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:
- Tier 1: New chemicals and new uses that satisfy Safer Choice and Design for the Environment criteria.
- Tier 2: New chemicals and new uses that fall into a chemical category “for which the Administrator has developed established scientific methodology for review.”
- 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.
- 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.”
Ohio Introduces Phased PFAS Ban and Reporting Requirements
/in PFAS, State PolicyOn March 10, 2026, Ohio legislators introduced a bill that would phase-in prohibitions on the intentional addition of PFAS in products and require reporting to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA).
HB 743 closely resembles Minnesota’s PFAS-in-products law, including its definition of PFAS as a class of chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.
Reporting Requirements
The bill’s reporting requirements would take effect first, by January 1, 2027. Manufacturers would be required to provide a brief product description, the purpose of PFAS in the product, the amount of each PFAS by reporting range, contact information, and any other information requested by Ohio EPA.
Reporting would not apply to products exempted by statute: products preempted by federal law, used products, firefighting foam, pesticides, or medical devices and drugs. Products designated by Ohio EPA as having a currently unavoidable use would also be exempt.
Manufacturers would be required to update their reports within 30 days of a significant change and file reports for new products after January 1, 2027, within a time period specified by rulemaking. If Ohio EPA has reason to believe a product is noncompliant, the agency may require the manufacturer to provide testing results within 30 days.
Product Prohibitions
On January 1, 2028, HB 743’s first product prohibitions would take effect, banning the intentional use of PFAS in: carpets and rugs, cleaning products, cookware, cosmetics, dental floss, fabric treatments, juvenile products, feminine hygiene products, textile furnishings, ski wax, and upholstered furniture.
Beginning January 1, 2033, the prohibition would expand to all products not covered by a statutory exemption or designated as a currently unavoidable use by Ohio EPA. The agency may add prohibitions to additional products by rule before the 2033 general prohibition, though none could take effect earlier than 2028.
HB 743 grants Ohio EPA rulemaking authority to implement the legislation, including the ability to require reporting fees. Violations would be subject to civil penalties of up to $15,000 per day.
Latest Prop 65 Challenge Targets DEA After Series of Industry Wins
/in California, Prop. 65A cosmetics industry trade group is asking the Eastern District of California to enjoin a Proposition 65 warning for diethanolamine (DEA), arguing that the compelled labeling requirement violates the First Amendment.
The suit was filed March 2, 2026, by the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC). It follows a string of court victories challenging other Prop 65 warning requirements for chemicals including glyphosate, acrylamide, and titanium dioxide, the last of which was also brought by PCPC.
DEA was automatically added to the Prop 65 list after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that the substance is “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” However, PCPC argues that IARC was unable to find a single study establishing a link between DEA and cancer in humans, instead basing the determination on a study of “questionable relevance” in a highly susceptible strain of mice. Other regulatory bodies, like FDA and EPA, have not reached the same conclusion, and some have “expressed skepticism” about the mouse study, PCPC argues.
“Indeed, no California agency has made any scientific determination as to whether DEA causes cancer in humans. Nor has any federal agency done so,” the complaint states.
According to PCPC, laws regulating commercial speech are typically subject to intermediate scrutiny, with a more lenient standard for purely factual and noncontroversial disclosures. However, because the “cancer warning requirement as applied to DEA in cosmetic and personal products is false, misleading, and factually controversial, it cannot survive any level of constitutional scrutiny” and therefore violates the First Amendment, the complaint alleges.
PCPC argues that the warning requirement effectively forces companies to choose between “conveying the unsubstantiated message that DEA in cosmetic products increases cancer risk in humans” or facing “a significant and imminent risk of an enforcement action.” Although an exception exists for products that do not present significant risk, the complaint notes that companies must be able to prove that defense in court if challenged, a costly and uncertain process that leads many to “acquiesce and provide a warning” even if they believe it is inaccurate.
PCPC also claims that, since the warning requirement took effect in 2013, hundreds of companies manufacturing or selling personal care products have paid over $7 million in settlements with private enforcers.
The trade association seeks a declaration that the warning is unconstitutional as applied to personal care products and a permanent injunction barring enforcement by California or private parties.
The case is The Personal Care Products Council v. Bonta, No. 26-cv-682 (E.D. Cal.), filed 3/2/26.
DOJ Unveils First Unified Corporate Enforcement Policy
/in EnforcementOn March 10, 2026, the Department of Justice (DOJ) released its first-ever department-wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP). The CEP supersedes all existing enforcement policies at DOJ, including the Criminal Division’s policy that it closely resembles. The CEP applies to corporate criminal cases except those relating to antitrust.
“Incentivizing corporate self-disclosures — while still permitting prosecutions in appropriate circumstances — allows the Department to quickly pursue culpable individuals, secure justice for victims, and deter white-collar crime, all while not unduly burdening American businesses,” DOJ stated in a press release.
Part I: Declination Path
Under the CEP, DOJ will decline to prosecute a company for criminal conduct if all of the following criteria are met:
Even where aggravating circumstances exist, prosecutors retain discretion to recommend a declination. In all cases, the company must pay all disgorgement, forfeiture, restitution, and victim compensation. All declinations will be made public.
Part II: “Near Miss” Path
Companies that do not qualify for the Part I Declination Path—because their self-report falls short of a qualifying voluntary disclosure or because aggravating circumstances warrant a criminal resolution—may still be eligible for eased enforcement under Part II, provided they fully cooperated and timely remediated. Under Part II, DOJ shall:
Part III: All Other Cases
All remaining cases proceed under Part III, which grants prosecutors discretion to determine the appropriate resolution but caps any fine reduction at 50% under the Sentencing Guidelines.
How the CEP Differs from Existing Policy
The CEP’s three-part structure and criteria are largely identical to the DOJ Criminal Division’s enforcement policy, released in May 2025. However, there are a few differences:
The CEP also aligns with EPA’s new “Compliance First” enforcement policy, memorialized in December 2025, further signaling a broader regulatory shift toward industry self-policing and voluntary disclosure. While a disclosure made solely to a regulatory agency generally does not qualify under the CEP, “good faith disclosures…may qualify if appropriate under the circumstances.”
Minnesota Bill Would Delay PFAS Reporting Deadline and Add Exemptions
/in PFAS, State PolicyUpdate – March 21, 2026
The House Committee on Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy will hold a hearing on HF 4257 on March 24, 2026, at 1 p.m. CDT. During the hearing, the committee will also consider an amendment to the bill that would delete its CUU provisions but retain the proposed extension of the reporting deadline.
* * *
A Minnesota lawmaker has introduced legislation to delay and narrow the scope of Minnesota’s PFAS reporting requirements ahead of the current July 1, 2026, deadline for manufacturers to file initial reports with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
Minnesota HF 4257, introduced March 12, 2026, would postpone initial notifications for manufacturers of products with intentionally added PFAS to July 1, 2027. The bill would also limit reporting to products manufactured on or after that date, meaning products made before July 1, 2027, could be sold without any reporting obligation.
In addition, the bill would designate numerous PFAS uses—including fluoropolymers—as currently unavoidable uses (CUUs). Products falling within these categories would be exempt from both the reporting requirements and the broader prohibition on products containing intentionally added PFAS, which will take effect in 2032.
HF 4257 would not change the substance of the reporting requirements, which were finalized by MPCA in December 2025. It would also leave existing PFAS prohibitions for 11 product categories unchanged.
Meanwhile, MPCA is developing a rule to implement the state’s CUU framework, including a draft concept released last month that is currently open for public comment.
Currently Unavoidable Uses in HF 4257
The complete list of CUUs proposed by HF 4257 is as follows:
Existing Minnesota law also allows MPCA to designate uses as CUUs upon manufacturer request. MPCA is currently developing a rule to implement this CUU mechanism, which is largely undefined in statute.
CUUs designated through this regulatory process would differ from those proposed in HF 4257 in two important respects. First, MPCA-granted CUU status would exempt products only from the 2032 prohibition, not from reporting requirements. Second, MPCA designations are expected to carry expiration dates, whereas the CUUs listed in HF 4257 would not expire.
Draft CUU Rule Concept
In February 2026, MPCA released a draft rule concept outlining how manufacturers could request CUU status.
The draft rule concept proposes a January 2030 deadline for CUU requests for existing products, which would allow sufficient time for agency review before the January 2032 prohibition takes effect. Requests submitted after this deadline, including those for new products, would be termed “novel products” and reviewed on a lower-priority basis.
To apply, manufacturers would need to provide:
Upon receiving a request, MPCA would first assess completeness and allow applicants 30 days to correct any deficiencies. The agency would then open a 30-day public comment period, followed by a 30-day applicant rebuttal period.
Approved CUU requests—referred to by MPCA as “positive” determinations—would be valid for eight years for existing products and five years for novel products. Positive determinations could be renewed, with renewal applications due one year before expiration. All renewals would be valid for five years, regardless of whether the product is classified as existing or novel.
Comments on the draft rule concept are due March 29, 2026, at 4:30 p.m. CDT. Submit comments here. More information is available on MPCA’s website.
New Executive Order Targets False “Made in USA” Claims
/in Enforcement, Made in USAOn March 13, 2026, President Trump signed an executive order directing the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prioritize enforcement of false “Made in America” claims.
“Americans have a right to clear, accurate, substantiated, and accessible information regarding whether products advertised as “Made in America” are actually made in the United States,” the order states. “Yet in the age of the modern digital marketplace, foreign manufacturers and sellers represent that their products are made in the United States to target patriotic consumers when, in fact, those products are largely produced and manufactured in other countries.”
The executive order includes several directives:
Even before the executive order, the FTC had signaled increased scrutiny of “Made in USA” claims. The agency designated July 2025 as “Made in the USA” Month and sent warning letters to four manufacturers regarding potentially deceptive origin claims. The FTC also contacted Amazon and Walmart, urging both platforms to strengthen oversight of claims made by third-party seller.
Enforcement activity is also occurring in federal procurement. DOJ is currently prosecuting two federal contractors who allegedly misrepresented the origins of forklifts sold to the US government.
For more information on the FTC’s “all or virtually all” standard governing “Made in USA” claims, visit the FTC’s website.
Michigan Bill Would Mandate PFAS Labeling for 13 Product Categories
/in PFAS, Right-to-Know, State PolicyOn March 4, 2026, Michigan lawmakers introduced legislation that would impose PFAS reporting and labeling requirements on manufacturers of 13 product categories.
Senate Bill 816’s reporting provisions would take effect first, prohibiting the manufacture or sale of covered products on January 1, 2028, unless prior notification is submitted to the state. The labeling requirement—the phrase “Made with PFAS chemicals”—would apply one year later, on January 1, 2029. Intentionally added PFAS in covered products would not be prohibited so long as the notification and labeling requirements are met.
PFAS is broadly defined as “all members of the class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least 1 fully fluorinated carbon atom.” The bill grants the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy discretionary rulemaking authority to implement its provisions.
Covered Products
The bill covers the following product categories:
These categories largely mirror those covered by Connecticut’s PFAS notification and labeling provisions, which take effect this July.
The bill excludes products manufactured before its effective date, which in Michigan is typically 90 days from the end of the session at which a bill is passed. Also excluded are used products, products preempted by federal law, medical drugs and devices, and replacement parts for products manufactured before the effective date. The bill does not apply to businesses with fewer than 10 employees.
Notifications and Labeling
Notifications would be required at least one month before a covered product’s release, including chemical identifiers, PFAS amounts and concentration ranges, and manufacturer contact information. Manufacturers would be required to update notifications upon any change.
Labeling is established as a manufacturer responsibility unless a wholesaler or retailer agrees to assume it. The bill would require labels to be clearly visible prior to sale and sufficiently durable to remain legible for the product’s useful life.
Textile EPR Legislation Introduced in Minnesota
/in EPR, PFAS, State PolicyOn February 25, 2026, Minnesota introduced legislation to implement an extended producer responsibility (EPR) program for textiles, carpet, and mattresses.
The “Responsible Textile Waste Recovery Act,” HF 3713, would require producers of covered products to appoint, join, and fund a producer responsibility organization (PRO), which would collect covered products for free and promote their reuse, repair, and recycling.
An initial PRO would be required to fully implement its plan within approximately one year of approval, granted no later than July 2030. Many interim deadlines are left undefined or are tied to implementing regulations promulgated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). After the initial PRO’s plan is approved, MPCA could approve additional PROs to jointly administer the program.
The bill uses a cascading definition of “producer”: if the manufacturer who owns or licenses the brand is present in the state, they are the producer; if not, responsibility falls to the brand owner or exclusive licensee, then the importer, and finally the distributor, retailer, or wholesaler. HF 3713 excludes businesses that sell only secondhand covered products and producers with less than $1 million in annual aggregate global gross revenue from the program.
Internet sellers would be subject to an additional requirement to notify MPCA and the PRO of all third-party sellers with sales of covered products over $1 million the preceding year and provide those sellers with information describing their responsibility to comply with the program.
HF 3713 specifically requires that PROs address PFAS in covered products, including efforts to avoid PFAS contamination during their recycling and outreach to discourage the use of PFAS “and other harmful chemicals.” The bill would also authorize MPCA to set performance standards for covered products.
Legal Challenges to State EPR
The bill’s introduction comes amid ongoing industry challenges to the legality of other state-level EPR programs.
Last month, the Oregon District Court granted a preliminary injunction against Oregon’s packaging EPR program, the first such program to take effect in the country. The court based the injunction on arguments that the program unduly restricts interstate commerce and unlawfully delegates regulatory authority to the PRO, particularly as it relates to producer fees.
Separately, in October 2025, the Small Business Administration (SBA) argued in comments that PRO-imposed producer fees might violate federal antitrust laws.
HF 3713 appears to anticipate some of these arguments. The bill provides that an approved PRO may engage in anticompetitive conduct to the extent necessary to meet its statutory obligations and grants immunity “from liability under state laws relating to antitrust, restraint of trade, and unfair trade practices.” The bill also requires approved PROs to undergo annual holistic third-party audits.
That said, HF 3713 contains minimal discussion about producer fees, other than requiring that they be eco-modulated—i.e., adjusted to incentivize design choices that facilitate reuse, repair, and recycling—and approved by MPCA, although PROs must also outline strategies to reduce existing fees or “fee redistribution mechanisms that equitably distribute costs among producers” in a periodically updated “needs assessment.”
Senate Republicans Release Draft TSCA Reform Legislation Ahead of EPW Hearing
/in EPA, News & Events, TSCA ReformSenate 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:
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:
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.”
Rhode Island’s Microplastics Reduction Act Would Prohibit Sales by 2030
/in EU, Microplastics, REACH, State PolicyRhode Island lawmakers have introduced legislation that would ban products containing intentionally added microplastics and require the development of statewide testing and strategy plans.
The Microplastics Reduction Act, SB 2534, would prohibit the sale or distribution of any product containing intentionally added synthetic polymer microparticles starting January 1, 2030. The definitions of key terms used in the legislation, like “synthetic polymer microparticles,” largely mirror those used in the European Union (EU) Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulations for microplastics adopted in 2023.
Unlike the phased implementation under REACH, however, SB 2534’s prohibition applies to all covered products simultaneously. Only products preempted from regulation by federal law are excluded from the bill, which was introduced February 13, 2026.
SB 2534 would also require the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) to develop two reports:
Definition of Microplastics
SB 2534 defines “synthetic polymer microparticles” as solid polymers that meet both of the following conditions:
Naturally occurring particles are excluded. However, unlike REACH, SB 2534 does not provide exemptions for degradable, soluble, or non-carbon-containing plastic particles.
A synthetic polymer microparticle is considered “intentionally added” if it is added to confer a sought-after characteristic in mixtures in a concentration equal to or greater than 0.01% by weight. SB 2534 defines “product” broadly to include items sold for personal, residential, commercial, or industrial use.
Microplastics regulation is also under consideration in California. Regulators have proposed a simpler definition: plastics less than 5mm in their longest dimension, including materials intentionally manufactured at those dimensions and materials generated by the fragmentation of larger plastics.
California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) will weigh listing microplastics as a “candidate chemical” through April 2026, according to a timeline on its website. DTSC previously solicited comment, through January 2026, on a technical document outlining the rationale for listing microplastics and identifying products that may contain them.
Fourth Circuit to Review West Virginia Dye Ban Injunction
/in FDA, State PolicyThe Fourth Circuit will decide whether a lower court properly paused enforcement of a West Virginia law banning certain FDA-approved synthetic color additives over concerns the statute is unconstitutionally vague.
The case arises from a 2025 West Virginia law designating seven color additives as “poisonous and injurious” and prohibiting their use in school nutrition programs—including six additives currently approved by FDA for use in food, drugs, or cosmetics.
On December 23, 2025, the Southern District of West Virginia issued a preliminary injunction, agreeing with a color additive trade association that identifying FDA-approved additives as “poisonous and injurious” rendered the law’s requirements unclear.
“[T]he inclusion of a list of FDA-approved color additives muddies the water and creates confusion as to what substances now constitute ‘poisonous and injurious,’” the court wrote. Food additive makers “cannot predict what substances may be considered ‘poisonous and injurious’ when such a slim explanation exists for the named color additives,” leaving the door open for arbitrary enforcement, the opinion continues.
The court further emphasized that, because FDA has not determined six of the seven listed additives to be unsafe, “it is imperative that West Virginia define and, thereby, give necessary notice and guidance as to what constitutes ‘poisonous and injurious.’”
The trade association’s additional claims—that the statute constitutes an unconstitutional bill of attainder and violates the Equal Protection Clause—were rejected. West Virginia officials filed a notice of appeal on January 22, 2026.
Although West Virginia has long barred the sale of adulterated food, including food containing ingredients deemed “poisonous or injurious to health,” it had not previously identified specific substances as meeting that undefined statutory standard.
Contested Additives
The seven color additives named by the statute are FD&C Blue No. 1, FD&C Blue No. 2, FD&C Green No. 3, FD&C Red No. 3, FD&C Red No. 40, FD&C Yellow No. 5, and FD&C Yellow No. 6. FDA has revoked authorization for FD&C Red No. 3 in food and ingested drugs, effective January 2027. Only the six additives that remain FDA-approved are at issue in the litigation.
H.B. 2354 also names two preservatives, butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and propylparaben. This month, FDA launched a reassessment of BHA’s safety, publishing a request for information on the use and safety of the substance. BHA is currently listed as generally recognized as safe (GRAS).
The appellants, West Virginia officials from the Department of Health and Bureau for Health, must file their opening brief by March 4. The trade association’s response is due April 3.
The case is International Association of Color Manufacturers v. Singh, No. 26-1085 (4th Cir.), appeal filed January 22, 2026. The underlying case, No. 25-cv-588 (S.D. W. Va.), was filed October 10, 2025.