In Landmark TSCA Decision, Fifth Circuit Vacates EPA’s Methylene Chloride Rule, Limits EPA’s Interpretation of “Unreasonable Risk”
On September 15, 2026, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the EPA’s 2024 risk management rule for methylene chloride and the unreasonable-risk determination underlying it. East Fork Enterprises, Inc. v. EPA, Nos. 24-60227 & 24-60256 (5th Cir. Sept. 15, 2026). The Court granted the industry petitioners’ petition for review, denied Sierra Club’s separate challenge seeking more stringent regulation, and remanded the matter to the EPA.
EPA Issues Final Rule Repealing Most 2024 Power Plant GHG Standards and a Proposal That Would Eliminate the Remaining Power Plant GHG Standards
On September 14, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took two related actions to substantially change the federal framework for regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants under Clean Air Act Section 111.
EPA + OSHA: Better Together? EPA Aligns EPCRA Chemical Reporting With OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard
Over the summer, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule amending the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) hazardous chemical inventory reporting regulations, at 40 C.F.R. Part 370, which became effective on August 21, 2026. The rule conforms EPA’s regulations for EPCRA Sections 311 and 312 hazardous chemical inventory reporting to amendments that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) made to its Hazard Communication Standard (HazCom) in 2012 and 2024. Facilities must use the new hazard categories beginning January 1, 2028. EPA expects those changes to be reflected in 2027 EPCRA Section 312 annual reports due March 1, 2028.
NHTSA Reverses Course on Standalone Engine Fuel Economy Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles
On August 31, 2026, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published an interpretive rule concluding that it lacks statutory authority to establish standalone fuel economy standards for engines used in certain commercial medium-duty and heavy-duty (MDHD) on-highway vehicles. The new interpretation reverses an approach NHTSA has followed since 2011 and is the latest step in what the agency has described as an effort to “reset” its federal fuel economy programs.
EPA and the Army Corps Seek Comment on Another WOTUS Alternative for Implementing Sackett v. EPA
On September 4, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (together, the agencies), announced a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) that requests additional public input on rules the agencies are considering to reflect the appropriate extent of federal Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction over streams and wetlands. The SNPRM follows on the heels of roughly 220,000 comments the agencies received on their November 20, 2025 proposal to revise the definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) in light of Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. 651 (2023), and it meaningfully expands the range of alternatives the agencies are considering for the final rule.
Federal Court Strikes Down New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act
On August 31, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York struck down New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act (the Act). As we reported when the Act was signed into law in 2024, the Act established a Climate Change Adaptation Cost Recovery Program authorizing New York to recover $75 billion over 25 years from fossil fuel companies for their alleged contributions to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As we also reported when challengers filed suit in February 2025, a coalition of twenty-two states and multiple industry associations had argued that the Act was preempted by the Clean Air Act (CAA) and violated the Supremacy Clause, among other issues. Chief U.S. District Court Judge Brenda K. Sannes agreed, granting summary judgment in favor of the challengers and holding that the Act is preempted by federal law and cannot be enforced.
