Recent Federal Developments For September 2026

Upcoming Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C^®) Webinars Will Explore FQPA, FIFRA Hot Topics, And Plastics EPR Trends

“The Food Quality Protection Act at 30: How It Happened, Why It Still Matters,” September 17, 2026, 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. (EDT), via webinar

August 3, 2026, marked an important milestone: the 30th anniversary of enactment of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) in 1996. This webinar features two pivotal participants in the legislative process and implementation of the law. James (Jim) Jones and James V. Aidala will discuss how events came together, how successful consensus was achieved, and how the law continues to impact pesticide regulation today. Register now for this fascinating conversation.

“Pesticides under FIFRA: What’s Happening Now, and What’s Next,” September 22, 2026, 11:00 a.m. – 12:15 p.m. (EDT), via webinar

There are significant recent developments affecting pesticide and biocide market access in the United States. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) continues to confront funding challenges, a decision backlog, the renewal of the Farm Bill, and reauthorization of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA), among other hot button issues. During this webinar, members of B&C’s renowned Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) team, James V. Aidala, Lisa R. Burchi, Heather F. Collins, MS, and Richard J. Fehir, Ph.D., will focus on these initiatives and break down the policy, legal, scientific, and regulatory implications that pesticide professionals need to know. Register now.

“Plastics and Policy: Microplastics, EPR, and Other Emerging Trends,” October 6, 2026, 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. (EDT), via webinar

During this webinar, Lindsay A. Holden, Ph.D., DABT, Senior Toxicologist/Regulatory Scientist, B&C, and B&C Associates L. Claire Hansen and Catherina D. Narigon will discuss how emerging microplastics, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), and recycling laws, such as California’s “Truth in Recycling” law and the European Union (EU) Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), affect plastic products and packaging stakeholders, how recent initiatives and legal challenges may affect the commercial landscape, and what stakeholders can do now to minimize legal, regulatory, and commercial risk. Register now.

B&C Continues To Cover NAW v. Feldon Trial — What It Means For EPR In Other States

Lynn L. Bergeson was joined by Karen R. Harned, Director of Litigation and Legal Policy for the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW), on a recent episode of All Things Chemical^®, to discuss the hot off the press decision in National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon, the federal challenge to Oregon’s EPR law. Listen to this episode and read detailed coverage of NAW v. Feldon,including daily recaps from the bench trial on B&C’s Product Stewardship Blog™.

Lynn L. Bergeson And Ryan N. Schmit To Present During CW’s “Regulatory Summit North America 2026”

Lynn L. Bergeson will participate in the “Panel discussion: Possible TSCA reform and future policy direction” and Ryan N. Schmit will present “TSCA litigation: current landscape and key cases” on September 28, 2026, during the Chemical Controls agenda as part of Chemical Watch’s (CW) Regulatory Summit North America 2026 in Alexandria, Virginia. B&C is pleased to be exhibiting at this event.

IBA AFS To Lead Sessions At IBA Annual Conference

The Agriculture and Food Section (AFS) is pleased to be leading two sessions at IBA 2026, the International Bar Association’s (IBA) annual conference in Copenhagen, October 4-9, 2026. AFS will present Barriers on the plate: the impact of trade restrictions on global food security on Tuesday, October 6 (9:30 a.m. – 10:45 a.m. CEST) and Foreign investment restrictions on controlling agricultural land on Wednesday, October 7 (4:15 p.m. – 5:30 p.m. CEST). Both sessions will further AFS’s mission to focus on the complex law and policy issues invited by the imperative to feed the planet, to do so equitably, and to do so effectively in a time of climate change and during/post a global pandemic.

TSCA/FIFRA/TRI

EPA Releases Draft TSCA Risk Evaluations For oDCB And pDCB, “Two Chemicals Found In Household And Commercial Products”

On August 10, 2026, EPA announced the availability of and requested public comment on the draft risk evaluations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for o-dichlorobenzene (oDCB) and p-dichlorobenzene (pDCB). 91 Fed. Reg. 51488. This is another step in EPA’s efforts required under the 2024 consent decree that resolved litigation over EPA’s lack of timeliness in completing 20 high-priority TSCA risk evaluations. Comments are due October 9, 2026. For a summary of the notice and the type of information that EPA is seeking comment on, please read our August 18, 2026, memorandum.

NGOs Challenge EPA Approval Of Two New Chemicals For Use In The Manufacture Of Semiconductors

On August 14, 2026, Earthjustice announced that two non-governmental organizations (NGO) filed suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit challenging EPA’s approval of two new chemicals for use in the manufacturing of semiconductors. CHIPS Communities United and Sierra Club seek review of two Consent Orders issued under Section 5 of TSCA authorizing the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of the new chemical substances identified as premanufacture notice (PMN) numbers P-26-0045 and P-26-0029. For more information on this litigation and our Commentary regarding the possible outcomes of this litigation, please read our August 25, 2026, memorandum.

EPA Draft TSCA Risk Evaluation Of Ethylene Dibromide Identifies Significant Contributions To Unreasonable Risk To Workers And Occupational Non-Users

On August 19, 2026, EPA announced the availability of and requested public comment on the draft risk evaluation under TSCA for ethylene dibromide. 91 Fed. Reg. 53618. Ethylene dibromide “is primarily used in fuels and related products as a lead scavenger in leaded aviation gasoline [(avgas)] and in certain industrial and commercial applications.” Ethylene dibromide is one of the last draft risk evaluations to be published in the “next 20” chemicals designated as high-priority substances in 2019 that were the subject of litigation, and a resultant consent decree that imposed various milestones and deadlines for completing risk evaluations under TSCA.

EPA states that after considering public comments on the draft risk evaluation and input from the Scientific Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) peer review, it will issue a final risk evaluation for ethylene dibromide. Comments on the draft risk evaluation are due October 19, 2026. Please read our September 14, 2026, memorandum for a summary of the specific input that EPA is seeking.

EPA Announces Receipt Of Applications And Seeks Public Comment For New Pesticide Active Ingredients

On August 20, 2026, EPA announced notice of receipt of applications to register new active ingredients (AI) not included in any currently registered pesticide product. 91 Fed. Reg. 53858. EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of the applications does not imply a decision by EPA. The applications identified in the announcement were received since the last notice was issued by EPA and are currently being evaluated in accordance with FIFRA. Comments must be received on or before September 21, 2026. More information is available in our August 25, 2026, blog item.

EPA Seeks Comment On Draft Settlement Agreement Resolving Unreasonable Delay Claim Regarding NRDC’s Petition To Revoke Tolerances For Neonicotinoid Pesticides

On August 20, 2026, EPA published a proposed settlement agreement seeking to resolve an unreasonable delay claim regarding the Natural Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC) petition to revoke all tolerances for neonicotinoid (neonic) pesticides. 91 Fed. Reg. 53857. EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment until September 21, 2026, on the proposed settlement agreement. The five neonics at issue are used on a wide variety of crops, turf, ornamentals, pets (for flea treatment), and other residential and commercial indoor and outdoor uses. The proposed settlement does not change the regulatory status of these products. It only sets a deadline by which EPA will make a decision. For more information on the proposed settlement agreement, please read our September 8, 2026, blog item.

Happy 30-Year Anniversary FQPA!

This year marks at least one other celebration besides the nation’s 250 years since the Declaration of Independence. Though much smaller in scale and scope, regarding pesticide regulation, FQPA was very much a pivotal event. Please read our August 24, 2026, blog item written by James V. Aidala, Senior Government Affairs Consultant, B&C. Jim, a participant in the legislative process and implementation of the law, provides information on the background of FQPA and his insight on FQPA 30 years later.

EPA Releases Glyphosate Human Health Open Literature Search Document For Public Comment

On August 25, 2026, EPA announced the availability of an open literature search document and the opening of a comment period on the results of a comprehensive open literature search in support of the ongoing registration review of glyphosate. 91 Fed. Reg. 54870. This open literature search is intended to inform the upcoming hazard assessment for the updated glyphosate human health risk assessment, currently scheduled to be completed in late 2026. EPA is soliciting comments on the completeness of the Agency’s glyphosate open literature search, with comments due on September 24, 2026. EPA states that it anticipates completing its evaluation of glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential and human health risk assessment in late 2026, and EPA intends to hold a public webinar in early 2027 to provide an overview of the updated human health risk assessment. More information is available in our September 10, 2026, blog item.

EPA Issues Final SNURs For Certain Chemical Substances

On August 26, 2026, EPA issued final significant new use rules (SNUR) under TSCA for certain chemical substances that were the subject of PMNs and are also subject to an Order issued by EPA pursuant to TSCA. 91 Fed. Reg. 54992. The SNURs require persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture (defined by statute to include import) or processing of any of these chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use in the SNUR. The required notification initiates EPA’s evaluation of the conditions of that use for that chemical substance. In addition, the manufacture or processing for the significant new use may not commence until EPA has conducted a review of the required notification; made an appropriate determination regarding that notification; and taken such actions as required by that determination. The final SNURs will be effective October 26, 2026. EPA states that for purposes of judicial review, the SNURs “shall be promulgated at 1 p.m. (EST) on September 9, 2026.”

EPA Announces Availability Of Draft Risk Evaluation For Trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene

EPA announced on August 27, 2026, the availability of and requested public comment on the draft risk evaluation under TSCA for trans-1,2-dichloroethylene. 91 Fed. Reg. 55337. EPA states that the purpose of risk evaluations under TSCA is to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under the conditions of use (COU), including unreasonable risk to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by EPA, and without consideration of costs or non-risk factors. Comments are due October 26, 2026. More information will be available in a forthcoming memorandum.

EPA Announces Two Scientific Advances Designed To Modernize Safety Reviews Of New Chemicals And Pesticides

On August 27, 2026, EPA announced two scientific advancements designed to modernize safety reviews of new chemicals and pesticides while further eliminating the Agency’s reliance on animal testing:

• Modernizing Surfactant Assessment: EPA states that it has updated its scientific framework to predict better how surfactants may irritate the lungs using three-dimensional (3D) human airway tissue, “providing science that is faster, more human relevant, and less dependent on animal testing –without compromising safety.” This allows reviewers to estimate risks safely using existing digital models rather than ordering new animal studies.

• Adopting GHS Mixture Standards: EPA will use the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) mixtures equation to predict oral toxicity for some pesticides. According to EPA, this decision follows a comprehensive analysis that evaluated nearly 700 pesticide formulations, which showed the mixtures equation can reliably identify products that are minimally toxic by the oral route.

EDF Blog Item States Country-Specific Exposure, Use Patterns, And Regulatory Requirements Matter More Than Chemical’s Approval Status In Other Countries

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) posted a blog item on August 27, 2026, entitled “American Chemical Safety Decisions Should Be Based on American Conditions of Use.” EDF’s blog item explores why the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) experience, policy, and modern risk assessment show that country-specific exposure, use patterns, and regulatory requirements are more important when evaluating a new chemical than approval status in other countries. An OECD New Chemicals Task Force “identified fundamental challenges to one country automatically adopting another country’s risk-based new chemical decision.” More information is available in our September 2, 2026, blog item.

EPA Requests Comment On Draft Risk Evaluation For 1,2-Dichloropropane

On September 4, 2026, EPA announced the availability of and requested public comment on a draft risk evaluation under TSCA for 1,2-dichloropropane. 91 Fed. Reg. 56882. EPA notes that the purpose of risk evaluations under TSCA is to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under the COUs, including unreasonable risk to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by EPA, and without consideration of costs or non-risk factors. Comments are due November 3, 2026. More information will be available in a forthcoming memorandum.

The Tick-ing Time Bomb: Repellents, Regulation, And A Growing Public Health Challenge

Ticks have long been an unwelcome consequence of spending time outdoors, but the public health significance of tick exposure is becoming difficult to ignore. Changes in the geographic distribution of tick species, longer periods of seasonal activity in some regions, changing land-use patterns, movement of wildlife hosts, and increased human exposure to tick habitats make the risk of tick-borne disease an increasingly important public health issue in the United States and elsewhere.

Ticks in the United States can transmit pathogens responsible for Lyme disease, anaplasmosis, babesiosis, ehrlichiosis, Rocky Mountain spotted fever (RMSF) and other spotted-fever rickettsioses, Powassan virus disease, and other illnesses. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that the number of people in the United States affected by Alpha-gal syndrome (AGS), a potentially life-threatening allergy from a tick bite, may be as high as 450,000. 

Tick distributions are not static. The lone star tick, for example, has historically been associated with the southeastern and south-central United States but is now encountered farther north, while the brown dog tick occurs worldwide. The blacklegged tick is now broadly distributed across the eastern United States, while other species historically associated with particular regions have been documented outside their traditional ranges.

The practical implication is that historical assumptions about where tick precautions are necessary are becoming less reliable. Consumers, public health agencies, pesticide regulators, and product manufacturers increasingly must account for changing patterns of exposure.

Please read our September 9, 2026, memorandum to learn more about this growing health challenge and the regulatory challenges and opportunities for bringing chemical repellents and insecticides to market in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the EU.

RCRA/CERCLA/CWA/CAA/PHMSA/SDWA

Federal Appellate Court Upholds EPA’s Designation Of PFOA And PFOS As CERCLA Hazardous Substances

On August 18, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the EPA’s 2024 rule designating perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. EPA (No. 24-1193). According to the court’s decision, Petitioners claim that:

• EPA misinterpreted the term “may present substantial danger” in CERCLA’s definition of a hazardous substance;

• EPA’s cost-benefit analysis provided insufficient notice to the parties; and

• EPA’s cost-benefit analysis and decision to regulate in the face of uncertainty were arbitrary and capricious.

The court states that “[n]one of those claims succeeds.” The court notes that “[t]he plain language of [CERCLA] Section 9602 allows EPA to designate as hazardous substances chemicals like PFOA and PFOS that repeatedly have been linked to adverse health effects in myriad peer-reviewed studies.” According to the court, EPA provided adequate notice of its cost-benefit analysis underlying the ultimate designation through its earlier Economic Assessment and request for comments on it. Finally, “EPA acted reasonably based on the record before it in its calculation of costs and benefits, and in its decision to take this regulatory step of designating PFOA and PFOS to be hazardous substances.”

EPA Proposes Updates To NPDES Definitions And Exclusions

EPA proposed on September 4, 2026, revisions to the regulatory definition under the Clean Water Act (CWA) permitting regulations pertaining to discharges in the contiguous zone and ocean. 91 Fed. Reg. 56819. EPA states that the proposal “would revise the regulatory definition of ‘discharge of a pollutant’ to reflect and faithfully implement the statutory exclusion of vessels and other floating craft that add pollutants in the contiguous zone or the ocean from inclusion in the definition of ‘discharge of a pollutant’ or ‘discharge’, and thus, from National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program requirements.” The proposed rule would also make conforming and clarifying changes to the NPDES regulatory exclusion for vessels and other floating craft. According to EPA, the effect of the changes would be that the addition of pollutants by a vessel or other floating craft in the contiguous zone or the ocean that is not secured to the seabed would not be a discharge and would not require CWA NPDES permit authorization to add pollutants to those waters. Comments are due October 19, 2026.

EPA And Corps Of Engineers Issue Supplemental Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding The Definition Of “Waters Of The United States”

EPA and the Department of the Army published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) on September 9, 2026, to supplement and seek additional comment on certain aspects of a November 2025 proposal to revise the regulations defining the scope of waters federally covered under the CWA in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Sackett v. EPA. 91 Fed. Reg. 57284. The agencies seek comment on supplemental regulatory options for the revised definitions of “relatively permanent” and “continuous surface connection,” and would add a definition of the term “perennial” that would result in a renumbering of the existing and previously proposed definitions in paragraph (c) of the regulatory text, along with other conforming edits. Comments are due October 9, 2026.

EPA Announces “Cutting-Edge” Scientific Study To Strengthen Understanding Of Potential Pollutants In Drinking Water

On September 9, 2026, EPA announced a new scientific study using cutting-edge methods to improve the Agency’s understanding of what pollutants may be present in drinking water. According to EPA, “[t]his groundbreaking new research by EPA scientists goes beyond traditional testing methods to screen for a broad array of pollutants, including pharmaceuticals, [per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)], and more than 1,000 potential contaminants.” EPA notes that this action advances its commitment to help Make America Healthy Again while following gold standard science. EPA states that the scientific assessment will use Non-Targeted Analysis, which allows researchers to scan for thousands of potential pollutants, unlike conventional analytical methods measuring a few specific chemicals at a time. EPA will use the results to help prioritize future actions to ensure that drinking water is safe.

FDA

FDA Announces Food Safety Culture Webinar

On August 20, 2026, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a bulletin inviting the public to join a webinar titled “Food Safety Culture: So What? Moving Beyond Compliance to Impact” that will be held at 12:00 p.m. (EDT) on September 16, 2026. The webinar will attempt to address the question if investments in training, communication campaigns, assessments, and audits have changed food safety outcomes. Registration details and additional information are available at the link here.

FDA Refuses Issuance Of Certificates For Registered Cosmetic Facilities

On September 9, 2026, FDA clarified that the agency “does not provide certificates or other documents to verify compliance for cosmetic product facility registration.” FDA further indicated that the cosmetic product facility registration process generally required under the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) is “neither a cosmetic approval program nor a promotional tool” and that an “assignment of a facility registration number or product listing number does not indicate FDA approval of the facility or its cosmetic products.” Additional information is available at the links here and here.

NANOTECHNOLOGY

OECD Posts Guidance Document On Toxicokinetics To Accommodate Testing Of (Nano)Particles

On August 10, 2026, OECD posted a Guidance Document on Toxicokinetics to accommodate Testing of (Nano)particles that provides guidance and considerations around in vivo testing for toxicokinetics of simple-structured, manufactured, poorly soluble, and partially soluble spheroidal particles following oral and inhalation exposure. To reflect that both nano-sized and larger particles are included in the scope of the guidance document, OECD uses the term “nano” between parentheses, (nano)particles. More information is available in our September 14, 2026, blog item.

BIOBASED/RENEWABLE PRODUCTS/SUSTAINABILITY

B&C^® Biobased And Sustainable Chemicals Blog

For access to a summary of key legislative, regulatory, and business developments in biobased chemicals, biofuels, and industrial biotechnology, go to https://www.lawbc.com/brand/bioblog/.

PUBLIC POLICY AND REGULATION

Public Policy And Regulation Blog^®

Our insights on policy developments affecting industrial and agricultural chemicals and the products in which they are included are available at https://www.lawbc.com/brand/publicpolicyblog/.

PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP

Product Stewardship Blog^™

Product stewardship has emerged as a defining standard against which to measure chemical product excellence.This blog focuses on legal, policy, and voluntary stewardship initiatives affecting the design, manufacture, marketing, and end-of-life management of products. To read about product stewardship initiatives, go to https://www.lawbc.com/brand/productstewardshipblog/.

LEGISLATIVE

House Bill Would Require Additional Transparency Measures For Industrial Facilities Handling Hazardous Materials

Representative Derek Tran (D-CA) introduced the Hazardous Materials Transparency Act (H.R. 10108) on August 13, 2026. According to Tran’s August 18, 2026, press release, the bill would require additional transparency and accountability measures for industrial facilities that handle hazardous materials. The legislation would mandate that these facilities “properly and regularly notify the communities they operate in about the safety measures that are taken to avoid danger to residents and small businesses.” The bill would also require facilities working with hazardous materials to establish a coordination plan with first responders and to have a community liaison able to provide timely information in the case of an emergency. The press release notes that this legislation “was introduced in response to the chemical crisis at the GKN Aerospace facility in Garden Grove that displaced over 50,000 residents and shuttered 5,000 small businesses over Memorial Day Weekend.”

House Bill Would “Reverse Supreme Court Decision Shielding Pesticide Companies From Accountability”

On August 24, 2026, Representative Nancy Mace (R-SC) introduced the Pesticide Harm Accountability Act (H.R. 10144) “to give Americans back their day in court when toxic pesticides cause harm, following the Supreme Court’s June 25 ruling in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell.” Mace’s August 24, 2026, press release states that in Durnell, the Supreme Court held that FIFRA “blocks states from holding pesticide manufacturers accountable when the EPA approved a label without requiring a cancer warning.” According to the press release, the bill would:

• Stop federal law from blocking state lawsuits against pesticide manufacturers over labeling and packaging;

• Protect states’ ability to require stronger warnings on pesticide products under state tort law;

• Restore Americans’ ability to seek damages in state court when pesticide manufacturers fail to warn adequately about the risks of their products; and

• Require EPA to identify and address federal regulations, guidance, and policies limiting state tort claims involving pesticide labeling or packaging.

The press release states that the legislation “comes as Congress has documented serious failures in EPA pesticide oversight: nearly 65 percent of pesticides are conditionally registered before full safety review; emergency exemptions are used to keep pesticides on the market for years without comprehensive registration; and manufacturers are not required to disclose certain ‘inactive’ ingredients, which can constitute 99 percent of a product and include carcinogenic chemicals.”

House Bill Would Require EPA “To Back Pesticide Approvals With Real Science”

Representative Nancy Mace (R-SC) introduced the Scientific Oversight for Unbiased and Neutral Data in Pesticide Research Act (SOUND Pesticide Research Act) (H.R. 10145) on August 24, 2026, requiring EPA “to rely on four generations of toxicity data when making pesticide reproductive safety determinations.” According to Mace’s August 25, 2026, press release, EPA currently requires only two generations of study when considering the reproductive and health consequences of certain pesticides. The press release states, however, that “many medical professionals are concerned only tracking two generations of health effects does not provide the EPA with enough data to make comprehensive safety determinations.” The bill would:

• Require EPA to rely on data from a multigenerational reproductive toxicity study covering no fewer than four generations of test species before establishing, modifying, revoking, or leaving in effect any pesticide residue tolerance or exemption;

• Direct EPA to audit all existing pesticide residue tolerance determinations within 180 days of enactment to confirm each one meets the new standard; and

• Require EPA to report to Congress within two years identifying every determination reviewed, updated, or changed as a result.

Continuing Resolution Extends EPA’s TSCA Fee Authority

On September 2, 2026, President Trump signed the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2027 (H.R. 6500) that provides continuing fiscal year (FY) 2027 appropriations for federal agencies and extends various expiring programs and authorities. Under the bill, appropriations and funds made available and authority granted pursuant to H.R. 6500 will be available until:

• The enactment into law of an appropriation for any project or activity provided for in H.R. 6500;

• The enactment into law of the applicable appropriations act for FY 2027 without any provision for such project or activity; or

• December 11, 2026.

H.R. 6500 explicitly extends EPA’s authority to levy fees under TSCA until December 11, 2026. The House and Senate both held hearings early in 2026 on draft legislation that would have amended TSCA and renewed EPA’s fee authority. With mid-term elections growing closer, however, Congress chose to postpone targeted amendments to TSCA.

MISCELLANEOUS

New Mexico Accepting Comments For HJM Report On Risks Of The Exemptions Codified In The PFAS Protection Act, Including The Fluoropolymer Exemption

The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) held a webinar on August 18, 2026, to explain how the public can participate in the state’s review of the PFAS Protection Act. As reported in our February 23, 2026, blog item, on February 18, 2026, the New Mexico legislature passed House Joint Memorial (HJM) 3, requesting the development of two reports. The first, prepared by the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (NMEIB), will be on the implementation of the PFAS Protection Act, “including the efficacy of the rules promulgated by the environmental improvement board pursuant to that act.” The second, prepared by NMED, in consultation with other state agencies, will be on the public health, environmental, and economic risks of the exemptions codified in the PFAS Protection Act and should “provide recommendations to the legislature regarding whether such exemptions, such as the exemption for fluoropolymers, should be continued, modified or removed.” According to NMED’s webinar slides, NMED “is conducting primary literature reviews in consult with other state agencies to provide the state of the science of the public health, environmental, and economic risks associated with the exemptions.” NMED has opened a public comment portal for its HJM 3 report. Submissions are due September 17, 2026. The webinar slides state that NMED will continue its technical analysis and incorporate public comments into its report. NMED will provide a preliminary presentation to the Radioactive and Hazardous Materials Interim Committee on November 5, 2026. A recording of the webinar will be available on NMED’s YouTube channel.

Petitions Filed To Add Chemicals To List Of Chemical Substances Subject To Superfund Excise Tax

On August 26, 2026, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced that petitions have been filed to add the following chemicals to the list of taxable substances:

• Acrylate monomer synthetic rubber (91 Fed. Reg. 55167);

• Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (91 Fed. Reg. 55166); and

• Poly(divinylbenzene-ethylvinylbenzene) (91 Fed. Reg. 55166).

Comments on these petitions are due October 26, 2026.

On September 9, 2026, the IRS announced that petitions have been filed to add the following chemicals to the list of taxable substances:

• Acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (91 Fed. Reg. 57450);

• Butadiene-acrylonitrile-methyl methacrylate-styrene copolymer (91 Fed. Reg. 57448);

• Solution styrene butadiene rubber (91 Fed. Reg. 57447); and

• Vinyl acetate-dibutyl maleate copolymer in a styrene solution (91 Fed. Reg. 57449).

Comments on these petitions are due November 9, 2026.

CBP Seeks Comment On ANPRM Regarding New Requirements To Provide Greater Visibility Into The Supply Chain Of Goods Imported Into The United States

On September 2, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published an important and consequential advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) stating that it “is considering amending its regulations to give CBP greater visibility into the supply chains of goods imported into the United States.” 91 Fed. Reg. 56408. CBP seeks comments on new requirements that it claims will enhance visibility into the parties involved in the importation of goods, integrate innovative technical solutions for the tracing of supply chains of those goods, and collect foreign export documentation that foreign exporters are required to submit to the foreign customs authority prior to the exportation of those goods to the United States. New requirements could also significantly impact and complicate the import of products, including chemicals. CBP states that with these proposals, it seeks to detect and interdict illicit importations more effectively, “especially those that are illegally transshipped to evade compliance with U.S. customs and trade laws.”

Chemical stakeholders are urged to read and comment upon the ANPRM because the measures outlined in the ANPRM suggest consequential changes that will significantly impact the import of chemicals into the United States. Comments are due December 1, 2026. More information is available in our September 11, 2026, memorandum.

GAO Recommends Chemical Facilities Vet Personnel For Terrorist Ties

On September 8, 2026, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a question and answer (Q&A) report to the Chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security entitled “Chemical Security: DHS Should Provide Options for Voluntary Vetting of Facility Personnel for Terrorist Ties.” GAO was asked to examine the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) efforts to mitigate security risks to the U.S. chemical sector. GAO states that it is providing information on DHS’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s (CISA) past regulatory program for chemical facility security and its examination of CISA’s present efforts to address its responsibilities to mitigate security risks to the chemical sector. The key takeaways include:

• CISA officials and selected chemical sector representatives from the private sector cited the lack of a federal terrorist vetting program for chemical facility personnel, following the lapse of the past chemical facilities regulatory program, as a key security challenge.

• CISA officials reported that reductions in personnel taken in 2025 have necessitated that the agency reduce or eliminate services it originally established as part of the past regulatory program. It has also reduced other activities and services, such as on-site facility assessments and cybersecurity incident support.

• Selected private sector chemical sector representatives stated that their contact with CISA regarding security vulnerabilities has declined following CISA’s reductions in personnel and the resulting loss of long-standing points-of-contact and experienced staff with expertise in chemical security.

• GAO recommends that CISA should identify, evaluate, and implement options for chemical facility owners and operators to vet voluntarily facility personnel and certain others for terrorist ties, and, if necessary, seek legislative authority to do so. GAO notes that CISA did not concur with its recommendation.

Minnesota’s September 15, 2026, PFAS Reporting Deadline Is Fast Approaching

As we discussed in our recent podcast episode, manufacturers of products sold, offered for sale, or distributed for sale in Minnesota must submit a report by September 15, 2026, that includes information about each product or component that contains intentionally added PFAS. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) August 28, 2026, Daily Digest Bulletin includes tips for companies that have not yet reported, suggesting that companies begin creating accounts by following the instructions in the PFAS reporting guide and how-to videos. The supplemental guide to the PFAS Reporting and Information System for Manufacturers (PRISM) explains certain reporting scenarios, such as reporting in groups, reporting custom products, and how to handle incomplete information from the supply chain. MPCA states that product reports submitted with a fee payment by 11:59 p.m. (CDT) on September 15, 2026, will meet the reporting deadline. While payment for the fee for extension requests needed to be made by check, PRISM will prompt reporters for a credit card. MPCA notes that it will not publish reports in the public search of PRISM until after its review.