The Chemical Compound — Q3 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

• Key Litigation Updates
• TSCA Updates
• FIFRA Updates
• Other Federal Litigation Updates
• Legislative Updates
• State Regulatory Updates
• International Updates

Key Litigation Updates

Fifth Circuit Vacates EPA’s Methylene Chloride Risk Management Rule and Underlying Risk Determination

On September 15, 2026, the Fifth Circuit vacated EPA’s TSCA Section 6(a) risk management rule for methylene chloride, 40 C.F.R. part 751, subpart B, along with the underlying unreasonable risk determination, and remanded these actions to EPA. East Fork Enters., Inc. v. EPA, Case No. 24-60227 (5th Cir. Sept. 15, 2026). 

With respect to the risk evaluation, the court identified four high-level errors in EPA’s approach: 

1. EPA lacked authority to issue a “whole chemical” risk determination: TSCA requires a determination for each condition of use, and EPA’s own procedural rule had required use-by-use determinations until the Agency adopted (without, in the court’s view, an adequate basis) a contrary reading in November 2022. 
2. EPA’s assumption that workers do not use personal protective equipment (PPE) was contrary to law and unsupported because the use of PPE is reasonably foreseeable. 
3. EPA’s approach to identifying “unreasonable risk” was “far more conservative” than the statute permits; TSCA is not a zero-risk statute, and unreasonable risk “must allow for some risk.” 
4. EPA’s acute and chronic exposure limits of 16 ppm and 2 ppm — roughly one-tenth of the longstanding Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) limits — rested on selective use of the available scientific information and excessive uncertainty factors. 

The court further held that EPA exceeded its authority in prohibiting 40 of 53 conditions of use of methylene chloride because TSCA permits regulation only “to the extent necessary,” and EPA improperly selected risk management measures based on an absence of evidence that alternative measures were achievable (thus shifting to regulated entities the burden of showing such alternative measures were achievable). The court also denied the Sierra Club’s petition for review of this rule, which had argued that EPA violated TSCA by failing to make unreasonable risk determinations relating to exposures to communities at the fenceline of facilities using methylene chloride and by failing to evaluate methylene chloride’s depletion of the ozone layer.¹ On October 2, 2026, the Fifth Circuit issued the mandate in this case, thus effectuating the vacatur of EPA’s methylene chloride rule and associated risk determination and remanding the actions to EPA for further proceedings. 

The decision is likely to have impacts far beyond methylene chloride, as it unsettles numerous interpretations of TSCA that EPA has applied across its Section 6 existing chemicals program (as well as some that it has also applied in its Section 5 new chemicals program). Companies with substances subject to completed risk evaluations, pending Section 6(a) rulemakings, or draft risk evaluations should consider engaging with EPA as it reconsiders these actions in light of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling.

Supreme Court Holds That FIFRA Preempts State Failure-to-Warn Claims

On June 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068, holding 7-2 that FIFRA expressly preempts state law failure-to-warn claims that would require a pesticide label to carry a warning EPA has not required under FIFRA. The Court reversed a Missouri Court of Appeals decision that had rejected Monsanto’s preemption defense and affirmed a $1.25 million verdict. 

Justice Kavanaugh, writing for the Court, identified two federal labeling requirements imposed “under” FIFRA: obtaining EPA approval of a label at registration, and using the approved label unless and until EPA approves or requires a different one. Because EPA has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer, Monsanto was required by federal law to use a label without a cancer warning, and a state law duty to add such a warning would impose a requirement “in addition to or different from” federal law, which is prohibited under FIFRA Section 24(b). Justice Thomas concurred, raising separate concerns about FIFRA’s constitutional architecture. Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Gorsuch, dissented, arguing that FIFRA limits but does not eliminate state authority over labeling and that states may impose requirements equivalent to those under FIFRA.

Going forward, the strength of a pesticide registrant’s preemption defense will likely turn on how specifically EPA considered the particular risk during registration or reregistration, which places a premium on the administrative record. Claims not predicated on labeling, including design defect, manufacturing defect, and advertising claims, remain available to plaintiffs.

TSCA Updates

EPA Releases Series of Draft Risk Evaluations

Between July and September 2026, EPA released draft risk evaluations for seven chemical substances: o-dichlorobenzene, p-dichlorobenzene, ethylene dibromide, trans-1,2,-dichloroethylene, 1,2-dichloropropane, TBBPA, and 1,1,2-trichloroethane. As outlined in the table below, EPA faces a February 12, 2027 deadline to finalize these seven risk evaluations, as well as the risk evaluations for HHCB, TPP, and phathalic anhydride. However, it is unclear whether EPA intends to revisit these risk evaluations in light of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in East Fork Enterprises and, if so, whether the Agency intends to seek an extension of the deadline for their completion. 

February 2027 Final Risk Evaluation Deadlines

Additionally, from August 3-7, the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) held a public peer review meeting addressing certain draft assessments and technical support documents supporting the risk evaluations for TBBPA, ethylene dibromide, trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, and 1,2-dichloropropane. In many instances, EPA explained that it was seeking SACC review of “unique and novel scientific approaches” used in the assessments, such as new approach methods including transcriptomics (a high-throughput method for assessing mRNA expression in different tissues used to consider the potential impacts of certain substances or conditions at the cellular level).

A summary of these draft risk evaluations, including the conditions of use (COUs) that EPA has preliminarily determined do or do not present unreasonable risk, and the deadlines for comments on these risk evaluations are provided below. Companies whose products or processes involve any of the substances below should review EPA’s draft risk evaluations with a focus on ensuring that the conditions of use identified by EPA accurately reflect real-world conditions — including the use of engineering controls and PPE — and assessing whether the Agency has relied upon the best available science in reaching its unreasonable risk determinations. Engagement at the risk evaluation stage is important because of the scope of the uses found to present an unreasonable risk at this stage dictates the scope of the future TSCA Section 6(a) risk management rule to address such unreasonable risk.

Risk Evaluations for o-Dichlorobenzene and p-Dichlorobenzene

On August 10, 2026, EPA published a Federal Register notice announcing the availability of draft risk evaluations for o-dichlorobenzene (o-DCB) and p-dichlorobenzene (p-DCB). These draft risk evaluations follow the draft hazard assessments EPA released for both substances in April 2026, which were the subject of SACC peer review in June. o-DCB is processed for use as a reactant and incorporated into formulations, mixtures, or reaction products; its uses include solvent use in dyes and pigments and use in lubricants, degreasers, inks, and paint strippers. p-DCB is used in thermoplastic manufacture, solvents, and air-care products, including continuous-action air fresheners. The public comment period for these draft risk evaluations closes on October 9, 2026.

For o-DCB, EPA preliminarily identified 15 of 24 conditions of use as significantly contributing to unreasonable risk: 14 COUs involving risks to workers, a subset of which also pose risk to occupational non-users (ONUs), and one consumer condition of use. For p-DCB, EPA preliminarily identified eight of 23 conditions of use as significantly contributing to unreasonable risk: seven worker conditions of use, five of which also present risk to occupational non-users, and one consumer condition of use. For both substances, EPA did not preliminarily identify unreasonable risk to the general population, fenceline communities, or the environment. 

Risk Evaluation for Ethylene Dibromide

On August 19, 2026, EPA released its draft risk evaluation for ethylene dibromide and announced a public comment period running through October 19, 2026. Ethylene dibromide is used primarily as a fuel additive, and also in plastic and resin manufacturing and in pigment and dye manufacturing.

EPA did not identify unreasonable risk to consumers, the general population, or the environment. It did identify unreasonable risk to workers across 10 conditions of use, and unreasonable risk to ONUs for four of these conditions of use. 

Risk Evaluation for Trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene

On August 27, 2026, EPA released its draft risk evaluation for trans-1,2-dichloroethylene (trans-1,2-DCE), with comments due October 26, 2026. EPA preliminarily identified 19 conditions of use as significantly contributing to unreasonable risk to workers and ONUs, including manufacturing, processing, and a range of industrial and commercial uses. EPA also preliminarily identified consumer use as a cleaner/degreaser as contributing to unreasonable risk. The draft did not preliminarily identify unreasonable risk for industrial and commercial semiconductor and photovoltaic etching and cleaning processes, laboratory chemical use, distribution in commerce, disposal, or consumer polymer foam use. 

Risk Evaluation for 1,2-Dichloropropane 

On September 2, 2026, EPA released its draft risk evaluation for 1,2-dichloropropane (1,2-DCP), along with a notice of availability announcing the opening of a public comment period. Comments are due November 3, 2026. EPA preliminarily identified 11 conditions of use as significantly contributing to unreasonable risk to workers and ONUs from inhalation and dermal exposure, and three consumer uses — as a cleaner, polish, or wax — as contributing to unreasonable risk. The draft did not identify unreasonable risk to the general population, including fenceline communities, or the environment. 

Risk Evaluation for TBBPA

On June 16, 2026, EPA announced the availability of its draft risk evaluation for 4,4’-(1-methylethylidene)bis[2,6-dibromophenol] (TBBPA). TBBPA is an additive and reactive flame retardant used in electronic enclosures, electronic consumer products with plastic casings, printed circuit boards, textiles, leather products, and construction materials. The public comment period closed August 17, 2026.

EPA preliminarily determined that three of 24 conditions of use significantly contribute to unreasonable risk to workers through inhalation: domestic manufacture, import, and repackaging. EPA also preliminarily identified one processing condition of use as significantly contributing to unreasonable risk to the environment. EPA did not identify significant contributions to unreasonable risk for occupational non-users, consumers, or the general population, including fenceline communities. Notably, the Agency specifically requested information on occupational exposure assumptions, including engineering controls and PPE, which will be important to the final risk evaluation and any subsequent Section 6(a) risk management rulemaking. 

Risk Evaluation for 1,1,2-Trichloroethane

On July 29, 2026, EPA announced the availability of and requested public comment on the draft risk evaluation for 1,1,2-trichloroethane. According to EPA, the draft identifies significant contributions to unreasonable risk to workers from dermal and inhalation exposure across 10 occupational conditions of use, and does not identify unreasonable risk to consumers, the general population, or the environment. Comments were due September 28, 2026. 

EPA Extends Certain Compliance Dates for the PCE and CTC Risk Management Rules

On July 28, 2026, EPA issued a final rule extending certain compliance dates under the TSCA Section 6(a) risk management rules for perchloroethylene (PCE) and carbon tetrachloride (CTC). 91 Fed. Reg. 47,145. Specifically, EPA stated that it was extending certain Workplace Chemical Protection Program (WCPP) compliance dates for non-federal owners and operators to align with the existing compliance dates applicable to federal agencies and their contractors.

For both PCE and CTC, the rule extends the compliance date for initial inhalation exposure monitoring to June 21, 2027, and extends to September 20, 2027 the compliance dates for meeting the existing chemical exposure limit (ECEL), establishing a regulated area, instituting a workplace information and training program, providing required respiratory PPE, and establishing a respiratory PPE program. For PCE specifically, EPA also extended the compliance date for federal entities to institute a workplace information and training program to September 20, 2027, and for non-federal entities to establish and implement an exposure control plan to December 20, 2027. The rule was effective on publication.

The extension does not alter the substantive WCPP obligations, though EPA has also been considering whether amendments to the final PCE or CTC rules (which may include amendments to the WCPP provisions) are necessary. Until any such amendments are finalized, companies subject to the PCE or CTC rules should use the additional time provided under the compliance date extension rule to ensure that they understand the requirements of the rule and begin building out compliance programs rather than treating the new dates as an indication that the requirements will be revisited. 

EPA’s Delayed 2026 Unified Agenda Sets Out Timelines for TSCA Rulemakings

In early July, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) released the 2026 Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (the Unified Agenda), which includes several EPA actions of significance for companies subject to TSCA. In the best of times, the deadlines in the Unified Agenda should be treated as estimates, rather than operative deadlines. This is even more true following the Fifth Circuit’s decision in East Fork Enterprises (discussed in further detail above), as EPA will likely have to revisit existing proposed and final rules and those under development, leading to further delays. The Unified Agenda is therefore most useful as a statement of EPA’s sequencing and priorities, rather than as a reliable calendar. For those actions that are submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review prior to release, the public docket shows when a proposed or final rule has been received.

The Unified Agenda listed July 2026 as the estimated final action date for both the revised TSCA risk evaluation framework rule and the TSCA Section 6(a) risk management rule for N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), and August 2026 for the final rule for 1-bromopropane (1-BP). EPA also listed estimated proposal dates for a number of amended and new TSCA Section 6 rules: July 2026 for amendments to the perchloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), and carbon tetrachloride (CTC) rules; July 2026 for compliance date extensions covering methylene chloride, TCE, PCE, and CTC; and August 2026 to December 2026 for new TSCA Section 6 rules for diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP), formaldehyde, cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster (HBCD), diisononyl phthalate (DINP), and tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP). OMB is currently reviewing compliance date extensions for the TSCA Section 6 rule for TCE. None of the other proposed or final rules have been released or even sent to OMB for review prior to release. 

The Unified Agenda also references two non-chemical-specific proposed TSCA Section 6 rules. First, the “Laboratory Requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act” rule is described as intended to “address the unreasonable risk presented by laboratory use of chemicals that have undergone a TSCA risk evaluation.” The Unified Agenda states that EPA is initiating this rulemaking so that laboratory-related requirements are consistent across all chemicals evaluated under Section 6, and that it intends to consider existing OSHA standards, including OSHA’s laboratory standard, to avoid conflicting or duplicative regulation. The estimated proposal date is October 2026. Second, the “Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Risk Management Rules and Critical Uses for Federal Agencies” rule, a previously listed action, would allow federal agencies and their contractors to continue using certain chemical substances temporarily under specified conditions of use where necessary to prevent significant disruptions to the national economy, national security, or critical infrastructure. The estimated proposal date is December 2026. The status of these proposed rules is unknown; neither rule has yet been sent to OMB for review. 

Finally, the proposed amendments to the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting rule appear on the Unified Agenda with an estimated final rule date of July 2026. As with the other rules, the July 2026 estimate has now passed without a final rule and the status of these amendments is unknown. 

Reminder: TSCA CBI Claims Are Now Expiring on a Rolling Basis

Confidential business claims (CBI) asserted under the 2016 TSCA amendments began expiring in June 2026, 10 years after the first claims were asserted under the amended statute. EPA continues to publish monthly lists of expiring claims. To extend a claim, a submitter must file a request with substantiation no later than 30 days before the claim’s expiration date. Claims made as part of a 2016 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) submission will expire no later than October 31, 2026, which means extension requests for those claims must have been submitted no later than October 1, 2026. Companies should review EPA’s lists of expiring claims as they are released monthly, confirm whether any of their claims cover information that remains commercially sensitive, verify that their Central Data Exchange access is current, and prepare substantiation materials. As EPA emphasized in its May webinar, substantiation that was adequate when a claim was first asserted may not suffice to support an extension.

EPA Office of Inspector General to Evaluate the TSCA Priority Testing List

On August 4, 2026, EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) announced that it will evaluate the TSCA Priority Testing List, following an OIG Hotline complaint. OIG’s stated objectives are to determine the extent to which the TSCA Interagency Testing Committee (ITC) is updating the Priority Testing List every six months, as TSCA Section 4(e) contemplates, and the extent to which EPA is addressing chemicals on the updated list. The most recent ITC report published in the Federal Register was issued in April 2021.

The evaluation is directed at EPA rather than at regulated entities, but its outcome could prompt renewed ITC activity. Companies manufacturing or importing substances that have previously appeared on, or been recommended for, the Priority Testing List may wish to track this evaluation, as a revived list could feed into future Section 4 test orders or prioritization decisions.

New and Proposed SNURs

In July and August 2026, EPA proposed two batches of significant new use rules (SNURs), finalized one batch of SNURs, and finalized one standalone SNUR relating to chemical substances that were the subject of premanufacture notices and are also subject to TSCA Section 5(e) orders. 

EPA proposed a batch of SNURs on July 23, 2026 for more than two dozen chemical substances with uses including use as an electrolyte additive, use in laundry detergents, use in paints, coatings, and inks, and use in photolithography. 91 Fed. Reg. 46,364. Comments were due on these proposed SNURs on August 24, 2026. Additionally, on July 30, 2026, EPA proposed a batch of SNURs covering more than one dozen chemical substances with uses including use as a catalyst, use as a fragrance in household consumer products, use as a surfactant, and use in photolithography. Comments were due on these proposed SNURs on August 31, 2026. 

Separately, on July 24, 2026, EPA published a final SNUR for multi-walled carbon nanotubes (P-22-163), effective September 22, 2026. 91 Fed. Reg. 46,742. This final SNUR is notable with respect to its treatment of articles. The import and processing of a chemical substance as part of an article is a long-standing exemption from SNUR requirements. 40 C.F.R. § 721.45(f). While this final SNUR does not make the articles exemption fully inapplicable, it does articulate that the articles exemption ceases to apply once the article “has been shredded or processed such that dust containing the substance is generated.” This appears to be the first instance of a SNUR in which EPA seeks to revoke the articles exemption at a certain point in the lifecycle of the chemical substance subject to the SNUR (rather than just making the articles exemption applicable or inapplicable from the outset). This approach is likely to add complexity both to regulated parties using the chemical substance subject to the SNUR and to EPA’s efforts to enforce the SNUR.

Finally, on August 26, 2026, EPA finalized a batch of more than two dozen SNURs originally proposed in November 2025. The chemical substances subject to these final SNURs have uses including as electrolyte additives, use in oil and gas production, use as an additive in agricultural formulations, use as a mining and mineral processing agent, and use as a component in battery manufacturing. 

Companies with chemical substances that have been the subject of recent TSCA Section 5(e) consent orders or consent order modifications should monitor EPA’s publications of proposed SNURs to ensure that the terms of each proposed SNUR accurately reflect the terms of the consent order. Where the terms of the proposed SNUR differ from the terms of the consent order, companies should be prepared to engage with EPA to understand whether such differences are intentional and to understand how the proposed SNUR (if finalized) could impact their uses. Other companies should also continue to monitor proposed SNURs even where the chemical identity is described generically, since a generic identity does not eliminate the possibility that a company’s substance is covered. Where a SNUR describes a substance generically or does not publicly disclose the specific chemical identity, a bona fide intent to manufacture, import, or process submission under 40 C.F.R. § 721.11 remains the mechanism for determining whether a particular substance is subject to the rule.

FIFRA Updates

Draft Fungicide Strategy Comment Period Closes; Final Strategy Expected by End of November

EPA published its Draft Fungicide Strategy for public comment on April 30, 2026. The comment period closed June 29, 2026. EPA has stated that it intends to finalize the Fungicide Strategy by the end of November 2026. Registrants and users of agricultural fungicides should prepare for the possibility that the final strategy will outline geographically based mitigation measures that may be applied where EPA identifies the potential for population-level impacts to listed species — consistent with the approach EPA has taken in its Herbicide and Insecticide Strategies — and that EPA will work to implement these measures through the registration review of existing fungicides and the registration of new fungicides.

EPA Releases Additional MyPeST Resources for Pesticide Submissions

EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs has issued updated guidance for MyPeST, the web-based system replacing the Pesticide Submission Portal, which provides registrants with application status tracking and bilingual labeling compliance management. Version 3.0.1 of the MyPeST User Guide, dated July 8, 2026, is now available. EPA has indicated that the User Guide is updated regularly, so registrants should confirm they are working from the current version before preparing submissions.

Other Federal Litigation Updates

Ninth Circuit Rejects Challenges to EPA’s New Chemicals Regulations

On August 13, 2026, the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument in challenges brought by Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT) and the United Automobile Workers (UAW) to EPA’s 2024 final rule amending the new chemicals regulations at 40 C.F.R. parts 720 and 723. ACAT challenged the provision in 40 C.F.R. § 723.50 providing that persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) substances are eligible for low volume exemptions (LVEs) and low release and exposure exemptions (LoREXs), arguing that the nature of PBT substances makes it impossible for EPA to find that low volumes or low releases will not present unreasonable risk. EPA argued that it evaluates each request on a case-by-case basis, but was notably unable to tell the court whether it had ever approved an LVE or LoREX for a PBT substance under the rule. UAW’s challenge concerned transparency in new chemicals review — specifically, EPA’s failure to do more in the 2024 final rule to make the new chemicals process more transparent to the public and worker groups. EPA argued that this issue fell outside the scope of the rulemaking, and thus it was not required to respond to UAW’s comments on this issue.

On August 26, 2026, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision denying the challenges from ACAT and UAW. The court held that it was reasonable and consistent with its authority under TSCA for EPA to choose to consider LVE and LoREX eligibility for PBTs on a case-by-case basis (rather than making PBTs categorically ineligible). The court also agreed with EPA that the issues raised in UAW’s comments were outside of the scope of the rulemaking, and thus EPA was not required under the Administrative Procedure Act to substantively respond to these comments. 

NGOs Challenge EPA Approval of Two New Semiconductor Chemicals

On August 14, 2026, CHIPS Communities United and the Sierra Club filed petitions for review in the Ninth Circuit challenging two TSCA Section 5 consent orders authorizing the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of new substances for semiconductor manufacturing. Earthjustice, which represents CHIPS Communities United and the Sierra Club, has previewed its arguments that EPA authorized the substances notwithstanding its identification of potential serious health risks and its acknowledgment that it lacked the information needed to calculate the full extent of those risks. Substantive briefing in this case is expected to begin in April 2027.

Together with the ACAT and UAW challenges to EPA’s new chemicals regulations, this petition for review reflects sustained nongovernmental organization (NGO) attention on EPA’s new chemicals program. Submitters should anticipate a potential increase in judicial challenges to Section 5 consent orders, particularly where EPA has identified possible risk and allowed manufacture to move forward pending the development of further information. 

EPA Files Status Report in Risk Evaluation Framework Rule Litigation

On August 17, 2026, EPA filed a status report in Community In-Power & Development Association v. EPA, Case No. 1:23-cv-2415 (D.D.C.), the litigation challenging its Risk Evaluation Framework Rule at 40 C.F.R. part 702, subpart B. The report provides no substantive detail, stating only that EPA is considering the comments received on its September 2025 proposed amendments and will provide a further update in 90 days. The framework rule governs how EPA scopes and conducts every existing chemical risk evaluation, and continuing uncertainty about its final form complicates planning for companies with substances in or approaching the pipeline. The Unified Agenda’s July 2026 estimate for a final rule has passed, and the timing of the final rule (particularly in light of the East Fork Enterprises decision) is uncertain. 

Fifth Circuit Grants Further Stay in 1,4-Dioxane Risk Evaluation Litigation

On September 28, 2026, EPA filed an unopposed motion in the Fifth Circuit to extend the stay in Union Carbide Corp. v. EPA, Case No. 24-60615 (5th Cir.), the litigation challenging revisions to EPA’s TSCA risk evaluation for 1,4-dioxane. On October 1, 2026, the Fifth Circuit granted this motion, extending the stay to December 28, 2026. The extension gives EPA additional time to consider possible revisions to its cancer assessment and the risk evaluation more broadly, particularly in light of the Fifth Circuit’s decision in East Fork Enterprises. The continued pause leaves the timing and substance of a final amended risk evaluation — and any eventual Section 6(a) risk management rule — uncertain.

Legislative Updates

Congress (Temporarily) Extends EPA’s TSCA Fee Authority

On September 2, 2026, President Trump signed a continuing resolution to extend government funding through December 11, 2026. Included in this continuing resolution is a provision extending EPA’s authority to collect fees under TSCA from September 30, 2026 to December 11, 2026, giving Congress time after the November 3 election to consider legislation to further extend this fee authority and possibly consider more substantive amendments to TSCA. 

Bipartisan Asbestos Legislation Introduced in the Senate

On August 4, 2026, Senators Jeff Merkley and John Curtis, the Ranking Member and Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management, Environmental Justice, and Regulatory Oversight, introduced the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act of 2026, S. 5235. The bill would prohibit the manufacture, processing, use, and distribution in commerce of commercial asbestos, would cover the six historically regulated asbestos fibers as well as richterite and winchite, and would codify federal transition requirements.

State Regulatory Updates

District of New Mexico Enjoins Enforcement of State’s PFAS Labeling Regulations

On September 16, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico granted a motion from the American Chemistry Council and others to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of New Mexico’s labeling requirements for products containing intentionally added PFAS. Of note, the preliminary injunction affects only the labeling regulations promulgated pursuant to New Mexico’s PFAS Protection Act — it does not impact the prohibitions or reporting requirements under the act.

In granting the preliminary injunction, the court held that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their argument that the label requirement violates their First Amendment rights. The court disagreed with plaintiffs’ argument that the required PFAS labeling (a symbol of an Erlenmeyer flask with the word “PFAS” inside of it) was inherently inflammatory or controversial, instead finding that New Mexico was likely to succeed in its argument that the label is “purely factual.” However, in the context of granting the preliminary injunction, the court concluded that there is not a “reasonable fit” between the PFAS labeling requirement and the state’s interest in “protecting consumer health and safety, protecting the environment, and providing relevant information about the manufacturing process to consumers.” The court found that “consumer curiosity is not a sufficient government interest to sustain the compulsion of even a factually accurate and non-controversial statement.” The court also noted various public statements from the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) suggesting that the PFAS label is intended to be a warning, despite the state’s position in litigation that it is merely informative.

The District of New Mexico is now considering New Mexico’s motion to dismiss the litigation. If the litigation is not dismissed, the court will then consider the labeling requirements on their merits. 

New Mexico Issues Guidance on PFAS Protection Act Compliance

As initial deadlines under New Mexico’s PFAS Protection Act approach, the NMED has been issuing guidance addressing the requirements of the act. NMED has issued guidance for manufacturers and Frequently Asked Questions about the PFAS Protection Act and the labeling regulations promulgated under the act. The materials issued by NMED to date — particularly with respect to the labeling requirements — noticeably focus on “consumer products” (as opposed to industrial- or commercial-use products). The act defines a consumer product as “tangible personal property distributed in commerce and normally used for personal, family, or household use, including categories normally used in households but designed for or sold to businesses, such as commercial carpet or floor waxes.” Manufacturers of industrial and commercial products, components of such products, and equipment necessary to manufacture such products should carefully assess their obligations under New Mexico’s PFAS Protection Act, as the scope of the products covered may not always be clear. Companies determining that their products are not subject to some or all requirements of the act should be certain to document their basis for this determination. 

New Mexico Prepares Report on Implementation of the PFAS Protection Act

On August 18, 2026, NMED held a webinar on the PFAS Protection Act and announced the opening of a 30-day public comment period on the exemptions to the act. The comment period closed September 17, 2026.

The comment period stems from New Mexico House Joint Memorial 3 (HJM 3), passed in February 2026, which directs NMED to report to the state legislature by August 1, 2027 on three subjects: (1) the status of implementation of the act; (2) an analysis of the public health, environmental, and economic risks associated with the current exemptions under the act; and (3) recommendations for legislative action to retain, modify, or remove those exemptions. NMED has stated that it is reviewing relevant literature and consulting with other state agencies as part of this work, that it will present preliminary findings to the Radiation and Hazardous Waste Interim Committee on November 5, 2026, and that it will submit the final report to the legislature by the August 1, 2027 statutory deadline.

Companies relying on an exemption under the act should continue to engage with NMED as it develops its report. The exemptions are the mechanism through which most product categories currently avoid the act’s reporting and prohibition requirements and would form the basis for eligibility for a waiver from NMED’s labeling requirements, were they to take effect. HJM 3 places all of them on the table. Companies that depend on a particular exemption and did not comment still have opportunities to engage, including ahead of NMED’s presentation of its preliminary findings to the Radiation and Hazardous Waste Interim Committee (expected in November 2026) and its final report to the legislature. Companies should be prepared to substantiate the technical necessity of the relevant PFAS use and the economic consequences of removing the exemption, since NMED has indicated its analysis will address economic impacts.

Minnesota PFAS in Products Reporting Initial Deadline Has Passed

Manufacturers that did not request an extension or waiver were required to report by September 15, 2026. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency extended the initial reporting deadline under the state’s PFAS in Products law from July 1, 2026 to September 15, 2026. The window for requesting a 90-day extension or a reporting waiver closed August 16, 2026. Manufacturers whose extension requests were denied must report within 30 days after receiving the denial notice if that deadline falls after September 15. Manufacturers with approved extension requests must submit a waiver request by November 14, 2026 or an initial report by December 14, 2026.

Reports are submitted through Minnesota’s PFAS Reporting and Information System for Manufacturers (PRISM). Minnesota has begun to make reported data public, with more than 60,000 data points already available, and thousands more being reviewed by Minnesota prior to release. 

California Enacts PFAS in Pesticides Disclosure Requirement 

On September 27, 2026, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1603, a bill requiring the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to identify in its pesticide use reporting database whether a pesticide includes PFAS ingredients, to publish a list of all registered pesticides that contain PFAS pesticide ingredients, and to update such list within 60 days of registering a new pesticide containing PFAS pesticide ingredients. The legislation defines “PFAS” as a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom. Although this law does not impose reporting requirements on pesticide registrants, this legislation (along with the Minnesota and New Mexico reporting requirements) is illustrative of a trend towards increased transparency about the PFAS content of products.

International Updates

European Chemicals Agency Risk Assessment Committee Releases Long-Awaited TFA Opinion

On October 6, 2026, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) released its long-awaited opinion on the harmonized classification and labeling of trifluoroacetic acid (TFA). This opinion was adopted in June 2026, at which time a summary of the high-level conclusions was also released. As previewed in June, the opinion concludes that TFA and its inorganic salts should be classified as presumed human reproductive toxicants and meet the criteria for classification as persistent, mobile, and toxic (PMT) and very persistent and very mobile (vPvM). The opinion also concludes that TFA should be classified as acutely toxic by the oral and inhalation routes of exposure. Many PFAS break down into TFA. Aside from the ongoing broad European Union PFAS restriction process,² this classification is likely to lead to stricter regulatory restrictions and swifter action to phase out the use of TFAs and precursor substances and may therefore have consequences affecting users of precursor products (including certain pesticides and fluorinated gases). This opinion will now be transmitted to the European Commission, which will consider whether to adopt revisions to the Classification, Labelling, and Packaging (CLP) Regulation. 

United Nations Report Calls PFAS a “Profound Threat to Human Rights”

On September 14, 2026, a Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Human Rights Council released its report entitled “Forever Chemicals and Human Rights.” The report discusses the properties of PFAS and the potential exposure pathways for PFAS and associated health impacts, and describes PFAS exposure as a “global environmental justice” issue. The report finds that PFAS “pose a profound threat to human rights and the environment,” compelling an “immediate ban of all non-essential uses of PFAS.” The report also recommends a phase-out of PFAS manufacturing and the development of an “international legally binding instrument” relating to the phase-out of PFAS, among other recommendations.

World Health Organization Identifies PFAS for Priority Assessment

In late July, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a report titled “Key Ingested Per- and Poly-fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) and Their Health Effects: Landscape Review.” The report notes the need to identify a “subset of priority PFAS for in-depth assessment.” In the report, WHO identified 18 priority PFAS for further evaluation to “support the derivation of health-based values.” The 18 priority PFAS are: perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnDA), perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid (PFHpS), perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA), perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA), perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA), perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS), perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA), perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA),perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (PFDS), trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) and perfluoro(2-propoxypropanoic acid) (HFPO-DA). 

© 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.