Company Sues EPA to Block Disclosure of Chemical Identities Under TSCA

/in , ,

A silicates manufacturer is suing EPA to prevent the disclosure of its confidential business information (CBI) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), in what at least one source claims may be a case of first impression under the law.

At issue are the chemical identities of two substances that Burgess Pigment Co. initially failed to substantiate as CBI following the 2016 Lautenberg Amendments to TSCA, which introduced new requirements for companies that seek trade secret protection in their submissions to EPA.

Burgess claims it submitted adequate substantiation once it discovered its oversight, maintained its CBI claim in subsequent filings, and has stayed in “constant contact” with EPA.  According to the complaint, if EPA discloses the chemical identities anyway, it would violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

“EPA’s unreasonable adherence to form over function caused it to fail to adhere to its regulations requiring nondisclosure of properly substantiated CBI and is otherwise arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law,” the complaint states.

According to the complaint, Burgess was one of many companies that failed to respond to the 2017 rule implementing the new CBI requirements.  In 2021, EPA released a rule to reopen the reporting period, but it was never published in the Federal Register.

The case is Burgess Pigment Co. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 5:25-cv-00309 (M.D. Ga.), filed 7/18/25.

California Releases Preliminary List of Companies Covered by New Climate Disclosure Laws

/in ,

On September 24, 2025, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released a preliminary list of covered entities under two new California climate disclosure laws that will require thousands of companies to report, with initial reporting deadlines beginning in 2026.

California’s SB 261 and SB 253, enacted in 2023, apply to companies formed under U.S. law that do business in California and have total annual revenues above certain thresholds:

  • SB 261 ($500 million threshold): Requires biennial disclosure of climate-related financial risk beginning January 1, 2026.
  • SB 253 ($1 billion threshold): Requires annual disclosure of scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions for the prior fiscal year beginning in 2026, and scope 3 emissions beginning in 2027. CARB has proposed a June 30, 2026, deadline for the first submission.

For each company, the preliminary list indicates whether reporting is required under both laws or only under SB 261.

SB 261 Reporting Guidance

The preliminary list follows CARB’s September 2 release of draft guidance on compliance with SB 261, which clarifies what information covered entities must include in their biennial reports.

Under the draft guidance, covered entities can choose between three reporting frameworks to meet disclosure requirements for four different areas: governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets.  For each reporting area, the draft guidance outlines minimum disclosure requirements.

The draft guidance acknowledges that disclosures “will vary depending on the company, the discretion of the preparers, and the chosen reporting framework.”  CARB also states that a “guiding principle in preparation of these reports should be meeting the needs of the users of the biennial reports,” such as “investors and other stakeholders.”

Notably, CARB is not currently requiring disclosure of scope 1, 2, or 3 emissions for the initial reporting period.  In addition, companies may submit disclosures based on either calendar year or fiscal year data for their first biennial report.

Trump Administration Proposes Overhaul of Biden-Era TSCA Risk Evaluation Framework

/in , ,

On September 23, 2025, EPA published a proposed rule that would roll back key provisions of the agency’s May 2024 risk evaluation framework rule, which sets out the procedures EPA uses to assess the risks of existing chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

According to EPA, the proposal is intended to “effectuate the best reading of the statute and ensure that the procedural framework rule does not impede the timely completion of risk evaluations or impair the effective and efficient protection of health and the environment.”

The rollback is a priority for the Trump administration, which first announced its intent to reconsider the rulemaking in March.  The 2024 rule—itself a revision of a rule issued during the first Trump administration—has been criticized by industry groups such as the American Chemistry Council and targeted for revision by the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” initiative.

What Changes is EPA Proposing?

If finalized, the rule would:

  • Grant EPA discretion to narrow the scope of risk evaluations by excluding conditions of use and exposure pathways from its assessments.
  • Require that separate risk determinations be made for each of a chemical’s conditions of use, instead of a single risk determination for the chemical as a whole.
  • Remove language prohibiting EPA from assuming worker protections through PPE usage.
  • Eliminate “overburdened communities” from the list of “potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations” that must be considered in evaluations.
  • Provide EPA with greater flexibility to revise or supplement scope or risk evaluation documents without restarting the prioritization process.
  • Scale back information collection requirements for manufacturers requesting a risk evaluation.
Stakeholder Responses

The proposal has drawn criticism from environmental groups, who warn that the changes—particularly EPA’s ability to exclude conditions of use and exposure pathways—will jeopardize public health.

“Rather than looking at the full picture of a chemical’s toxic risk, EPA wants to downplay the links these chemicals have to cancer and chronic disease and give the chemical industry a handout at the expense of our health and safety,” an Environmental Defense Fund official said in a statement.

“The chemicals in the pipeline for review under TSCA have been prioritized specifically because of the risks they pose to our health, and rewriting this process to lowball risks will only rig the rules to benefit the chemical industry,” she continued.

The American Chemistry Council, on the other hand, applauded the move.  “This proposed approach demonstrates EPA’s commitment to refining its processes in a way that is both protective and practical,” an official said in a press release.  “The proposal reflects meaningful progress toward a more science-driven regulatory framework for conducting TSCA risk evaluations.”

Comments on the proposed rule are due November 7, 2025.  More on the 2024 rule can be found here.

EPA Stands by CERCLA PFAS Designation Amid Legal Challenge

/in , ,

EPA under the Trump administration will defend a rule issued by the Biden administration designating two PFAS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the agency told the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on September 17, 2025.

“EPA has completed its review and has decided to keep the Rule in place,” the agency wrote in a court filing.

The case, Chamber of Commerce of the USA v. EPA, No. 24-1193, consolidates challenges to the May 2024 rule.  It has been held in abeyance since February at EPA’s request while the Trump administration determined how to proceed.

EPA’s decision to defend the rule is somewhat unexpected.  Last month, the New York Times reported that internal EPA documents recommended its repeal, stating that its “cons outweigh pros.”

Key Impacts of the CERCLA Designation

The rule has significant consequences for EPA’s ability to respond to contamination and assign cleanup responsibility for PFOA and PFOS, the two PFAS covered by the designation.

“Designating PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances eliminates barriers to timely cleanup of contaminated sites, enables EPA to shift responsibility for cleaning up certain sites from the Fund to [potentially responsible parties (PRPs)], and allows EPA to compel PRPs to address additional contaminated sites,” the rule states.

Due to the designation, entities that release PFOA and PFOS above reportable quantities must notify authorities.  When releases occur, EPA (and other agencies) can more quickly respond, because they no longer need to first determine that the release “may present an imminent and substantial danger.”

Crucially, the designation also allows EPA to compel PRPs to take action in response to significant PFOS or PFOA contamination—often at their own expense.

The rule justifies listing PFOA and PFOS based on their health hazards, persistence and mobility in the environment, and bioaccumulation in humans and other organisms.  EPA also conducted a “totality of the circumstances” analysis, which weighed the pros and cons of their designation.

More on EPA’s PFAS and CERCLA actions can be found on our CERCLA archive.

Prop 65 Warning for Titanium Dioxide Struck Down

/in ,

California’s Proposition 65 warning requirement for respirable titanium dioxide violates the First Amendment, the District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled on August 12, 2025, in The Personal Care Products Council v. Bonta, No. 2:23-cv-01006.

The decision is the latest in a series of rulings invalidating Prop 65 warnings for chemicals with disputed health risks. In 2023, the Ninth Circuit struck down a warning requirement for glyphosate, and in early 2025, the Eastern District of California invalidated a warning requirement for dietary acrylamide.  Blog posts on those cases can be found here and here.

The titanium dioxide order follows the same analytical framework. First, the court held that the warning failed the test set forth in Zauderer v. Office of Disc. Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), which allows for compelled commercial disclosures when they are “purely factual and uncontroversial.”

“[T]he parties admit that there is a clear debate over whether Listed Titanium Dioxide cases cancer in humans,” the order states.  “The Court finds the Prop 65 warning would likely improperly elevate ‘one side of a legitimately unresolved scientific debate.’”

As in the glyphosate and acrylamide cases, the court focused on how an average consumer would perceive the warning, not just whether each sentence was literally accurate.  “Even though each sentence on its own may be factually true, ‘the totality of the warning’ is nonetheless misleading,” the order states.

Second, the court found that the warning failed intermediate scrutiny under Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) and was therefore unconstitutional.  The court concluded that the warning does not advance California’s interest in public health because titanium dioxide’s risks are not confirmed, and the state has less burdensome alternatives—such as making information available online.

Titanium dioxide is commonly used as a whitening pigment in cosmetic and personal care products. Its Prop 65 listing applies only to “airborne, unbound particles of respirable size.”

New Mexico to Hold Webinar on PFAS Labeling on September 25

/in ,

On September 25, 2025, the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) will hold an informational webinar on product labelling requirements for PFAS at 1pm MT (3pm ET).  To register, email NMED-PFAS@env.nm.gov.

Under HB212, enacted in April 2025, NMED is authorized to adopt rules requiring that manufacturers label products containing PFAS.  Earlier this month, New Mexico’s Environmental Secretary reportedly told lawmakers that NMED would soon release draft regulations to implement HB 212, including labeling requirements.

PFAS Restrictions and Reporting Under HB 212
  • Labeling authority: NMED may require PFAS labeling.
  • Phased bans: Restrictions on intentionally added PFAS begin in 2027, expand to more product types in 2028, and culminate in a ban on most products in 2032. Exemptions apply for certain products, such as medical devices, and for uses designated by NMED as “currently unavoidable.”
  • Reporting requirement: By January 1, 2027, manufacturers must report information on intentionally added PFAS, including purpose of use and amount (by CASRN).

More details are available on NMED’s PFAS webpage.

California Legislature Moves to Ban PFAS in Many Consumer Products

/in , ,

On September 12, 2025, California’s Assembly and Senate approved SB 682, a bill imposing sweeping prohibitions on the use of intentionally added PFAS in a wide range of consumer products.  The legislation now heads to Governor Gavin Newsom for consideration.

As reported in a previous post, SB 682 would prohibit the distribution, sale, or offering for sale of cleaning products, dental floss, juvenile products, food packaging, and ski wax with intentionally added PFAS starting in 2028, and cookware beginning in 2030.

Since that earlier update, lawmakers amended the bill to exempt certain components of cleaning products until 2031.  The final version also clarifies that, beginning in 2028, cleaning products must comply with California Air Resources Board volatile organic compound (VOC) regulations without reliance on regulatory variances.

Governor Newsom has until October 12, 2025, to act on the bill.

EPA to Fast-Track Chemical Reviews for AI and Data Center Projects

/in , , ,

EPA will prioritize review of premanufacture notices (PMNs) for chemicals tied to artificial intelligence (AI) and data center projects, the agency announced on September 18, 2025.

“We inherited a massive backlog of new chemical reviews from the Biden Administration which is getting in the way of projects as it pertains to data center and artificial intelligence projects,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said.  “The Trump EPA wants to get out of the way and help speed up progress on these critical developments, as opposed to gumming up the works.”

The policy implements President Trump’s Executive Order 14318, “Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure,” which directs the agency to expedite permitting for qualifying projects under a variety of environmental statutes, including the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

What Projects are Eligible?

Two types of projects can qualify for expedited review:

  1. Data center projects requiring more than 100 megawatts (MW) of new load dedicated to AI inference, training, simulation, or synthetic data generation.
  2. Covered component projects, which include the materials, products, and infrastructure needed to build or operate such facilities—such as energy infrastructure, power plants, semiconductors, networking equipment, and data storage systems or software.

To be eligible, a project must also meet at least one of the following criteria:

  • A commitment of $500 million or more in capital expenditures.
  • An incremental electric load addition of more than 100 MW.
  • Direct relevance to national security.
  • Official designation as a qualifying project by a federal department.
How to Request Priority Review

According to updated EPA guidance, the new priority review process will take effect on September 29, 2025. To request it, PMN submitters must:

  • Attach a cover letter to their PMN submission via EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX).
  • Identify the specific data center or covered-component project the chemical will support.
  • Show that the project meets at least one of the executive order’s qualifying criteria.
  • Provide supporting documentation, such as permitting records, project announcements, or letters of support, plus details on how the chemical will be used.

EPA has posted detailed instructions for companies seeking priority review on its PMN guidance webpage.

Verdant Law to Lead ACA Webinar on FTC’s “Made in the USA” Enforcement

/in , ,

Verdant Law is pleased to announce that Phil Moffat and Irene Hantman will lead an American Coatings Association (ACA) webinar on the FTC’s renewed focus on “Made in the USA” claims.  The session will be held on September 25, 2025, from 1–2pm ET.

Although the current Trump administration has generally adopted a deregulatory stance, “Made in the USA” claims have been a notable exception.  This past July, the FTC declared “Made in the USA Month” and announced stepped-up enforcement, including warning letters to major retailers such as Amazon and Walmart.

This webinar will provide insight to help attendees align marketing strategies with legal standards, avoid enforcement risks, and ensure “Made in the USA” claims are both effective and compliant.

Attendance is limited to, but free for, ACA members.  Register here.

Coalition Letter to Congress Calls for Streamlined TSCA Chemical Reviews

/in ,

A collection of over 100 trade associations is calling on Congress to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to “ensure a regulatory system that balances human health and environmental concerns with domestic supply chain and innovation needs and supports growth in our manufacturing sector.”

The American Alliance for Innovation (AAI) letter, sent to congressional leaders on September 8, 2025, suggests a number of “improvements and clarifications” to the statute, including:

  • Ensuring timely and predictable reviews of new chemicals;
  • Avoiding unnecessary regulation, including overuse of Consent Orders (COs) and Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) that discourage adoption of innovative and sustainable chemicals;
  • Following a risk-based approach to regulating a chemical’s intended use in commerce that is rooted in actual uses and real-world scenarios;
  • Strengthening the scientific standards included in TSCA for what constitutes “the weight of the scientific evidence;” and,
  • Providing additional clarity to other sections of TSCA that govern testing, regulatory petitions, and data sharing.

AAI suggests that these changes be incorporated into any legislation to extend TSCA’s fee authority, which expires at the end of fiscal year 2026.