TSCA/FIFRA/TRI

TSCA Section 21 Petition Seeks Reconsideration Of 2024 Rule Regarding Procedures For Chemical Risk Evaluation: On May 15, 2025, the Center for Environmental Accountability (CEA) filed a petition under Section 21 of TSCA requesting that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reconsider the 2024 final rule regarding procedures for chemical risk evaluation under TSCA and initiate a rulemaking to amend certain provisions in 40 C.F.R. Part 702, subpart B. The petition states that EPA’s risk evaluation procedural regulations should:

• Provide additional definitions for key terms, offering increased transparency and clarity regarding methods and goals of the risk evaluation process;
• Bolster intra- and interagency collaboration throughout the risk evaluation process, including requirements that EPA document the outcome of those efforts;
• Confirm EPA’s authority to determine which conditions of use (COU) fall within the scope of a risk evaluation;
• Explain the criteria EPA may use in determining the COUs it expects to consider;
• Provide for a de minimis level below which EPA may exclude COUs from the scope of the risk evaluation;
• Explicitly require consideration of existing regulations administered by EPA and other agencies when determining exposure estimates for each COU for a chemical substance;
• Require that any assumptions, uncertainty factors, models, and/or screening approaches used in the risk evaluation reasonably reflect the COUs of the chemical substance in practice;
• Require EPA to make an unreasonable risk determination for each COU of a chemical substance assessed in a risk evaluation;
• Clarify when determinations regarding unreasonable risk or no unreasonable risk are considered final agency actions;
• Explicitly require peer review for all risk evaluations;
• Create a clear regulatory pathway for the development and submission of draft risk evaluations by requesting manufacturers and other interested persons; and
• Extend applicable comment periods and include opportunities for further extensions.

Chemical Coalition Withdraws TSCA Section 21 Petition Seeking Revisions To TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS Reporting Rule: As reported in our May 4, 2025, blog item, on May 2, 2025, a coalition of chemical companies petitioned EPA for an amendment of the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) rule requiring reporting for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The petitioners ask that EPA revise the reporting rule to exclude imported articles, research and development (R&D) materials, impurities, byproducts, non-isolated intermediates, and PFAS manufactured in quantities of less than 2,500 pounds (lb.). According to a May 22, 2025, letter from EPA, on May 16, 2025, the coalition withdrew its petition via e-mail to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and “EPA now considers this petition closed.” After the coalition submitted its petition, EPA published an interim final rule to postpone the data submission period to April 13, 2026, through October 13, 2026. 90 Fed. Reg. 20236. Small manufacturers reporting exclusively as article importers would have until April 13, 2027, to report. Comments on the interim final rule were due June 12, 2025. 

EPA Proposes To Extend Certain Compliance Deadlines To Ensure Lab Compliance With Final Methylene Chloride Risk Management Rule: On May 27, 2025, EPA proposed to extend certain compliance dates in the final risk management rule for methylene chloride under TSCA. 90 Fed. Reg. 22214. The proposed rule would extend the Workplace Chemical Protection Program (WCPP) compliance dates for non-federal laboratories by an additional 18 months to align with the dates allowed for federal laboratories and their contractors. If issued in final, the rule would extend the following compliance dates for non-federal laboratories: for initial monitoring from May 5, 2025, to November 9, 2026; for establishing regulated areas and ensuring compliance with the Existing Chemical Exposure Limit (ECEL) from August 1, 2025, to February 8, 2027; and for ensuring the methods of compliance as well as developing and implementing an exposure control plan from October 30, 2025, to May 10, 2027. Comments are due June 26, 2025.

DOD RFI Seeks Information On Certain Chemicals Undergoing TSCA Section 6 Risk Evaluation: On May 27, 2025, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) issued a request for information (RFI) to gather information to identify and assess critical applications for DOD and the defense industrial base (DIB) that necessitate the use of existing chemicals undergoing EPA’s TSCA Section 6 risk evaluation process. The RFI states that it will help the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment (OASD (EI&E)) Chemical and Material Risk Management Program (CMRMP) better understand the use of TSCA existing chemicals in products leading into the defense supply chain. The RFI is focused on receiving information related to the following existing chemicals:

• 1,3-Butadiene (Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number^® (CAS RN^®)106-99-0);
• 1,1-Dichloroethane (CAS RN 75-34-3);
• 1,2-Dichloroethane (CAS RN 107-06-2);
• Butyl benzyl phthalate (1,2-benzene-dicarboxylic acid, 1-butyl 2(phenylmethyl) ester) (BBP) (CAS RN 85-68-7);
• Dibutyl phthalate (1,2-benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- dibutyl ester) (DBP) (CAS RN 84-74-2);
• Dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP) (CAS RN 84-61-7);
• Di-ethylhexyl phthalate (1,2-benzene-dicarboxylic acid, 1,2-bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester) (DEHP) (CAS RN 117-81-7);
• Di-isobutyl phthalate (1,2-benzene-dicarboxylic acid, 1,2-bis-(2methylpropyl) ester) (DIBP) (CAS RN 84-69-5);
• Di-isodecyl phthalate (1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,2-diisodecyl ester) (DIDP) (CAS RNs 26761-40-0; 68515-49-1);
• Diisononyl phthalate (1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,2-diisononyl ester) (DINP) (CAS RNs 28553-12-0; 68515-48-0); and
• Octamethylcyclotetra-siloxane (D4) (CAS RN 556-67-2).

DOD seeks to understand better applications that require the use of these chemicals and the criticality of these chemicals for industry and supply. The RFI notes that DOD will continue to issue RFIs to consider additional TSCA chemicals. Responses are due June 20, 2025.

ACC Files TSCA Section 21 Petition Seeking Reconsideration Of TCE Risk Management Rule: On May 27, 2025, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) petitioned EPA under TSCA Section 21 for reconsideration of the final risk management rule for trichloroethylene (TCE). ACC requests that EPA reconsider and amend two provisions of the rule:

• Revise the byproduct exclusion in 40 C.F.R. Section 751.301(c) by removing the “site-limited” restriction that requires byproduct TCE to be reused as a “part of the same overall manufacturing process.” The petition states that this would allow facilities to continue reusing/processing byproduct TCE either at the same facility where the byproduct was generated or at another facility; and
• Delete the last sentence from the “regulatory threshold” provision in 40 C.F.R. Section 751.301(b), allowing facilities to continue discharging wastewater that contains TCE at less than 0.1 percent by weight pursuant to their valid, existing Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.

Draft Risk Evaluations Determine That DBP And DEHP Present Unreasonable Risks To Human Health And The Environment: On June 5, 2025, EPA announced the release of the draft TSCA risk evaluations for DBP and DEHP. 90 Fed. Reg. 23931. EPA states that it used the best available science to prepare the draft risk evaluations and to determine preliminarily, based on the weight of scientific evidence, that DBP and DEHP present unreasonable risk to health and the environment driven primarily by certain COUs analyzed in the draft evaluations. Comments on the draft risk evaluations are due August 4, 2025. The Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) will peer review the documents at a meeting on August 4-8, 2025. Comments submitted by July 21, 2025, will be considered by SACC during its peer review meeting. More information will be available in a forthcoming memorandum.

EPA Extends Deadline To Report Health And Safety Data For 16 Chemicals: EPA issued a final rule on June 9, 2025, that extends the reporting deadlines for a rule under TSCA Section 8(d) requiring manufacturers (including importers) of 16 chemicals to report data from unpublished health and safety studies to EPA. 90 Fed. Reg. 24228. EPA notes that these health and safety studies “will help inform EPA’s prioritization, risk evaluation, and risk management of chemicals under TSCA. ” The reporting deadline in EPA’s December 13, 2024, final rule was March 13, 2025. In March 2025, EPA extended the reporting deadline to June 11, 2025, for vinyl chloride and to September 9, 2025, for the other chemicals covered under the rule. The rule extends the reporting deadlines for all 16 chemicals to May 22, 2026. According to EPA, the extension will provide it additional time to prepare final guidance for companies on issues related to complying with the rule, including those related to templates required for submissions containing confidential business information. The chemicals subject to the TSCA Section 8(d) rule are:  

• Acetaldehyde;
• Acrylonitrile;
• 2-anilino-5-[(4-methylpentan-2-yl) amino]cyclohexa-2,5-diene-1,4-dione (6PPD-quinone);
• Benzenamine;
• Benzene;
• Bisphenol A (BPA);
• Ethylbenzene;
• Hydrogen fluoride;
• 4,4-Methylene bis(2-chloraniline) (MBOCA);
• N-(1,3-Dimethylbutyl)-N′-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine (6PPD);
• Naphthalene;
• Styrene;
• 4-tert-octylphenol(4-(1,1,3,3-Tetramethylbutyl)-phenol);
• Tribromomethane (bromoform);
• Triglycidyl isocyanurate; and
• Vinyl chloride.

More information on EPA’s December 2024 rule is available in our December 23, 2024, memorandum.

EPA Issues Final SNURs For Certain Chemicals: EPA issued final significant use rules (SNUR) on June 13, 2025, for certain chemical substances that were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMN) and are also subject to an Order issued by EPA pursuant to TSCA. 90 Fed. Reg. 24977. The SNURs require persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture (including import) or processing of any of these chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use in the SNUR. In addition, the manufacture or processing for the significant new use may not commence until EPA has conducted a review of the required notification; made an appropriate determination regarding that notification; and taken such actions as required by that determination. The final SNURs are effective August 12, 2025.

RCRA/CERCLA/CWA/CAA/PHMSA/SDWA

CEQ Withdraws NEPA Interim Guidance On Consideration Of Greenhouse Gas Emissions And Climate Change: On May 28, 2025, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) announced the withdrawal of its interim guidance entitled “National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change,” for which notice was published in the Federal Register on January 9, 2023. 90 Fed. Reg. 22472. According to CEQ, it has concluded that the interim guidance is inconsistent with the policy objectives in Executive Order (EO) 14154, Unleashing American Energy. The withdrawal was effective May 28, 2025.

PHMSA Seeks Stakeholder Feedback On Whether To Amend Or Repeal Hazardous Materials Rulemaking Procedures, Program Procedures, Or Regulations: On June 4, 2025, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit stakeholder feedback on whether to repeal or amend any requirements in the Hazardous Materials Rulemaking Procedures and Program Procedures or the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR), as well as any letters of interpretation, guidance documents, or other material, “to eliminate undue burdens on the identification, development, and use of domestic energy resources and to improve government efficiency.” 90 Fed. Reg. 23656. PHMSA states that it seeks stakeholder feedback regarding opportunities to identify widely used hazardous material special permits with established safety records for conversion into deregulatory provisions with broader applicability. PHMSA also seeks stakeholder feedback regarding opportunities to introduce efficiencies to its petitions process. Finally, PHMSA also solicits stakeholder feedback on whether to amend the HMR to require PHMSA to conduct periodic, mandatory regulatory reviews. Comments are due August 4, 2025. PHMSA notes that it will consider late-filed comments to the extent practicable.

FDA

FDA Advances Post-Market Chemical Review Program: On May 15, 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the launch of “a stronger, more systematic review process for food chemicals already on the market — especially those that concern consumers most.” Over the coming months, FDA will roll out the following key actions:

• A modernized, evidence-based prioritization scheme for reviewing existing chemicals. According to FDA, it will soon release a draft for public comment;
• A final, systematic post-market review process shaped by stakeholder input. More information on FDA’s 2024 Discussion Paper Development of an Enhanced Systematic Process for the FDA’s Post-Market Assessment of Chemicals in Food is available in our August 22, 2024, blog item; and
• An updated list of chemicals under review, including butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT); butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA); and azodicarbonamide (ADA). FDA states that it will also take steps to expedite its review of chemicals currently under review like phthalates, propylparaben, and titanium dioxide. FDA notes that it will continue to share information about the status of its work on its public website as part of its push for greater transparency.

FDA notes that until now, it has conducted post-market reviews “on a case-by-case basis, often in response to citizen petitions or new scientific evidence.” FDA states that the new framework “will be proactive, science-based, and built for long-term impact.”

NANOTECHNOLOGY

NASEM Releases Quadrennial Review Of NNI, Recommends Renewed And Expanded Infrastructure: On May 20, 2025, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) announced the release of a report entitled Quadrennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (2025): Securing U.S. Global Leadership Through Renewed and Expanded Infrastructure. Requested by Congress as part of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, the report focuses on the infrastructure of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). The Committee on the Quadrennial Review of the NNI “recommends a new focus on renewing and expanding the nanotechnology infrastructure, including instruments, facilities, and people, so that the intellectual capital of nanotechnology can be converted into economic, social, and national security gains for the United States.” More information is available in our May 23, 2025, blog item.

PUBLIC POLICY AND REGULATION

When States Step In: PFAS Policy Innovation Or Fragmentation?: While federal regulators continue to lay the groundwork for a comprehensive response, including through the PFAS Strategic Roadmap, states are increasingly positioning themselves as policy innovators in this space. The recent announcement that EPA will issue additional guidance and extend the compliance deadline for the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting rule underscores a broader dynamic: in the absence of fast-moving federal action that states perceive as comprehensive, states are setting the pace, even if their approaches do not always (or ever) mirror the federal approach to regulation and risk mitigation. While this federal delay, and retreat in other PFAS areas, is recent, states have not waited for federal action. Over the past few years, several states have increasingly framed PFAS regulation as a space for environmental leadership, and their regulatory approaches diverge significantly from federal approaches to PFAS regulation. 

Congress And The Feds — The Impact Of Nonperformance: Ponder the following existential question: Who does their job less effectively? Members of Congress or employees of federal agencies? Congress has not been able to reauthorize environmental statutes for years, with some (most) needing significant attention. Many of the “problems” often cited by critics of Agency behavior can be traced back to the fact that demands to fix current problems are being made of a program that does not quite fit the text of the authorizing statute. To address action demanded by state and federal legislative members, the bureaucracy has to rely on fitting the law they implement to often unforeseen problems that they now confront.

Many observers fear the fallout of the demise of the Chevron doctrine — concern that, without deference to agency interpretations, important problems may remain unaddressed (or worse, for some, resolution may fall to federal judges). But consistent with the court opinion, interpretations of legislative text is the domain of judges or, heaven forfend, the responsibility of Congress to define or refine clearly the extent and intent of the legislation.

The current result to fill effectively the legislative effort can be called “rubber-suiting” — stretching the colorable authority already granted to address a new problem not originally anticipated by the legislative authors. An example in the environmental space is the EPA authority to regulate biotechnology products: TSCA and FIFRA can reach (stretch) to cover most of the waterfront about regulatory issues identified needing regulation.

Over the past decades, Congress and different administrations have made intermittent attempts to craft a new, broad, and modern statute to coordinate and regulate government review and approval of biotechnology products. The current government allocation of responsibilities across agencies, reliant on authority legislated mostly long before biotechnology products were developed, is governed by policies first crafted during the Reagan and H.W. Bush Administrations.

Jurisdiction remains fragmented, relying on statutes drafted before modern methods of biotech engineering were even developed, and holes in the rubber-suit remain. In addition to the jurisdictional difficulties and holes, especially acute in the last decade or three, is the bitter partisanship besetting congressional deliberation. There are continued calls for “regular order,” but apparently little appetite for the same. “Regular order” would see legislation introduced, deliberated by the assigned subcommittee(s) and committee(s), moving to floor consideration in each chamber, and differences between House and Senate resolved by a conference committee. Such a schematic is about as currently relevant as having new members watch Jimmy Stewart’s Mr. Smith Goes to Washington as part of orientation.

Our April 2, 2025, blog post discussed how the call to reorganize EPA has been a long-standing idea to “reform” the Agency to better achieve its mission. Likewise, the point here is to suggest that Congress might benefit from a version of “doctor, heal thyself” should any serious attempt be made to make government work better, be more efficient, and give more meaning to the phrase “your tax dollars at work.” More information is available in our May 21, 2025, blog item.

Chemical Policy Crossroads: MAHA Report’s Assessment Calls For Reform Amid Deregulatory Trends: In response to President Trump’s February 13, 2025, EO 14212, “Establishing The President’s Make America Healthy Again Commission,” the White House issued part of what is being called “The MAHA Report” (with MAHA an acronym for Make America Healthy Again), entitled “Make Our Children Healthy Again: Assessment” (the Assessment), on May 22, 2025. Section One of the Assessment, “The Shift to Ultra-Processed Foods,” includes the Commission’s thoughts on the U.S. agricultural system, food additives, food industry regulation, and government food programs, while Section Two of the Assessment, “The Cumulative Load of Chemicals in our Environment,” includes its take on chemical exposures and pathways, corporate influence, and highlights some top concerns. The Assessment’s core messages add yet another element of business uncertainty that chemical stakeholders would be wise to note. For our thoughts on the Assessment, please read our June 2, 2025, blog. More information on the Assessment is also available in our June 11, 2025, blog item.

Big Beautiful Bill Means Big Cuts For Clean Energy Manufacturers: On March 20, 2025, House Republicans passed the “Big Beautiful Bill” (BBB) as part of H.R. 1, a sweeping legislative package that includes dramatic rollbacks of many of the clean energy tax credits established under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). While the bill has little chance of advancing in the Senate in its current form, its proposed cuts offer a window into shifting political priorities and could have significant implications for the U.S. clean energy manufacturing sector. Subtitle C of the bill, titled “Make America Win Again,” proposes to sunset, repeal, or restrict nearly every major clean energy tax credit under the IRA. Among those affected are credits for clean vehicle purchases (Section 25E), commercial clean vehicles (Section 45W), alternative refueling infrastructure (Section 30C), residential energy efficiency improvements (Sections 25C and 25D), new energy efficient homes (Section 45L), and advanced manufacturing (Section 45X).

For manufacturers, the most potentially damaging proposals are those that target the clean electricity production and investment credits under Sections 45Y and 48E, and the advanced manufacturing production credit under Section 45X. The bill would not only accelerate the phase-out dates for these credits but would also impose new restrictions on facilities and companies that receive any form of “material assistance” from so-called “prohibited foreign entities,” including entities with even minor Chinese ownership or influence. In addition to severing incentives for manufacturers with foreign ties, the BBB repeals the ability to transfer clean energy tax credits under IRA Section 6418 — a key tool for helping smaller developers and manufacturers monetize credits and attract financing.

Although the BBB is unlikely to become law in its current form, its provisions could resurface in future negotiations or budget bills. Industry participants should monitor legislative developments closely and consider how foreign ownership structures, supply chain dependencies, and tax credit planning may need to adapt to an evolving policy landscape. More information is available in our June 6, 2025, blog item.

Clearing Regulatory Roadblocks: How Smarter Implementation Can Help Supply Chain Modernization: On June 5, 2025, the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) of the U.S. Congress convened a hearing titled “Barriers to Supply Chain Modernization and Factor Productivity Enhancements.” Throughout the hearing, members and witnesses alike underscored the role of “regulatory friction” — especially in the form of fragmented and unpredictable requirements — as a key factor slowing investment in domestic manufacturing and threatening supply chain resilience. While EPA and TSCA were not named directly, the concerns raised map closely onto the compliance challenges companies face under TSCA Section 5 and Section 6 and related programs.

The JEC hearing makes clear that regulatory clarity and coordination are essential to rebuilding a productive and resilient industrial base. Even without mentioning TSCA by name, the hearing highlighted the very pressures companies face under EPA’s chemical management programs: unclear compliance standards, disconnected data requests, and prolonged uncertainty about new product approval despite considerable capital investment and unclear future legal obligations.

EPA has opportunities to reduce these pressures. Codifying frequently referenced guidance through notice-and-comment rulemaking, aligning reporting obligations across programs, and engaging earlier with agencies like DOD and the U.S. Department of Commerce could provide the predictability and coordination manufacturers need to invest confidently in modernization. To the extent of trying “new ideas” or probing varied regulatory options, a pilot program could reward those who might be willing to volunteer if such program participation provided an interim safe harbor of sought-after certainty while emerging rules and definitions are further clarified. More information on the issues discussed at the hearing is available in our June 13, 2025, blog item.

LEGISLATIVE

Bipartisan VET PFAS Act Would Support Veterans Exposed To PFAS: Representatives Mike Lawler (R-NY) and Josh Riley (D-NY) introduced the VET PFAS Act (H.R. 3639) on May 19, 2025. According to Lawler’s May 29, 2025, press release, the bipartisan legislation would ensure veterans and their families exposed to PFAS at military installations receive the health care and disability benefits they have earned through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The bill would:

• Designate PFAS exposure as a service-connected condition for affected veterans;
• Require the VA to provide health care and benefits for medical conditions associated with PFAS exposure; and
• Ensure military families have access to the care and support they need.

Bipartisan Plant Biostimulant Act Would Advance Agricultural Innovation: On May 22, 2025, Senators Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-KS) and Alex Padilla (D-CA) introduced the Plant Biostimulant Act (S. 1907) to establish a standardized process for approving the commercial use of plant biostimulants as alternatives to synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. Marshall’s May 30, 2025, press release states that plant biostimulants “have demonstrated potential in advancing sustainable practices, including carbon sequestration and water quality enhancement.” According to the press release, the bill would also support research into the benefits of these technologies for soil health.

Bipartisan Bill Would Streamline FDA Review Of Nonprescription Sunscreens: On June 3, 2025, the Co-Chairs of the Congressional Skin Cancer Caucus, Representatives John Joyce, M.D. (R-PA), Debbie Dingell (D-MI), Dave Joyce (R-OH), and Deborah Ross (D-NC), introduced the Supporting Accessible, Flexible, and Effective (SAFE) Sunscreen Standards Act (H.R. 3686) to streamline the FDA review process of the effectiveness and safety of new ingredients for nonprescription sunscreens. According to Dave Joyce’s June 4, 2025, press release, the bill would:

• Improve regulatory standards:

   

  • Directs FDA to establish clearer, more flexible standards for evaluating sunscreen ingredients;

     

  • Allows the use of real-world evidence, observational studies, and nontraditional scientific data to determine safety and effectiveness; and

     

  • Incorporates non-animal testing alternatives to align with modern research practices and ethical standards;

     

• Requires FDA to update its final administrative order on pending sunscreen ingredients to:

   

  • Consider historical data on ingredients already used safely in the United States;

     

  • Reinforce that sunscreen is a proven cancer prevention tool; and

     

  • Use the new evidence and testing standards established in the bill; and

     

• Increase transparency and reporting by requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to submit annual reports to Congress detailing:

   

  • Progress on implementing new standards;

     

  • How many applications were reviewed under the new process; and

     

  • FDA’s use of non-animal testing methods.

Bipartisan Legislation Would “Deliver Justice For PFAS-Impacted Families”: On June 5, 2025, Representatives Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-MI), Co-Chairs of the Congressional PFAS Task Force, introduced bipartisan legislation (H.R. 3761) to ensure greater transparency and accountability from DOD for communities impacted by widespread PFAS contamination. According to Fitzpatrick’s June 5, 2025, press release, the bill would establish a new high-level position at the Pentagon — Coordinator for PFAS-Impacted Defense Engagement — “to serve as a direct advocate for affected families, improve transparency, drive remediation, and ensure the government delivers answers, not delays.” The PFAS coordinator would be responsible for:

• Engaging directly with affected communities to address concerns, ensure accountability, and provide updates on remediation efforts;
• Streamlining communication between local stakeholders, advocacy organizations, and federal agencies; and
• Driving progress on cleanup efforts with transparency and urgency.

MISCELLANEOUS 

Petitions Filed To Add Chemicals To List Of Chemical Substances Subject To Superfund Excise Tax: On May 21, 2025, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced that petitions have been filed to add the following chemicals to the list of taxable substances:

• Ethylene propylene diene (EPDM) rubber (90 Fed. Reg. 21825): Petition filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation, an exporter of EPDM rubber;
• Neo decanoic acid (90 Fed. Reg. 21824): Petition filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation, an exporter of neo decanoic acid;
• Nonene (90 Fed. Reg. 21826): Petition filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation, an exporter of nonene;
• Tridecyl alcohol (90 Fed. Reg. 21824): Petition filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation, an exporter of tridecyl alcohol; and
• Tri-isononyl tri-mellitate (90 Fed. Reg. 21827): Petition filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation, an exporter of tri-isononyl tri-mellitate.

Comments on the petitions are due July 21, 2025.

Minnesota Extends Public Comment Period On Proposed PFAS Reporting Rule As Entities Voice Concerns About Compliance With Deadlines And Due Diligence Standards: On May 22, 2025, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) held a public hearing on its “Proposed Permanent Rules Relating to PFAS in Products; Reporting and Fees” (proposed rule). Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jim Mortenson facilitated the hearing, which had more than 100 participants in attendance. MPCA has made available online the PowerPoint document used for the hearing presentation, the hearing exhibits, and a transcript of the hearing. The pre-hearing public comment period for the proposed rule closed on May 21, 2025. Under Minnesota administrative procedure, comments must be accepted for five days following a hearing on a proposed rule, and the overseeing ALJ may extend the comment period by no more than 20 days. Following the close of comments and a brief rebuttal period, the presiding ALJ will issue a report on the proposed rule within 30 days, unless an extension is granted. The post-hearing comment period for the proposed rule has been extended until 4:30 p.m. (CDT) on June 23, 2025. A rebuttal period of five business days, lasting from the close of the public comment period until 4:30 p.m. (CDT) on June 30, 2025, will follow. Persons may respond to public comments during this rebuttal period, but they may not submit new comments. Any person who wishes to comment on the rule or provide rebuttal may do so via e-comments, mail, or fax. MPCA will not accept comments submitted via e-mail. Comments must be received by MPCA by the end of the respective periods, so persons planning to submit comments or rebuttals via mail should ensure comments are sent with enough time to reach MPCA by the cutoff. More information on the public hearing is available in our May 29, 2025, memorandum.

President Signs EO To Restore Gold Standard For Science, Calls For Reevaluation Of Biden Administration’s Scientific Integrity Policies: On May 27, 2025, President Trump signed an EO on “Restoring Gold Standard Science.” 90 Fed. Reg. 22601. The EO states that the Trump Administration “is committed to restoring a gold standard for science to ensure that federally funded research is transparent, rigorous, and impactful, and that Federal decisions are informed by the most credible, reliable, and impartial scientific evidence available.” The EO restores the scientific integrity policies of the first Trump Administration and “ensures that agencies practice data transparency, acknowledge relevant scientific uncertainties, are transparent about the assumptions and likelihood of scenarios used, approach scientific findings objectively, and communicate scientific data accurately.” The EO directs the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), in consultation with the heads of relevant agencies, to issue guidance within 30 days for agencies on implementing “Gold Standard Science” in the conduct and management of their respective scientific activities. The EO defines Gold Standard Science as science conducted in a manner that is reproducible; transparent; communicative of error and uncertainty; collaborative and interdisciplinary; skeptical of its findings and assumptions; structured for falsifiability of hypotheses; subject to unbiased peer review; accepting of negative results as positive outcomes; and without conflicts of interest. Once OSTP publishes the guidance, the EO directs each agency head to update promptly applicable agency policies governing the production and use of scientific information, including scientific integrity policies, to implement the OSTP Director’s guidance. Within 60 days of the publication of OSTP’s guidance, agency heads must report to the OSTP Director on the actions taken to implement Gold Standard Science at their agency. More information on restoring the Gold Standard for Science is available in our June 5, 2025, memorandum.

EPA Publishes FY 2026 Budget In Brief: On May 30, 2025, EPA published its FY 2026 Budget in Brief. President Trump requested $4.16 billion for EPA for fiscal year (FY) 2026, a 54 percent decrease from the FY 2025 enacted budget level. According to EPA, the budget request supports 12,856 full-time equivalents (FTE), a decrease of 1,274 FTEs from the 2025 level, aligning with the President’s goal of streamlining the federal workforce. EPA states that it “is focused on a back-to-basics approach that will lower the cost of living, remove unnecessary barriers for business and industry, empower states, and return the Agency to administering core statutory obligations as Congress intended.” EPA notes that it is currently developing the FY 2026-2030 EPA Strategic Plan and states that the FY 2026 Budget will advance the EPA Administrator’s five strategic pillars: Clean Air, Land, and Water for Every American; Restore American Energy Dominance; Engage in Permitting Reform, Cooperative Federalism, and Cross-Agency Partnership; Develop Artificial Intelligence (AI) Capabilities; and Protect American Auto Jobs.

NTP Updates Report On Carcinogens Handbook On Methods For Conducting Cancer Hazard Evaluations: On June 2, 2025, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) announced the availability of The Report on Carcinogens Handbook on Methods Conducting Cancer Hazard Evaluations. An update to the 2015 version, it provides methods for conducting a robust and transparent evaluation to determine whether a substance is a cancer hazard. The topics covered include: developing and planning the evaluation framework; human exposure data evaluation; human cancer studies evaluation; experimental animal cancer studies evaluation; disposition and toxicokinetic data evaluation; mechanistic data evaluation; and evidence integration and cancer hazard conclusion.

AMS Conducting Referendum To Determine Whether To Continue Regulations Regarding National Paper And Paper-Based Packaging Research And Promotion Program: On June 3, 2025, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) published a notice of referendum on the Paper and Paper-Based Packaging Promotion, Research and Information Order. 90 Fed. Reg. 23421. This document directs that a referendum be conducted among eligible domestic manufacturers and importers of paper and paper-based packaging to determine whether they favor continuance of AMS’s regulations regarding a national paper and paper-based packaging research and promotion program. AMS also announced an immediate moratorium on the collection of assessments under the program. The referendum will be conducted by express mail and electronic ballot from July 14, 2025, through July 25, 2025. Ballots delivered to AMS via express mail or electronic ballot must show proof of delivery by no later than 11:59 p.m. (EDT) on July 25, 2025. Eligible persons will receive a ballot through mail and may cast a ballot through express mail or electronic ballot. Each person who is an eligible domestic manufacturer or importer at the time of the referendum and during the representative period from January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024, shall be entitled to cast a ballot in the referendum.

WDOE Proposes To Regulate PFAS In Certain Consumer Products: The Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) issued a proposed rule on June 4, 2025, that would regulate PFAS in certain consumer products. Beginning January 1, 2027, the proposed rule would prohibit the intentional use of PFAS in:

• Apparel and accessories;
• Automotive washes; and
• Cleaning products.

Under the proposed rule, manufacturers would be required to report by January 31, 2027, intentionally added PFAS in the following products manufactured on or after January 1, 2026:

• Apparel for extreme and extended use;
• Footwear;
• Gear for recreation and travel;
• Automotive waxes;
• Cookware and kitchen supplies;
• Firefighting personal protective equipment (PPE);
• Floor waxes and polishes;
• Hard surface sealers; and
• Ski waxes.

Annual reports would be due thereafter. WDOE will hold online hearings on July 9 and July 10, 2025. Comments on the following draft documents are due July 20, 2025:

• Proposed rule: Includes draft restrictions and reporting requirements on intentionally added PFAS in 12 product categories. This rulemaking focuses on requirements related to PFAS in 12 new product categories;
• Preliminary Regulatory Analyses: Explains the potential costs and benefits of the proposed rule; and
• Draft State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Determination of Non-Significance and Environmental Checklist: Describes potential environmental benefits of the proposed rule.

WDOE will review comments, consider revisions to the proposed rule and other rulemaking documents, and respond to comments. WDOE states that it expects to decide on rule adoption in November 2025.

ACGIH Updates Documentation; Second Comment Period Will Begin July 1, 2025: The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH^®) announced on June 12, 2025, that the first half of the Threshold Limit Value (TLV^®) Development Process for 2025 has ended. Updated documentation is now available on ACGIH’s website through Data Hub and for purchase as PDFs in ACGIH’s Publications Store. ACGIH has posted the updated list of Notices of Intended Changes (NIC) and adopted substances. ACGIH notes that the second comment period will open July 1, 2025. ACGIH encourages further comment for the second half of the year. Comments are due September 30, 2025, with ratification occurring in November 2025, and updates in December 2025.

CPSC Publishes RFI On Reducing Regulatory Burdens: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) published an RFI on June 12, 2025, seeking public comment on opportunities for CPSC to reduce burdens and costs of its existing rules, regulations, or practices without impacting safety. 90 Fed. Reg. 24791. According to CPSC, “[r]egulations and other practices that do not reasonably advance safety, but instead promote unscientific ideological agendas, create unnecessary burdens and costs, restrict consumer choice, or reduce competition, entrepreneurship, and innovation — and thereby restrain the American economy — should generally be eliminated or modified.” Comments are due August 11, 2025.

President’s FY 2026 Budget Requests Would Eliminate CSB, Reorganize CPSC: President Trump’s FY 2026 budget request for the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) states that the President’s budget proposes to eliminate funding for CSB as part of the Trump Administration’s plans “to move the Nation towards fiscal responsibility and to redefine the proper role of the Federal Government.” The President’s budget request proposes $0 for CSB in FY 2026 with the expectation that CSB begin closing down during FY 2025. CSB’s emergency fund of $844,145 will be appropriated to cover costs associated with closing down the agency.

President Trump’s FY 2026 budget request for CPSC proposes to reorganize and transfer the functions of CPSC to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of the Secretary as the Assistant Secretary for Consumer Product Safety (ASCPS). The budget request states that “[u]ntil the enactment of authorizing legislation to reorganize, the CPSC will continue to carry out its mission to protect the public from unreasonable risks of injury from consumer products as a standalone agency.” Under the budget request, the ASCPS would receive $135 million, $15.975 million below the FY 2025 enacted budget, to support 459 FTEs and operational costs, a reduction of 75 FTEs from the FY 2025 enacted budget. More information is available in our June 5, 2025, blog item.