The Nickel Report

Despite broad shifts in enforcement priorities across the federal government, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to pursue aggressive enforcement of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) violations. Actions taken by EPA in 2025 to date demonstrate sustained TSCA enforcement, including with respect to chemical regulations and particularly chemical data reporting requirements. Environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are also utilizing TSCA’s Section 20 citizen suit authority to bring lawsuits against companies over alleged reporting noncompliance as well. Chemical manufacturers and importers should stay apprised of these enforcement trends and proactively manage their TSCA compliance strategies to reduce enforcement and litigation risk.

EPA Enforcement in 2025

While the government has scaled back civil environmental enforcement in federal court, EPA’s administrative enforcement remains robust and appears to be accelerating. In the third quarter of calendar year 2025, EPA resolved 198 administrative enforcement actions across the statutes it administers—up from 179 case conclusions in the second quarter—and has assessed over $9 million in penalties. Although many of these cases likely were initiated during the prior administration, the continued settlement approvals reflect EPA’s focus on “core” enforcement work under the current administration.

EPA’s TSCA enforcement and compliance assurance program includes four key focus areas: new and existing chemicals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, and lead-based paint. From time to time, aspects of the TSCA enforcement program have been included amongst EPA’s national focus areas, as reflected in the National Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives that EPA selects on four-year cycles. TSCA enforcement largely is, however, part of “core” enforcement work, which Administrator Zeldin has made a priority for the agency.

Since the beginning of the current administration, EPA has pursued 115 new administrative enforcement actions and assessed approximately $4.3 million in penalties for TSCA violations. The vast majority of these cases (about 80 percent) concern lead-based paint regulation noncompliance, which have generally resulted in lower penalty assessments than chemicals enforcement actions. Of the ten largest TSCA penalties assessed this year to date, five were for chemicals enforcement actions. For example, the agency assessed its single largest TSCA penalty in 2025—$700,000—for violations of the TSCA Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule, where the respondent allegedly failed to report 334 imported chemicals for the 2024 reporting cycle. EPA assessed six‑figure penalties in three other CDR rule enforcement actions—$415,000, $393,000, and $112,155—as well as a $100,000 penalty for alleged violations of the methylene chloride risk management rule for paint removers.  

NGO Lawsuits to Enforce TSCA CDR Violations

TSCA Section 20 also gives private citizens the authority to bring civil actions against companies in federal court for TSCA violations. TSCA allows private citizens to bring such suits so that a court can restrain the identified TSCA violations or compel EPA to enforce the law. Since 2021, NGOs have filed TSCA Section 20 actions against companies for alleged CDR violations and continue to do so with growing frequency. Two of the most recent lawsuits were filed earlier this fall by the NGO Center for Environmental Health (CEH). CEH alleged that certain chemical companies failed to report imported chemicals to EPA for the 2020 CDR reporting cycle.

The complaints in these cases detail how the NGOs identify potential violations by reviewing information on company imports and manufactured chemicals published in EPA’s CDR public database. NGOs have also asked the courts in these cases to 1) declare the companies violated TSCA, 2) order the companies to file corrected CDR reports with EPA, 3) restrain the companies from ongoing CDR violations, 4) order that the companies audit their manufacturing and import activities to identify other potential CDR violations, and 5) pay the NGO’s attorneys’ fees. Even when penalties are not imposed, responding to TSCA Section 20 claims can be costly and require the diversion of resources away from other business functions.

Companies should be aware of these types of civil actions because they can open the door to NGOs or other private citizens to pressure companies, as part of settlements, to agree to allow them to participate in company-led TSCA CDR (or broader) audits, which could potentially reveal additional TSCA violations.

What Companies Should Do

EPA administrative enforcement and citizen-filed lawsuits represent two significant legal risks for chemical manufacturers and importers subject to TSCA CDR rule requirements. Noncompliance can result in not only steep penalties but also business operational disruption. On the front end, manufacturers and importers should routinely review their own TSCA compliance programs and audit their own TSCA reporting compliance, which can also position companies to take advantage of EPA’s Audit Policy^[1] where its conditions are met, potentially mitigating penalties for voluntarily disclosed noncompliance. Companies should also proactively prepare for the next CDR reporting cycle in 2028. Companies should also engage counsel early when responding to EPA inquiries or enforcement activity or notice of citizen lawsuits.

[1] U.S. EPA, “Incentives for Self-Policing: Discovery, Disclosure, Correction and Prevention of Violations,” 65 Fed. Reg. 19,618 (Apr. 11, 2000).