TSCA Inventory Reset Rule
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.29.17
Last week EPA issued the pre-publication version of its much-anticipated final TSCA Inventory re-set rule. Because the new regulation affects every company that manufactures, imports, or processes chemical substances in the U.S., a wide swath of industry will be impacted by the rule including almost every company in the manufacturing sector. The main purpose of the Inventory Reset rule is to provide EPA with a clear picture of all chemical substances that are active in commerce in the U.S. To accomplish this, the rule establishes both “retrospective” and “forward-looking” reporting requirements for manufacturers, importers and processors of chemical substances that are listed on the TSCA Inventory. These designations are key—a substance designated as inactive can no longer be manufactured or processed in the U.S. until the certain reporting requirements are satisfied. Click here for more information on how your company may be affected by the rule and to identify specific steps you can take to minimize disruption caused by the rule.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
