The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on March 24, 2026, that it will propose to extend certain compliance dates in the December 2024 final risk management rules for perchloroethylene (PCE) and carbon tetrachloride (CTC) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). According to EPA, it continues to revise the final rules “to ensure they are practical and implementable to protect human health and the environment and maintain uses that power the U.S. economy.” Until EPA issues a final rule extending the compliance dates, the current deadlines remain effective. EPA notes that it intends to focus its resources on compliance with the new compliance dates that will be established by this rulemaking. EPA states that “[c]onsistent with the March 12, 2025, memo entitled ‘Implementing National Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives Consistently with Executive Orders and Agency Priorities,’ concurrence from the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance or his/her delegee shall be sought before any enforcement or compliance assurance actions regarding elements of this rule subject to reconsideration are taken.” Publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register will begin a 30-day public comment period. EPA has posted a pre-publication version of the proposed rule.
Background
As reported in our August 1, 2025, blog item, on July 30, 2025, EPA requested public comment to inform its reconsideration of the December 2024 PCE risk management rule. 90 Fed. Reg. 35858. EPA invited public comment on all aspects of the final rule, including but not limited to any existing or anticipated implementation issues, experiences with the final rule since it took effect, and whether EPA should consider additional or alternative measures or approaches to address the unreasonable risk presented by PCE under the conditions of use (COU). EPA states that input on the following “is of particular interest”:
- The Existing Chemical Exposure Limit (ECEL) of 0.14 parts per million (ppm) as an eight-hour time weighted average (8-hr TWA) promulgated in the PCE final rule as part of the Workplace Chemical Protection Program (WCPP), including whether the use of a different exposure limit would be more appropriate to inform risk management. EPA states that different exposure limits might include but are not limited to: the acute non-cancer exposure limit of 0.50 ppm (8-hr TWA) and the lifetime cancer exposure limit of 0.47 ppm (8-hr TWA) as presented in the April 15, 2021, “Existing Chemical Exposure Limit (ECEL) for Occupational Use of Perchloroethylene” memorandum.
- COUs that EPA could contemplate subjecting to a WCPP as opposed to imposing a prohibition. According to EPA, “[i]nformation such as workplace controls currently in place or other information demonstrating how regulated parties could mitigate the unreasonable risk of PCE for the condition of use would be most helpful to the Agency.”
- The use of PCE in industrial dry cleaning processes, including workplace controls that reduce exposure to PCE and the performance of alternatives to PCE in these operations.
As reported in our October 15, 2025, blog item, on October 9, 2025, EPA requested comment on its 2024 final risk management rule for CTC. 90 Fed. Reg. 48203. EPA invited public comment on all aspects of the final rule, noting that it is specifically interested in additional information on the ECEL of 0.03 ppm as an 8-hour TWA promulgated in the CTC final rule as part of the WCPP, including feasibility of exposure monitoring and whether the use of a different exposure limit would be more appropriate to inform risk management.
In each case, EPA’s request for public comment followed the filing of legal challenges to the 2024 final rules, and EPA’s subsequent determination that the rules should be reconsidered through further rulemaking. In the notices requesting public comment, EPA states that it “intends to consider information received in response to this public comment solicitation, and other reasonably available information, to inform the development of any proposed rule to amend the” final rules as appropriate. More information on the December 2024 final risk management rules for PCE and CTC is available in our January 13, 2025, memorandum.
Proposed Rule
EPA notes that it is not revisiting the underlying finding that PCE and CTC present unreasonable risk. EPA proposes to extend some WCPP compliance dates for non-federal entities that use PCE and CTC to match the compliance dates for federal agencies and their contractors, “providing much needed relief for the companies that drive our country’s economy.” According to EPA, this would “not impact or diminish any current worker protections that are already in place for these chemicals.”
EPA proposes extending the following WCPP compliance dates for non-federal owners and operators subject to the regulation of PCE:
- Conduct initial monitoring by June 21, 2027;
- Meet the ECEL, establish a regulated area, provide any required respiratory personal protective equipment (PPE), and establish a respiratory PPE program by September 20, 2027; and
- Establish and implement an exposure control plan by December 20, 2027.
EPA proposes extending the following WCPP compliance dates for non-federal owners and operators subject to the regulation of CTC:
- Conduct initial monitoring by June 21, 2027; and
- Meet the ECEL, establish a regulated area, provide any required respiratory PPE, and establish a respiratory PPE program by September 20, 2027.
EPA states that its proposal to extend certain compliance dates responds to stakeholder feedback that the dates are unworkable and will help ensure that companies can implement strong protections effectively without disrupting operations, economic activity, or innovation. EPA notes that by describing the compliance dates as “unworkable,” it means that, “as written, they could lead to rushed, incomplete, or box‑checking compliance, which is not protective in practice.” According to EPA, aligning compliance timelines where appropriate will help to create a level playing field for both federal and non-federal entities subject to the rules’ requirements.
Both 2024 risk management rules are being challenged in court. According to EPA, its intention “is to ensure that, once in effect, these protections are durable, enforceable, and not easily rolled back in court or by future administrations.” EPA states that it intends to publish proposed rules “in or around” summer 2026 to amend various aspects of those rules.
Commentary
Those who follow TSCA implementation closely have long awaited the Trump Administration’s approach to managing unreasonable risk under TSCA Section 6. Over a year into the term, EPA has yet to undertake any substantive rulemakings in this space, leaving unclear how this Administration’s approaches may compare or differ from those of the Biden Administration. There are numerous existing chemicals for which EPA has completed a final risk evaluation, and for which a proposed or final risk management rule remains pending. EPA is already well past statutory deadlines for completing these actions for many of those chemicals. Of the five chemicals for which EPA has published final risk management rules (methylene chloride (MC), trichloroethylene (TCE), asbestos, CTC, and PCE), all five are subject to ongoing litigation. For all but one of those chemicals (asbestos), EPA has stated that it intends to go back and reconsider the underlying rule. So far, nothing of substance has materialized on the rulemaking front in this Administration.
This week’s announcement regarding proposed rules for PCE and CTC — while unsurprising — is another kick of the can down the road, pushing out compliance dates without substantively addressing any of the concerns raised about the feasibility of the rules’ requirements. The various staggered compliance deadlines associated with the CTC final rule will soon take effect, and, for PCE, have already started. Because EPA is “reconsidering” these rules, they are left in the awkward position of allowing requirements to take effect that may soon change. Equally or perhaps more awkward is the decision that the regulated community must make as to whether they must or should invest in compliance with rules that appear to still be in flux. EPA cannot legally tell companies not to comply with final rules like the TSCA Section 6(a) rules for PCE and CTC. And only in very rare instances has EPA issued a formal “no action assurance” to give the regulated community some cover that non-compliance will not be subject to enforcement and penalty.
Although the current compliance deadlines associated with the final PCE and CTC rules remain in effect unless and until the proposed compliance date extensions are published in final, EPA notes that it “intends to focus its resources on compliance with the new compliance dates” in the proposed rule. This suggests that EPA’s enforcement office does not intend to focus resources on enforcing violations of requirements associated with the current compliance dates. Of note in both the recent press release and updated website text for PCE and CTC, and as described earlier, EPA also references a March 2026 memorandum from EPA’s enforcement office that suggests a significantly higher level of internal political oversight of enforcement actions related to rules under reconsideration.
Specifically, the memorandum requires concurrence from EPA’s Assistant Administrator before any enforcement actions related to PCE and CTC are taken. While this may give impacted industries some mild comfort, EPA’s soft statements of enforcement discretion are unlikely to answer the interim Shakespearean question: to comply, or not to comply?
On the topic of enforcement, the March 2026 memorandum is notable for other reasons. As a general matter, the memorandum purports to align EPA’s enforcement and compliance initiatives with a slew of Executive Orders issued from the White House, and EPA’s own “Powering the Great American Comeback” initiative. The guidance covers a range of topics from environmental justice to American energy, climate change, coal ash, air toxics in overburdened communities, chemical accidents, and — as already discussed — enforcement actions related to rules under EPA “reconsideration.” The guidance is immediately effective, applies to all enforcement matters moving forward, and — importantly — also applies to future actions taken in existing enforcement matters. For any company currently in discussions with EPA on enforcement matters, the memorandum may offer some insight into shifting policies and dynamics within EPA’s enforcement office and/or opportunities for additional advocacy on specific issues.
