to primary microplastics, obstacles to replacing them, whether alternatives can provide comparable performance, and which types of paint could feasibly transition away from microplastics while still meeting performance requirements.
Interested parties can submit comments trough DTSC’s CalSAFER portal. As noted above, comments will be accepted through January 16, 2026.
Update – December 4, 2025
DTSC has announced that written comments on the background document will now be accepted through 11:59pm PT on January 30, 2026.
EPA Enforcement Under Trump 2.0: What Regulated Industries Need to Know
/in Enforcement, EPA, FIFRA, TSCAThe 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:
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 Chemicals of Concern, EPA, TSCAOn 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 EPA, New Chemicals, Transparency, TSCAOn 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:
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.
Tyson Foods Drops “Net-Zero” and “Climate-Smart” Claims in Settlement
/in Green MarketingTyson Foods, Inc. will stop pledging to achieve “net-zero” climate emissions by 2050 and marketing “climate-smart” beef under a settlement agreement with the Environmental Working Group (EWG) filed in D.C. Superior Court on November 17, 2025.
Under the settlement, Tyson is barred from making similar claims for five years, unless a mutually agreed-upon third-party expert verifies that the claims can be substantiated. The agreement does not require Tyson to pay any financial penalties.
EWG’s Allegations
EWG alleged that Tyson’s claims were materially deceptive to increasingly eco-conscious consumers, asserting that Tyson has no plan or intention to achieve its net-zero or climate-smart commitments. Even if Tyson did have a plan, EWG argued that it would be impossible for the company to meet those goals.
“There is no proven or anticipated way to do so at Tyson’s current enormous scale of production, and the offsets required to zero out Tyson’s meat production emissions are both unfathomable and unavailable,” the complaint states.
According to EWG, Tyson made net-zero claims on its website and news releases since 2021, and climate-smart beef claims on its website and sustainability reports for over a year.
Tyson’s Response
Tyson moved to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction. In a memo supporting the motion, the company contended that its website cannot serve as grounds for jurisdiction and that its climate-smart beef products are not sold in DC.
“Taken to its logical end, Plaintiff’s theory would make this Court the regulator of general corporate speech of any company that makes products sold in D.C. and has a sustainability website,” the memo reads.
Tyson also argued that the company has taken meaningful action to support its net-zero ambitions, including calculating emissions data, launching pilot programs, and investing $42 million to promote the adoption of climate-smart policies.
The case is Environmental Working Group v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 2024-CAB-005935 (D.C. Super. Ct.), filed Sept. 18, 2024.