Maine Considers Bill to Establish Maximum Levels of PFAS in Farm Products
If passed, Maine’s SB130, titled An Act to Establish the PFAS Response Program and to Modify the Fund To Address PFAS Contamination, would be the first state law to establish PFAS limits in food (PFAS limits have been established for other categories of goods).
The bill would formally establish a PFAS response program to “respond to and address PFAS contamination affecting agricultural producers in the State, to assist commercial farms affected by PFAS contamination and to safeguard public health.” We note that the bill would in part codify existing portions of Maine’s PFAS response program, which has already set an action level for PFOS (a type of PFAS) in milk of 210 ppt.
Specifically, under the proposed bill, the PFAS response program would, among other things:
Establish maximum levels for PFAS in farm products (defined as “plants and animals useful to humans” and includes, by way of example, products ranging from grains and food crops to Christmas trees).
Provide PFAS testing support to help agricultural producers understand the extend of PFAS contamination and provide technical support to assist in mitigation efforts.
Provide financial assistance to PFAS-impacted agricultural producers.
Establish baseline criteria that agricultural producers would have to adhere to in order to receive technical and financial assistance, including granting property access to conduct PFAS investigations and providing relevant information to program staff.
We will continue to monitor and report on PFAS regulation.
February 2025 ESG Policy Update — Australia
Australian Update
ASIC’s Key Issues Outlook for 2025
On 24 January 2025, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) released its key issues outlook for 2025 which provides insights for Australian businesses and consumers on the most significant current, ongoing and emerging issues within ASIC’s regulatory remit.
ASIC emphasised its desire to be a proactive regulator, ensuring a safe environment for Australian businesses and markets whilst safeguarding consumers. ASIC noted that key factors influencing its perspective on the issues facing Australia’s financial system included:
Increased market volatility;
Geopolitical changes;
The global accumulation of debt to drive growth;
Perceived and real inequality of wealth;
Shifts in the way capital is invested; and
Advances in artificial intelligence, data and cyber risk.
Among other issues, ASIC identified poor quality climate-related disclosures as leading to misinformed investment decisions. ASIC noted that informed decision making by investors is facilitated by the provision of high quality, consistent and comparable information regarding a reporting entities’ climate related risks and opportunities.
Furthermore, ASIC emphasised the importance of reporting entities having appropriate governance and reporting processes to comply with new mandatory climate reporting obligations introduced as part of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Bill 2024 (Cth), which took effect on 1 January 2025. Please refer to our earlier summary of the regime here.
ASIC also noted it will continue to scrutinise disclosures which misrepresent the green credentials of a financial product or investment strategies. Please refer to our summary of ASIC’s guidelines to prevent greenwashing here.
AU$2 Billion Investment in Clean Energy Finance Corporation
On 23 January 2025, the Australian Government announced it is providing an additional AU$2 billion to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC). This is Australia’s specialist investor in the nation’s transition to net zero emissions.
The investment aims to enable the CEFC to support Australian households, workers and businesses who are making the shift to renewable energy by offering significant savings.
The investment aims to also help deliver reliable, renewable, cost-saving technologies to the Australian community by generating an expected AU$6 billion in private investment. It is anticipated that this will come from global and local organisations looking to capitalise on the nation’s future renewable energy plan.
This follows the CEFC’s announcement on 16 January 2025 that it had invested AU$100 million in a build-to-rent strategy to facilitate the design and delivery of affordable, sustainable and high-quality homes. These homes will harness the benefits of clean energy technologies, by aiming to be highly efficient, fully electric and powered by renewable energy.
Since its establishment in 2012, the CEFC has played a key role in helping Australia strive towards its emissions reduction targets. In 2024, the CEFC invested over AU$4 billion in local projects which the Australian Government claims unlocked around AU$12 billion in private investment and supported over 4,000 Australian jobs.
Superannuation CEO Roundtables Emphasise Importance of Consistent Climate Risk Disclosures
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and ASIC recently hosted two Superannuation CEO Roundtables in November and December of 2024, attended by 14 chief executive officers (CEOs) and other executives from a cross-section of superannuation funds. Climate and nature risks were the key focus of discussions, given the recent legislation mandating climate-related financial disclosures and the introduction of the Australian Sustainability Reporting Standards.
The CEOs collectively acknowledged the importance of consistent climate risk disclosure whilst emphasising the need for clear and practical guidance from regulators and calling for standardised metrics, methods and scenarios to ensure comparability across the industry. The CEOs also outlined the current challenge of aligning different reporting standards across jurisdictions. The host regulatory bodies recognised the value of consistency with international standards of climate risk reporting. They noted that appropriate alignment can avoid duplication of efforts, ensure Australian superannuation funds remain in line with global best practices and provide for effective disclosures for members through which informed investment decisions may be made. In turn, discussions further touched on the impact of climate risk on investment strategies and the selection of investment managers and custodians, highlighting the impact on investment decision-making by participants across the industry.
The discussion also covered nature risk, with APRA interested in understanding how superannuation trustees are addressing nature risk given it is a topic of growing importance. It was acknowledged this was a topic that should continue to be explored.
Participants also discussed the role of industry bodies, and all agreed these bodies can play a crucial role in supporting trustees navigate the complexities of the data. ASIC and APRA expressed their commitment to support the superannuation industry and collaborate with industry bodies to drive consistent and accurate disclosures, effective communication with members and alignment with global standards.
Australian Government Announces Green Iron Investment Fund
On 20 February 2025, the Australian Government announced an AU$1 billion Green Iron Investment Fund to support green iron manufacturing and its supply chains by assisting early mover green iron projects and encouraging private investment at scale. “Green iron” refers to iron products made using renewable energy.
Australia is the world’s largest iron ore producer, earning over AU$100 billion in export income in the 2023-24 financial year. The iron and steel industry supports more than 100,000 jobs within Australia.
An initial AU$500 million of the Green Iron Investment Fund will be used to support the Whyalla Steelworks (Whyalla) after the Premier of South Australia, Peter Malinauskas, placed Whyalla into administration on 19 February 2025. The funding is proposed to transform Whyalla into a hub for green iron and steel.
Whyalla is considered strategically important for Australia due to its manufacturing capacity, highly skilled workforce, and access to a deep-water port, high-grade magnetite ore reserves and renewable energy sources.
The remaining AU$500 million will be available for nationwide green iron projects, targeting both existing facilities and new developments. Several companies within the industry are already exploring low-carbon iron production from the Pilbara ores in Western Australia.
The Green Iron Investment Fund is the latest initiative from the Australian Government aimed at bolstering Australia’s green metals sector. Existing initiatives include:
An AU$2 billion investment in Australian-made aluminium;
Passing legislation to deliver Production Tax Credits for hydrogen and critical minerals;
Investing in major critical minerals and rare earth projects through the Critical Minerals Facility;
An AU$3.4 billion investment in Geoscience Australia to accelerate the discovery of resources; and
Funding Hydrogen Headstart to support Australia’s hydrogen and clean energy industries.
View From Abroad
CFOs Expect Higher Returns from Sustainability Initiatives than Traditional Investments
A new report from Kearney, ‘Staying the Course: Chief Financial Officers and the Green Transition’ (Report), released on 17 February 2025, reveals that chief financial officers (CFOs) across the world are prioritising sustainability investments.
Despite recent speculation that investments in the green economy would face a slowdown, this Report clearly indicates that out of more than the 500 CFO respondents across several jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, United States, United Arab Emirates, and India, 92% noted their intention to increase current investments in sustainability. This Report also found that of all the CFOs surveyed:
69% expected a higher return from sustainability initiatives than from traditional investments;
93% saw a clear business case for investing in sustainability; and
61% saw sustainability investments primarily as a cost decision rather than as something that creates value.
This commitment to increasing climate investments indicates that sustainability investment is not viewed as merely an arm of corporate social responsibility but is also seen as an integral means to maximise efficiencies and returns, take advantage of market opportunities and navigate rapidly evolving regulatory landscapes.
Decision to Scrap DEI Policies May Be Indicative of a Broader Trend
The recent omission of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) commitments from numerous listed companies in their annual filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission may be a harbinger of a broader global trend which could have repercussions for Australia’s environmental, social and governance (ESG) investment landscape.
Many of Australia’s largest funds currently hold significant capital under management which is invested based on ethical criteria.
DEI policies are integral to a company’s ESG rating, as determined by third-party analytics firms, particularly through the lens of social responsibility practices. By demonstrating a commitment to DEI, companies not only fulfil ethical obligations but also align with investor expectations for responsible corporate behaviour, thereby positively influencing their ESG rating. Contrastingly, deprioritising DEI commitments may result in reduced investor demand and potential exclusion from ESG-focused indices.
In the weeks since President Donald Trump signed executive orders to remove DEI hiring initiatives in the US government and its federal contractors, several US companies have begun withdrawing from similar commitments, potentially signalling a broader global trend that other companies might follow. Companies who withdraw from DEI-related commitments may face the possibility of a decrease in their ESG ratings. Broader market consequences include potentially increased volatility in the ESG indices and long-term negative impacts on corporate performance and investor confidence in sustainable economic growth.
Funds with active ESG investment strategies will need to monitor this trend to ensure that their investment portfolios maintain any positive or negative screens and that any ESG disclosures are not misleading or deceptive. ASIC has shown through its recent enforcement activity targeting greenwashing that it will pursue fund managers who do not have appropriate measures in place to ensure the effectiveness of its ESG-related representations.
Nathan Bodlovich, Cathy Ma, Daniel Shlager, and Bernard Sia also contributed to this article.
The authors would like to thank graduates Daniel Nastasi, Katie Richards, Natalia Tan and clerk Juliette Petro for their contributions to this alert.
Foley Automotive Update 19 March 2025
Foley is here to help you through all aspects of rethinking your long-term business strategies, investments, partnerships, and technology. Contact the authors, your Foley relationship partner, or our Automotive Team to discuss and learn more.
Special Update — Trump Administration and Tariff Policies
Foley & Lardner partner Kathleen Wegrzyn addressed a number of FAQs regarding force majeure and price increases amid the current turbulent tariff landscape.
Key tariff announcements include:
President Trump on March 17 told reporters that “in certain cases, both” 25% sector-specific tariffs as well as unspecified “reciprocal tariffs” could apply on U.S. imports beginning April 2. U.S. imports that have been traded duty-free under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) are exempt — until April 2 — from the 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada that were announced on March 4.
Following the implementation of 25% tariffs on U.S. imports of steel and aluminum, Canada on March 13 imposed levies on C$29.8 billion in U.S. imported goods. This follows 25% tariffs on C$30 billion of products Canada announced on March 4.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum thus far has not moved forward with a plans to apply retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports.
The European Union intends to reinstate 2018 and 2020 countermeasures on April 1 against a range of U.S. goods, with a more extensive retaliatory tariff package planned for later next month.
China imposed tariffs on U.S. goods including large-engine vehicles, as well as export and investment controls on over two dozen U.S. firms after the Trump administration applied 20% duties on Chinese imports.
Automotive Key Developments
Analysis from S&P Global Mobility indicates the disruptive effects of 25% tariffs on all vehicle imports could potentially reduce North American production “by up to 20,000 units per day within a week.” S&P predicted a 50% probability for a tariff-related “extended disruption scenario” this year, during which certain high-profile vehicles “will slow or cease production.”
MichAuto and AlixPartners described volatile tariff policies as “crippling” and “debilitating” for the automotive industry and noted the ongoing uncertainty has already damaged OEMs’ and suppliers’ ability to make investment and product decisions.
Statements from MEMA and the American Automotive Policy Council emphasized the potential for significant cost increases for automakers, suppliers, and consumers resulting from the 25% tariffs on U.S. imports of steel and aluminum. In addition, a recent survey by the vehicle suppliers association found 97% of respondents had concerns regarding increased financial distress among sub-tier suppliers due to the announced tariffs, and over 80% of surveyed suppliers are exposed to steel and aluminum derivative tariffs.
Tariffs on steel and aluminum could raise costs up to$400 to $500 per vehicle on average, with the potential for greater impact on larger, aluminum-intensive vehicles such as the Ford F-150 pickup.
Relocating an assembly line between existing facilities can take up to eight months, and an automaker would likely need up to three years or longer to fully staff and significantly build out new U.S. manufacturing capacity.
Ford is reported to be amassing inventories of USMCA-compliant parts to mitigate the effects of tariffs, and the automaker has told its suppliers to keep shipping under existing terms, according to an update from Crain’s Detroit.
Automotive News assessed the exposure of certain EV brands to the impact of U.S. import tariffs.
University of Michigan economists projected U.S. new light-vehicle sales will reach 16.3 million units in 2025, while noting the projections have “substantial uncertainty” due to trade policy volatility. The economists also expect steel and aluminum tariffs to “raise production costs in the automotive supply chain,” and the levies could reduce Michigan’s employment by approximately 2,300 jobs by 2026.
Preliminary discussions concerning the renewal of the USMCA suggested a revised pact could result in higher tariffs for non-compliance, according to unidentified sources in The Wall Street Journal.
The Environmental Protection Agency on March 12 announced 31 deregulatory actions that include the reconsideration of the Biden administration’s emissions standards for light-duty, medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles.
OEMs/Suppliers
While tariffs in the U.S., Canada, and the EU may continue to impede sales by Chinese automakers in the near term, market share is rising in emerging markets for Chinese brands that include BYD, Great Wall Motor, Chery Automobile, and SAIC Motor Corp.
Volkswagen intends to reduce production and headcount at its Chattanooga, Tennessee plant to support cost-cutting initiatives and in response to lower EV demand. Planned layoffs across VW Group have reached nearly 48,000 globally, including a 30% headcount reduction at its Cariad software unit by the end of this year.
Ford will invest €4.4 billion ($4.8 billion) in its German operations, in an effort to boost sluggish sales in Europe.
Nissan named Ivan Espinosa, currently serving as Chief Planning Officer, to succeed CEO Makoto Uchida, effective April 1.
Market Trends and Regulatory
U.S. new light-vehicle inventory reached 3 million units at the beginning of March, representing an 89-day supply industrywide, according to analysis from Cox Automotive.
The percentage of subprime auto borrowers at least 60 days past due on their loans reached 6.56% in January, representing the highest level in over 30 years, according to data from Fitch Ratings. The share of auto loans in serious delinquency across all borrower types was 2.96% in the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to 2.66% in Q4 2023 and 2.22% in Q4 2022.
Kelley Blue Book estimates that new-vehicle sales incentives were up 18.6% year-over-year in February 2025. The average incentive package last month reached 7.1% of average transaction price, or $3,392, compared to 6% of ATP in February 2024.
U.S. Senate Republicans introduced the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act (S. 2090) to “prevent the elimination of the sale of motor vehicles with internal combustion engines” by limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s issuance of certain Clean Air Act waivers.
GM has again applied with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to establish an industrial bank, and this would enable the automaker to hold deposits and expand their financial offerings to consumers, dealerships, and employees. Stellantis and Ford have also recently submitted applications for banking licenses.
U.S. House lawmakers included language in an amendment to the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act that effectively “removes the ability for any House members to use an expedited process” to compel a vote for the remainder of this calendar year on whether to terminate the national emergency declaration utilized as the basis to pursue tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico. The “continuing resolution” (CR) to fund the federal government through the rest of the fiscal year 2025 was signed by the president on March 15, 2025.
Autonomous Technologies and Vehicle Software
Industry organizations, including the Alliance For Automotive Innovation, urged the Department of Transportation to establish a national framework to support the deployment of autonomous vehicles.
NVIDIA will collaborate with GM and Magna to advance next-generation vehicle technologies. NVIDIA has described artificial intelligence technologies in the auto industry as a “trillion-dollar opportunity.”
GM named Barak Turovsky, formerly of Cisco and Google, as its first Chief Artificial Intelligence Officer.
Ford announced tech veteran Mike Aragon will join the company as President, Integrated Services. The position is expected to support the automaker’s goals to boost revenue from software-enabled subscriptions and features.
Autonomous trucking startup Bot Auto plans to begin its first driver-out commercial freight pilot program in Texas this year, on routes between Houston and San Antonio. Houston-based Bot Auto was founded in 2023 by former TuSimple CEO Xiaodi Hou.
Electric Vehicles and Low-Emissions Technology
Over 50% of new EV purchases in the fourth quarter of 2024 were leases, and EVs accounted for nearly 20% of all new vehicle leases during the quarter, according to data from Experian released this month.
BYD plans to launch new charging technology on certain models in China next month that will enable 400 kilometers (249 miles) of range with five minutes of charge time, or roughly the same duration required to refuel comparable gas-powered models.
Cadillac intends to begin production of the electric 2026 Cadillac Escalade IQL in mid-2025 at GM’s Factory Zero electric vehicle assembly plant in Detroit.
Volkswagen recently debuted its ID Every1 electric minicar concept, and the low-cost EV will be the brand’s first model to use software from the automaker’s joint venture with Rivian.
Isuzu will invest $280 millionto establish a commercial EV plant in Piedmont, South Carolina.
UAW members ratified their first labor agreement at the Ultium Cells joint venture battery plant in Spring Hill, Tennessee.
SK On will supply Nissan with nearly 100 gigawatt-hours of batteries from 2028 to 2033, to support future EV models produced at the automaker’s Canton, Mississippi plant.
Stellantis will invest €38 million ($41 million) to produce EV engine parts at its Verrone transmissions plant in Italy.
Analysis by Julie Dautermann, Competitive Intelligence Analyst
California Delays Extended Producer Responsibility Regulations for Plastic and Packaging: Three Takeaways
Earlier this month, California Governor Gavin Newsom directed the state’s recycling agency, CalRecycle, to restart the process of issuing regulations for California’s landmark plastic and packaging extended producer responsibility (EPR) law.
Over the past year, CalRecycle has been working to finalize implementing regulations by March 7. Facing a one-year deadline to finalize the regulations, Governor Newsom asked them to start again.
CalRecycle will now issue a new administrative rulemaking notice and reopen draft regulations for public comment. The agency is expected to revise its proposed rules due to Governor Newsom’s concern over the cost of the initial draft regulations, estimated at $36 billion over 10 years.
As this development with California’s EPR legislation shows, EPR programs for plastic and packaging are still evolving. Even before Governor Newsom’s decision, CalRecycle had revised its draft regulations twice in response to public feedback. We have previously covered trends in plastic regulation at state, national and global levels here and here, as well as California’s first-in-the-nation producer responsibility law for textiles here.
An overview of California’s plastic and packaging EPR law and key takeaways for impacted businesses follow below.
California’s EPR Landscape
In 2022, California enacted the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (SB 54), setting ambitious goals for reducing and recycling plastic. By 2032, the law requires:
A 25% reduction in single-use plastic packaging and food ware.
65% of single-use plastic packaging and food ware to be recycled.
100% of single-use packaging and plastic food ware to be recyclable.
The law also sets interim recycling targets, requiring 30% plastic packaging and food ware recycling by 2028, and 40% Fby 2030.
The law requires “producers” of “covered material” to join a producer responsibility organization (PRO), a nonprofit organization formed by producers. The PRO works with CalRecycle and producers to build and operate source reduction and recycling programs.
“Covered material” includes single-use packaging and plastic food service ware, such as plates and utensils. The “producer” is typically a California-located entity that owns or licenses the brand under which the covered product is sold. If there is no California-located entity, the distributor into California is considered the “producer.”
The PRO’s responsibilities include submitting a program plan for CalRecycle’s approval, detailing how it will meet the law’s targets. For example, the plan may involve creating recycling programs, like curbside or drop-off collection, or improving sorting processes. To fund these efforts, the PRO will assess fees on producers. It will also collect funds for California’s Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund. From 2027-2037, the PRO must deposit $500 million annually into the fund. CalRecycle has named the Circular Action Alliance as the PRO.
Takeaways
There are three key takeaway points from the regulated community:
EPR Programs Are Evolving: Although some EPR laws have existed for decades, producer responsibility for many products is new. Recent years have seen state EPR laws for batteries, pharmaceutical drugs, tires, and household items such as mattresses, textiles, paint, and carpets. We expect more regulatory developments over the next several years, as states refine these laws and their implementing regulations.
Impacted Businesses Have Another Chance to Comment: By restarting the regulatory process, businesses have another opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations. California law requires at least 45 days for public comment on new proposals.
Potential Changes in Regulation: Over the past year, CalRecycle considered whether to include plastic-coated paper items in its source reduction and recycling rate targets. CalRecycle decided to include these items (composed mostly of paper and less than 20% plastic) because it believed that option better served the law’s goals. However, given Governor Newsom’s concern about program cost, CalRecycle may decide to exclude these items from some recycling targets.
Listen to this article
February 2025 Bounty Hunter Plaintiff Claims
California’s Proposition 65 (“Prop. 65”), the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, requires, among other things, sellers of products to provide a “clear and reasonable warning” if use of the product results in a knowing and intentional exposure to one of more than 900 different chemicals “known to the State of California” to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, which are included on The Proposition 65 List. For additional background information, see the Special Focus article, California’s Proposition 65: A Regulatory Conundrum.
Because Prop. 65 permits enforcement of the law by private individuals (the so-called bounty hunter provision), this section of the statute has long been a source of significant claims and litigation in California. It has also gone a long way in helping to create a plaintiff’s bar that specializes in such lawsuits. This is because the statute allows recovery of attorney’s fees, in addition to the imposition of civil penalties as high as $2,500 per day per violation. Thus, the costs of litigation and settlement can be substantial.
The purpose of Keller and Heckman’s latest publication, Prop 65 Pulse, is to provide our readers with an idea of the ongoing trends in bounty hunter activity.
In February of 2025, product manufacturers, distributors, and retailers were the targets of 341 new Notices of Violation (“Notices”) and amended Notices, alleging a violation of Prop. 65 for failure to provide a warning for their products. This was based on the alleged presence of the following chemicals in these products. Noteworthy trends and categories from Notices sent in February 2025 are excerpted and discussed below. A complete list of Notices sent in February 2025 can be found on the California Attorney General’s website, located here: 60-Day Notice Search.
Food and Drug
Product Category
Notice(s)
Alleged Chemicals
Prepared Foods: Notices include falafel mix, organic veggie wraps, cassava chips, protein bites, plant-based chili mac, vanilla pudding, soba noodles, plant-based flavored ramen, biryani masala, and tofu veggie burger
46 Notices
Lead and Lead Compounds, and Cadmium
Dietary Supplements: Notices include plant-based fruit shakes, daily greens and multivitamins, superfood smoothie kits, customized protein powder, astragalus, chickpea plant-based protein powder, ashwaganda powder, maca root powder, sparkling probiotic elixir
22 Notices
Lead and Lead Compounds, Cadmium, and Mercury
Fruits, Vegetables, and Mushrooms: Notices include carrot juice, sun-dried tomatoes in olive oil, Greek marinated mixed olives, organic mixed vegetables, chopped kale, fruit and vegetable puree, pickled sliced ginger, mushroom powder extract, cactus nopalitos, and basmati rice
18 Notices
Lead and Lead Compounds, and Cadmium
Seafood: Notices include sun dried sea moss, dried seaweed knots, dried shrimp, sardines, calamari tubes and tentacles, seafood stock, cod liver, fermented fish paste, and mackerel in extra virgin olive oil
17 Notices
Cadmium and Cadmium Compounds, Lead and Lead Compounds
Herbs, Spices, and Seeds: Notices include freeze-dried mint, sunflower seeds, golden chai, and dried ginger
7 Notices
Lead and Lead Compounds, and Cadmium
Various Foods: Notices include traditional refried beans, hearts of palm, green pigeon peas, coconut milk, and olives with minced anchovies
5 Notices
Bisphenol A (BPA)
Dietary Supplements: Notices include plant-based post-workout protein powder, vegan protein muscle building fuel, and plant-based shakes
3 Notices
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA)
THC-Containing Products: Notices include cannabis-infused edibles
2 Notices
Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol
Cosmetics and Personal Care
Product Category
Notice(s)
Alleged Chemicals
Personal Care Items: Notices include body lotions, burn relief gel, facial scrubs, anti-cellulite hot creams, shave gels, healing gels, barrier repair skin creams, stem cell serums, hair makeup, sunscreen, liquid brow soap, shave gel with aloe
37 Notices
Diethanolamine
Cosmetics: Notices include mascara, UV neon makeup, fluid foundation, theatrical blood, body paint makeup, plumping lip balm, lip oil and glitter makeup
16 Notices
Diethanolamine
Consumer Products
Product Category
Notice(s)
Alleged Chemicals
Miscellaneous Consumer Products: Notices include polaroid card holder, foam puzzle play mat, PVC ice packs, jewelry pliers, brass candle snuffer, cup cleaning brushes, vinyl covers, bracelet holder, vinyl banners, PVC aprons, salt and pepper shakers with PVC components, and glassware with exterior designs
40 Notices
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), Diisononyl phthalate (DINP), and Di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP), Lead
Bags and Cases: Notices include backpacks, shower curtain storage bags, makeup bags, phone bag, toiletry bags, dry bag, rug bag, tote bag with PVC components, and purses
27 Notices
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), Di-isodecyl phthalate (DIDP), and Diisononyl phthalate (DINP)
Hardware and Home Improvement Products: Notices include hammer sets, kitchen accessories with USB cords, tire gauges, brass hose fittings, cables, thermometers, flush cutters, brass garden hose splitters
16 Notices
Lead, Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), Di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP), and Di-isodecyl phthalate (DIDP)
Metals and Ceramics: Notices include kettles, canisters, bowls, trays, teacups, mugs, teapots, jars, and candle holders
13 Notices
Lead
Clothing and Shoes: Notices include sweatpants, hi-vision gloves, girls jacket, faux fur jacket, gloves with leather, footwear with leather, and sandals
10 Notices
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), and Chromium (hexavalent compounds)
Hobby Items: Notices include fishing weights, badminton rackets, art panels, artist kits for children, exercise equipment, and an artist brush set
8 Notices
Lead and Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP)
Miscellaneous Consumer Products: Notices include umbrella, tablecloths, shower curtains, girl’s bag, children’s gloves, hi-viz field jacket, rain jacket, and shorts
8 Notices
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA)
Mexican Government Proposes Bill to Regulate the Energy Sector
On February 4, 2025, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum submitted a bill to the Mexican Senate to revoke, issue, and amend various energy laws in accordance with the constitutional amendments passed in December 2024. This is part of her administration’s “Plan México” announced on January 13, 2025.
The bill was passed by the Senate on February 27 and by the House on March 12, the bill is on hold to be published in the Mexican Federal Register in order for the laws to become effective. This collection of legislative actions is consistent with the plan to streamline governmental processes that the current administration will be implementing in the upcoming years. This means that even though we do not know the specific content of the new laws, we could expect a completely new system of governmental processes that should differ from the currently used administrative methodology to obtain energy-related permits or any publicly related matter for the sector. The bill’s key point consist in strengthening the Electricity Commission (CFE) and PEMEX, designating them as State-Owned Entities (SOE) and consolidating their legal status as an SOE.
From this, the primary changes to the current Mexican legal framework consist in expediting eight (8) new secondary laws and the amendment of two (2) more to merge their content with the already passed constitutional amendments:
Law of SOE PEMEX and Law of SOE CFE: In order to eliminate monopolistic practices, protect energy sovereignty, and to embed the “energy justice concept” within the development of the new Mexican energy model, both PEMEX and CFE will change their legal status from productive state enterprises to public enterprises.
This change is aimed at establishing the basis for more efficient delivery of public services, favoring efficient use of energy (electricity and hydrocarbons) over economic interest and commercial speculation.
Biofuels Law: This law is created as a legal framework for the regulation of the production, storage, transportation, commercialization, import, export, distribution, and other commercial operations within the biofuels production chain that factor in its valuation. As part of this law, the authority of the Ministries of Energy, Environmental, and Agriculture are expanded to include research and development of technologies that allow for the greater use of animal and vegetable residues with which biomass is generated.
Electricity Sector Law: Repealing the Electricity Industry Law, this provision will govern the generation, transmission, distribution, and supply of electricity and the issuance of authorizations by the Ministry of Energy (SENER). This change will ensure that at least 54% of the annual average of supply of electricity to the grid is provided by state-owned companies.
Likewise, it establishes participation by privately-owned parties in the generation of electricity, individually or jointly, with CFE related to distributed generation or for the wholesale market, self-consumption, or cogeneration. The law also provides for self-consumption permits for electric generation plants between 0.7 MW and 20 MW as long as they are not connected to the national network.
Licenses granted under the repealed law will be allowed to operate under those terms. SENER, however, will promote ways for self-supply and cogeneration companies to implement the new provisions stated in this law.
National Energy Commission (CNE) Law: Through the authority conferred to the Energy Regulatory Commission and the National Hydrocarbons Commission, the CNE is a decentralized agency of SENER, with technical and operational autonomy, which will have the following functions: (i) Granting licenses for the generation of electricity; (ii) Granting licenses for the transportation, storage, and distribution of petroleum products, natural gas, and liquefied petroleum gas through pipelines; and (iii) Approving tariffs for the transmission, distribution, and basic supply of electricity and hydrocarbons.
The CNE will be led by a central board and a technical committee which will jointly adopt decisions.
Planning and Energy Transition Law: To guarantee equitable access to reliable, safe, and clean energy by the entire population, this law regulates the implementation of plans to improve the infrastructure of the energy sector, in order to expand electricity coverage to vulnerable populations. This objective will be led, promoted, and supervised by the Energy Planning Board.
Hydrocarbons Sector Law: By repealing the Hydrocarbons Law, this regulation intends to promote self-sufficiency in the hydrocarbons sector and specifies the way which private parties may participate in the exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons. PEMEX will choose the allocations and maintain the majority participation in these arrangements.
Additionally, it outlines the permits granted and supervised by SENER and the CNE regarding activities involving oil, petroleum products, petrochemicals, and natural gas.
Geothermal Law: As in the case of the new biofuels regulation, this regulation is also based on energy planning, strategic generation, and distribution for social purposes. It establishes a regulatory framework that will govern permits and usage, innovation in financing, exploration, and production of geothermal energy.
Other amendments: The final legal changes proposed by the bill can be divided into two main points: Mexico’s Petroleum Fund Law will now be adjusted in accordance to the public company status of PEMEX, along with the new regulations, and; the granting of powers to the new energy authorities to consolidate a true self-sufficient supply of energy. Both of these validate the new public administration regime which aims to reach energy sovereignty and provide a new market for private companies.
Council of the EU Agrees on Negotiating Mandate on Plants Obtained by New Genomic Techniques
The Council of the European Union (EU) announced on March 14, 2025, that the Committee of the Permanent Representatives of the Governments of the Member States to the EU (Coreper) endorsed the Council’s negotiating mandate on the regulation on plants obtained by new genomic techniques (NGT) and their food and feed. The regulation proposed by the European Commission (EC) would create two ways for NGT plants to be placed on the market:
Category 1 NGT plants: Could occur naturally or through conventional breeding methods; they would be exempted from the rules currently set out in the genetically modified organism (GMO) legislation and would not be labeled; seeds produced through those techniques would have to be labeled, however; or
Category 2 NGT plants: All other NGT plants; rules under GMO legislation would apply (including a risk assessment and authorization before they are placed on the market); they would be labeled as such.
The proposed regulation would exclude the use of NGTs in organic production.
The press release states that the Council suggested the following changes in its negotiating mandate, including:
Cultivation and presence of new genomic techniques plants:
Opt-out from cultivation: Under the Council’s mandate, EU member states can decide to prohibit the cultivation of category 2 NGT plants on their territory;
Optional coexistence measures: EU member states can take measures to avoid the unintended presence of category 2 NGT plants in other products and will need to take measures to prevent cross-border contamination; and
The Council’s position also clarifies that, to avoid the unintended presence of category 1 NGT plants in organic farming on their territories, EU member states can adopt measures, in particular in areas with specific geographical conditions, such as certain Mediterranean island countries and insular regions.
Category 1 new genomic techniques plants and patenting: According to the press release, under the Council’s mandate, when applying to register a category 1 NGT plant or product, companies or breeders must submit information on all existing or pending patents. The patenting information must be included in a publicly available database created by the EC that lists all NGT plants that have obtained a category 1 status. The press release notes that the database would ensure transparency regarding NGT 1 plants and information about patents included in the database would be updated. The press release states that on a voluntary basis, companies or breeders could also report the patent holder’s intention to license the use of a patented NGT 1 plant or product under equitable conditions.
Patenting expert group: The Council’s mandate provides for the creation of an expert group on the effect of patents on NGT plants, with experts from all member states and the European Patent Office.
Study on patenting: The press release states that according to the Council’s mandate, one year after the entry into force of the regulation, the EC would be required to publish a study on the impact of patenting on innovation, on the availability of seeds to farmers, and on the competitiveness of the EU plant breeding sector. The study would also have a special focus on how breeders can have access to patented NGT plants. To produce the study, the EC would take into account the findings of the patenting expert group and input from the plant breeding sector. According to the press release, if appropriate, the EC would indicate what follow-up measures are needed or publish a legislative proposal to address any issues found in the study. The press release notes that if the first study does not foresee any follow-up measures or a new legislative proposal, the EC would be required to issue a second study four to six years after the publication of the first one.
Labeling: Category 2 NGT plants must contain a label indicating them as such, in line with the EC proposal. The press release states that the Council proposes that, in case information on modified traits appears on the label, it must cover all the relevant traits (e.g., if a plant is both gluten-free and drought-tolerant owing to genomic changes, either both of those features or neither of them should be mentioned on the label). The Council intends this proposal to ensure that consumers have access to accurate and comprehensive information.
Traits: The Council negotiating mandate states that tolerance to herbicides cannot be one of the traits for category 1 NGT plants. According to the press release, the Council proposes this change to ensure that such plants remain subject to the authorization, traceability, and monitoring requirements for category 2 NGT plants.
The agreement on the Council’s negotiating mandate allows its presidency to begin negotiations with the European Parliament (EP) on the final text of the regulation. The final text must be formally adopted by the Council and the EP before the regulation can enter into force.
Trump Administration Initiates Major Changes for NEPA Reviews
The Trump Administration is initiating major changes to reduce NEPA burdens, including an interim final rule to repeal the longstanding White House Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations and CEQ guidance directing federal agencies to update their agency-specific NEPA regulations and procedures to prioritize efficiency and certainty. These actions implement directives from the President’s Executive Order (EO) 14154, Unleashing American Energy, to expedite and simplify the federal permitting process to unleash energy dominance through efficient federal permitting. These changes may lead to more focused reviews and help accelerate federal permitting, although there is likely to be uncertainty in the implementation of NEPA in the near term as agencies work to update their regulations and procedures.
Background
NEPA established CEQ and authorized CEQ to “make recommendations to the President” and “develop and recommend to the President national policies to foster and promote the improvement of environmental quality.” 42 U.S.C. § 4344(3)-(4). NEPA provides no express authority to CEQ to issue binding NEPA regulations or requirements, or to take other regulatory action. In 1977, President Carter issued EO 11991, directing CEQ to “issue regulations to the Federal agencies for the implementation of the procedural provisions” of NEPA. Relying on the Carter EO, since 1978, CEQ has had in place regulations that set forth a framework for implementing NEPA. The CEQ NEPA regulations have been amended several times, including in 2020 by the first Trump Administration, and in 2023 and 2024 by the Biden Administration. Many federal agencies have issued their own NEPA regulations and procedures, some of which supplement and build on CEQ’s regulations.
Two recent federal court decisions have called into question CEQ’s authority to issue NEPA regulations. In a recent D.C. Circuit decision, Marin Audubon v. FAA, a split panel held that CEQ’s NEPA regulations are ultra vires (beyond CEQ’s authority to issue). In Iowa v. CEQ, the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota set aside CEQ’s NEPA Phase II regulations that were promulgated by the Biden Administration in 2024, relying on the same rationale as Marin Audubon Society.
President Trump’s Unleashing American Energy EO revoked the 1977 Carter EO, directed CEQ to propose rescinding CEQ’s NEPA regulations, and directed CEQ to provide guidance on implementing NEPA.
Interim Final Rule Removing CEQ NEPA Regulations
On February 25, 2025, CEQ published an interim final rule removing all CEQ NEPA regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations. 90 Fed. Reg. 10610 (Feb. 25, 2025). The interim final rule implements President Trump’s directive to CEQ to remove its NEPA regulations from the CFR by April 11, 2025. The interim final rule provides that the basis for the repeal is that CEQ’s regulations were issued at the direction of the 1977 Carter EO that President Trump has now revoked, President Trump has directed in the Unleashing American Energy EO that CEQ propose rescinding its NEPA regulations, and no other authority exists for maintaining CEQ’s NEPA regulations. The interim final rule also cites to the recent decisions in Marin Audubon and Iowa v. CEQ.
The interim final rule invites public comment with a 30-day comment period ending on March 27, 2025, and takes effect on April 11, 2025.
CEQ Guidance to Federal Agencies on Implementing NEPA
On February 25, CEQ also issued guidance to federal agencies to assist with NEPA implementation. The guidance emphasizes the need to “expedite permitting approvals and meet deadlines,” and “prioritize efficiency and certainty over any other policy objectives that could add delays and ambiguity to the permitting process.” Federal agencies must revise their NEPA implementing procedures (or establish such procedures if they do not yet have any) to expedite permitting approvals and for consistency with NEPA. While these revisions are ongoing, agencies should continue to follow their existing practices and procedures for implementing NEPA consistent with the text of NEPA, EO 14154, and the new CEQ guidance.
The guidance makes clear that agencies should not delay pending or ongoing NEPA analyses while undertaking regulatory revisions, and should apply their current NEPA implementing procedures with any adjustments needed to be consistent with NEPA, as amended by the Fiscal Responsibility Act in 2023. It also recommends that agencies consider “voluntarily relying on” CEQ’s regulations, particularly the 2020 CEQ regulations, even though CEQ’s regulations are being repealed.
For purposes of revising their NEPA regulations and procedures, the guidance directs that federal agencies should:
Develop transparent, clear and predictable procedures for review of project sponsor-prepared EAs and EISs and prioritize project sponsor prepared documents for expeditious review;
Consider only a reasonable range of alternatives that are technically and economically feasible and that meet the purpose and need of the proposed action;
Analyze reasonably foreseeable effects of the proposed action, consistent with NEPA, which does not employ the term “cumulative effects;”
Exclude analysis of environmental justice;
Ensure consistency and predictability, by:
delineating the sequence of major decision points;
identifying actions and decisions not subject to NEPA at a threshold stage;
including specific criteria for and identification of the typical classes of action that qualify for categorical exclusions (CEs) or require EAs or EISs;
establishing how agencies will reevaluate and supplement EAs and EISs;
identifying lead, joint lead, cooperating and participating agencies;
establishing protocols for engaging with State, Tribal, and local governments;
establishing protocols for public involvement;
discussing when programmatic NEPA documents may be appropriate; and
including procedures for concluding the NEPA process.
While developing or revising the NEPA procedures, agencies must consult with CEQ, and all proposed and final procedures must be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for a significance determination and possible interagency review.
The Road Ahead
There is likely to be uncertainty in the implementation of NEPA in the wake of these changes. The interim final rule is likely to be challenged by states and eNGOs, although the recent federal district court decisions in Marin Audubon Soc’y v. FAA and Iowa v. CEQ may provide a sound basis for the interim final rule. While federal agencies are in the process of updating their NEPA regulations and procedures, agencies are likely to continue implementing their existing NEPA procedures provided they are consistent with the NEPA statutory language.
EPA Announces ‘Greatest Deregulation in History’
The full scope of the Trump Administration’s deregulatory efforts in the environmental space was recently made clear with a series of announcements from US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin.
On March 12, in what the Trump Administration touts as “the greatest deregulation action in US history,” Administrator Zeldin announced a slate of 31 different actions to scale back federal environmental regulations. The announcement continues the Administration’s efforts to downsize the role of the federal government in energy and environmental spaces. The Administration foreshadowed many of the newly announced policies in its first-day Executive Order, “Unleashing American Energy” (see our coverage here) and EPA’s “Powering the Great American Comeback Initiative” released last month. (See our discussion here.)
Many of the Trump Administration’s early actions primarily targeted Biden-era executive actions — and as a result could take immediate effect. This next wave of action puts the crosshairs on formally promulgated administrative rules and policies, meaning most changes will also need to pass through the full rulemaking process (including public comments) and inevitable litigation. As a result, most actions involve “reconsidering” existing rules rather than immediately imposing a new framework.
Below, we break down some of EPA’s most significant planned actions and provide context.
Reversing Federal GHG Policy
EPA’s announcement is a full-scale reversal of the federal government’s policy toward greenhouse gases. EPA announced that it will:
Reconsider EPA’s 2009 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding and Regulations Based on ItIn 2009, EPA found that GHGs “threaten the public health and welfare” and that motor vehicle emissions contribute to GHG pollution. This finding created EPA’s legal authority to regulate GHG emissions from motor vehicles. By reconsidering this finding, EPA questions whether GHG emissions endanger public welfare. Administrator Zeldin announced that he was “driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion.” This action is likely to reinvigorate debate about the US Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA.
Reconsider GHG Regulations on Power PlantsIn 2024, the Biden Administration finalized a rule to reduce GHG emissions from the power sector by requiring many power plants to install 90 percent carbon capture equipment by 2032. EPA will reconsider this rule, which it calls “Clean Power Plan 2.0.” This is a reference to the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in West Virginia v. EPA, which struck down the Obama-era Clean Power Plan.
Reconsider GHG Regulations on Fossil Fuel ExtractionEPA will reconsider regulations limiting methane from new and existing oil and gas drilling. The existing regulations were finalized in 2024.
Reconsider Emission Standards for VehiclesIn 2024, the Biden Administration announced new emission standards to reduce GHG, nitrogen oxide, and particulate matter emissions from passenger cars and trucks beginning in model year 2027.
Reconsider the Social Cost of CarbonThis action follows one of President Trump’s executive orders that instructed EPA to consider eliminating the social cost of GHG emissions from federal consideration. (Background on this issue is available here.)
Rolling Back Regulations on Coal, Oil, and Natural Gas
In addition to the broader focus on GHGs, EPA may scale back several other major Biden-era regulations impacting fossil-fuel powered energy generation:
Reconsider MATS for Coal-Fired Power PlantsEPA will again reconsider whether to ease or do away with its limitations on mercury and other metals emitted from coal-fired power plants. The rules withdrawn during the first Trump Administration and reinstated by the Biden Administration last year. While it prepares a new final rule, EPA may temporarily pause enforcement of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule for two years.
Changing Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan PolicyEPA is reconsidering the 2023 “Good Neighbor Plan,” which is currently stayed pending litigation, that required states to reduce smog forming emissions from power plants and other industries that could drift to downwind states. EPA states that it also plans to work to approve nearly two-dozen state air regulations that had been denied for failure to comply with the “Good Neighbor Plan.”
Revise CCR RuleEPA announced plans to work with states to quickly approve state-level regulations governing the disposal of coal-ash generated by coal-fired power plants, including a promise to propose a determination on North Dakota’s Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) permit program within 60 days. EPA is also “evaluating whether to grant short- and long-term relief such as extending compliance deadlines” for the Legacy CCR Rule. (Ways CCR issues play out can be seen here.)
Revise Wastewater Regulations for Oil and Gas Extraction and for Steam-Powered Electric GenerationEPA announced it will reconsider wastewater pollution standards impacting coal-fired power plants and oil and gas extraction. In 2024, EPA updated its rules for four types of coal plant wastewater: flue gas desulfurization wastewater, bottom ash transport water, combustion residual leachate, and legacy wastewater. EPA’s reconsideration may attempt to ease costs for coal-fired power plants.
Redefining the Scope of Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act has been in the news lately because the Supreme Court recently decided San Francisco v. EPA. (For more, see here.)
In a separate announcement, EPA said it would revise its definition of “waters of the United States,” (WOTUS) the key jurisdictional term that defines which waters and wetlands the Clean Water Act applies to. The federal government and courts have generally accepted that WOTUS includes interstate or traditionally navigable waters and their tributaries, as well as wetlands “adjacent” to those waters. Where the Supreme Court and past Administrations have disagreed is what counts as an “adjacent” wetland.
As we have explained, past Administrations have alternated between two tests for adjacent wetlands: a permanent surface connection test and an ecologically “significant nexus” test. In 2023, the Biden Administration adopted its version of the significant nexus test. Then, the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA held that WOTUS includes only oceans, rivers, streams, lakes, and waters with a continuous surface connection to those waters.
EPA recently announced it will revise the 2023 rule and align its definition with Sackett. EPA stated its new rule will prioritize “empowering American farmers [and] landowners.”
Terminating EPA’s Environmental Justice Staff
EPA announced that it would “terminate” EPA’s environmental justice (EJ) arm. This is no surprise, given the Trump Administration’s reversal of the Biden Administration’s EJ policies. As we explained, Trump’s first-week executive orders revoked several Biden-era policies and announced an effort to terminate all EJ and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices and positions. While this rollback will remove EPA from EJ issues, the focus on EJ by many states is expected to continue.
European Commission Publishes Draft Clean Industrial Deal State Aid Framework and Calls for Feedback
The European Commission (the Commission) is proposing to adapt the rules governing Member State economic support to industry, changing the focus of the permitted subsidies that guide the EU economy to a great degree. The proposal forms part of a wave of initiatives aimed at improving the competitiveness of the EU.
On 11 March 2025, the Commission published a draft Commission Communication on a Framework for State Aid measures to support the Clean Industrial Deal (the draft State Aid Framework), setting out the latest evolution in the EU’s State aid policy. The draft State Aid Framework complements the existing EU State Aid guidelines, including the guidelines on State aid for climate, environmental protection and energy (CEEAG) by enabling and accelerating specific investments and activities. Competitiveness and sustainability constitute two pillars of the Commission’s overarching political objectives for the 2024-2029 legislature.
Until 25 April 2025, a window is open for stakeholders to share their views on the draft State Aid Framework as part of the public consultation being run by the Commission. Businesses that could benefit from aid measures, and businesses that compete with subsidized rivals, may have in an interest in submitting comments on the aspects that are most likely to affect them.
The Clean Industrial Deal and the State Aid Framework
The EC published on 26 February 2025 a Communication on a Clean Industrial Deal (the Clean Industrial Deal), which introduced a suite of sustainability and competitiveness measures to address challenges such as slow economic growth in the EU and technological competition, covered in our client alert.
The adoption of a modified State Aid Framework by Q2 2025 is one of the flagship actions laid out in the Clean Industrial Deal to improve EU investment levels and make energy more affordable in the EU. The new State Aid Framework is intended to replace the Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework, as amended, which has been in place in different forms since November 2022.
Under the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU), State aid by EU Member States is generally prohibited, unless it is justified in order to support objectives such as economic development. EU State aid policy, which is managed by the Commission, aims to determine where the limits of the economic development justification lie. This is a key EU economic policy question, with serious consequences for the structure of the EU economy and the ability of non-EU companies to compete fairly on the EU market, for example.
The draft State Aid Framework proposes the following changes to EU State aid policy:
Compatibility Assessment under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU:
Subject to conditions, measures that are in line with the Clean Industrial Deal would tend to be more easily found to satisfy the positive and negative conditions of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.
Aid under the draft State Aid Framework would generally be cumulable with other State aid, de minimis aid or centrally managed EU funds, subject to conditions.
Subject to detailed and extensive conditions, the Commission would generally deem compatible with the EU internal market (and thus greenlight) State aid to support the following activities:
Investments for the production of energy from renewable sources, including the production of renewable fuels of non-biological origin (RFNBOs), as well as investment in storage for RFNBOs, biofuels, bioliquids, biogas and biomass fuels obtaining at least 75% of its content from a directly connected production facility.
Electricity and thermal storage.
The promotion of non-fossil electricity flexibility.
Capacity mechanisms following a target model.
Investments contributing significantly to reductions of greenhouse gas emissions from industrial activities or leading to a substantial reduction in the energy consumption of industrial activities through the improvement of energy efficiency.
Investment projects creating additional manufacturing capacity to produce equipment relevant for the transition to a net-zero economy, its key components, and new or recovered related critical raw materials necessary for its production.
The acquisition of clean technology equipment through accelerated depreciation schemes.
The reduction of risks of private investments into portfolios of eligible projects in the renewable energy, industrial decarbonization and clean tech manufacturing areas.
The Public Consultation
The draft State Aid Framework has not been adopted yet. Rather, the Commission intends to adopt its definitive version by June 2025. As such, the content of the draft State Aid Framework is still subject to change.
From 11 March 2025 until 25 April 2025, the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition, which is responsible for State aid enforcement and policy, is seeking feedback from citizens, organizations and public authorities concerning the draft State Aid Framework. To that effect, it is running a public consultation, to which contributions may be submitted here.
To the extent that the Commission seeks to simplify State aid rules, accelerate the rollout of renewable energy, deploy industrial decarbonization and ensure clean tech manufacturing capacity, the public consultation constitutes a good opportunity to share any views and suggestions in relation to those goals.
Global Regulatory Update for March 2025
ABA And B&C Announce Release Of “Chemical Product Law and Supply Chain Stewardship” Book: The Acta Group (Acta®) and Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) are pleased to announce the release by American Bar Association (ABA) Publishing of Chemical Product Law and Supply Chain Stewardship: A Guide to New TSCA, edited by Acta President Lynn L. Bergeson and authored by Ms. Bergeson and members of Acta and B&C’s highly experienced Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) practice group. This invaluable guide provides a road map to navigate efficiently the transformational changes in chemical product law, identifies the practical business and product stewardship implications of the new normal in product regulation, and explains the urgent need for supply chain awareness so that the business community and others can make informed and compliant business decisions. Please note: A 20% off discount code will be provided to Acta clients and friends via e-mail later this month — so keep watch for that.
Recording Available For “What’s New with New Approach Methodologies: A Webinar,” Featuring EPA CCTE’s Katie Paul Friedman, Ph.D., And PETA Toxicology Specialist Adam Bettmann, MS, DABT®: A recording is available for B&C and Acta’s webinar featuring experts in the toxicology field discussing the state of play as stakeholders take advantage of new approach methodologies (NAM). Adam Bettmann, MS, DABT®, a Toxicology Specialist representing PETA Science Consortium International e.V., navigates the current state of NAMs and their use for submissions to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) by providing an overview of some of the relevant guideline and non-guideline testing approaches, the process of vetting NAMs for readiness, and available training and educational opportunities. Katie Paul Friedman, Ph.D., Acting Director for the Biomolecular and Computational Toxicology Division in the Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE) in EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD), provides an overview of the TSCA New Chemicals Collaborative Research Program (NCCRP) as the lead within the ORD. An overview of the proposed research plan and its components (as presented to the U.S. EPA ORD Board of Scientific Councilors in late 2022) is followed by descriptions of early works in progress and publications related to this effort. Richard E. Engler, Ph.D. wraps up these issues with an overview of TSCA Section 4 authority and chemical testing issues. Watch now.
AUSTRALIA
Australia Seeks Comment On Information Requirements For “Designated Fluorinated Chemical” Assessments: The Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme (AICIS) has begun a public consultation to obtain comments on the clarity of the information requirements that will be added to the form for an AICIS assessment certificate application for a chemical that is a “designated fluorinated.” Designated fluorinated chemicals are a subset of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that capture the PFAS chemicals of highest concern to human health and the environment, including longer chain PFAS chemicals that are similar to perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS). AICIS assesses the health and environmental risks of designated fluorinated chemicals that are not on the Australian Inventory of Industrial Chemicals (the Inventory) after an application for an assessment certificate is submitted through the form in AICIS Business Services. The chemical can be manufactured or imported into Australia only if AICIS issues an assessment certificate. At this time, to obtain the full set of information requirements for assessment certificate applications for designated fluorinated chemicals, potential applicants must contact AICIS for guidance about the information needed for their application. According to AICIS, this has led to requirements being communicated to an applicant as an information request after a certificate application has been submitted. Before improving transparency by adding the requirements to the application form and publishing them, AICIS seeks comment on whether an applicant will be able to understand them clearly. AICIS states that it expects the updated application form to affect a very small number of applicants. There have only been two applicants for assessment certificates for designated fluorinated chemicals since AICIS began in July 2020. Comments on the information requirements are due April 8, 2025.
CANADA
Canada Releases Final State Of PFAS Report And Proposed Risk Management Approach, Proposes To Add PFAS To CEPA Schedule 1, Part 2: On March 5, 2025, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) announced the availability of its final State of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Report (State of PFAS Report) and proposed risk management approach for PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers. The State of PFAS Report concludes that the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, is harmful to human health and the environment. To address these risks, Canada proposed on March 8, 2025, to add the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, to Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA). ECCC states that it will prioritize the protection of health and the environment while considering factors such as the availability of alternatives. Phase 1, starting in 2025, will address PFAS in firefighting foams to protect better firefighters and the environment. Phase 2 will focus on limiting exposure to PFAS in products that are not needed for the protection of human health, safety, or the environment. ECCC notes that this will include products like cosmetics, food packaging materials, and textiles. ECCC states that it will publish a final decision on the proposed addition of 131 individual PFAS to the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) with reporting to take place by June 2026 for PFAS releases that occurred during the 2025 calendar year. ECCC states that these data will improve its understanding of how PFAS are used in Canada, help it evaluate possible industrial PFAS contamination, and support efforts to reduce environmental and human exposure to harmful substances. Comments on the proposed risk management approach and the proposed order to add the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, to CEPA Schedule 1 Part 2 are due May 7, 2025. More information will be available in a forthcoming memorandum.
Canada Posts Guidance Materials For Reporting To The Federal Plastics Registry: On April 20, 2024, Canada published a Canada Gazette notice that will require companies (including resin manufacturers, service providers, and producers of plastic products) to report annually on the quantity and types of plastic they manufacture, import, and place on the market. Reporting will begin in September 2025 for Phase 1, requiring reporting on plastic placed on the market in three categories for the 2024 calendar year. ECCC has posted the following guidance materials and resources on its web page on the Federal Plastics Registry (FPR):
Guide for Reporting to the FPR — Phase 1: ECCC has prepared a guidance document to provide assistance in responding to the notice. ECCC notes that this version of the document is focused on Phase 1 reporting requirements (reports due in 2025 on 2024 data). It provides a general overview of the reporting requirements, as well as additional guidance materials that include tools such as calculation methods and other aids.
Foreign Supplier Letter: When responding to the notice, reporters are required to provide information that their organization possesses or to which they may be reasonably expected to have access. ECCC notes that more detailed information on the plastic composition in products and packaging may be available from the supply chain. According to ECCC, suppliers may have information of which reporters are unaware. Any person requiring more detailed information on the plastic composition of their products is required to contact their suppliers. To that end, a Government of Canada letter for communicating with foreign suppliers is available. The letter may help reporters obtain information from foreign suppliers to respond to the notice. The letter is available in English, French, Chinese (simplified), and Spanish. To receive a copy of the letter, e-mail [email protected] with the subject line “Foreign Supplier Letter” and include the languages of the letters requested.
User guides for using the online reporting platform: ECCC states that several user guides have been prepared to help users use the FPR’s new reporting platform. These user guides are available on the new reporting platform or upon request. To obtain copies, submit a request by e-mail to [email protected].
ECCC has also posted frequently asked questions (FAQ) regarding the FPR.
CHILE
Chile Releases List Of Hazardous Substances For Industrial Use, Begins Notification For Hazardous Substances For Non-Industrial Use: Chile has released a list of hazardous substances for industrial use that were notified by the September 30, 2024, extended deadline. The list is the first of a four-part national inventory of chemicals under Decree 57/2021, which approves the regulations on the classification, labeling, and notification of chemical substances and mixtures, established a national chemicals framework, and implemented the seventh revision of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). The regulations apply to manufacturers and importers of chemical substances and mixtures that are not already regulated by other regulations, exempting pharmaceutical products, food products for human or animal consumption, cosmetic products, pesticide residues in food, and hazardous waste. Hazardous substances for industrial use that are not listed on the national inventory are considered new substances and must be notified. The list is available on the Ministry of Environment’s (MMA) chemical substances notification platform website. Access is available upon request to MMA. On February 9, 2025, Chile began accepting notifications for hazardous substances for non-industrial use. Notifications are due August 30, 2025.
CHINA
China Holds Public Consultation On Draft Law On Safety Of Hazardous Chemicals: China’s National People’s Congress began a public consultation on December 26, 2024, on the draft Law on the Safety of Hazardous Chemicals. The draft law would apply to the production, transport, storage, use, operation, and disposal of hazardous chemicals. It would define hazardous chemicals as substances with highly toxic, explosive, flammable, or combustion-supporting properties that pose risks to humans, facilities, or the environment. If enacted, it will replace Decree 591, which establishes a hazardous chemicals information management system, implements electronic identification, and initiates whole lifecycle information management of hazardous chemicals. Comments on the draft law were due January 23, 2025.
EUROPEAN UNION (EU)
CLP Amendments Entered Into Force In December 2024: Amendments to the EU’s Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation (CLP) entered into force on December 10, 2024. According to the European Commission’s (EC) website, the revisions are intended to enhance chemical safety and information transparency:
Online stores will have to display hazardous properties clearly on their websites;
Labeling will be made simpler by allowing more flexible use of fold-out labels, introducing digital labeling, and improving the legibility of labels;
Advertisements and online offers will have to contain information on chemical hazards, facilitating informed choices by consumers and the development of a market for sustainable consumer chemical products;
For the first time, there will be clarity on the safe sale of household chemicals via the refill stations, contributing to reducing packaging and packaging waste;
There will be a more user-friendly inventory of substances notified by industry, benefiting small and medium-sized enterprises (SME);
Explicit rules for classifying complex substances (those containing more than one constituent) will be introduced, while taking account of the specificities of natural complex substances, such as essential oils; and
Poison centers will receive more comprehensive information for medical emergencies, especially from cross-border distribution.
ECHA Adds Five Chemicals To The Candidate List And Updates One Entry: The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) announced on January 21, 2025, that it added five chemicals to the Candidate List of substances of very high concern (SVHC) and updated one entry:
Substance Name
Reason for Inclusion
Examples of Uses
6-[(C10-C13)-alkyl-(branched, unsaturated)-2,5-dioxopyrrolidin-1-yl]hexanoic acid
Toxic for reproduction (Article 57(c))
Lubricants, greases, release products, and metal working fluids
O,O,O-triphenyl phosphorothioate
Persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) (Article 57(d))
Lubricants and greases
Octamethyltrisiloxane
Very persistent, very bioaccumulative (vPvB) (Article 57(e))
Manufacture and/or formulation of: cosmetics, personal/health care products, pharmaceuticals, washing and cleaning products, coating and non-metal surface treatment, and in sealants and adhesives
Perfluamine
vPvB (Article 57(e))
Manufacture of electrical, electronic, and optical equipment and machinery and vehicles
Reaction mass of: triphenylthiophosphate and tertiary butylated phenyl derivatives
PBT (Article 57(d))
No active registrations
Updated entry
Tris(4-nonylphenyl, branched and linear) phosphite
Endocrine disrupting properties (Article 57(f) — environment)
Polymers, adhesives, sealants, and coatings
ECHA states that its Member State Committee confirmed the addition of these chemicals to the Candidate List, which now has 247 entries. ECHA notes that some entries are groups of chemicals, so the overall number of impacted chemicals is higher. Candidate List chemicals may be placed on the Authorization List in the future. If a substance is on that list, its use will be prohibited unless companies apply for authorization and the EC authorizes them to continue its use.
Under the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals Regulation (REACH), companies have legal obligations when their substance is included — either on its own, in mixtures, or in articles — on the Candidate List. Suppliers of articles containing a Candidate List substance above a concentration of 0.1 percent (weight by weight) must provide their customers and consumers information on how to use the article safely. ECHA notes that consumers have the right to ask suppliers whether the products they buy contain SVHCs. Importers and producers of articles must notify ECHA if their article contains a Candidate List substance within six months from the date it has been included on the list (January 21, 2025). EU and European Economic Area (EEA) suppliers of substances on the Candidate List, supplied either on their own or in mixtures, must update the safety data sheet (SDS) provided to customers.
Under the Waste Framework Directive, companies also have to notify ECHA if the articles they produce contain SVHCs in a concentration above 0.1 percent (weight by weight). ECHA will publish this notification in its database of substances of concern in products (SCIP). Under the EU Ecolabel Regulation, products containing SVHCs cannot have the ecolabel award.
EU Advocate General Recommends Overturning Decision Annulling Harmonized Classification And Labeling Of Titanium Dioxide: On February 6, 2025, the EU Advocate General (EU AG) recommended that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) overturn the 2022 decision of the General Court annulling the 2019 harmonized classification and labeling of titanium dioxide as a carcinogenic substance by inhalation in certain powder forms. As reported in our December 6, 2022, memorandum, the court annulled the EC’s decision to classify titanium dioxide as a suspected human carcinogen. The French government and the EC appealed the decision, arguing that the court exceeded the limits of permissible judicial review of an EC decision and that the court incorrectly interpreted the concept of “intrinsic properties” as it appears in the CLP. The EU AG proposes that the ECJ:
Set aside the November 2022 judgment in CWS Powder Coatings and Others v Commission (T‑279/20, T‑283/20 and T‑288/20, EU:T:2022:725);
Refer the case back to the General Court for the resolution of the remaining pleas in law; and
Order that the costs be reserved.
The ECJ is expected to issue its decision later this year. More information is available in our March 11, 2025, blog item.
Packaging And Packaging Waste Regulation Enters Into Force: On February 11, 2025, the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation entered into force. According to the Council of the EU’s December 16, 2024, press release, the regulation sets 2030 and 2040 targets for a minimum percentage of recycled content (up to 65 percent for single use plastic bottles by 2040); minimizes the weight and volume of packaging and avoids unnecessary packaging; and minimizes substances of concern, including restricting placing on the market food contact packaging containing PFAS if they exceed certain thresholds. The Council notes that labeling, marking, and information requirements (e.g., on material composition or recycled content) should facilitate consumer sorting and consumer choices.
ECHA announced on February 11, 2025, that it will prepare a study identifying chemicals of concern in packaging and related components assessing how these chemicals affect their safety, reuse, and recycling. The EC’s request to ECHA states that it expects the study to support it in:
Identifying chemicals of concern present in packaging and packaging components that negatively affect the reuse and recycling of materials and impact chemical safety. In addition, the study will investigate the need for future restrictions under REACH for the identified chemicals of concern that can impact chemical safety;
Establishing labeling on packaging that marks the chemicals of concern to be adopted by January 1, 2030, in the form of an Implementing Act;
Assessing the packaging recyclability on chemicals of concern that affect negatively the reuse and recycling of packaging and packaging components; and
Assessing the need to modify the provisions related to PFAS content four years from the date of application of the Regulation.
Under the regulation, ECHA is to provide its input to the EC by the end of September 2026. Based on ECHA’s report, the EC will consider appropriate follow-up measures, including possible restrictions on the use of substances in packaging materials that pose health or environmental risks. According to ECHA, these restrictions “will follow the existing REACH restriction process.”
EC Calls For Evidence For Evaluation Of Cosmetic Products Regulation: The EC issued a call for evidence on February 21, 2025, for an evaluation/fitness check of the Cosmetics Products Regulation (CPR). According to the EC, the evaluation is expected to provide evidence of how the CPR has been applied, whether it has delivered on its objectives, and whether it remains fit for purpose. The EC states that the evaluation will investigate the current scope of the CPR, the definitions used, the application of the generic risk approach to ingredients with potentially higher risk for human health, and labeling provisions, as well as the main trends in international trade and the external competitiveness of the EU industry. It will also examine whether the CPR is fit to support and enable international convergence with other jurisdictions. The EC notes that the evaluation will include areas for improvement, including any potential for simplification and burden reduction, and will help the EC determine whether revision of the CPR is needed. Comments are due March 21, 2025.
EC Legislative Package Would Simplify Corporate Sustainability Reporting: The EC announced on February 25, 2025, that it has adopted a new package of proposals to simplify EU rules, boost competitiveness, and unlock additional investment capacity. The package brings together proposals in a number of related legislative fields, including sustainable finance reporting, sustainability due diligence, EU Taxonomy, carbon border adjustment mechanism, and European investment programs. Specifically, proposed revisions concerning sustainability reporting (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and EU Taxonomy) include:
Removing around 80 percent of companies from the scope of CSRD, focusing the sustainability reporting obligations on the largest companies that are more likely to have the biggest impacts on people and the environment;
Ensuring that sustainability reporting requirements on large companies do not burden smaller companies in their value chains;
Postponing by two years (until 2028) the reporting requirements for companies currently in the scope of CSRD and that are required to report as of 2026 or 2027;
Reducing the burden of the EU Taxonomy reporting obligations and limiting it to the largest companies (corresponding to the scope of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD)), while keeping the possibility to report voluntarily for the other large companies within the future scope of the CSRD;
Introducing the option of reporting on activities that are partially aligned with the EU Taxonomy, fostering a gradual environmental transition of activities over time, in line with the aim to scale up transition finance to help companies on their path towards sustainability;
Introducing a financial materiality threshold for the Taxonomy reporting and reducing the reporting templates by around 70 percent; and
Introducing simplifications to the most complex “Do no Significant harm” (DNSH) criteria for pollution prevention and control related to the use and presence of chemicals that apply horizontally to all economic sectors under the EU Taxonomy — “as a first step in revising and simplifying all such DNSH criteria.”
Proposed changes in the area of sustainability due diligence include:
Simplifying sustainability due diligence requirements so that companies in scope avoid unnecessary complexities and costs, e.g., by focusing systematic due diligence requirements on direct business partners and by reducing the frequency of periodic assessments and monitoring of their partners from annual to five years, with ad hoc assessments where necessary;
Reducing burdens and trickle-down effects for SME and small mid-caps by limiting the amount of information that may be requested as part of the value chain mapping by large companies;
Further increasing the harmonization of due diligence requirements to ensure a level playing field across the EU;
Removing the EU civil liability conditions while preserving victims’ rights to full compensation for damage caused by non-compliance, and protecting companies against over-compensation, under the civil liability regimes of EU member states; and
Giving companies more time to prepare to comply with the new requirements by postponing the application of the sustainability due diligence requirements for the largest companies by one year (to July 26, 2028), while advancing the adoption of the guidelines by one year (to July 2026).
The EC posted questions and answers (Q&A) on the legislative package.
ECHA Updates Annual Evaluation Statistics And Recommendations To Registrants On Improving Dossiers: ECHA announced on February 26, 2025, that it has updated its annual statistics on evaluation progress. According to ECHA, between 2009 and 2024, it checked the compliance of 15,500 REACH registrations, representing 23 percent of all submitted registration dossiers and covering 3,200 substances. For high-volume chemicals registered at quantities of 100 metric tons or more per year, ECHA has checked 34 percent of the registrations. ECHA notes that based on the evaluations, it updated its recommendations to registrants on how to improve their dossiers.
In 2024, ECHA carried out 313 compliance checks, covering almost 2,000 registrations and addressing 272 individual substances. ECHA notes that these checks focused on those registration dossiers that may have data gaps. As a result, ECHA sent 208 decisions to companies, requesting additional data to clarify long-term effects of chemicals on human health or the environment. ECHA states that it also examined 161 testing proposals and sent out 92 decisions, addressing the tests proposed by industry to ensure the safe use of the substance.
To follow up information requests sent to companies, ECHA states that it checks whether the provided information complies with the REACH requirements. In 2024, ECHA concluded this evaluation for 241 substances. According to ECHA, in about 70 percent of the cases, companies provided the requested information. ECHA notified the remaining 30 percent to EU member states for enforcement and will follow up. ECHA also adopted three substance evaluation decisions prepared by EU member states, requesting further information to assess the safety of substances of potential concern.
FRANCE
Parliament Passes Bill That Would Prohibit Intentionally Added PFAS In Certain Consumer Products: On February 20, 2025, the National Assembly passed legislation that would prohibit the following items containing PFAS as of January 1, 2026:
Cosmetic products;
Wax; and
Textile clothing products, footwear, and waterproofing agents for textile clothing products and footwear intended for consumer use.
The bill would ban in 2030 any textile products containing PFAS, excluding textile products necessary for essential uses.
EPA Will Review 2024 Rule Amending the TSCA Risk Evaluation Framework Rule
On March 10, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its intent to reconsider the May 3, 2024, rule amending the procedural framework rule for conducting risk evaluations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (2024 Risk Evaluation Framework Rule). According to EPA, it will initiate a rulemaking “that will ensure the agency can efficiently and effectively protect human health and the environment and follow the law.”
As reported in our February 7, 2025, blog item, earlier this year, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the “Powering the Great American Comeback” initiative to advance EPA’s core mission while energizing the American economy. EPA notes in its March 10, 2025, press release that under TSCA, EPA is charged with reviewing “the thousands of chemicals already in commerce to make sure they don’t harm people or the environment, supporting Pillar One of the Administrator’s initiative, clean air, land and water for every American, as well as Pillar Three to advance permitting reform, cooperative federalism and cross-agency partnership by better integrating best workplace standards from across the Federal government and industry and aiming to adhere to Congress’s tight timelines for risk evaluations.”
Consistent with President Trump’s Executive Order 14219 requiring the review of regulations to ensure consistency with Administration policy and agencies’ statutory authority, EPA reviewed the 2024 Risk Evaluation Framework Rule, which outlines the process EPA must follow when conducting chemical risk evaluations. EPA states that after completing its review and considering public comments and concerns, including those from other federal agencies, it “intends to initiate further rulemaking in the near future that will reexamine multiple aspects of this rule for consistency with the law and Administration policy.” In its rulemaking, EPA will review whether the approach taken by the Biden Administration to make a single risk determination for a chemical is consistent with TSCA. EPA will also include, among additional considerations, whether the Agency must evaluate all conditions of use of a chemical at the same time in the three years generally allotted by Congress to conduct this review. Additionally, EPA will reconsider whether and how the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and industrial controls in an occupational work environment should be incorporated into risk evaluations. According to EPA, it will reconsider regulatory definitions expanded by the Biden Administration and evaluate whether the regulation should define terms more broadly than the definitions in the statute. More information on the 2024 Risk Evaluation Framework Rule is available in our May 14, 2024, memorandum.
Commentary
Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) is pleased that EPA is reconsidering the rule. As we discussed in our May 14, 2024, memorandum, we identified several significant flaws in the final rule.
This announcement is consistent with EPA’s request that the courts remand, without vacatur, the ongoing legal challenge to the rule (United Steel, Paper, and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO v. EPA, Case No. 24-1151 (D.C. Cir. 2024), USW v. EPA). Whether the courts will grant EPA’s motion is unclear. The labor unions and environmental non-governmental organizations (NGO) that intervened oppose the motion.
In a post-Loper Bright world, a court decision in USW v EPA on one of the key provisions being challenged, such as the single determination approach, could be a much more durable result than if the court finds that EPA does not have discretion to interpret the statute in that way.
Regardless of whether the case is remanded without vacatur, the 2024 Risk Evaluation Framework Rule will remain in effect, so EPA’s ongoing TSCA Section 6 work will have to conform with the current rule.