05/02/2025

Court Blocks Trump’s Bid to Remand EPA’s Chemical Review Plan

E&E Greenwire | Ellie Borst | May 1, 2025

Court Blocks Trump’s Bid to Remand EPA’s Chemical Review Plan

A federal appeals court rejected the Trump administration's bid to remand EPA's framework for reviewing existing chemicals but did agree to pause proceedings for 90 days.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's Wednesday order is a temporary win for the administration, which asked the court to ditch the embattled Biden-era framework rule while it drafts a new approach.

The split three-judge panel gave EPA until July 29 to figure out its next steps. Nancy Beck, the EPA chemicals office's highest-ranking officer, had previously established a goal to propose a new draft rule by June 2025.

Senior Judge Harry Edwards, in an opinion dissenting from the decision to grant the abeyance, wrote, "There is no good reason for this court to further this delay."

Judges Robert Wilkins, an Obama appointee, and Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, did not elaborate in the order on why they granted EPA's request,

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, a once-toothless law overhauled by Congress in 2016, EPA is required to rein in dangerous chemical exposures by regulating uses deemed too risky during the risk evaluation stage.

"It is quite extraordinary that nine years after the Lautenberg Amendments, questions remain as to the agency’s obligations under the statute, and no clear framework has emerged for how the agency is to assess for risk," wrote Edwards, who was appointed by former President Jimmy Carter.

Edwards in his dissent sided with intervening environmental groups in support of the Biden-era rule and in favor of a court's interpretation of TSCA.

"A decision by this court as to the 'best reading' of the statute will benefit the agency if it tries yet again to write a new rule that is consistent with both its policy objectives and the law," Edwards wrote.

Industry opponents argue the Biden administration's rule leads to overly burdensome regulations stemming from assessments that overstate the risks of substances, including asbestos and formaldehyde.

The current framework centers a "whole chemical" approach, which means assessors will make a single determination on whether the chemical as a whole poses an unreasonable risk. The first Trump administration opted for a use-by-use framework, which issued risk determinations on each use of the chemical.

The judges also wrote they "have substantial doubts" regarding petitioning labor unions' standing. Groups led by the AFL-CIO argued risk assessments should not factor in personal protective equipment in the workplace.