The Trump administration’s second term has brought notable changes to environmental enforcement priorities at the Environmental Protection Agency. Recent data shows a shift in the mix of enforcement actions, with changes to both agency resources and enforcement philosophy that chemical manufacturers and other regulated industries should understand.
Enforcement Activity: A Mixed Picture
Recent enforcement data shows divergent trends across different types of actions:
Civil Judicial Cases Down: In the administration’s first six months, the Justice Department initiated 14 lawsuits for environmental violations, compared to 42 in Trump’s first term and varying numbers under previous administrations, as reported by USA Today. By eight months, DOJ had initiated 9 major civil cases on behalf of EPA, compared to 46 in the same timeframe under Biden and 53 during the equivalent period in Trump’s first term, according to the Washington Post.
Settlements have also decreased. Through the first eight months, Justice completed 28 environmental enforcement cases, compared with 81 under Biden and 80 in the first Trump administration during the same period.
Administrative Actions Stable: EPA maintains that administrative enforcement actions—which handle smaller offenses without court involvement—have remained steady or increased. The agency’s administrative case metrics match or exceed past presidencies, according to EPA statements. According to figures EPA provided to Inside EPA, the agency concluded 126 national-priority civil enforcement cases between January 20 and May 7, 2025, up from 97 cases over the same period in 2024.
Criminal Enforcement Claims: EPA asserts it has opened more environmental criminal cases in its first six months than the Biden administration. However, publicly available data does not yet confirm this—the most recent criminal cases in public databases date to 2023, making independent verification difficult at present.
Long-Term Context: Civil judicial cases have trended downward for over a decade. The Obama administration filed 102 lawsuits in the first six months of its first term in 2009, representing the peak of this enforcement metric. Every subsequent administration has seen declines, partly reflecting resource constraints across multiple administrations.
Staffing and Resource Changes
EPA and DOJ enforcement offices are undergoing significant personnel changes. EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance budget has decreased by approximately $200 million since 2011 (inflation-adjusted), with staffing reduced by over 500 employees across multiple administrations, USA Today reported. The current administration is pursuing a 23 percent staff reduction at EPA—approximately 4,000 positions.
The Department of Justice’s environmental enforcement section has also experienced staff reductions. Reports indicate the unit’s attorney count dropped from approximately 120 earlier in 2025 to an estimated 65-70 lawyers by mid-year.
The government shutdown in late 2025 temporarily furloughed approximately two-thirds of surveyed EPA enforcement staff, according to union data. These furloughs affected inspections and case work during the shutdown period.
Policy Changes and Enforcement Priorities
The administration has established new enforcement priorities through formal guidance:
Environmental Justice Considerations: A March 2025 EPA memo states that “environmental justice considerations shall no longer inform EPA’s enforcement and compliance assurance work.” The memo specifies that enforcers will not consider whether affected communities are overburdened or vulnerable when making enforcement decisions.
In a statement to USA Today, the EPA described this as promoting equal treatment, adding that the agency will “make sure that enforcement targets the worst pollution and threats to human health, wherever they occur.”
Energy Production: The March memo establishes that “enforcement and compliance assurance actions shall not shut down any stage of energy production (from exploration to distribution) or power generation absent an imminent and substantial threat to human health.”
Enforcement Philosophy: In its statement, EPA added that its current focus is on “efficiently resolving violations and achieving compliance as quickly as possible rather than pushing for broad injunctive relief that goes beyond what the law requires.” The agency also told the Washington Post that it is “focused on statutory obligations and Presidential priorities.”
EPA defends its approach by noting that “civil judicial complaints filed are not the best measure of law enforcement or compliance with environmental laws” and points to administrative and criminal metrics as better indicators of enforcement activity. The agency states: “A focus on quick return to compliance and addressing clear violations will increase efficiency and ensure that the Agency is accountable to the American people for every dollar spent.”
Targeted Regulatory Relief
The administration has pursued an aggressive deregulatory agenda through executive orders and agency actions. Key developments include:
- Air Quality Standards: EPA recently moved to roll back stricter particulate matter standards implemented under Biden, arguing the previous administration exceeded its authority without sufficient review. The Biden-era standard lowered acceptable soot levels from 12 to 9 micrograms per cubic meter—a change EPA projected would prevent up to 4,500 premature deaths by 2032.
- Water Protections: EPA released a proposal to dramatically narrow Clean Water Act protections, potentially stripping safeguards from between 38 and 70 million acres of wetlands and countless stream miles. The proposed rule would limit federal jurisdiction only to wetlands with surface water during the wet season that directly connect to continuously flowing water bodies.
- Industry-Specific Relief: President Trump has issued proclamations granting two-year regulatory exemptions to facilities deemed vital to national security, including coke oven operations, copper smelters, coal plants, and certain chemical manufacturers. These facilities can comply with pre-Biden standards during this relief period.
- TSCA Delays: EPA delayed the effective date of several Toxic Substances Control Act rules to March 2025, including the TCE risk management rule, providing additional time for regulatory review.
The FIFRA Exception
Notably, EPA enforcement under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) has remained robust—and even intensified. As discussed in a previous post, from February through July 2025, EPA opened 84 FIFRA administrative enforcement cases with civil penalties, compared to 59 during the same period in 2024. Several 2025 FIFRA settlements rank among the largest on record.
This aggressive FIFRA enforcement continues despite broader budget cuts and deregulatory initiatives, suggesting pesticide compliance remains a priority focus area. EPA has also implemented an Expedited Settlement Agreement pilot program for minor FIFRA violations, offering discounted, non-negotiable settlements to streamline enforcement.
Strategic Implications for Compliance
The current enforcement environment presents several considerations for regulated entities:
Civil Judicial Enforcement: With fewer civil lawsuits being filed, companies face reduced likelihood of federal court actions in the near term.
Administrative Enforcement Continues: EPA maintains that administrative enforcement remains active and reportedly exceeds previous levels. These actions should not be underestimated—administrative penalties can reach high six- and low seven-figure amounts. Additional costs include attorneys’ fees, consultant expenses, and implementation of corrective measures. For product-based programs like TSCA, violations can result in loss of market access, stop-sale orders, and significant business disruption.
Alternative Enforcement Mechanisms:
State Enforcement: State agencies have primary enforcement authority for many environmental programs. However, many states have also experienced budget and staffing constraints in recent years, creating variability in state-level enforcement capacity.
Citizen Suits: Environmental statutes authorize private parties to bring enforcement actions. Organizations like the Environmental Integrity Project have filed federal lawsuits against industrial facilities for air and water violations. These citizen suits can result in penalties and requirements to install pollution controls.
Recent citizen suit examples include actions against petroleum coke plants in Louisiana, the Shell plastics plant in Pennsylvania, and food processing facilities for Clean Water Act violations.
Practical Considerations
For TSCA-regulated manufacturers and other chemical industry clients:
Compliance Planning: Environmental statutes and regulations remain in effect. Violations occurring now remain subject to administrative enforcement, citizen suits, and future enforcement actions. For TSCA matters, violations risk market access restrictions.
FIFRA Enforcement: Pesticide and antimicrobial enforcement remains robust, with an uptick in enforcement compared to 2024.
Alternative Enforcement: State agencies and citizen suits continue as enforcement mechanisms. Recent citizen suits have targeted petroleum coke plants, chemical facilities, and food processors.
Regulatory Relief: The administration has provided targeted relief including two-year exemptions for certain industrial facilities and delays of TSCA rule effective dates. Companies should evaluate whether their operations qualify.
Recommended Actions: Monitor regulatory developments, maintain compliance programs, document compliance efforts, assess citizen suit exposure, and consult counsel before operational changes.
This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
EPA Enforcement Under Trump 2.0: What Regulated Industries Need to Know
/in Enforcement, EPA, FIFRA, TSCAThe Trump administration’s second term has brought notable changes to environmental enforcement priorities at the Environmental Protection Agency. Recent data shows a shift in the mix of enforcement actions, with changes to both agency resources and enforcement philosophy that chemical manufacturers and other regulated industries should understand.
Enforcement Activity: A Mixed Picture
Recent enforcement data shows divergent trends across different types of actions:
Civil Judicial Cases Down: In the administration’s first six months, the Justice Department initiated 14 lawsuits for environmental violations, compared to 42 in Trump’s first term and varying numbers under previous administrations, as reported by USA Today. By eight months, DOJ had initiated 9 major civil cases on behalf of EPA, compared to 46 in the same timeframe under Biden and 53 during the equivalent period in Trump’s first term, according to the Washington Post.
Settlements have also decreased. Through the first eight months, Justice completed 28 environmental enforcement cases, compared with 81 under Biden and 80 in the first Trump administration during the same period.
Administrative Actions Stable: EPA maintains that administrative enforcement actions—which handle smaller offenses without court involvement—have remained steady or increased. The agency’s administrative case metrics match or exceed past presidencies, according to EPA statements. According to figures EPA provided to Inside EPA, the agency concluded 126 national-priority civil enforcement cases between January 20 and May 7, 2025, up from 97 cases over the same period in 2024.
Criminal Enforcement Claims: EPA asserts it has opened more environmental criminal cases in its first six months than the Biden administration. However, publicly available data does not yet confirm this—the most recent criminal cases in public databases date to 2023, making independent verification difficult at present.
Long-Term Context: Civil judicial cases have trended downward for over a decade. The Obama administration filed 102 lawsuits in the first six months of its first term in 2009, representing the peak of this enforcement metric. Every subsequent administration has seen declines, partly reflecting resource constraints across multiple administrations.
Staffing and Resource Changes
EPA and DOJ enforcement offices are undergoing significant personnel changes. EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance budget has decreased by approximately $200 million since 2011 (inflation-adjusted), with staffing reduced by over 500 employees across multiple administrations, USA Today reported. The current administration is pursuing a 23 percent staff reduction at EPA—approximately 4,000 positions.
The Department of Justice’s environmental enforcement section has also experienced staff reductions. Reports indicate the unit’s attorney count dropped from approximately 120 earlier in 2025 to an estimated 65-70 lawyers by mid-year.
The government shutdown in late 2025 temporarily furloughed approximately two-thirds of surveyed EPA enforcement staff, according to union data. These furloughs affected inspections and case work during the shutdown period.
Policy Changes and Enforcement Priorities
The administration has established new enforcement priorities through formal guidance:
Environmental Justice Considerations: A March 2025 EPA memo states that “environmental justice considerations shall no longer inform EPA’s enforcement and compliance assurance work.” The memo specifies that enforcers will not consider whether affected communities are overburdened or vulnerable when making enforcement decisions.
In a statement to USA Today, the EPA described this as promoting equal treatment, adding that the agency will “make sure that enforcement targets the worst pollution and threats to human health, wherever they occur.”
Energy Production: The March memo establishes that “enforcement and compliance assurance actions shall not shut down any stage of energy production (from exploration to distribution) or power generation absent an imminent and substantial threat to human health.”
Enforcement Philosophy: In its statement, EPA added that its current focus is on “efficiently resolving violations and achieving compliance as quickly as possible rather than pushing for broad injunctive relief that goes beyond what the law requires.” The agency also told the Washington Post that it is “focused on statutory obligations and Presidential priorities.”
EPA defends its approach by noting that “civil judicial complaints filed are not the best measure of law enforcement or compliance with environmental laws” and points to administrative and criminal metrics as better indicators of enforcement activity. The agency states: “A focus on quick return to compliance and addressing clear violations will increase efficiency and ensure that the Agency is accountable to the American people for every dollar spent.”
Targeted Regulatory Relief
The administration has pursued an aggressive deregulatory agenda through executive orders and agency actions. Key developments include:
The FIFRA Exception
Notably, EPA enforcement under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) has remained robust—and even intensified. As discussed in a previous post, from February through July 2025, EPA opened 84 FIFRA administrative enforcement cases with civil penalties, compared to 59 during the same period in 2024. Several 2025 FIFRA settlements rank among the largest on record.
This aggressive FIFRA enforcement continues despite broader budget cuts and deregulatory initiatives, suggesting pesticide compliance remains a priority focus area. EPA has also implemented an Expedited Settlement Agreement pilot program for minor FIFRA violations, offering discounted, non-negotiable settlements to streamline enforcement.
Strategic Implications for Compliance
The current enforcement environment presents several considerations for regulated entities:
Civil Judicial Enforcement: With fewer civil lawsuits being filed, companies face reduced likelihood of federal court actions in the near term.
Administrative Enforcement Continues: EPA maintains that administrative enforcement remains active and reportedly exceeds previous levels. These actions should not be underestimated—administrative penalties can reach high six- and low seven-figure amounts. Additional costs include attorneys’ fees, consultant expenses, and implementation of corrective measures. For product-based programs like TSCA, violations can result in loss of market access, stop-sale orders, and significant business disruption.
Alternative Enforcement Mechanisms:
State Enforcement: State agencies have primary enforcement authority for many environmental programs. However, many states have also experienced budget and staffing constraints in recent years, creating variability in state-level enforcement capacity.
Citizen Suits: Environmental statutes authorize private parties to bring enforcement actions. Organizations like the Environmental Integrity Project have filed federal lawsuits against industrial facilities for air and water violations. These citizen suits can result in penalties and requirements to install pollution controls.
Recent citizen suit examples include actions against petroleum coke plants in Louisiana, the Shell plastics plant in Pennsylvania, and food processing facilities for Clean Water Act violations.
Practical Considerations
For TSCA-regulated manufacturers and other chemical industry clients:
Compliance Planning: Environmental statutes and regulations remain in effect. Violations occurring now remain subject to administrative enforcement, citizen suits, and future enforcement actions. For TSCA matters, violations risk market access restrictions.
FIFRA Enforcement: Pesticide and antimicrobial enforcement remains robust, with an uptick in enforcement compared to 2024.
Alternative Enforcement: State agencies and citizen suits continue as enforcement mechanisms. Recent citizen suits have targeted petroleum coke plants, chemical facilities, and food processors.
Regulatory Relief: The administration has provided targeted relief including two-year exemptions for certain industrial facilities and delays of TSCA rule effective dates. Companies should evaluate whether their operations qualify.
Recommended Actions: Monitor regulatory developments, maintain compliance programs, document compliance efforts, assess citizen suit exposure, and consult counsel before operational changes.
This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
EPA to Reconsider TSCA Section 8(d) Reporting Rule
/in Chemicals of Concern, EPA, TSCAOn November 24, 2025, EPA announced that it will reconsider a December 2024 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rule requiring manufacturers of sixteen chemical substances to submit unpublished health and safety information to the agency.
In the press release, EPA said that it “expects to consider additional exemptions for manufacturers required to report, a regulatory threshold for reporting, and a change to the duration of the lookback period for reporting.” However, “EPA is not considering changing the 16 chemicals named in the rule as part of this action.”
EPA also noted that it “anticipates taking appropriate action on the reporting deadline (May 22, 2026) associated with the current” rule.
On the same day, EPA asked the D.C. Circuit go continue holding a legal challenge to the rule in abeyance while the agency reconsiders the rule. The court granted EPA’s motion on November 25, 2025.
A list of the sixteen chemical substances listed by the rule can be found in a previous post.
Current Requirements
The rule, promulgated under TSCA section 8(d), requires manufacturers that manufactured (or proposed to manufacture) any of the listed substances during a ten-year lookback period to submit copies of health and safety studies in their possession. In addition, manufacturers currently manufacturing (or proposing to manufacture) any of the substances must submit lists of ongoing studies, initiated studies, studies that are known to the manufacturer but not in its possession, and studies previously submitted to a federal agency without confidentiality claims.
Studies previously submitted to EPA under TSCA are exempt. However, the rule does not exempt companies that imported one of the substances in an article, companies that manufactured one of the substances only as a byproduct or impurity, or include a de minimis threshold.
EPA initially set March 13, 2025, as the reporting deadline for most submissions, but later extended the deadline twice. The current reporting deadline is May 22, 2026.
More information on the rule can be found here.
EPA Releases Default Values Guide for TSCA New Chemical Risk Assessments
/in EPA, New Chemicals, Transparency, TSCAOn November 24, 2025, EPA released a guide listing common “default values” for environmental releases and worker exposures used by the agency in risk assessments of new chemical substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
What Are Default Values?
Default values are assumed engineering values used by EPA when chemical-specific information is unavailable. For example, the guide shows that EPA assumes that 3% of a new chemical substance remains in a 55-gallon drum as residue if the drum is emptied by pumping, while 0.6% remains if it is emptied by pouring.
“This initiative marks another step forward in the agency’s ongoing commitment to transparency by providing valuable information to stakeholders involved in the review of new chemicals,” an EPA press release states. “The publication of the default values is also expected to improve efficiency, reducing the likelihood that submissions need to be reworked or resubmitted.”
What’s Included
The guide includes default values used to model environmental releases the following situations:
The guide also includes default values used to model inhalation or dermal worker exposures from situations involving handling solids (e.g., raw materials or formulated products) or liquids containing the new chemical substance.
EPA provides two example situations demonstrating how the default values are applied to real-world scenarios, including how the assumptions change if submitters provide additional information.
In the press release, EPA said that it considers the guide to be an evolving document that may be updated in the future. The guide, and other guidance for new chemical submissions, can be found at EPA’s New Chemicals Division Reference Library.
Tyson Foods Drops “Net-Zero” and “Climate-Smart” Claims in Settlement
/in Green MarketingTyson Foods, Inc. will stop pledging to achieve “net-zero” climate emissions by 2050 and marketing “climate-smart” beef under a settlement agreement with the Environmental Working Group (EWG) filed in D.C. Superior Court on November 17, 2025.
Under the settlement, Tyson is barred from making similar claims for five years, unless a mutually agreed-upon third-party expert verifies that the claims can be substantiated. The agreement does not require Tyson to pay any financial penalties.
EWG’s Allegations
EWG alleged that Tyson’s claims were materially deceptive to increasingly eco-conscious consumers, asserting that Tyson has no plan or intention to achieve its net-zero or climate-smart commitments. Even if Tyson did have a plan, EWG argued that it would be impossible for the company to meet those goals.
“There is no proven or anticipated way to do so at Tyson’s current enormous scale of production, and the offsets required to zero out Tyson’s meat production emissions are both unfathomable and unavailable,” the complaint states.
According to EWG, Tyson made net-zero claims on its website and news releases since 2021, and climate-smart beef claims on its website and sustainability reports for over a year.
Tyson’s Response
Tyson moved to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction. In a memo supporting the motion, the company contended that its website cannot serve as grounds for jurisdiction and that its climate-smart beef products are not sold in DC.
“Taken to its logical end, Plaintiff’s theory would make this Court the regulator of general corporate speech of any company that makes products sold in D.C. and has a sustainability website,” the memo reads.
Tyson also argued that the company has taken meaningful action to support its net-zero ambitions, including calculating emissions data, launching pilot programs, and investing $42 million to promote the adoption of climate-smart policies.
The case is Environmental Working Group v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 2024-CAB-005935 (D.C. Super. Ct.), filed Sept. 18, 2024.
Massachusetts Introduces Comprehensive Children’s Product Chemicals Regulation Bill
/in Chemicals of Concern, PFAS, Right-to-Know, State PolicyOn November 10, 2025, a Massachusetts state senator introduced a bill that would create an extensive regulatory program to restrict the use of chemicals of concern—including PFAS—in children’s products sold in the state.
If enacted, SB 2660 would prohibit the use of intentionally added PFAS in children’s products above a total organic fluorine threshold set by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP). It would also allow MassDEP to screen chemicals, identify priority substances, and require their disclosure and eventual substitution in children’s products.
Children’s products are broadly defined as items “intended, made or marketed for use by children 12 years of age or under,” including toys, clothing, cosmetics, and jewelry, with specific exemptions (e.g., electronics and bicycles). The bill applies only to new products. SB 2660 adopts a familiar definition of PFAS: “any member of the class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.”
Regulatory Structure
SB 2660 would require that MassDEP create two primary public lists of chemicals:
The chemicals of concern list would include a broad set of chemicals that may pose hazards in children’s products. Listing would trigger manufacturer reporting.
The high priority chemicals list would be a narrower subset of chemicals of concern, elevated based on evidence of exposure or other regulatory triggers. Placement on this list would initiate stronger obligations, including substitution and, eventually, sale prohibitions.
Chemicals of Concern List & Requirements
A chemical may be placed on the chemicals of concern list if it is identified as:
Within 180 days of listing, and biennially thereafter, manufacturers of children’s products containing a chemical of concern above de minimis levels would be required to notify MassDEP. Notifications would be made available to the public, and would be required to include:
High Priority Chemicals List & Requirements
MassDEP would be allowed to elevate a chemical of concern to the high priority list if:
Manufacturers of children’s products containing a high priority chemical would be required to notify downstream sellers within 180 days of listing.
Within three years of listing, high priority chemicals would be required to be removed or substituted in children’s products that are (1) mouthable, (2) personal care products or cosmetics, or (3) intended for children under three.
Within five years, high priority chemicals would be prohibited in all children’s products unless preempted by federal law or if MassDEP determines that a ban would pose an unreasonable risk to public health, safety, or welfare.
Chemical Substitutions
SB 2660 also authorizes MassDEP to publish a safer alternatives list. Manufacturers would be freely allowed substitute high priority chemicals with listed safer alternatives.
If a manufacturer chooses a substitute not on the safer alternatives list, MassDEP approval would be required. Manufacturers would be required to explain how the product is less hazardous, and MassDEP may require submission of a hazard assessment.
Manufacturers may not replace a high priority chemical with a chemical of concern.
Exceptions and Extensions
SB 2660 includes several provisions to ease compliance:
Enforcement and Other Provisions
MassDEP would have authority to adopt rules, test children’s products, and impose civil penalties of $5,000 per violation (or up to $10,000 for repeat violations).
Every three years, MassDEP would be required to publish a report on toxic chemicals in children’s products, including reporting outcomes and policy recommendations.
* * *
Verdant Law closely monitors state-level chemical regulatory bills like SB 2660, including the rapidly expanding wave of PFAS-focused legislation. Our team is ready to help your company assess potential compliance obligations, stay ahead of emerging requirements, and prepare for potential impacts across product lines and supply chains.
EPA Outlines New AI Strategy and Governance Framework
/in AI, EPAEPA plans to accelerate the development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) throughout the agency’s operations, according to two documents released in October 2025.
The documents—an AI strategy and associated “compliance plan”—come in response to the Trump administration’s Executive Order 14179: Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence and a related memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
“EPA is investing in its overall architecture to deploy more robust AI tools. These investments include data fabric, cloud infrastructure, network infrastructure, and additional security, operational, financial, and post deployment monitoring tools,” the compliance plan states.
According to the AI strategy, EPA is investigating “Expanding a pilot into a coding-focused generative AI tool” for software development, “Procuring more American Generative AI tools,” and “Expanding Generative AI capabilities in its cloud vendors.”
Current AI projects include a machine learning model that predicts pollution exposure pathways, a model that assists with records scheduling, and a model to aid in facility inspections, according to the AI strategy. In addition, in May 2025, EPA introduced an internal generative AI chat tool for employee use.
Neither document discusses whether AI may be used to speed new chemical or pesticide reviews, though EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin noted that it was a possibility earlier this year.
AI Governance and Risk Management
To comply with OMB’s memo, EPA established a political-level AI Governance Board chaired by the Deputy Administrator, which will oversee and coordinate the responsible use of AI across the agency. The board is assisted by a subcommittee with “delegates from the many diverse offices across EPA,” the AI strategy states.
EPA says these governance structures will implement risk-mitigation controls for “high-impact” AI use cases. Additional risk-management efforts include employee training, development of a “Generative AI Rules of Behavior” guide, and ongoing monitoring and feedback cycles for AI systems.
The agency also emphasized its commitment to transparency, pointing to its practice of making code publicly available on platforms such as Data.gov and GitHub. According to the compliance plan, “EPA’s GitHub site is one of the more popular federal government GitHub repositories for staff development, collaboration, and code sharing.”
More on EPA’s active projects, and other AI use cases, can be found on EPA’s AI Use Case Inventory.
Connecticut PFAS in Products Notifications and Labeling Requirements Will Take Effect in 2026
/in PFAS, Right-to-Know, State PolicyManufacturers of many products containing intentionally added PFAS will soon be required to add PFAS labels and notify Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) before they can be made or sold in the state—some of the first such requirements in the country.
Connecticut’s PFAS in products legislation, codified at Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-903c, will also prohibit the use of intentionally added PFAS in these products beginning in 2028.
Like many other states, Connecticut broadly defines PFAS as “all members of the class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.” However, Connecticut’s legislation does not allow for exclusions for currently unavoidable uses, which is typically included in state-level PFAS legislation.
Labeling and Disclosure Requirements
Beginning January 1, 2026, PFAS disclosure requirements apply to outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions and “turnout” gear, which is used for firefighting. Outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions must be accompanied by a disclosure with the statement “Made with PFAS chemicals,” including for online listings. For turnout gear, sellers must provide written notice to the purchaser at the time of sale that indicates that the gear includes intentionally added PFAS and the reason for its addition.
Beginning July 1, 2026, products containing intentionally added PFAS in the following product categories must be labeled, using words or symbols approved by DEEP, to indicate that PFAS is present in the product:
DEEP has released a draft order that would approve the words “Contains PFAS” or “Made with PFAS” as acceptable label language. Labels must be durable and clearly visible prior to sale. Manufacturers are responsible for labeling unless a wholesaler or retailer agrees to assume that responsibility.
Unlike New Mexico’s PFAS labeling requirements, finalized by regulation last month and discussed in a previous post, Connecticut does not currently offer an option to comply by following another state’s labeling scheme.
Notification Requirements
Starting July 1, 2026, manufacturers may not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, or distribute in Connecticut any product containing intentionally added PFAS in the categories listed above unless they provide prior written notice to DEEP.
Each notification must include:
Manufacturers must update the notification whenever any information changes. They may also report by product category or type rather than for each individual product.
DEEP has released a draft notification form for manufacturers, available here.
Sales Prohibitions
Beginning January 1, 2028, Connecticut will prohibit the sale or distribution of products in the categories listed above—as well as outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions and turnout gear—if they contain intentionally added PFAS.
The only exception is for cosmetic products containing “unavoidable trace quantity of PFAS that is attributable to impurities of natural or synthetic ingredients, the manufacturing process, storage or migration from packaging.”
Onne prohibition is already in effect: fertilizers intended for land application or soil amendment that contain biosolids or wastewater sludge with PFAS may not be used or sold in Connecticut.
More on Connecticut’s actions to address PFAS in consumer products, food packaging, and food serviceware can be found on DEEP’s website.
Senate EPW Committee to Examine the Future of PFAS Cleanup and Disposal
/in EPA, News & Events, PFASOn November 19, 2025, at 10am, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) will hold a hearing to “Examine the Future of PFAS Cleanup and Disposal Policy.”
The hearing will include the following panelists:
Clean Harbors conducted a PFAS incineration study in 2024 in conjunction with EPA and the Defense Department (DOD). According to EPA, the incinerator’s tested PFAS destruction and removal efficiencies “ranged from 99.95 to 99.9999 percent.”
The study followed procedures outlined in EPA’s 2024 interim guidance on PFAS destruction and disposal, discussed in a previous post. EPA must update this guidance as necessary and at least every three years. The forthcoming hearing is likely to shape the direction of those updates.
Union Says EPA’s New Chemicals Rule Fails Transparency Mandate Under TSCA
/in EPA, New Chemicals, OSHA, Transparency, TSCAEPA’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 EPA, PFAS, TSCAAs 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:
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.