Since 31 October, US law bans any article containing the flame retardant PIP (3:1) above a trace threshold: the deadline survived two delays since 2021, and the EU has no equivalent restriction to fall back on

What the rule requires, and by when

EPA's current regulatory text, codified at 40 CFR 751.407, prohibits all persons from processing or distributing in commerce PIP (3:1), including PIP (3:1)-containing products or articles, after 31 October 2026. PIP (3:1) (CAS No. 68937-41-7) is a plasticizer and flame retardant used mainly in PVC and polyurethane-based plastic parts, including wire and cable insulation and housings in electronics. EPA first restricted it, alongside four other PBT chemicals, in a final rule published 6 January 2021 (86 FR 894). That original rule's compliance date for articles was then extended at least twice: once through a 2021 rule granting enforcement discretion, and again through a March 2022 rule that pushed the articles deadline to 31 October 2024. A further EPA final rule revising the PIP (3:1) and decaBDE restrictions, published 19 November 2024 and effective 21 January 2025, extended the articles deadline a second time, to 31 October 2026, which is the date that has now taken effect.

Two narrow exemptions survive in the current text: articles containing PIP (3:1) below 0.1% by weight, but only where the chemical was present unintentionally rather than added on purpose, and articles made from recycled plastic where no new PIP (3:1) was added during reprocessing. Everything else that processes or distributes a PIP (3:1)-containing article in US commerce after 31 October 2026 is, on the current text of 40 CFR 751.407, out of compliance.

This reads as a chemical-maker story, but the ban runs through every importer and retailer, and the EU offers no shortcut

Most compliance commentary on this deadline, understandably, is written for the chemical formulators and resin compounders who decide whether PIP (3:1) goes into a plastic compound in the first place. That framing undersells the rule's actual reach. TSCA Section 6(h) restricts processing and distribution in commerce, and distribution in commerce covers importers, brands and retailers selling a finished product, electronics, cables, plastic hardware, into the United States, whether or not they ever touched the chemical themselves. A company that never purchased a drum of PIP (3:1) can still be the one distributing a noncompliant article, if a supplier three tiers upstream used it in a plastic part without disclosing it.

For brands headquartered in the EU, there is a second gap behind the first. Available searches of ECHA's REACH Candidate List of substances of very high concern and the Annex XVII restricted-substances list did not surface a listing for PIP (3:1); a general REACH registration for the substance exists, but that is not the same as a restriction. A European chemical-compliance program built to screen for SVHCs and Annex XVII entries, the lists EU teams actually check against, has no reason to flag PIP (3:1) at all. That makes this a case where EU chemical compliance, usually the stricter benchmark in these comparisons, supplies no coverage whatsoever for a US-specific ban, rather than simply lagging behind it on timing.

Why it matters for brands

Any brand selling plastic-containing goods into the United States, electronics, cables and chargers, plastic hardware and components, housewares with PVC or polyurethane parts, inherited a compliance question on 31 October that most of them were not set up to answer: does any SKU in the catalogue contain PIP (3:1) above the unintentional-trace exemption, and if a supplier used recycled plastic, can that supplier actually prove no new PIP (3:1) was added during reprocessing. Neither question can be answered from a finished-goods safety data sheet, because PIP (3:1) is a formulation-level additive in a plastic compound, not something that shows up on a product label. Answering it requires tracing a specific component back to the resin or compound supplier that made it, and getting a documented answer at that level, SKU by SKU, before the next shipment moves. A European brand that assumes its REACH dossier already covers this chemical, because REACH compliance usually sets the harder bar, is checking the wrong list.

Frequently asked questions