Union Says EPA’s New Chemicals Rule Fails Transparency Mandate Under TSCA

/in , , , ,

EPA’s 2024 new chemicals procedural rule fails to satisfy Congress’s intent that Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) new chemical and significant new use reviews be transparent, a workers union told the Ninth Circuit on October 16, 2025.

In its opening brief, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) cites its own experience attempting to secure information about the health hazards facing employees in one of its bargaining units.  Although a UAW representative was told by the company that it was producing two new chemicals, he was unable to locate any information on them on ChemView, EPA’s database of new chemical information, the brief states.

“EPA’s disclosures about new chemicals do not routinely include…two key factual components – employer name and location – since the employer is not necessarily the submitter, the submitter’s name is often claimed as CBI, and facility location is not among the fields that can be searched in ChemView,” UAW states.

“Without access to information about who may produce a new chemical and where it may be manufactured, potentially exposed workers and their unions cannot – as a practical matter – engage with EPA before the Agency imposes occupational controls that may or may not adequately protect the workers,” which is their right under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the brief reads.

UAW and other unions jointly raised these concerns in August 2023 comments on EPA’s proposed new chemicals procedural rule.  However, according to the brief, EPA completely ignored the comment during the rulemaking—a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), according to the brief.

Proposed Disclosure Requirements

In their 2023 comments, the unions proposed a mechanism through which EPA could mandate the disclosure of information to unions or workers, which they argue would preserve the information’s confidential status.

“EPA can require entities submitting new chemical or significant new use applications to notify their affected employees that they are submitting these applications and to make the applications, the health and safety studies submitted with the application, and any risk evaluations completed by EPA available to the employees and their unions upon request, contingent on the requester agreeing to confidentiality protections,” the comments state.

Reiterating arguments made in the comments, UAW’s brief contends that this process would not run afoul of TSCA section 14, which governs CBI protections: “While Section 14, like [Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)]  Exemption 4, allows EPA to withhold confidential information submitted to the federal government…neither Exemption 4 nor TSCA Section 14 prohibits EPA from mandating third party disclosure of CBI.”

UAW argues that unions and workers routinely enter into similar confidentiality agreements to access other sensitive information, like financial information about corporate profits.  The union also points to a 1985 Third Circuit decision, which it argues “directed OSHA to permit direct employee access to claimed trade secret information if the workers signed a confidentiality agreement” under OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard.

Case Details

The suit is consolidated with other challenges to the 2024 new chemicals procedural rule brought by environmental groups.  As discussed in a previous post, those groups are arguing that the rule’s failure to categorically exempt new persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals (PBTs) from certain expedited reviews violates TSCA.

The case is Alaska Community Action on Toxics v. EPA, No. 25-158 (9th Cir.), filed 1/10/2025.

EPA Issues Proposed Rule Adding Significant PFAS Reporting Exemptions

/in , ,

As anticipated, EPA has published a proposed rule that would introduce several significant exemptions to the one-time PFAS reporting requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) PFAS reporting rule.

The proposal, published November 13, 2025, follows significant industry criticism of the 2023 rule’s expansive scope.  EPA first signaled that it was considering narrowing the rule’s requirements in May of this year, when the agency delayed its implementation for the second time.

“The proposed changes to improve reporting regulations will support [EPA] Administrator [Lee] Zeldin’s ‘Powering the Great American Comeback’ initiative by reducing regulatory reporting burdens and providing greater regulatory certainty to industry, resulting in a net reduction in cost while ensuring that EPA receives the PFAS data that are most relevant to the agency,” the agency said in a press release accompanying the proposed rule.

What are the Proposed Exemptions?

EPA proposes to exempt the following categories from the PFAS reporting requirements:

  • PFAS manufactured (including imported) in mixtures or products at concentrations of 0.1% or lower
  • Imported articles
  • Byproducts not used for commercial purposes
  • Impurities
  • Research and development chemicals
  • Non-isolated intermediates

These exemptions are similar to those under the TSCA Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule, with the addition of the 0.1% de minimis exemption.

EPA is also proposing to eliminate the streamlined reporting form for article importers and R&D manufacturers because those entities would now be fully exempt under the proposed rule.  For the same reason, EPA would remove the alternative reporting deadline for small manufacturers that would exclusively report as article importers.

Changes to the Submission Period

EPA’s proposal would likely delay the start of the reporting period once again.  The current opening date is April 13, 2026, but under the proposed rule, the reporting window would begin 60 days after the final rule’s effective date.

If EPA issues a final rule in June 2026—as indicated by the Spring 2025 Unified Agenda—and the rule takes effect 30 days after publication, the reporting period would open in September 2026.  However, because the proposal was released a month earlier than the Unified Agenda projected, EPA may also finalize the rule ahead of schedule, potentially resulting in an earlier start date.

The proposal would also shorten the reporting window from six months to three months, with EPA claiming that submitters “have had adequate time to consider how they intend to comply with the rule.”

Statutory Basis

In the proposed rule, EPA argues that the exemptions would better align the regulation with TSCA section 8, which directs EPA to avoid duplicative reporting, minimize compliance costs on small manufacturers, and limit reporting obligations to persons likely to have relevant information.

EPA also cites TSCA section 2(c), which requires that EPA carry out the statute “in a reasonable and prudent manner” and to “consider the environmental, economic, and social impact of any action.”

At the same time, EPA notes that it may in the future determine that certain currently exempted information “is necessary to support particular regulatory actions.”

Comments on the proposed rule are due December 29, 2025.  More on the TSCA PFAS reporting rule can be found in our archive.

ACI Pushes Senate to Address EPA Bottlenecks in New Chemical Reviews

/in , ,

In an October 23, 2025, letter to leaders of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and its Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, the American Cleaning Institute (ACI) called for “targeted changes” to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to accelerate new chemical reviews under the statute.

“ACI members are experiencing considerable challenges with [EPA’s] ability to meet its statutory deadlines under [TSCA], namely, to review and make final determinations on new chemicals within 90 days,” hindering innovation and the development of more eco-friendly products, the letter reads.

ACI also asked the committee to consider the “adverse impact” of significant new use rules (SNURs), which it claims are being applied to restrict “most” new chemicals.

“EPA has taken this route as TSCA requires EPA to consider ‘reasonably foreseen’ uses in new chemical reviews,” ACI wrote.  “The lack of a clear definition in the TSCA for the term ‘reasonably foreseen’ has led EPA staff to take an overly conservative approach that focuses heavily on theoretical hazards instead of utilizing a risk-based approach that prioritizes the specific conditions of use provided by manufacturers about the intended use of new chemistries.”

Meanwhile, ACI’s general counsel, Douglas Troutman, has been nominated by President Trump to lead EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee advanced his nomination to the full Senate on October 29, 2025, in a party-line vote.

PFAS Reporting Rule Update: OMB Clears Path for EPA to Ease Requirements

/in , ,

EPA is a step closer to easing PFAS reporting requirements for manufacturers and importers after the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) completed its review of a proposed rule on October 24, 2025, that is likely to introduce exemptions.

Background: The Current PFAS Reporting Rule

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting rule, finalized in 2023, requires entities that manufactured or imported PFAS in any year from 2011–2022 to report extensive data to EPA.  Unlike other TSCA reporting obligations, the rule does not exempt articles, de minimis quantities, byproducts, or impurities—drawing criticism from industry groups, who argue that its broad scope is both unnecessary and overly burdensome.

As discussed in a previous post, the rule’s original 2024 reporting deadline has already been delayed twice to 2026 because of technical difficulties.  However, in the most recent postponement, EPA signaled that it was considering reopening elements of the rule to align with the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda.  On August 29, 2025, it submitted the proposal to OMB for regulatory review.

What’s Next

According to the Spring 2025 Unified Agenda, the rulemaking will incorporate “certain exemptions and other modifications to the scope of the reporting rule.”  The proposed rule is expected in December 2025, and EPA plans to finalize the rulemaking in June 2026.

More on the PFAS reporting rule’s requirements can be found in a previous post.

Reminder: Upcoming New York Carpet EPR Deadlines

/in , ,

New York’s carpet extended producer responsibility (EPR) law will soon take effect, with important deadlines on the horizon for producers.  As discussed in a previous post, the law requires manufacturers to fund and manage the collection and recycling of post-consumer carpet sold in the state, while also phasing in recycled content minimums and a prohibition of PFAS in carpet products.  Oversight and enforcement will be carried out by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).

Here are the key deadlines producers should keep in mind:

  • Dec 31, 2025: Producer or representative organization plans due to NYSDEC (date set via 2023 chapter amendment).
  • July 1, 2026: Cannot sell carpet in NY unless participating in an approved plan; collection and recycling program begins.
  • Dec 31, 2026: PFAS-containing carpet ban takes effect.

Producers can find additional details on program implementation on NYSDEC’s Carpet Recycling page.  Specific information on the PFAS prohibition can be found in a previous post.

Climate Neutral Labeling Lawsuit Dismissed by Court

/in ,

A proposed class action lawsuit challenging Mondelēz International, Inc.’s labeling on its “Zbar” snack bars has been tossed by a federal judge, who held that the company’s “climate neutral certified” claim was factual and could not mislead a reasonable consumer.

The court’s October 27, 2025, order turns on the inclusion of the word “certified” in the claim.  Since the product was factually certified by a third party called Change Climate Project, the court found no likelihood of deception, and dismissed the case with prejudice.

“Mondelēz did not advertise that its product was in fact climate neutral, but instead that its product was certified as climate neutral….There is nothing deceptive about Mondelēz including on its packaging a true statement,” the court wrote.

The plaintiff had alleged that the label is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer into believing that the product does not contribute to climate change, despite the fact that the product results in “roughly 54,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent” emissions annually.  According to the complaint, the product only obtained its certification due to the purchase of carbon offset credits, which are often fraudulent.

FTC Green Guides

To support her arguments, the plaintiff pointed to environmental guidance promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) known as the Green Guides, which are codified into California law.  The Green Guides caution that third-party certifications do not relieve marketers of the obligation to substantiate all claims reasonably conveyed by the certification.

The court, however, found that although the label did not identify the certifier by name, the climate neutral claim’s placement, design, and wording made clear that the certification came from a third party.  Accordingly, “it cannot reasonably be attributed to Mondelēz.”

“Reasonable consumers are generally not expected to conduct independent research to substantiate claims made on a product’s packaging, but neither are they permitted to defy common sense and everyday experiences,” order states.

The case is Salguero v. Mondelēz International, Inc., No. 25-cv-2139 (N.D. Ill.), filed 2/28/2025.

Lawsuit Challenges “Organic” Claims on PFAS-Containing Soil Products

/in ,

A proposed class action lawsuit in California federal court targets Kellogg Supply Inc., arguing that the soil and fertilizer company falsely represents products as “organic” despite containing PFAS such as PFOA and PFOS.

According to the October 29, 2025, complaint, multiple organic-labeled Kellogg products contained levels of specific PFAS that exceed EPA screening thresholds.  Under EPA guidance, these levels “could trigger further action or study under [the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)].”

The plaintiffs contend that “PFAS do not fall within any definition of organic.”  Kellogg’s use of organic labeling “induce[s] consumers into believing that the Products contain only naturally occurring, non-synthetic ingredients and are therefore a superior alternative to competing—and less expensive—products that are not labeled as organic,” the lawsuit states.

While Kellogg’s packaging displays a certification logo from OMRI, a third-party organic certifier, the plaintiffs allege this certification contradicts OMRI’s own standards.  According to the complaint, the certification was granted only because “OMRI does not test for PFAS as part of their process.”

The complaint addresses a common weakness in similar litigation by specifying that the plaintiffs’ own purchased products were among those tested and that proper chain-of-custody procedures were followed.  Judges in other cases have dismissed claims due to inadequate connections between products purchased and laboratory samples.

The lawsuit seeks to represent consumers in California and New York under those states’ consumer protection and false advertising laws.

The case is Valdez v. Kellogg Supply, Inc., No. 25-cv-02917 (S.D. Cal.), filed 10/29/2025.

Groups Challenge EPA Rule Allowing PBTs in TSCA Exemption Reviews

/in , ,

New persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals (PBTs) should not be eligible for expedited reviews under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) known as the low volume exemption (LVE) and low releases and exposures exemption (LoREX), environmental groups told the Ninth Circuit on October 17, 2025.

The lawsuit challenges EPA regulations finalized in December 2024 that allow companies to continue to continue to apply those exemptions for certain PBTs.  In their opening brief, the petitioners argue that the rule violates TSCA’s requirement that exemptions protect against unreasonable risk.

“The record, including EPA’s own findings, establishes that the category of new PBTs may—indeed, will likely—present unreasonable risk even when complying with the terms of the LVE and LoREX Exemptions,” the brief states.

Disputed Eligibility Standards

The 2024 rule made PFAS categorically ineligible for the exemptions, as well as PBTs “with anticipated environmental releases and potentially unreasonable exposures to humans or environmental organisms.”  The petitioners contend that this “turns the statute on its head” because it requires that EPA affirmatively determine “that a specific PBT is unsafe” for it to be ineligible.

“In effect, the rule treats an absence of evidence as a reason to expedite the approval of a new PBT chemical, rather than a reason to deny an exemption application,” their brief states.

EPA justified its decision to allow certain PBTs to remain eligible by suggesting that PBT use may not always result in exposure, “such as chemical substances used in a closed system to make semiconductors.”  In the rule, EPA also stated that it “expects that most exemptions for PBT chemical substances will not be granted.”

The petitioners, however, describe EPA’s “zero-release-zero-exposure” scenarios as “fanciful.”   All “new PBTs will eventually be released into the environment, cause exposures, and thereby result in serious injury,” they argue.

Speedier Reviews

LVE and LoREX applications are subject to a 30 day review period, compared to 90-to-180 days for standard reviews, though review backlogs mean reviews often take much longer in practice.  The petitioners claim that LVE and LoREX reviews are less “detailed and comprehensive” than standard reviews, and observe that EPA does not require testing or impose additional restrictions on approved exemption applications—incentivizing companies to use them.

Publicly available EPA data shows that 221 valid LVEs were submitted in fiscal year 2025, which was greater than the number of standard review applications.  No LoREX submissions were received during the year, however.

In August 2025, EPA announced that it had made substantial progress on the LVE backlog thanks to process improvements.  However, its continued progress may be jeopardized by the ongoing government shutdown.

More on EPA’s 2024 new chemicals procedural rule can be found in a previous post.  The case is Alaska Community Action on Toxics v. EPA, No. 25-158 (9th Cir.), filed 1/10/2025.

California Settles $1.75M Lawsuit Over False Plastic Bag Recycling Claims, Launches Another

/in , , , ,

California’s attorney general has reached a $1.75 million settlement with four plastic bag producers and initiated a lawsuit against three more, alleging that the companies falsely claimed their plastic bags were recyclable to comply with a state ban on single-use plastic bags known as SB 270.

According to the October 17, 2025, announcement, the defendants in both cases labeled their bags with the “chasing arrows” recycling symbol, made recyclability claims, and self-certified their products as recyclable.  However, when the attorney general’s office sent demand letters requiring that the producers substantiate their claims, they were allegedly unable to provide sufficient evidence.

“[D]espite the manufacturers’ claims and widespread consumer belief, these bags do not, in fact, appear to generally be recyclable, let alone ‘recyclable in the state,’ as SB 270 requires,” the announcement states.

California’s recycling authority, CalRecycle, has “released several reports indicating that the vast majority of plastic carryout bags in California are not being recycled in California,” the most recent complaint states.  Even plastic bags deposited in designated collection bins mostly “end up in landfills or incinerators or are shipped to other countries.”

In addition to violating SB 270, all defendants face alleged violations of California’s Environmental Marketing Claims Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law.  Some of the violations stem from alleged noncompliance with the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) Green Guides, which are incorporated into California law.

The settlement is subject to court approval.  A copy of the proposed final judgement can be found here.

Proposed 2026 MSGP: Is Your Facility Prepared for PFAS Stormwater Monitoring Requirements?

/in ,

EPA’s proposed 2026 Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) for stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity would require quarterly monitoring for PFAS—a significant expansion of federal stormwater compliance obligations that facilities should begin preparing for now.

The MSGP implements Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements across 29 industrial sectors.  EPA released the proposed permit in December 2024.  Once finalized, it will replace the current 2021 MSGP, which expires at the end of February 2026.

The MSGP applies only to areas where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority, including Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, the District of Columbia, most US territories, much of Indian country, and certain federal facilities.  In a webinar, EPA estimated that 2,000 facilities will be directly affected.  However, because many states model their stormwater NPDES permits after EPA, the MSGP is likely to influence stormwater requirements nationwide.

PFAS Monitoring Requirements

Under the proposed 2026 MSGP, operators in 23 industrial sectors would be required to conduct quarterly indicator monitoring for 40 PFAS compounds for the duration of the permit.  The list includes PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, PFBS, and HFPO-DA (commonly known as “GenX”)—the six PFAS subject to EPA’s April 2024 national drinking water standards.

Testing must be performed using EPA Method 1633, which uses liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry to identify and quantify individual PFAS analytes.  Importantly, the proposed PFAS monitoring is “report-only” and does not include benchmark thresholds or require follow-up actions at this stage.

An EPA fact sheet states that the agency will use the data “to conduct an initial quantitative assessment of the levels of PFAS in industrial stormwater, further identify industrial activities with the potential to discharge PFAS in stormwater, and inform future consideration of potential PFAS benchmark monitoring for sectors with the potential to discharge PFAS.”

Other proposed monitoring updates include new or revised benchmark monitoring parameters for pH, total suspended solids (TSS), chemical oxygen demand (COD), ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, and selected metals in specific industrial sectors.  EPA is also proposing a modified benchmark monitoring schedule, with quarterly monitoring required for the first three years of permit coverage or until twelve quarters of monitoring data are collected.

Timeline and Related Actions

EPA intends to issue the final 2026 MSGP before the 2021 MSGP expires on February 28, 2026.  Once the final permit is published, operators will need to submit new Notices of Intent (NOIs) for coverage under the new permit.

According to the Spring 2025 Unified Agenda, EPA is also advancing several related PFAS initiatives under the CWA and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA):

  • PFAS Monitoring in NPDES Applications: EPA plans to propose a rule in November 2025 to update several NPDES application forms to include PFAS monitoring and reporting requirements.
  • Effluent Guidelines for PFAS Manufacturers: EPA expects to propose revisions to the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards in January 2026, addressing PFAS discharges from facilities manufacturing PFAS.
  • Drinking Water Standards: EPA is also expected to delay compliance deadlines for its national drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS, and to rescind requirements for the other four PFAS included in the 2024 rule.

The comment period on the proposed 2026 MGSP closed on May 19, 2025.  More on the proposal can be found on EPA’s website.