Historical correction, 10 October 2026: EPA announced the proposal on 22 September 2025 and published it on 23 September, after the preserved 8 September archive date. The published comment deadline was 7 November. This correction also distinguishes EPA risk-evaluation procedures from separate PMN, significant-new-use and import-certification obligations. Enforcement totals, penalty examples and private predictions remain unverified; this is not current filing guidance.
After this article’s preserved archive date, EPA announced the proposal on 22 September 2025. The Federal Register published it on 23 September, setting a 7 November 2025 comment deadline. If you import industrial chemicals from China into the US, this proposal is not procedural housekeeping. It is a structural rewrite of how EPA decides whether a chemical you have been shipping for fifteen years is suddenly “unreasonable risk” and therefore a candidate for use restriction, labelling mandates or outright ban.
The proposal would change how EPA makes risk determinations for conditions of use. It does not itself establish a new use-bucket declaration at every CBP inspection. Importers must assess the actual substance-specific rules and orders that apply to their goods and uses.
The claimed 115 enforcement actions and $4.3 million aggregate have not been verified from a primary record. They cannot establish how many import shipments were involved or demonstrate that this procedural proposal narrows every importer’s compliance obligations.
What the Proposed Rule Actually Changes
The existing Framework Rule, finalised in 2017 and amended in 2024, required EPA to evaluate a chemical across its full range of conditions of use in a single risk evaluation. Under the proposal, EPA would have flexibility to define narrower evaluation boundaries, potentially evaluating only specific uses of concern and leaving others for later or separate proceedings.
The proposal concerns EPA’s section 6 risk-evaluation procedures and manufacturer-requested evaluations. It does not transfer EPA’s risk determination to an importer’s border declaration. Under the separate section 5 framework, non-exempt new chemicals require PMN review, while a use designated by an applicable SNUR can require a significant new use notice. Not every new use of an existing chemical requires a PMN.
EPA also proposed changes to how occupational exposure is weighted, how consumer use scenarios are modelled, and how “reasonably available information” is defined for data-gap-filling. Each of those is a lever that, used aggressively, can turn a chemical from an approved import into a restricted one. The agency has signalled that the methylene chloride, perchloroethylene and 1-bromopropane rulings are the template, which means bans or severe use restrictions are on the table for any chemical that ends up on the priority list.
Enforcement Categories and Unverified Figures
The following categories are potential compliance issues. The article has not established the alleged 115-action dataset or shown that the table represents an observed breakdown of those actions.
| Enforcement Category | Typical Fact Pattern | Unverified illustrative amount | Action for Importers |
|---|---|---|---|
| PMN failure | Non-exempt new chemical imported without required notice, determination or compliance with resulting conditions | $37,500 to $500,000 per shipment | Audit every substance against TSCA Inventory |
| Significant New Use Rule violation | Existing chemical imported for a use covered by a SNUR without notice | $37,500 per day of violation | Cross-check SNUR list against product uses |
| Import Certification error | Section 13 certification missing or inaccurate on entry | $37,500 per entry | Template correction with broker |
| Chemical Data Reporting lapse | Manufacturers and importers missed 2024 CDR cycle | Up to $44,500 per day | Assess the filing gap and appropriate correction procedure |
| Record keeping | Missing supplier declarations, composition records | $37,500 per violation | Five-year record audit |
| Restricted chemical import | PCB, asbestos, restricted PFAS, methylene chloride end use | $37,500 illustrative amount; criminal exposure requires separate legal assessment | Restricted list screening at PO stage |
The amounts above are unverified illustrative figures, not the 2025 statutory penalty schedule or verified case outcomes. Applicable limits depend on the provision and violation and assessment dates. The unverified $4.3 million and 115-action figures cannot support an observed average penalty. The table is not a substitute for a case-specific assessment.
Where Chinese-Origin Chemicals Are Most Exposed
The article reports twenty years of company importing experience from China. That business history has not been independently authenticated. The categories below are a historical screening discussion; reported experience does not establish an EPA priority ranking or guarantee that the proposed framework will intensify scrutiny on each category.
Industrial solvents sourced from Chinese petrochemical complexes are a perennial focus. EPA has active risk evaluations or restrictions on methylene chloride, 1-bromopropane, perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene and n-methylpyrrolidone. Chinese suppliers still market these to US importers regularly, and your purchase order paperwork needs to match EPA’s current status on each CAS number rather than the status from two years ago.
Surfactants and per-fluorinated chemistry is the fastest-moving bucket. PFAS rules under TSCA have expanded significantly, and any import of a fluorinated chemistry from a Shandong or Jiangsu plant needs a current Section 8(a)(7) check. The scope of regulated PFAS keeps growing, and importers who rely on a 2023 opinion letter from their broker are probably out of date.
Plasticisers and phthalates show up on consumer product risk evaluations. If your chemical feeds into toys, cosmetics, food contact or medical devices, the use-specific framework in the proposed rule will let EPA target downstream uses individually even if the plasticiser itself passes industrial review.
Flame retardants, particularly brominated and chlorinated families, have been on the EPA priority list for over a decade. Chinese manufacturers still produce a wide range of them, and US demand in electronics and building products keeps the import pipeline open. Expect use-specific restrictions in the next evaluation cycle.
Landed Cost Maths on a TSCA Compliance Programme
The question every chemical importer asks when a new compliance regime lands is whether the cost of compliance outweighs the cost of non-compliance. For TSCA, the maths is clear.
In an illustrative scenario, 2,000 tonnes at a landed price of $1,900 per tonne represents $3.8 million of annual landed expenditure, not revenue. The former comparison with a $37,000 observed average penalty is unsupported. Any enforcement cost or reformulation estimate below is an assumed planning input, not a verified case outcome.
The table below shows the rough cost of a credible TSCA compliance programme against the cost of a single serious enforcement event.
| Programme Component | Annual Cost | One-Off Cost |
|---|---|---|
| In-house TSCA specialist, part allocation | $45,000 | |
| Third-party TSCA audit, annual | $18,000 | |
| PMN filings, ten per year at legal review | $60,000 | |
| Chemical Data Reporting cycle | $12,000 | |
| Supplier compliance documentation, ongoing | $22,000 | |
| Initial inventory reconciliation | $35,000 | |
| Product reformulation on enforcement | $500,000 | |
| Legal defence on a single enforcement action | $75,000 |
The illustrative table sums to $157,000 in annual programme costs plus $35,000 initial inventory reconciliation. Its separate $500,000 reformulation and $75,000 legal-defence assumptions sum to $575,000. That is a hypothetical combined cost, not an established average enforcement event or a guaranteed return on compliance spending.
What to Do Between Now and the Rule Finalisation
The article’s mid-2026 finalisation forecast and asserted 180-day internal cycle are not established by the proposal. A proposed rule is not an effective rule; assess subsequent official action and the requirements applicable at the time of a transaction.
Conduct a full CAS number audit of every chemical you imported in the last three years. Export the data from your customs broker’s ACE records and match each CAS against the current TSCA Inventory, the SNUR list, the PFAS list, and the active risk evaluation list. Any chemical not on the Inventory needs an immediate review. Any chemical on a SNUR or risk evaluation list needs a use-case verification.
Get written supplier declarations from every Chinese manufacturer in your top twenty suppliers. The declaration should state the CAS numbers present in each product grade, the purity, the impurity profile, and any byproducts that could fall under TSCA. Chinese suppliers in Shandong, Jiangsu and Zhejiang are generally willing to provide this documentation, but you need to ask in writing and in Mandarin through a qualified agent.
Review import certification against the rules and orders applicable to the actual substance and entry. The September proposal does not itself require a new Section 13 or ACE template, nor does a manufacturer-requested risk-evaluation certification establish a border declaration requirement.
The published notice directed comments to docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2025-0260 by 7 November 2025. This article does not establish acceptance of late submissions through informal channels.
Build a scenario plan for your top five chemical imports. For each, model what happens if EPA uses the new framework to restrict one specific downstream use while allowing others. Where would your existing customers sit? Which customers would need reformulation support? Which suppliers in China could adjust grade specifications to meet the remaining allowed uses?
The Enforcement Vector Is Narrowing
The claimed priority for importers over domestic manufacturers and its attribution to 115 actions remain unverified. They should not be read as findings established by the September risk-evaluation proposal.
A substance-specific restriction can require attention to the permitted use. That is separate from this procedural proposal. The private broker prediction of longer Section 13 templates within twelve months has not been substantiated as an announced regulatory requirement.
The former prediction that current ACE templates would become obsolete by Q3 2026 does not follow from this proposal and is withdrawn as a regulatory conclusion. Check actual customs requirements and applicable substance-specific measures instead.
Your Next Move This Week
Pull the CAS number list from your last twelve months of CBP entries and cross-match against the current TSCA active risk evaluations list and the PFAS list. If any of your CAS numbers come up as a match or near-match, flag those imports for a deeper review before your next purchase order cycle.
Email your compliance lead and ask for a written status on the last CDR cycle filing. If a filing gap may exist, obtain qualified advice on the appropriate correction or disclosure procedure. This article does not establish a guaranteed reduction in costs or penalties.
Sourzi runs TSCA compliance audits for US chemical importers sourcing from China, covering CAS number reconciliation, supplier documentation verification and ACE filing template review. If the September proposed rule is not yet on your Q4 agenda, we should talk this week.