The Chemical Compound – Q2 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
TSCA Updates
EPA Releases Initial Lists of Expiring TSCA CBI Claims
EPA recently released its initial lists of TSCA confidential business information (CBI) claims scheduled to expire beginning June 22, marking the beginning of a new phase in the Agency’s implementation of TSCA’s 10-year limit on most confidentiality claims. EPA has explained that confidentiality claims for most information submitted under TSCA expire 10 years after the date on which the claim was asserted, while claims for specific chemical identity generally expire 10 years from the submission date of the first approved post-June 22, 2016, claim for that identity. Importantly, this means that some submitters may find that the chemical identity CBI claim applicable to their submission expires less than 10 years after their own filing.
EPA’s initial list covered claims expiring between June 22, 2026, and July 31, 2026, and the Agency subsequently released a list of claims expiring in August 2026. The Agency is expected to update the lists monthly as additional claims approach expiration. Submitters that wish to extend a claim must request an extension through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) and provide the required substantiation at least 30 days before the claim’s expiration date. EPA also hosted a May 6 webinar addressing the lifecycle of TSCA CBI claims, how to determine whether a claim is expiring, and how to request an extension, including a demonstration of the CDX application.
Companies with prior TSCA submissions should review EPA’s lists and evaluate whether any expiring claims cover information that remains confidential and commercially sensitive. Where continued protection is warranted, companies should ensure that their CDX access is current and that substantiation materials are prepared in advance of the applicable deadline. Notably, EPA stressed during the May 6 webinar the importance of robust substantiation for CBI claims, and emphasized that substantiation deemed acceptable at the time of the original claims may not be sufficient to support an extension request. Absent a timely extension request, EPA has stated that it is not required to continue protecting the information from disclosure.
EPA Enforcement Action Highlights TSCA Import Compliance Risk
On June 1, EPA announced an administrative complaint against Wego Chemical Group and affiliated companies for violations of TSCA arising from the importation and domestic distribution of chemical substances. The complaint alleges eight categories of violations reflecting what EPA describes as a sustained pattern of failing to report, notify, and certify, including failure to submit timely Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) data and required use information across two reporting cycles, failure to submit a premanufacture notice (PMN) and significant new use notices, and the filing of inaccurate regulatory submissions. EPA also alleged that Wego submitted a false certification that it had not imported a chemical subject to a TSCA risk evaluation during the preceding five years.
The complaint follows TSCA Section 20 citizen suits premised on alleged CDR reporting violations, including a 2025 settlement reached between Wego and an environmental organization, illustrating the potential for citizen enforcement activity to precede or inform subsequent EPA action. The action also reflects EPA’s broader emphasis on import enforcement, including the Agency’s coordinated effort with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to increase scrutiny of chemicals, pesticides, and other products entering the United States. For companies that import chemical substances or products containing regulated chemicals, the complaint is a reminder that TSCA obligations may attach at several stages of the import process and that deficiencies in reporting, notification, or certification can create exposure to both citizen suits and EPA enforcement.
EPA Issues Final Risk Evaluation for 1,2-Dichloroethane, Starting TSCA Risk Management Clock
On May 5, EPA announced its final TSCA risk evaluation for 1,2-dichloroethane, also known as ethylene dichloride or EDC. 1,2-dichloroethane is primarily used in the synthesis of vinyl chloride and also has industrial uses as a solvent and in the manufacture of other chemicals.
EPA determined that 1,2-dichloroethane presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health under 15 conditions of use, with the identified risks driven by workplace exposures to workers and occupational non-users. EPA did not identify unreasonable risk to consumers, the general population, or the environment. Consistent with TSCA’s risk evaluation framework, EPA made its unreasonable risk determination without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors.
EPA’s next step is to develop a TSCA Section 6(a) risk management rule to address the unreasonable risk identified in the final risk evaluation. Under TSCA Section 6(c), EPA generally must publish a proposed risk management rule within one year of issuing a final risk evaluation that finds unreasonable risk, and a final rule within two years. Accordingly, EPA’s deadline for the proposed rule for 1,2-dichloroethane is May 5, 2027, absent an applicable extension. The risk management process will provide the key forum for affected manufacturers, processors, and users to engage with EPA on potential restrictions, compliance timelines, workplace controls, and other measures to address the identified occupational risks.
EPA Releases 2024 Chemical Data Reporting Information
On April 16, EPA released information submitted during the 2024 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) cycle, providing public access to data on chemicals manufactured in or imported into the United States between 2020 and 2023. CDR is EPA’s primary TSCA Section 8(a) reporting program for collecting basic exposure-related information, including chemical identity, production volumes, manufacturing and import activity, processing and use information, and certain industrial, commercial, and consumer use data.
The 2024 CDR data reflect submissions from manufacturers, including importers, of TSCA Inventory chemicals that met applicable reporting thresholds — generally 25,000 pounds or more at a single site, or 2,500 pounds or more for certain chemicals subject to specified TSCA actions. EPA stated that the data are available in downloadable files and will be added to ChemView. The Agency also emphasized that it uses CDR data to support chemical prioritization, risk evaluation, and other TSCA activities.
The release provides companies with an opportunity to review publicly available information about their own submissions, as well as submissions relating to their suppliers, customers, competitors, and substances of regulatory interest. Companies may also wish to consider whether the public data align with their understanding of chemical uses and supply chains, particularly for chemicals that could be candidates for future prioritization or risk evaluation. The next CDR reporting cycle is scheduled for 2028. The submission period is expected to run from June 1, 2028, through September 30, 2028 and will require reporting of data from 2024-2027.
EPA Extends Start of TSCA PFAS Reporting Period
On April 13, EPA released a final rule extending the start of the reporting period for the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting rule. The reporting period had been scheduled to begin on April 13, 2026, but will now begin on January 31, 2027, or 60 days after the effective date of EPA’s forthcoming final rule addressing the substantive PFAS reporting requirements, whichever is earlier.
EPA effectuated this extension by finalizing only the timing amendment from its November 2025 proposed rule, which also proposed broader changes to the PFAS reporting regulation. Those proposed changes included potential exemptions or limitations for certain imported articles, de minimis levels, impurities, byproducts, research and development substances, and non-isolated intermediates. EPA stated that it expects to finalize the substantive revisions “well before” the January 31, 2027, backstop date for the opening of the submission period and may further address the duration of the submission period as part of that forthcoming final rule.
For now, EPA has retained the current six-month submission period, with an additional six months for small manufacturers whose reporting obligations arise exclusively from importing PFAS-containing articles. The extension gives EPA additional time to consider comments on the November 2025 proposal and gives potentially regulated entities more time to evaluate their reporting obligations under the existing rule, and how their reporting obligations may change under the November 2025 proposal. Companies that manufactured or imported PFAS, including PFAS-containing articles, during the 2011-2022 reporting period should continue monitoring EPA’s forthcoming substantive rulemaking and use the additional time to assess supply chain information, historical import records, and potential applicability of any final exemptions.
EPA Releases Draft Risk Evaluations for HHCB and Phthalic Anhydride
On April 10, EPA published draft risk evaluations for 1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-Hexamethylcyclopenta [g]-2-Benzopyran (HHCB) and phthalic anhydride. EPA also published a Federal Register notice opening a 60-day public comment period on the two draft risk evaluations, which closed on June 15, 2026. A separate Federal Register notice sought comment by May 29, 2026, on materials to be considered by EPA’s Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC), which met June 8-12, 2026, to peer review the draft evaluations and related materials.
EPA’s draft HHCB risk evaluation preliminarily concludes that HHCB does not present an unreasonable risk under the conditions of use evaluated. HHCB is used as a fragrance ingredient or odor agent in chemical product and plastics manufacturing and in products such as detergents, cleaners, air fresheners, and plastic and rubber articles. If finalized as drafted, the HHCB evaluation would represent a notable instance in which EPA concludes that a high-priority substance does not present unreasonable risk under TSCA Section 6 and for which EPA would therefore not be required to pursue risk management.
By contrast, EPA’s draft phthalic anhydride risk evaluation preliminarily concludes that the chemical presents an unreasonable risk to workers and consumers from dermal and inhalation exposures. The worker-related conditions of use identified as contributing to unreasonable risk include industrial and commercial uses in transportation equipment manufacturing, machinery and mechanical applications, and electrical and electronic articles. EPA also identified consumer uses in adhesives and sealants and in paints and coatings as contributing to unreasonable risk. If EPA finalizes this unreasonable risk determination, it will then be required to propose risk management measures to address the identified unreasonable risk.
EPA Releases Draft Hazard Assessments for o-DCB and p-DCB
On April 10, EPA published draft hazard assessments for o-dichlorobenzene (o-DCB) and p-dichlorobenzene (p-DCB), which will support EPA’s forthcoming TSCA draft risk evaluations for those chemicals. EPA has not yet issued unreasonable risk determinations for o-DCB or p-DCB. Instead, the Agency is first seeking public comment and SACC peer review on the draft hazard assessments and related technical support documents before releasing the draft risk evaluations.
o-DCB is used in the manufacture of chemicals, plastic materials, and resins, and in products such as inks, colorants, and lubricants, including degreasers. p-DCB is used as a reactant in plastic material and resin manufacturing, in pesticide and fertilizer manufacturing processes, and in products such as plastic foam sealants and insulation and automotive care products. EPA’s draft hazard assessments are noteworthy because the Agency used New Approach Methods (NAMs), including transcriptomics, in developing the assessments and has described the scientific approaches as “unique and novel.”
The SACC peer review meeting took place on June 8-12, 2026. The Agency’s use of NAMs in these assessments was an important topic of this meeting and will likely be an important focus of the peer review. The SACC report on these draft hazard assessments may therefore provide insight into how EPA intends to incorporate transcriptomic and other nontraditional data streams into future TSCA risk evaluations.
EPA Publishes Draft Risk Evaluation for TBBPA
On June 16, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the draft risk evaluation for 4,4’-(1-Methylethylidene)bis[2,6-dibromophenol] (TBBPA). TBBPA is primarily used as a reactant for flame retardants or as an additive flame retardant. It is found in electrical and electronic products, plastic and rubber products, and textiles in cars and airplanes, among other uses. In the draft risk evaluation, EPA identified unreasonable risk to workers driven by three conditions of use: manufacture, import, and repackaging. EPA also identified unreasonable risk to the environment driven by the incorporation of TBBPA into a formulation for use as a flame retardant in the manufacturing of plastics, resin, and paints and coatings. Notably EPA identified risk threshold exceedances for a number of other conditions of use but has preliminarily determined that these conditions of use do not contribute to the unreasonable risk because, for example, the Agency does not expect that the conditions under which the risk threshold exceedances exist are expected to occur in the real world. EPA has opened a public comment period through August 17, 2026, on the draft TBBPA risk evaluation.
EPA Again Extends TSCA Section 8(d) Reporting Deadline to May 2027
On May 22, EPA finalized a one-year extension of the reporting deadline for its TSCA Section 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting Rule. The rule, originally issued in December 2024, requires manufacturers, including importers, of 16 listed chemical substances to submit copies and lists of certain unpublished health and safety studies to EPA. The reporting deadline had previously been May 22, 2026, and has now been extended to May 21, 2027.
EPA explained that it is considering potential modifications to the scope of the Section 8(d) rule and the prior deadline would not provide sufficient time for EPA to complete its reconsideration. EPA previously proposed the extension on March 30, 2026, and finalized it without changing the substance of the underlying reporting obligations. The final rule became effective upon its publication on May 22, 2026.
The extension provides additional time for potentially covered manufacturers and importers to evaluate whether they may have reporting obligations and to identify responsive unpublished health and safety studies. At the same time, because EPA may further modify the rule, companies should continue to monitor the reconsideration process.
FIFRA Updates
EPA Publishes Draft Fungicide Endangered Species Strategy
On April 30, EPA published for public comment its “Draft Fungicide Strategy to Reduce Exposure of Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species and Designated Critical Habitats from the Use of Conventional Agricultural Fungicides” (the “Fungicide Strategy”). This document is intended to outline EPA’s approach to “assess[ing] possible population-level impacts to listed species and identify[ing] mitigation to reduce the potential impacts from the use of agricultural fungicides,” in order to accelerate EPA’s ability to meet its obligations under the Endangered Species Act for the registration of agricultural fungicides. Under the draft Fungicide Strategy, EPA will first determine the potential for population-level impacts to endangered and threatened species from both on-field and off-field exposures, assess the appropriate level of mitigation based on the potential for population-level impacts, and identify the geographical area in which such mitigations are expected to be necessary. This strategy follows similar EPA strategies for insecticides, herbicides, and rodenticides. EPA is accepting public comment on the draft Fungicide Strategy until June 29, 2026, and intends to finalize the Fungicide Strategy by the end of November 2026.
Federal Litigation Updates
Ninth Circuit Remands EPA’s DecaBDE Rule Without Vacatur
On May 13, the Ninth Circuit remanded to EPA the latest version of the Agency’s first TSCA Section 6 rule issued following the 2016 amendments to the Act. Specifically, the court granted consolidated petitions filed by Alaska Community Action on Toxics, the Yurok Tribe, Consumer Federation of America, and Center for Environmental Transformation challenging EPA’s 2024 TSCA section 6(h) rule for decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE), a persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemical used as an additive flame retardant in products such as electronics, appliances, and vehicle and aircraft components.
The court held that EPA had not supported with substantial evidence its decisions not to further regulate four pathways for potential decaBDE exposures: recycling of articles, disposal, wastewater, and sewage sludge. In the court’s view, TSCA Section 6(h) requires EPA to reduce exposure to PBT chemicals “to the extent practicable,” and EPA could not decline to impose restrictions based on “low levels” of exposure to decaBDE, a general policy to encourage recycling, or the existence of other statutory regimes such as RCRA, without adequately addressing contrary record evidence and available regulatory alternatives. The court reasoned that, because Congress had already identified decaBDE as sufficiently hazardous to warrant expedited regulation under Section 6(h), exposure levels may inform EPA’s choice of regulatory tools but cannot, standing alone, justify a decision not to regulate. The panel also rejected EPA’s argument that it could defer additional regulation of these pathways, finding that Section 6(h) calls for expedited action rather than open-ended, tiered rulemaking.
The court remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur, thus leaving the 2024 rule in effect while EPA considers how to respond to the recent ruling As a result, current requirements—including worker protection requirements and restrictions on releases to water during the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of decaBDE and decaBDE-containing products—remain operative pending further action from EPA. The opinion underscores the Ninth Circuit’s view that, for PBT chemicals regulated under TSCA Section 6(h), EPA must meaningfully evaluate practicable exposure-reduction measures across the chemical’s lifecycle and support any decision not to regulate with substantial record evidence. Of note, the court’s decision addresses only the decaBDE rule and does not directly affect EPA’s other Section 6(h) rules issued for PBT chemicals, specifically: phenol, isopropylated phosphate (PIP (3:1)), 2,4,6-Tris(tert-butyl)phenol (2,4,6-TTBP), hexachlorobutadiene (HBCD), and pentachlorothiophenol (PCTP).
Ninth Circuit Vacates District Court Decision Requiring EPA To Act on TSCA Section 21 Petition for Regulation of Fluoride in Drinking Water
On May 21, the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the Northern District of California’s decision directing EPA to regulate fluoridation of drinking water under TSCA Section 6(a). The case arose from EPA’s denial of a 2016 TSCA Section 21 petition seeking a rule banning the addition of fluoride to drinking water. After two bench trials, the district court held that fluoridation of drinking water at 0.7 mg/L presents an unreasonable risk to human health and ordered EPA to address that risk under TSCA.
In its decision, the Ninth Circuit did not address whether fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L (or any other level) presents an unreasonable risk. Instead, the court held that the district court “commandeer[ed]” the case by refusing to decide the matter on the first trial record despite both parties urging it to do so, holding the case in abeyance while awaiting additional scientific materials, and then relying on evidence the parties had agreed not to present. The panel concluded that this “takeover” of the evidentiary presentation by the district court violated the party-presentation principle and therefore remanded the case for the district court to rule based solely on the first trial record.
The decision is narrow but important for TSCA Section 21 practice. The Ninth Circuit further held that, under the circumstances of the first bench trial, the district court did not err in considering evidence beyond the materials submitted with the original petition, but the panel explicitly declined to address whether Section 21 would permit such supplementation in other circumstances. The court also remanded EPA’s standing arguments for consideration by the district court in the first instance. The remand leaves unresolved several issues with potentially broader implications for citizen petitions, including the permissible scope of judicial review and the role Section 21 litigation may play in prompting EPA action under TSCA.
Fifth Circuit Hears Argument in Challenge to EPA’s Chrysotile Asbestos Rule
On June 1, the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument in consolidated challenges to EPA’s 2024 TSCA Section 6(a) risk management rule for chrysotile asbestos. EPA’s rule prohibits the manufacture, import, processing, distribution in commerce, and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos for several ongoing uses, including chlor-alkali diaphragms, sheet gaskets in chemical production, oilfield brake blocks, aftermarket automotive brakes and linings, other vehicle friction products, and other gaskets, with phased compliance deadlines and interim workplace controls for certain uses.
Industry petitioners in this case have argued that EPA exceeded its authority by imposing prohibitions beyond what is “necessary” to address unreasonable risk, while public health petitioners have argued that the rule does not go far enough and should provide broader and faster protections. Prior to oral argument, the Fifth Circuit instructed the parties be prepared to discuss the standing of their respective organizations to challenge the risk management rule. Consistent with this instruction, oral argument focused heavily on standing and the court subsequently requested supplemental briefing from the parties on standing.
The litigation presents an important early test of EPA’s post-2016 TSCA Section 6 risk management authority (beyond the expedited PBT rules), and a decision could have implications beyond asbestos. Depending on whether and how the court addresses EPA’s selection of risk management measures, compliance timelines, and the “to the extent necessary” standard under TSCA Section 6(a), the ruling may influence judicial review of EPA’s other final and forthcoming risk management rules for chemicals for which the Agency has identified unreasonable risk.
U.S. Supreme Court Weighs FIFRA Preemption of State Pesticide Labeling Laws
On April 27, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Monsanto Company v. Durnell (No. 24-1068). This case considers the scope of preemption under FIFRA, including explicit preemption under FIFRA section 24(b) (7 U.S.C. § 136v(b)), which prohibits states from “impos[ing] or continu[ing] in effect any requirements for labeling in addition to or different from those required” under FIFRA. Specifically, the question at issue in this case is whether a pesticide manufacturer can be held liable under a state “failure to warn” law for not including a cancer warning on a pesticide label where EPA has concluded that the pesticide does not cause cancer. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will likely have significant impacts on the extent to which federal action under FIFRA preempts state law, and therefore on the availability of preemption as a defense in pesticide litigation under state tort laws.
State Regulatory Updates
New Mexico Finalizes PFAS Consumer Product Regulations
New Mexico’s Environmental Improvement Board adopted final regulations implementing the state’s PFAS Protection Act, and such regulations were published in the New Mexico Register on May 5. The rule establishes reporting and labeling requirements, as well as currently unavoidable use and enforcement procedures for products containing intentionally added PFAS and is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2026.
The regulations implement New Mexico’s phased restrictions on PFAS-containing products. Beginning January 1, 2027, the state will prohibit certain products containing intentionally added PFAS, including cookware, food packaging, dental floss, juvenile products, and firefighting foam. The restrictions expand on January 1, 2028, to additional categories, including carpets, cleaning products, cosmetics, fabrics, feminine hygiene products, textiles, ski wax, and upholstered furniture. By January 1, 2032, the law will prohibit all non-exempt products containing intentionally added PFAS unless the use has been determined to be a currently unavoidable use.
The rule also creates near-term compliance obligations. Manufacturers of non-exempt products or product components containing intentionally added PFAS that are sold, offered for sale, or distributed for sale in New Mexico must submit required reporting information to the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) on or before January 1, 2027. In addition, after January 1, 2027, manufacturers may not manufacture for sale or distribution a product containing intentionally added PFAS unless the product is labeled in accordance with New Mexico’s requirements or the manufacturer documents compliance with corresponding labeling requirements adopted by another state, subject to applicable exemptions. Manufacturers should be aware that many categories of products exempt from the prohibition and reporting requirements under New Mexico’s regulations are nonetheless subject to this labeling requirement.
This rule is notable because it adds another broad state-level PFAS-in-products framework with near-term reporting, labeling, and product-ban deadlines, particularly relevant for companies selling products through national distribution channels. Manufacturers should assess whether products sold or distributed in New Mexico contain intentionally added PFAS and whether reporting, labeling, exemption, or currently unavoidable use strategies may be needed.
Manufacturers should also monitor pending judicial review of the final rule, which has been appealed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals; absent a stay or other court action, companies should continue preparing for the rule’s upcoming compliance deadlines.
Minnesota Extends PFAS Product Reporting Deadline
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has extended the initial reporting deadline under the state’s PFAS in Products law from July 1, 2026, to September 15, 2026. The reporting requirement applies to manufacturers of products manufactured after July 1, 2023, and sold, offered for sale, or distributed in Minnesota that contain intentionally added PFAS, subject to limited applicable exclusions and exemptions.
MPCA has also released additional information on requests for a single 90-day reporting extension and requests for reporting waivers where “equivalent PFAS in product information is publicly available and verifiable.” Extension and waiver requests must be postmarked by August 16, 2026. For manufacturers with approved extension requests, initial reports will be due December 14, 2026.
The September 15, 2026, reporting deadline gives manufacturers additional time to gather supply chain information and prepare submissions through Minnesota’s PFAS Reporting and Information System for Manufacturers (PRISM), but the reporting obligation remains significant. Companies selling products into Minnesota should continue assessing whether their products (or any components of their products) contain intentionally added PFAS, whether any exclusions or waiver arguments may apply, and whether an extension request is warranted before the August 16 deadline.
European Union
European Chemicals Agency Risk Assessment Committee Adopts Opinion on Trifluoroacetic Acid
In a summary of its June 2026 meeting, the European Chemicals Agency’s Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) announced that it has adopted an opinion that trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) should be classified as toxic to reproduction. The RAC also adopted an opinion that TFA should be classified as very persistent, very mobile, and toxic. The final RAC opinion is not yet publicly available. The European Commission will now consider the RAC opinion and determine whether to update the listing for TFA under the European Union’s Classification, Labeling and Packaging of Chemicals (CLP) regulations. An update to the CLP regulations would impact how suppliers would have to classify and label TFA.
© 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.
Key Contacts
