| With the end of the year in sight and the 2026 midterm election cycle well underway, lawmakers and regulators in Washington face challenges on multiple fronts, including getting a spending agreement in Congress again before January 31. At the agencies, the October shutdown slowed the administration’s progress on some fronts but other major initiatives – particularly on the deregulatory agenda – have advanced.
This month’s update highlights only a few actions in a larger set of trends that we’ll cover in greater detail in the December year-end update, including the emerging wider reach of nationwide PFAS litigation touching downstream industrial users and NASF efforts on EPA’s major PFAS wastewater treatment rule for finishing.
Read more about recent developments from November below…
_____________
Copper, Silver, Lead, Others Added to U.S. Critical Minerals List: In early November, the Department of Interior released a newly updated 2025 List of Critical Minerals. The newly added minerals include boron, copper, lead, metallurgical coal, phosphate, potash, rhenium, silicon, silver, and uranium The report highlighted that critical minerals are those “essential to the economy or national security of the United States” and whose supply chains are “vulnerable to disruption.”
Deregulation – EPA Now Proposing Changes in How it Evaluates and Regulates Chemicals, Metals: The agency has proposed significant revisions to how it conducts chemical risk evaluations under the primary federal chemicals management law – the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA). The initiative aims to reverse core elements of the much more restrictive Biden-era 2024 chemicals rule and return to a more targeted, favorable approach for U.S. industry. In its announcement, EPA explains that the proposed framework is intended to more efficiently and effectively protect human health and the environment while adhering to TSCA’s statutory requirements.
Deregulation – EPA & Army Corps of Engineers Propose New Clean Water Act Permitting Rules for Business: In another reversal of Biden-era actions, EPA and the Department of the Army have jointly proposed an anticipated new “Waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS) rule that would reduce the universe of waters covered by federal Clean Water Act requirements. The agencies highlight that the intent is to give businesses and property owners a clearer understanding of when federal permits are required for construction and development.
Solvents Uncertainty – EPA Delays Key TCE Requirements Again Amid Ongoing Litigation: EPA has delayed major parts of the Biden-era 2024 TCE rule for a fourth time, meaning no new compliance obligations will take effect for critical-use applications until at least February 17, 2026. The agency is arguing that the rule extension is necessary while federal courts sort out the broad legal challenges to the rule.
Restrictions Likely Ahead – Canada Will Consider Options for Regulating “Highest Risk” Substances Next Year: Canada’s key regulatory agencies – Health Canada and Environment & Climate Change Canada (ECCC) – have posted the federal government’s implementation schedule for the modernized Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), along with the timing of planned and completed public consultations which include potential restrictions on “highest risk” substances.
For more details on these topics, see more below:
_______________________
Supply Chain: Department of Interior Adds Copper, Silver, Lead and Others to the U.S. Critical Minerals List
In early November, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), acting through the Secretary of the Interior, released the final 2025 List of Critical Minerals. In announcing the update, USGS reiterated that critical minerals are those “essential to the economy or national security of the United States” and whose supply chains are vulnerable to disruption. The agency emphasizes that mineral criticality changes over time and therefore the 2025 list is not permanent. USGS will update the list at least biannually going forward based on new data, supply concentration, and policy priorities.
Addition of 10 New Critical Minerals Brings Total to 60
The final 2025 List includes 60 minerals, revising the list last published in 2022. The new list contains all 50 critical minerals from the 2022 List, plus an additional 10 critical minerals. The newly added minerals – identified by USGS as boron, copper, lead, metallurgical coal, phosphate, potash, rhenium, silicon, silver, and uranium – were included based on updated supply-chain risk assessments, public feedback on the draft list, and federal interagency recommendations outlined in the announcement.
Tool to Assess Vulnerabilities, Potential Assistance
The Federal Register notice underscores that the critical minerals designation serves as the federal government’s authoritative tool for assessing mineral availability, import reliance, and potential vulnerabilities in production and processing. It does not impose any new regulations. Publication of the 2025 list completes the required review cycle and establishes the official mineral set that will guide federal supply-chain and national-security assessments and other actions for the near term.
Deregulation: EPA Advancing Major Rules Changes for Chemicals, Metals
The agency has proposed significant revisions to how it conducts chemical risk evaluations under the primary federal chemicals management law – the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA). The initiative aims to reverse core elements of the much more restrictive Biden-era 2024 chemicals rule and return to a more targeted, favorable approach for industry. In its announcement, EPA explains that the proposed framework is intended to more efficiently and effectively protect human health and the environment while adhering to TSCA’s statutory requirements.
Applies to All Actions Still in Progress
The proposal would apply to all risk evaluations still in progress at EPA, positioning it to affect every future TSCA decision that impacts manufacturers and downstream users. A central element of the proposal is EPA’s plan to abandon the 2024 so-called “whole chemical” approach. Under that rule, EPA issued one single risk determination for an entire chemical, even if only one use out of a range of different uses in an industrial or other setting posed concern.
This structure can include low-exposure, well-controlled industrial uses in a broad “unreasonable risk” determination based on unrelated consumer or specialty uses. The agency’s new proposal restores the original TSCA approach, which makes separate risk determinations for each “condition of use,” and allows the agency to consider real-world workplace protections such as personal protective equipment and engineering controls when evaluating those specific industrial uses.
Consequential Shift Would Be Favorable to Industry
For manufacturing operations, including metal finishing, this shift is consequential. The use-by-use approach allows EPA to determine that a chemical used with controls in place may present “no unreasonable risk” – even if the same chemical has high-risk uses elsewhere in the economy. Experts see this targeted framework as a major improvement for regulatory certainty and for avoiding unintended restrictions on widely used chemistries.
Deregulation: EPA & Army Corps of Engineers Propose New Clean Water Act Permitting Rules for Business
In another reversal of Biden-era actions, EPA and the Department of the Army jointly proposed a new “Waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS) rule this past month that would reduce the universe of waters subject to federal authority under the Clean Water. The agencies highlight that the intent is to give businesses and property owners a clearer understanding of when federal permits are required for construction, development and related land-use activities.
Reducing Uncertainty, More Predictability
For manufacturers and companies planning projects or site improvements, the proposal is aimed at reducing uncertainty and limiting unexpected federal reviews during construction and expansion. Industry and agriculture groups in Washington broadly agree that the rule will likely create a more predictable system and clearer lines to make it easier for businesses to plan investments without running into shifting interpretations of federal jurisdiction.
Exclusions and Alignment with Supreme Court
The proposal also reaffirms several important, longstanding exclusions, including exclusions for many constructed ditches, groundwater and other water features. Clarifying these exclusions is intended to help companies avoid unnecessary permitting steps and focus compliance efforts on areas where federal requirements clearly apply.
EPA chief Lee Zeldin, in announcing the proposed rule on November 17, emphasized that the proposal seeks to align the agency’s regulatory authority with recent Supreme Court rulings as well as to reduce the back-and-forth changes businesses have faced with interpretations changing with each administration. NASF will continue evaluating the proposal and its implications for member companies.
Solvents: EPA Delays Key TCE Rule Requirements While Courts Sort Out Challenges
EPA has delayed major parts of the Biden-era 2024 TCE rule for a fourth time, meaning no new compliance obligations will take effect for critical-use applications until at least February 17, 2026. The agency is arguing that the rule extension is necessary while federal courts work through the broad legal challenges to the rule.
EPA Planning to Revise the Rule
For companies that rely on TCE for specialized or hard-to-replace functions, postponing the rule will keep the rule’s tight workplace controls and phaseout timelines on hold. Industry has argued that these provisions in the rule, particularly the 200-ppb workplace exposure limit, are effectively a ban on essential industrial uses. In the meantime, EPA has already announced plans to rewrite the entire TCE rule, a process that could last 18–24 months.
Litigation Unresolved for Now
The litigation remains unresolved, and a federal appeals court has not yet decided on next steps for resolution. Environmental groups oppose the delay, while some industry representatives support a pause only if the court first blocks the rule’s strict exposure limits for certain specialized industrial uses.
In the meantime, EPA has requested that the litigation be paused. Until the court rules, companies should expect continued uncertainty but no new compliance steps in the immediate term. NASF will continue to monitor developments on these and other solvent issues as EPA’s rule revisions and court action continue.
Restrictions Possible Ahead: Canada Implementing Chemicals Regulations under Revamped Environmental Law
Canada’s key environmental regulatory agencies – Health Canada and Environment & Climate Change Canada (ECCC) – are still planning to engage with industry and the public likely early next year to implement new regulatory provisions from the Canadian Parliament’s recent overhaul of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA).
Focus on Substances of Highest Risk, Metals and Chemicals
The agencies have announced several areas of consultation to discuss proposals and options, including a forthcoming discussion document for “toxic substances of highest risk” regulations. While the consultations have not yet begun, this is one of the primary regulatory review actions slated for action in 2026.
As there will be attention given to certain metals and chemicals used in the finishing industry, NASF will continue monitoring as action gets underway. Decisions to modify Canada’s chemical management framework will have ramifications at the U.S. federal and state levels.
NASF 1000
The NASF 1000 program was established to ensure that the surface finishing industry would have resources to effectively address regulatory, legislative and legal actions impacting the industry, NASF members and their workplaces. All funds from the NASF 1000 program are used exclusively to support specific projects and initiatives that fall outside the association’s day-to-day public policy activities. The commitment to this program is one of the most vital contributions made in support of surface finishing and directly shapes the future of the industry.
The sustained commitment from industry leaders has helped the NASF remain strong and credible in informing regulatory decisions across the nation. Specific projects funded through the NASF 1000 make a measurable difference in how the industry navigates emerging challenges, communicates credibly with policy makers, and advocates for a strong science base for rules or standards that affect surface finishing.
Please consider supporting the NASF 1000 program. For more information, contact: Christian Richter (202-257-0250) or Jeff Hannapel (202 257-3756) with NASF.
|
New England Chapter of NASF is an official chapter of