The Chemical Compound — Quarter 1 2026

This edition of our quarterly newsletter on chemical regulatory developments provides updates on litigation, regulatory, legislative, and policy developments of importance to our clients. The newsletter focuses on actions affecting chemical substances that are the subject of ongoing regulatory activity or scrutiny by federal, state, and international authorities, as well as developments in related litigation. These include, among others, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and other chemicals of concern to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA pesticide actions under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as well as emerging regulatory frameworks in the United States and abroad. Check here each quarter for a curated presentation of the most important developments affecting chemical manufacturers, importers, processors, and users.

Table of Contents

• Federal Legislative Updates
• Federal Regulatory Updates
• Federal Litigation Updates
• State Regulatory Updates
• International Developments

Federal Legislative Updates

Congress Considers TSCA Reform (Again)

In the first quarter of 2026, both the House Energy and Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Environment and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee published discussion drafts of legislation to extend EPA’s authorization to collect fees under TSCA as well as make substantive changes to TSCA. Absent legislation to extend EPA’s fee authority, it will expire on September 30, 2026. The House discussion draft was released on January 15, 2026, and a hearing on the discussion draft was held on January 22. The Senate discussion draft was released on February 26 and a hearing on the discussion draft was held on March 4.

While the discussion drafts differ significantly in scope and content, they would both make significant changes to TSCA section 5, which governs EPA’s review of new chemical substances and significant new uses of chemical substances. For example, both bills provide for accelerated review of certain categories of chemical substances, including substances eligible for inclusion in the Safer Choice program, and limit suspensions of review periods for TSCA section 5 notices.

The House discussion draft would also allow for the use of significant new use rules (SNURs) in lieu of TSCA section 5 orders. With respect to other sections of TSCA, among other changes, the House discussion draft would replace the requirement under TSCA section 6(a) that EPA regulate chemical substances “to the extent necessary” so that they no longer present unreasonable risk with a requirement that EPA regulate “in order to minimize, to the extent reasonably feasible,” unreasonable risk, would allow for judicial review of unreasonable risk determinations under TSCA section 6 upon completion of the relevant risk evaluation, and would alter the action that may be sought through a petition under TSCA section 21. The Senate discussion draft would codify with modifications the low volume and low release and exposure regulatory exemptions from the requirements of TSCA section 5, would create a new “stewardship authorization pathway” to allow for the accelerated commercialization of new chemical substances under certain conditions, and would also alter the action that may be sought through a petition under TSCA section 21 and the standard to be applied by EPA when considering whether to grant such a petition.

Both discussion drafts were developed by the Republican majorities on the respective committees, and Democrats expressed numerous concerns about the drafts during the hearings in the House Subcommittee on the Environment and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Therefore, the prospects of true TSCA reform during the current Congress are unclear. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement on substantive revisions to TSCA prior to the expiration of EPA’s fee authority, it is possible that Congress may opt for a clean extension of this authority.

Democrats Reintroduce Broad PFAS Ban Legislation

Senator Durbin (D-IL) and Representative McCullom (D-MN-04) have introduced legislation that, among other provisions, would ban certain uses of PFAS — such as in carpets, textiles, and food packaging — as soon as one year after enactment and would ultimately require the phase out of all non-essential uses of PFAS within 10 years. The legislation would also prohibit releases of PFAS above detectable levels within 10 years and require EPA to establish a federal PFAS reporting requirement. Senator Durbin and Representative McCullom introduced similar legislation in the 118th Congress, but it never progressed out of the relevant Senate and House Committees. Our March 2026 blog post discusses this legislation in greater detail.

Federal Regulatory Updates

General

EPA Announces PFAS Coordinating Group

On February 6, EPA announced the establishment of a PFAS “coordinating group” as part of a broader update on PFAS-related actions during the first year of the second Trump Administration. Per the announcement, this coordinating group will be supported by leadership from the Office of the Administrator and the Office of Water and “represent senior technical and policy leaders from across EPA program offices and regions.”

According to EPA, the coordinating group is intended to “ensure the continued sharing of research, innovation, and actions to accelerate the cleanup of PFAS contamination and protect human health and the environment.” EPA also stated in this announcement that it will “further” PFAS-related actions under TSCA, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act. However, EPA did not provide any specifics about these future regulatory actions or when it intends to take such actions.

EPA Reaffirms Animal Testing Phase-Out Commitment

EPA announced a renewed commitment to phasing out mammalian testing by 2035, consistent with its obligations under TSCA Section 4(h) to “reduce and replace” the use of vertebrate animals in TSCA testing. Concurrently with that announcement, EPA’s New Chemicals Program released a “Decision Framework for Hazard Identification of Skin Irritation and Corrosion.” The framework describes the New Chemicals Program’s commitment to prioritizing New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) in the development of skin irritation and corrosion hazard data for TSCA Section 5 new chemicals submissions.

The guidance states that the New Chemicals Program will prioritize data in the following order: (1) data from “human cell-based tissue model NAMs” demonstrated to be “reproducible” and “relevant to skin irritation/corrosion”; (2) data from “other skin irritation/corrosion NAMs” demonstrated to be “reproducible” and providing information on “mechanisms of toxicity relevant to skin irritation/corrosion” and (3) data from in vivo tests. EPA indicated that it will continue to expand the use of NAMs across its chemical evaluation programs while maintaining compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, and noted that some animal testing may still be required in certain circumstances.

TSCA

EPA Provides Update on Expiring TSCA Confidentiality Claims

On January 5, EPA announced the process it intends to use to address expiring confidential business information (CBI) claims under TSCA. Under TSCA, most CBI claims expire ten years after submission, and the first claims submitted following the 2016 Lautenberg Act amendments are scheduled to expire beginning in June 2026.

EPA indicated that it will notify submitters of expiring claims by posting a list of affected submissions on its TSCA CBI website and by sending direct notifications through the Central Data Exchange (CDX) platform. Companies seeking to maintain confidentiality of information must submit substantiated extension requests electronically through CDX at least 30 days prior to the expiration date. EPA also stated that it will review extension requests and either grant or deny continued protection; if no timely request is submitted, EPA may disclose the information without further notice.

The announcement provides initial implementation details for TSCA’s CBI “sunset” provisions and signals the start of a recurring review process for confidentiality claims. Companies with TSCA submissions should evaluate whether existing claims remain necessary and ensure that systems are in place to monitor EPA notices and submit timely extension requests to avoid potential public disclosure of previously protected information.¹

EPA Releases Final Risk Evaluations for 1,3-Butadiene and 5 Phthalates

1,3-Butadiene. On December 31, 2025, EPA announced the availability of its final risk evaluation for 1,3-butadiene under TSCA Section 6. 1,3-butadiene is a gas used in the manufacture of products including tires, adhesives, sealants, and paints and coatings. EPA determined that 1,3-butadiene presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health under certain conditions of use, based on the weight of scientific evidence. Specifically, EPA found that the identified risks are driven by workplace inhalation exposures under 11 industrial conditions of use, including manufacturing, processing, and disposal activities. EPA did not identify unreasonable risk to consumers, the general population, or the environment. EPA’s next step with respect to 1,3-butadiene is the development of a proposed risk management rule under TSCA section 6(a).

5 Phthalates. On January 6, EPA announced the release of the final risk evaluations for five phthalates: (1) butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP); (2) dibutyl phthalate (DBP); (3) dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP); (4) di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP); and (5) diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP). These substances are used as plasticizers, as well as in other applications such as adhesives, sealants, paints, and coatings. EPA’s risk evaluations identified unreasonable risk to workers from all 5 phthalates and unreasonable risk to the environment from BBP, DBP, DEHP, and DIBP. EPA did not identify unreasonable risk to consumers or to the general population from any of these 5 phthalates, and also concluded that cumulative exposure to these phthalates does not contribute to unreasonable risk. Under TSCA section 6, EPA is now required to propose rules to mitigate the unreasonable risks it identified from these 5 phthalates.

EPA Proposes Compliance Date Extensions for TSCA Section 6(a) Rules for Perchloroethylene, Carbon Tetrachloride

On March 27, EPA proposed extensions of certain compliance dates under the TSCA section 6(a) risk management rules for perchloroethylene (PCE) and carbon tetrachloride (CTC). Specifically, EPA is proposing to extend the compliance dates under these risk management rules relevant to initial exposure monitoring, compliance with the existing chemicals exposure limit (ECEL) and respiratory protection requirements, and implementation of exposure control plans. Under this proposal, companies engaged in activities subject to the workplace chemical protection program (WCPP) provisions of the risk management rules for PCE and CTC would have to complete initial exposure monitoring by June 21, 2027 and would have to comply with the ECEL and provide appropriate respiratory protection, among other requirements, by September 20, 2027. Companies subject to the PCE risk management rule would have to establish and implement an exposure control plan by December 20, 2027. EPA is not currently proposing to change the deadline for establishing and implementing an exposure control plan for CTC, which would remain December 3, 2027. EPA is accepting public comment on the proposed rule through April 27, 2026.

While EPA is proposing to extend these compliance deadlines, the existing deadlines remain in effect until the extension is finalized. Certain of the proposed deadlines have already passed, while others may pass before EPA finalizes a deadline extension, assuming it ultimately chooses to do so. Thus, concurrent with this proposal, EPA published statements suggesting that it did not intend to enforce the existing deadlines for PCE or CTC, except if necessary to protect human health or the environment.

EPA Proposes to Extend Reporting Deadline for Health and Safety Data for 16 Chemicals

On March 30, EPA published a rule proposing to extend for a third time the deadline under a December 13, 2024, rule for reporting of health and safety data associated with 16 chemical substances from May 22, 2026, to May 22, 2027. In this proposal, EPA explains that it intends to extend the reporting deadline because it is “considering a proposal to modify the scope” of the December 13, 2024, rule and has determined that the current May 22, 2026, deadline is therefore unfeasible. EPA did not provide any additional details about the modifications it is considering. EPA is accepting public comment on the proposed extension through April 29, 2026.

The underlying reporting rule under TSCA section 8(d) requires manufacturers (including importers) to submit to EPA data from unpublished health and safety studies regarding the following substances: 4,4-Methylene bis(2-chloraniline); 4-tert-octylphenol(4-(1,1,3,3-Tetramethylbutyl)-phenol); acetaldehyde; acrylonitrile; benzenamine; benzene; bisphenol A; ethylbenzene; hydrogen fluoride; n-(1,3-Dimethylbutyl)-N’-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine (6PPD); 2-anilino-5-[(4-methylpentan-2-yl) amino]cyclohexa-2,5-diene-1,4-dione (6PPD-quinone); naphthalene; styrene; tribomomethane (bromoform); triglycidyl isocyanurate; and vinyl chloride. EPA is collecting these data to inform potential future actions under TSCA section 6.

FIFRA

President Trump Issues Executive Order to Ensure Supply of Glyphosate-Based Herbicides

On February 18, 2026, President Trump issued Executive Order 14387: Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides. Citing the Defense Production Act, this executive order highlighted the importance of glyphosate-based herbicides, noting that there is “no direct one-for-one chemical alternative” and “[l]ack of access to glyphosate-based herbicides would critically jeopardize agricultural productivity.” The executive order further noted that “any major restrictions in access to glyphosate-based herbicides would result in economic losses for growers and make it untenable for them to meet growing food and feed demands.” The executive order delegates to the Secretary of Agriculture authority to take action to ensure “a continued and adequate supply” of glyphosate-based herbicides. This order comes ahead of an October 1, 2026, deadline for EPA to complete its review of many currently registered pesticide active ingredients, including glyphosate, to ensure that they continue to meet the standard for registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

EPA Proposes Revisions to Pesticide Registration Notice 98-10

On January 5, EPA announced a draft Pesticide Registration Notice (PR Notice 2026-NEW) that would update and, when finalized, supersede PR Notice 98-10, which has governed notifications, non-notifications, and minor formulation amendments since 1998.²

The draft guidance is intended to clarify and expand the types of registration changes that may be made through streamlined processes, including notification and non-notification, rather than requiring formal amendment and prior EPA approval. EPA indicated that the revisions are designed to align with statutory and regulatory developments since 1998 and to improve the efficiency of registration updates for pesticide products.

Among other changes, the draft PR Notice would expand the scope of permissible modifications to labeling and formulation that may be made through notification, allow certain changes to be implemented immediately upon EPA’s receipt of a notification (including for antimicrobial products), and clarify procedures for updating confidential statements of formula and non-FIFRA label elements.

EPCRA

EPA Adds PFHxS-Na to TRI

On February 23, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency, finalized a rule adding sodium perfluorohexanesulfonate (PFHxS-Na) to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). EPA added PFHxS-Na to TRI pursuant to a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, which provides that PFAS shall be added to TRI upon the occurrence of certain triggering events. The addition of PFHxS-Na to TRI occurred after the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program finalized a toxicity value for PFHxS-Na in 2025. Under EPA’s final rule, businesses in industries subject to TRI reporting must begin tracking and reporting use or release of PFHxS-Na. Such businesses are subject to TRI reporting requirements if they manufacture (including import), process, or otherwise use at least 100 pounds of PFHxS-Na annually.

The first reporting period began January 1, 2026, and the first reports will be due to EPA by July 1, 2027. With this action, the number of PFAS substances tracked by TRI rises to 206, reflecting the continued expansion of PFAS reporting obligations for regulated entities.

Federal Litigation Updates

TSCA Litigation:

Ninth Circuit Hears Oral Argument in TSCA PBT Rule Challenge

On March 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument in Yurok Tribe et al. v. EPA (No. 21-70670), a challenge to EPA’s rule under TSCA Section 6(h) addressing persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals, including decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE). Petitioners — including the Yurok Tribe, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Consumer Federation of America, and Center for Environmental Transformation — are seeking remand of the rule, while EPA is defending its approach.

During oral argument, the court’s questions focused primarily on statutory interpretation, including the meaning of “practicable” under TSCA Section 6(h) and whether EPA may consider the factors identified in TSCA Section 6(c)(2), such as costs and benefits, when promulgating rules under TSCA section 6(h). Judges also questioned how EPA defines and applies “practicable,” including what constraints exist on the agency’s discretion under this standard and how concepts such as feasibility and reasonableness should be evaluated.

The court also explored EPA’s treatment of recycling and disposal pathways in developing the TSCA section 6(h) rule, including the agency’s reliance on Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements for waste management and its conclusions regarding the cost and feasibility of testing for decaBDE in recycling and wastewater contexts. Petitioners challenged EPA’s evidentiary support for these determinations, while EPA maintained that its approach reflects reasonable cost and feasibility considerations.

A decision is expected in the coming months following the court’s consideration of the parties’ briefs and oral argument.

Ninth Circuit Hears Oral Argument in Litigation Regarding TSCA Section 21 Petition for Regulation of Fluoride in Drinking Water

Also on March 3, the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument in Food and Water Watch et al. v. EPA (No. 25-384), an appeal by EPA from a Northern District of California decision directing EPA to promulgate a rule under TSCA section 6(a) regulating fluoride in drinking water.

This litigation stems from a 2016 petition under TSCA section 21, which allows persons to petition EPA to initiate certain actions under TSCA, including the issuance of a TSCA section 6(a) risk management rule. EPA denied the petition in early 2017 and the petition submitters challenged that denial in the Northern District of California. After more than seven years and two bench trials, the Northern District of California in Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. EPA (No. 17-cv-02162-EMC) issued a decision in September 2024 finding that the petitioners had demonstrated that fluoride in drinking water presents an unreasonable risk to health and ordering EPA to take action under TSCA to address such risk.

EPA appealed the Northern District of California’s decision, arguing that the court incorrectly considered evidence beyond what was presented in the petition when reaching its decision and raising for the first time on appeal an argument that the plaintiffs lacked standing. During oral argument, the Ninth Circuit raised questions about EPA’s newly presented standing argument, as well as about the District Courts’s approach to hearing the challenge to EPA’s denial of the TSCA section 21 petition.

While this litigation involves a specific chemical substance and condition of use, the Ninth Circuit’s decision on EPA’s appeal is likely to have broad impacts on how TSCA section 21 is interpreted and used as a mechanism to set EPA priorities for regulating chemical substances under TSCA.

Third Circuit Denies Stay and Allows TCE Rule Litigation to Proceed

In February 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an order in United Steel, Paper, and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO v. EPA (No. 20-1055), advancing litigation challenging EPA’s TSCA Section 6 rule regulating trichloroethylene (TCE). The court denied pending motions to stay the rule and rejected EPA’s request to hold the case in abeyance while the agency considers potential revisions to the rule. The litigation involves multiple industry and environmental petitioners and is expected to address EPA’s risk management approach, including prohibitions and exemptions under the final TCE rule. Opening briefs in this case are due on April 14.

Fifth Circuit Schedules Oral Argument in Asbestos Rule Challenge

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has scheduled oral argument for the week of June 1, 2026, in Texas Chemistry Council v. EPA (No. 24-60193), which challenges EPA’s TSCA Section 6 risk management rule for chrysotile asbestos.

The litigation involves industry — as well as labor union and public health organization — challenges to EPA’s final rule, which imposes prohibitions and restrictions on the manufacture, processing, distribution, and use of chrysotile asbestos. Petitioners are expected to raise issues related to EPA’s risk determinations and the scope of the agency’s regulatory authority under TSCA.

FIFRA Litigation:

Environmental Groups Challenge EPA Registration of Pesticides Containing Fluorinated Compounds

In late 2025 and January 2026, environmental groups filed petitions for review in the Ninth Circuit challenging EPA’s registration of two pesticides: isocycloseram and cyclobutrifluram. EPA registered isocycloseram and cyclobutrifluram in November 2025 for use as a broad-spectrum insecticide and nematicide/fungicide, respectively. The petitions for review do not provide specifics as to the arguments that petitioners will raise, but do indicate that they are bringing claims under FIFRA as well as the Endangered Species Act.

Both of these pesticides contain a single fluorinated compound. While not mentioning these pesticides by name, EPA has published a webpage regarding “Pesticides Containing a Single Fluorinated Carbon,” which notes that single fluorinated compounds do not meet the definition of “PFAS” established by EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics in the 2023 TSCA section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting rule.

Opening briefs in the challenge to EPA’s registration of isocycloseram, Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. EPA (No. 26-289), are due in July 2026, while the briefing schedule in the challenge to EPA’s registration of cyclobutrifluraum, Farmworker Justice et al. v. EPA (No. 25-8118), has not yet been set.

State Regulatory Updates

States continue to advance regulatory frameworks governing PFAS in products, with Minnesota and New Mexico implementing reporting requirements and broader restrictions that will take effect over the coming years.

Minnesota

Minnesota’s PFAS statute (Minn. Stat. § 116.943), known as Amara’s Law, establishes phased prohibitions and reporting requirements for products containing intentionally added PFAS.

As of January 1, 2025, the law prohibits the sale, offer for sale, or distribution in Minnesota of 11 categories of products containing intentionally added PFAS, including carpets and rugs, cleaning products, cookware, cosmetics, dental floss, fabric treatments, juvenile products, menstruation products, textile furnishings, ski wax, and upholstered furniture. Beginning January 1, 2032, a broader prohibition will apply to products containing intentionally added PFAS unless the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) determines that the use is currently unavoidable. MPCA held a webinar on February 26, 2026, providing an update on its development of regulations to implement that “currently unavoidable use” process, and accepted public comments on its proposed rule concepts through March 29, 2026. MPCA will now consider these public comments as it develops proposed rule language.

Additionally, the law requires manufacturers of products sold or distributed in Minnesota to submit initial reports to MPCA by July 1, 2026, with updates due by February 1 each year thereafter. MPCA’s PFAS Product Reporting Information System for Manufacturers (PRISM) is now live ahead of that reporting deadline.

Concurrently with MPCA’s efforts to implement Amara’s Law, the Minnesota House of Representatives is considering a bill that would delay the reporting requirement to July 1, 2027, and also exempt certain “currently unavoidable uses” from both the reporting requirement and the January 1, 2032 prohibition. These uses include uses of PFAS in motor vehicles, semiconductors, electricity generation, distribution, and storage equipment, and PFAS required in order to meet standards established by Federal agencies such as the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Defense.

New Mexico

New Mexico’s Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances Protection Act establishes phased product prohibitions and manufacturer reporting requirements for products containing intentionally added PFAS. The prohibitions begin on January 1, 2027, for products including food packaging and cookware, on January 1, 2028, for products including cleaning products, fabric treatments, cosmetics, and textiles, and on January 1, 2032, for all other uses unless determined to be “currently unavoidable uses.” In addition to these prohibitions, the law directs the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) to adopt rules requiring reporting of intentionally added PFAS in products.

This law also provides the EIB with discretionary authority to adopt rules imposing labeling requirements for intentionally added PFAS in products. The EIB approved such labeling rules on March 23, 2026. While the final regulations have not yet been published, if consistent with the text submitted to the EIB by the New Mexico Environment Department in March 2026, the labeling requirements would go into effect on January 1, 2027, and would apply to almost all products containing intentionally added PFAS, including most categories of products that are exempt from the law’s prohibitions and reporting requirements.

International Developments

United Kingdom Publishes First PFAS Plan

On February 3, the United Kingdom published its first PFAS Plan, outlining actions to better understand the sources of PFAS exposure, encourage a transition away from PFAS through regulation, and address existing exposure to PFAS. The plan identifies several priority areas, including efforts to better understand “the extent and impact of PFAS in the environment” through monitoring and analyses of the historic use of PFAS, consideration of further restrictions on the use of PFAS and statutory limits for PFAS in the public water supply to reduce ongoing exposure to PFAS, and development of guidance for addressing legacy PFAS contamination.

ECHA Risk Assessment Committee & Socio-Economic Committee Advance PFAS Restriction Proposal

In March 2026, two European Chemicals Agency’s (ECHA) committees advanced their evaluations of a proposed EU-wide restriction on PFAS. ECHA’s Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) adopted its final opinion on the risks posed by PFAS, while the Committee for Socio-Economic Analysis (SEAC) agreed its draft opinion on the proposal. SEAC is accepting public comments on its draft opinion through May 25, 2026.

The opinions are part of ECHA’s review of a proposal submitted by several EU member states to restrict the manufacture, placing on the market, and use of PFAS across a wide range of applications. RAC evaluates risks to human health and the environment, while SEAC assesses the socio-economic impacts of a potential restriction, including the availability of alternatives. The final RAC opinion supports a broad EU-wide PFAS restriction. The draft SEAC opinion similarly supports a comprehensive PFAS restriction, with certain exemptions where justified based on factors including the availability of alternatives. You can read more about the RAC opinion and draft SEAC opinion in our advisory.

After the close of the public consultation on the SEAC draft opinion, the committee will adopt a final opinion, expected by the end of 2026. Following completion of the committees’ review, the European Commission will consider the opinions and may propose a restriction for consideration by EU member states.

EU “One Substance, One Assessment” Framework Enters into Force

On January 5, 2026, the European Union announced the entry into force of new rules designed to streamline chemical assessments across EU legislation, commonly referred to as the “one substance, one assessment” (OSOA) framework. The new framework is intended to make chemical assessments more consistent, transparent, and efficient across sectors, including with respect to products such as toys, food, pesticides, and biocides.

The OSOA framework aims to reduce duplication of assessments across EU regulatory regimes by improving coordination among EU agencies and clarifying the allocation of scientific and technical responsibilities. It also introduces a common data platform on chemicals, which will serve as a centralized hub for information collected under various EU laws and is expected to become operational within the next several years.

In addition, the framework establishes a monitoring and outlook system intended to better identify emerging chemical risks through the use of data collection and early-warning tools. These measures are intended to support earlier identification of potential hazards and enable more timely regulatory action.

Canada Finalizes Prohibitions and Restrictions on DP, DBDPE, certain PFAS, HBCD, and PBDEs

In December 2025, Canada finalized the Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2025 under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA), which will come into force on June 30, 2026. The regulations repeal and replace the prior 2012 framework and expand prohibitions and restrictions on several classes of substances.

The regulations introduce new prohibitions on the manufacture, use, sale, and import of certain flame retardants, including Dechlorane Plus (DP) and decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE), as well as products containing those substances. In addition, the regulations strengthen existing restrictions on PFAS, including PFOS, PFOA, and long-chain perfluorocarboxylic acids (LC-PFCAs), as well as flame retardants hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). Revisions to the restrictions on these chemical substances include the removal or narrowing of certain exemptions.

The regulations include limited, time-limited exemptions and permit provisions to facilitate transition to alternatives for certain uses. The updated framework reflects Canada’s broader effort to align with international obligations and to reduce environmental and human exposure to substances that may be persistent or bioaccumulative.

The new requirements may affect manufacturers, importers, and downstream users of products containing these substances, including by creating the need to assess supply chains and phase out restricted chemicals ahead of the June 2026 effective date.

© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2026 All Rights Reserved. This Newsletter is intended to be a general summary of the law and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.