Beginning February 23, 2026, at 9am MT, the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) will hold a hybrid public hearing to consider the adoption of a proposed rule to implement the state’s PFAS in products law. EIB is currently accepting public comments in advance of the hearing.
A previous post addressed the proposal’s novel PFAS labeling requirements, which would apply to all products with intentionally added PFAS beginning January 1, 2027. In addition to labeling, the proposed rule implements statutory product prohibitions, establishes manufacturer reporting obligations, and outlines the process for manufacturers to obtain “currently unavoidable use” (CUU) designations from the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED).
Much of the proposed rule closely tracks the underlying statute, HB 212. However, the statute merely authorized—rather than required—labeling requirements, and left the CUU framework unspecified. The proposed rule fills in those gaps.
Product Bans
The proposed rule implements HB 212’s phased-in product bans. Beginning January 1, 2027, New Mexico will prohibit the sale of the following products with intentionally added PFAS:
- Cookware
- Food packaging
- Dental floss
- Juvenile products
- Firefighting foam
On January 1, 2028, the prohibition will expand to include:
- Carpets or rugs
- Fabric treatments
- Feminine hygiene products
- Textiles
- Textile furnishings
- Ski wax
- Upholstered furniture
Finally, beginning in 2032, the prohibition will apply to all products except:
- Products exempt from regulation under HB 212 (such as used products, medical devices, and veterinary products); and
- Uses that EIB designates as CUUs.
Although HB 212 authorizes the EIB to add additional product categories to the 2027 and 2028 bans, the proposed rule limits prohibitions to those required by the statute.
Manufacturer Reporting Requirements
On or before January 1, 2027, HB 212 requires manufacturers that sell products containing intentionally added PFAS to submit the following information to NMED:
- A brief description of the product;
- The purpose of the PFAS in the product;
- The amount of each PFAS in the product by exact quantity or concentration range;
- Manufacturer and contact information; and
- Any other information requested by NMED.
Manufacturers must update their submissions within 30 days of a significant change. The proposed rule defines “significant change” as the intentional addition of a new PFAS, a 10% or greater increase in the concentration of PFAS, or a change in responsible official or contact information.
The proposed rule sets a fee of $2,500 for the initial report and $1,000 for each subsequent significant change report, with fees adjusted for inflation. It also establishes procedures for requesting reporting deadline extensions or waivers where substantially equivalent information is already publicly available.
Under HB 212, reporting obligations do not apply to products that are statutorily exempt or that have received a CUU designation.
Currently Unavailable Uses (CUUs)
To avoid prohibition of a product containing intentionally added PFAS, the proposed rule would allow a manufacturer—or a group of manufacturers—to submit a proposal to NMED requesting a CUU designation. A separate proposal would be required for each individual combination of product category and associated industrial sector.
CUU proposals would generally be due at least 12 months before the effective date of the applicable sales prohibition. For products subject to the January 1, 2027 prohibition, however, CUU proposals submitted by October 31, 2026 would be deemed approved pending NMED review.
The proposed rule would require that CUU proposals include:
- Identification of the specific PFAS intentionally added to the product;
- A brief description of the product;
- An explanation of why the PFAS use “is essential for health, safety or the functioning of society”;
- A description of how the PFAS is essential to the product’s function;
- A description of whether alternatives for the specific use of PFAS are available;
- A list of applicable federal and state regulations governing the product due to its intentional use of PFAS, including any sales prohibitions;
- If the product is prohibited or lacks a CUU determination in another jurisdiction, a list of comparable products that remain on the market in that jurisdiction;
- Where similar products are available despite a comparable prohibition, a justification for why those products are not reasonably available alternatives or documentation demonstrating that they would not perform as intended in New Mexico;
- Contact information; and
- Any known or reasonably ascertainable information regarding the human health or environmental impacts of PFAS in the product.
Most of these categories include additional, detailed information requests. For example, when identifying comparable regulatory programs in other jurisdictions, submitters must specify whether the prohibition is absolute or includes a CUU-like process and, if so, whether the submitter has applied under that program and the status of the application.
CUU designations would expire three years after approval unless a manufacturer submits a new CUU proposal. The proposed rule establishes a $5,000 fee for an initial CUU application and a $2,500 fee for renewals, with fees adjusted for inflation.
For CUU proposals related to the 2027 prohibitions, NMED would issue final determinations by March 1, 2027. A list of approved CUUs would be made available on NMED’s website.
Testing and Enforcement
HB 212 authorizes NMED to require manufacturers to test products if the department has reason to believe that a product contains intentionally added PFAS. The proposed rule sets a threshold for PFAS of 100 parts per million (ppm). If test results exceed that threshold, the manufacturer would be required to submit an initial report and, if the product is prohibited, notify distributors and retailers.
Manufacturers that violate HB 212 or its implementing regulations may be subject to civil penalties of up to $15,000. NMED may also assess administrative costs incurred in enforcing the statute and rules for each day a violation occurs.
More information about HB 212, also known as the PFAS Protection Act, is available on NMED’s website.
Court Orders EPA to Release PMNs in TSCA Transparency Case
/in New Chemicals, Transparency, TSCAThe 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 court held.
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.
P&G Wins Dismissal of Dental Floss PFAS Lawsuit
/in Green Marketing, PFASA federal court has dismissed a proposed class action alleging that Procter & Gamble misled consumers about the health and environmental qualities of its dental floss due to the alleged presence of PFAS, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish standing.
The suit relied on test results allegedly showing that Oral-B Glide products contain 302,400 ppm of organic fluorine. The suit also cited results from a separate laboratory that allegedly detected specific PFAS—including four not disclosed by the company, which publicly acknowledges that some Oral-B products contain the chemical PTFE.
In an order issued January 9, 2026, the Southern District of New York concluded that significant gaps in the testing allegations prevented the plaintiff from establishing standing under a price-premium theory of injury.
“Plaintiff does not clarify, among other things, whether the samples tested were taken from products Plaintiff actually purchased; when the samples were collected; how many samples were collected and tested for each product line; or whether all tested samples yielded positive results for PFAS,” the opinion reads.
These deficiencies, as well as insufficient information about whether the test samples were acquired at the same time or within geographic proximity to the purchased products, would also doom arguments that the entire product line was contaminated, the court added.
The plaintiff’s benefit-of-bargain theory fared no better. The court found no concrete and particularized injury, citing the vague test results, the lack of alleged physical harm, and the plaintiff’s failure to identify a less expensive, PFAS-free dental floss product necessary to support the notion of a premium.
The decision aligns with a growing body of case law dismissing cases challenging marketing claims based on the alleged presence of PFAS for lack of standing, including a recent dismissal involving similar allegations against Coca-Cola, a decision the court cited repeatedly.
The case is Dalewitz v. The Procter & Gamble Co., No. 22-cv-7323 (S.D.N.Y.). The plaintiff has until February 10, 2026, to file an amended complaint.
House Subcommittee to Hold Hearing on New TSCA Reform Bill
/in News & Events, TSCA ReformOn 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.
Washington State Expands PFAS Restrictions
/in PFAS, State PolicyLast month, a Washington State Department of Ecology rule expanding the state’s restrictions on PFAS took effect. The rule adds three new product categories subject to prohibition and imposes new reporting requirements for manufacturers of nine additional categories.
Beginning January 1, 2027, the manufacture or sale of the following products containing intentionally added PFAS will be prohibited in Washington:
The rule includes a sell-through provision allowing the continued sale and distribution of products produced prior to the prohibition’s effective date.
Manufacturers of certain products containing intentionally added PFAS will also be subject to new reporting obligations. By January 31, 2027, and annually thereafter, manufacturers of the following products must submit a notification to the Department of Ecology:
Pursuant to WAC 173-337-060, the notification must include the name and CAS number of each intentionally added PFAS, the applicable product category and component, a description of the PFAS function, the concentration range, contact information, and any other information the reporting party deems relevant to appropriate product use.
The rule also establishes a rebuttable presumption that PFAS have been intentionally added when total fluorine is detected above 50 parts per million in the newly regulated product categories. This represents a departure from earlier PFAS restrictions, under which the detection of any total fluorine was sufficient to trigger the presumption.
Existing Restrictions
The rule was promulgated under Washington’s Toxic Pollution Law, which is implemented by the Safer Products for Washington program. Through the program, the Department of Ecology prioritizes chemicals, identifies products, and conducts rulemakings to prohibit or otherwise restrict their manufacture or sale.
A previous round of PFAS prohibitions, which took effect in 2025, applied to aftermarket stain- and water resistance treatments and to carpets and rugs. The department also prohibited intentionally added PFAS in indoor leather and textile furniture and furnishings beginning in 2026, while imposing annual reporting requirements for outdoor leather and textile furniture and furnishings starting in 2025.
Other products subject to restrictions or reporting requirements under the program include ortho-phthalates in vinyl flooring and personal care product fragrances, organohalogen flame retardants in electric and electronic products, flame retardants in recreational polyurethane foam, and phenolic compounds in laundry detergent, food and drink can linings, and thermal paper.
Additional information on Washington’s PFAS rule can be found on the department’s website.
House Science Committee to Hold January 8 Hearing on Chemical Regulation
/in News & Events, TSCA ReformOn 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:
A livestream of the hearing will be available on YouTube.
New Mexico to Hold Hearing on PFAS in Products Rulemaking
/in News & Events, PFAS, State PolicyBeginning February 23, 2026, at 9am MT, the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) will hold a hybrid public hearing to consider the adoption of a proposed rule to implement the state’s PFAS in products law. EIB is currently accepting public comments in advance of the hearing.
A previous post addressed the proposal’s novel PFAS labeling requirements, which would apply to all products with intentionally added PFAS beginning January 1, 2027. In addition to labeling, the proposed rule implements statutory product prohibitions, establishes manufacturer reporting obligations, and outlines the process for manufacturers to obtain “currently unavoidable use” (CUU) designations from the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED).
Much of the proposed rule closely tracks the underlying statute, HB 212. However, the statute merely authorized—rather than required—labeling requirements, and left the CUU framework unspecified. The proposed rule fills in those gaps.
Product Bans
The proposed rule implements HB 212’s phased-in product bans. Beginning January 1, 2027, New Mexico will prohibit the sale of the following products with intentionally added PFAS:
On January 1, 2028, the prohibition will expand to include:
Finally, beginning in 2032, the prohibition will apply to all products except:
Although HB 212 authorizes the EIB to add additional product categories to the 2027 and 2028 bans, the proposed rule limits prohibitions to those required by the statute.
Manufacturer Reporting Requirements
On or before January 1, 2027, HB 212 requires manufacturers that sell products containing intentionally added PFAS to submit the following information to NMED:
Manufacturers must update their submissions within 30 days of a significant change. The proposed rule defines “significant change” as the intentional addition of a new PFAS, a 10% or greater increase in the concentration of PFAS, or a change in responsible official or contact information.
The proposed rule sets a fee of $2,500 for the initial report and $1,000 for each subsequent significant change report, with fees adjusted for inflation. It also establishes procedures for requesting reporting deadline extensions or waivers where substantially equivalent information is already publicly available.
Under HB 212, reporting obligations do not apply to products that are statutorily exempt or that have received a CUU designation.
Currently Unavailable Uses (CUUs)
To avoid prohibition of a product containing intentionally added PFAS, the proposed rule would allow a manufacturer—or a group of manufacturers—to submit a proposal to NMED requesting a CUU designation. A separate proposal would be required for each individual combination of product category and associated industrial sector.
CUU proposals would generally be due at least 12 months before the effective date of the applicable sales prohibition. For products subject to the January 1, 2027 prohibition, however, CUU proposals submitted by October 31, 2026 would be deemed approved pending NMED review.
The proposed rule would require that CUU proposals include:
Most of these categories include additional, detailed information requests. For example, when identifying comparable regulatory programs in other jurisdictions, submitters must specify whether the prohibition is absolute or includes a CUU-like process and, if so, whether the submitter has applied under that program and the status of the application.
CUU designations would expire three years after approval unless a manufacturer submits a new CUU proposal. The proposed rule establishes a $5,000 fee for an initial CUU application and a $2,500 fee for renewals, with fees adjusted for inflation.
For CUU proposals related to the 2027 prohibitions, NMED would issue final determinations by March 1, 2027. A list of approved CUUs would be made available on NMED’s website.
Testing and Enforcement
HB 212 authorizes NMED to require manufacturers to test products if the department has reason to believe that a product contains intentionally added PFAS. The proposed rule sets a threshold for PFAS of 100 parts per million (ppm). If test results exceed that threshold, the manufacturer would be required to submit an initial report and, if the product is prohibited, notify distributors and retailers.
Manufacturers that violate HB 212 or its implementing regulations may be subject to civil penalties of up to $15,000. NMED may also assess administrative costs incurred in enforcing the statute and rules for each day a violation occurs.
More information about HB 212, also known as the PFAS Protection Act, is available on NMED’s website.
Governors Urge EPA to Add Microplastics to UCMR 6 Drinking Water Monitoring
/in EPA, MicroplasticsDemocratic 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.
New Jersey PFAS in Products Bill Awaits Governor’s Signature
/in PFAS, Right-to-Know, State PolicyOn December 22, 2025, New Jersey’s legislature passed SB 1042, which would restrict the use of intentionally added PFAS in cosmetics, carpet treatments, and food packaging, and impose additional labeling requirements for cookware. If signed into law, New Jersey would join over a dozen states that have adopted similar restrictions.
The bill employs a familiar definition of PFAS: “any member of the class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.”
Product Bans and Labeling Requirements
Two years after enactment, SB 1042 would ban the sale of the following products with intentionally added PFAS:
In addition, two years after enactment, SB 1042 would require that cookware containing intentionally added PFAS in a handle or food contact surface include the statement “This product contains PFAS” on its product label. This statement would be required in both English and Spanish and on online listings.
The bill provides the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety’s Division of Consumer Affairs significant enforcement authority, including civil penalties of up to $20,000 per day per violation and the ability to conduct random audits to ensure manufacturer compliance.
Exceptions and Exclusions
The bill includes several exemptions that may reduce compliance burdens for manufacturers:
Unlike some state-level PFAS legislation, SB 1042 does not establish specific limits on the amount of total organic fluorine in covered products.
Other Provisions
The bill directs the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to:
The legislation appropriates $4.5 million for NJDEP to carry out these objectives. NJDEP would be required to submit annual reports starting two years after enactment to summarize its findings.
More on SB 1042, known as the “Protecting Against Forever Chemicals Act,” can be found on the New Jersey Legislature’s website.
Update – January 18, 2026
On January 12, 2026, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed SB 1042 into law.
Challenge to Mondelēz Sustainability Claims Advances With Narrowed Scope
/in Green MarketingA Illinois judge has allowed a putative class action challenging sustainability claims on Mondelēz International, Inc. products to proceed, while dismissing claims involving unpurchased products and requests for injunctive relief.
The case concerns a variety of sustainability-related representations on Mondelēz products, including “100% Sustainably Sourced Cocoa” claims on Oreo-brand cookies. The plaintiff, a California consumer, alleges that these representations are misleading because cocoa supply chains involve child and forced labor and environmentally destructive practices.
In an order issued December 18, 2025, the court found the plaintiff’s theory of deception plausible. While agreeing with Mondelēz that the plaintiff “cannot rely solely on sector-wide allegations,” the court concluded that she pleaded “sufficient Mondelēz-specific allegations to survive a motion to dismiss,” including references to an investigative exposé and prior litigation detailing labor abuses.
Mondelēz also argued that its use of the term “sustainable” was nonactionable puffery tied to its Cocoa Life program, which has sustainable aspirations. But when read together with the front-label “100%” promise and back-panel language about “protect[ing] people & planet,” the court held that a reasonable consumer might believe that Oreo’s sourcing practices are “100% sustainable.”
The court did, however, narrow the scope of the case. It rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to represent all purchasers of Mondelēz products bearing sustainability claims, limiting the action to the Oreo and Toblerone products she personally purchased. Acknowledging a split among courts on this issue, the court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue claims involving unpurchased products at this stage of the litigation.
For similar reasons, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief, concluding that any future injury was “paradigmatically speculative.”
The court also pared back the Toblerone claims, holding that the Cocoa Life seal in isolation could not be misleading. Because the Toblerone bars did not include accompanying sustainability text, “it necessary narrows” the plaintiff’s claims, the court held.
Consolidation Denied
Mondelēz separately moved to consolidate the case with another pending challenge to its “100% Sustainably Sourced Cocoa” representation and Cocoa Life seal. The court denied the motion, finding that consolidation would prejudice the other plaintiff.
The second challenge focuses on Mondelēz’s admitted practice of mixing cocoa beans from Cocoa Life-registered farms with beans from unregistered farms. That plaintiff alleges that Mondelēz’s “100%” representation is misleading because the company uses a “mass balance” accounting approach and fails to disclose the resulting lack of traceability and compositional uncertainty.
As the court summarized, “one plaintiff disputes Cocoa Life’s sustainability, and the other objects to there not being enough Cocoa Life cocoa in the final product.”
Although Mondelēz argued that the differing theories were relevant to class certification rather than consolidation, the court found the distinction unpersuasive. “Certification remains a question for another day,” the court explained, “but for now, it seems clear that all parties believe it untenable to pursue two theories of deception in one class action.” The court noted that interim class counsel would therefore be “likely, if not certain,” to abandon one of the theories.
The motion observes that counsel “previously abandoned a different consolidated plaintiff’s derivative claims,” and that the two theories here “seemingly conflict” due to the second plaintiff’s “indifference with ‘the integrity of the Cocoa Life program.’”
The cases are Waggener Van Meter v. Mondelēz International, Inc., No. 24-cv-7368 (N.D. Ill.), and Pearson v. Mondelēz International, Inc., No. 25-cv-10819 (N.D. Ill.).
EuroChem Faces TSCA Lawsuit Over Alleged CDR Reporting Failures
/in CDR, Enforcement, TSCAOn 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.