Fashion companies operate at the crossroads of sustainability, innovation, and chemical regulation. One recent development with compliance obligations and strategic potential is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) updated rule (2024 Rule) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) phasing out phenol, isopropylated phosphate (3:1) (PIP 3:1))—a chemical that is commonly used in manufacturing equipment, textiles, and footwear.
While companies must inventory and assess PIP (3:1) usage in equipment and materials to ensure compliance with the 2024 Rule, built-in exemptions for recycled content, repairs, and trace concentrations offer flexibility for risk mitigation and operations continuity. Proactive response to the 2024 Rule presents a unique opportunity for fashion brands to reinforce sustainability commitments, strengthen chemical transparency efforts, and distinguish themselves in an increasingly values-driven market.
Key Aspects of EPA’s PIP (3:1) Rule Relevant to the Fashion Industry
PIP (3:1) is categorized under TSCA as a persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemical. It was originally subject to phase-out under a 2021 EPA rulemaking but, due to industry pushback prompting further agency review, the updated 2024 Rule now introduces more nuanced exemptions and extended timelines.
Specifically, among other phaseouts for manufacturing and processing, the 2024 Rule prohibits “articles” containing PIP (3:1) from being distributed in U.S. commerce beginning on Oct. 31, 2026, including articles manufactured prior to that date. An “article” is essentially a finished manufactured product where the chemicals it contains are not to be removed or changed, or have no end use separate from the product itself. Fashion-related manufacturing equipment (e.g., sewing machines), fabrics used for clothing and accessories, and shoes can fall within the purview of an “article” and the PIP (3:1) restrictions.
In addition, as of October 31, 2024, companies that distribute articles containing PIP (3:1) must maintain business records related to the distribution of these articles, including a statement that the articles are in compliance with the 2024 Rule. These records must be made available to EPA upon request.
Select Exemptions of Relevance to Fashion
Relevant to the fashion industry, exceptions to the PIP (3:1) prohibition can include articles that:
- unintentionally contain PIP (3:1) at concentrations below 0.1 percent by weight
- are used as an intermediate in a closed system to produce cyanoacrylate adhesives (commonly used with textiles)
- ·are made of recycled plastic or reused from products/articles containing PIP (3:1), where no new PIP (3:1) has been added
- are used for purpose of repair or maintenance, and no new PIP (3:1) has been added
- Companies with operations involving PIP (3:1) should verify PIP (3:1) quantities in items they distribute. If PIP (3:1) quantities are greater than the 0.1 percent regulatory threshold, companies should begin to assess applicability of the 2024 Rule’s exceptions with experienced legal counsel, given the ambiguity in some of the exemption language. For example, the 2024 Rule does not specify the proportion of recycled plastic content required to qualify for the recycled materials exemption, or whether a part used solely for “repair” may be deemed exempt if it effectively replaces a previous item entirely.
These ambiguities may allow for creative strategies that support both compliance and profitability, particularly for companies actively reviewing component sourcing or equipment refurbishment policies. Further, companies may wish to evaluate their recordkeeping procedures with respect to any articles containing PIP (3:1) to help ensure that any exemptions to the 2024 Rule’s prohibitions are accurately documented and certified.
Strategic Corporate Compliance Considerations
While the 2024 Rule may require thoughtful supply chain planning, it also offers meaningful flexibility and creates an opportunity for brands to lead on transparency, responsible sourcing, and environmental, social and governance (ESG)-forward messaging. Accordingly, companies should consider working closely with legal counsel now to evaluate supply chains for PIP (3:1) presence, assess applicability of exemptions, and develop messaging frameworks aligned with early compliance and innovation.
Proactive and strategic adaptation to the PIP (3:1) Rule can serve as a powerful ESG and sustainability messaging tool. Brands that pivot quickly may not only reduce risk of revenue disruption but also position themselves as leaders in corporate transparency and chemical stewardship. Consumers increasingly choose companies that demonstrate proactive social and environmental responsibility, incorporate sustainability into product development, and communicate authentically about risk reduction and long-term impact. When paired with thoughtful communication, these efforts not only support legal certainty but also can drive measurable brand value.
— Amy M.O’Brien also contributed to this article
Meaghan Colligan Hembree is an environmental and government relations attorney licensed in Washington, D.C., and New York, and is a member of Holland & Knight’s Public Policy & Regulation Group and Environmental Team. Hembree advises clients on complex regulatory compliance issues and disputes across the entire life cycle of chemicals, wastes and products, including product stewardship, marketing, distribution, use, compliance, permitting, importation, contamination and spills management, and end-of-life management. Additionally, Hembree’s litigation and enforcement defense experience with respect to complex water contamination cases, Superfund matters, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), wastewater issues, waste and air issues further strengthens her ability to represent clients effectively in high-stakes enforcement actions and disputes.
Michal Ilana Freedhoff, Ph.D. is a senior policy advisor in Holland & Knight’s Washington, D.C., office and a member of its Public Policy & Regulation Group. Dr. Freedhoff focuses her practice on major environmental and energy issues in the U.S. Congress and executive branch. Dr. Freedhoff has 25 years of government management, regulatory and investigative experience spanning a range of policy areas, including the regulation of chemicals and pesticides, sustainability, Clean Air Act policy, automobile efficiency and emissions standards, consumer product and automobile safety, climate change, civilian nuclear safety and homeland security.
Amy M. O’Brien is an environmental attorney in Holland & Knight’s Washington, D.C., office and a member of the Public Policy & Regulation Group. Ms. O’Brien focuses her practice on a wide variety of environmental litigation, transactional and regulatory matters.
