> The EPA may not contort the plain language of [the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)]’s Section 5 to deem a forty-year-old ongoing manufacturing process a “

> The EPA may not contort the plain language of [the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)]’s Section 5 to deem a forty-year-old ongoing manufacturing process a “significant new use” subject to the accelerated regulatory process provided by that part of the statute. In other contexts, “new” may have nuanced meanings, but its meaning in the statute before us is plain, and plainly prohibits the EPA’s December 2023 orders aimed at Inhance. > We hasten to add that our ruling to this effect does not render the EPA powerless to regulate Inhance’s fluorination process. The agency can properly proceed, abiding the APA’s procedural guardrails, under TSCA’s Section 6 by conducting inter alia the appropriate cost-benefit analysis required for ongoing uses—a proposition even Inhance concedes. The EPA is just not allowed to skirt the framework set by Congress by arbitrarily deeming Inhance’s decades-old fluorination process a “significant new use.” See Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n, 575 U.S. 92, 105–06 (2015). Ruling of the U.S. 5th Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-60620-CV0.pdf https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-60620-CV0.pd... “EPA overstepped its authority in PFAS order: Appeals court“: https://coastalreview.org/2024/03/court-halts-epa-orders-for-company-to-stop-pfas-byproduct/ https://coastalreview.org/2024/03/court-halts-epa-orders-for...