EPA Issued Proposed Rule to Ammend Reporting for PFAS Under TSCA

Note: This article is for general informational purposes only and should not be treated as legal advice. Companies affected by PFAS reporting should consult qualified environmental counsel or compliance professionals.

Introduction: The PFAS Paperwork Plot Thickens

PFAS rules have become one of the most closely watched areas of U.S. chemical regulation, and for good reason. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, better known as PFAS, are used in a wide range of consumer, industrial, and commercial products because they can resist heat, oil, grease, water, and stains. That usefulness is also why they appear in so many supply chains. Unfortunately, many PFAS are persistent in the environment, which is why they are often called “forever chemicals.” In other words, they do not politely leave the party when the music stops.

The Environmental Protection Agency has been using the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, to gather more information about PFAS in commerce. The central rule at issue is TSCA section 8(a)(7), which requires certain manufacturers and importers to report information about PFAS manufactured or imported during a historical lookback period. The original 2023 rule was broad, sweeping, anddepending on whom you askeither a necessary transparency tool or a paperwork mountain wearing hiking boots.

In November 2025, EPA issued a proposed rule to amend the PFAS reporting and recordkeeping requirements under TSCA. The proposal would revise the scope of the rule, create several exemptions, reduce reporting burdens for certain businesses, and adjust the timing of the reporting window. Then, in April 2026, EPA finalized a related timing action that moved the start of the submission period away from the previously scheduled April 13, 2026 date. The new start date is tied to the effective date of a forthcoming final revision, with January 31, 2027 serving as a backstop.

What Is TSCA Section 8(a)(7)?

TSCA is the main federal law that gives EPA authority to require reporting, testing, and regulation of chemical substances in the United States. Section 8(a) focuses on reporting and recordkeeping. Section 8(a)(7), added through the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, specifically directs EPA to collect information from companies that manufactured PFAS in any year since January 1, 2011.

For purposes of the PFAS reporting rule, “manufacture” includes import. That detail matters because many companies do not think of themselves as chemical manufacturers. A retailer importing coated textiles, a distributor importing treated components, or a manufacturer importing parts with fluorinated coatings may still need to ask whether the rule applies. TSCA uses “manufacturer” in a broad regulatory sense, not in the casual “we run a giant chemical plant with mysterious pipes” sense.

Information EPA Wants to Collect

The rule is designed to gather information about PFAS identity, use, volume, byproducts, exposure, disposal, and existing environmental or health effects data. The reporting lookback period covers calendar years 2011 through 2022. EPA wants to better understand where PFAS have appeared in commerce, how they were used, and what existing data companies have about potential exposures and risks.

The rule does not require companies to create brand-new toxicology studies just for the report. However, it does require reporting information that is known or reasonably ascertainable. That phrase is important. It means companies may need to look beyond one easy database and review internal records, supplier communications, safety data sheets, purchasing files, product specifications, and other sources that a reasonable business could access.

Why EPA Proposed Amendments to PFAS Reporting

EPA’s original 2023 PFAS reporting rule was intentionally broad. It covered PFAS manufactured for commercial purposes, including imports, mixtures, and articles containing PFAS. It also had very limited exemptions compared with other TSCA reporting programs. That broad design created concern among manufacturers, importers, trade groups, small businesses, and supply-chain managers who argued that historical PFAS information could be difficult, expensive, or impossible to obtain.

The November 2025 proposed rule responds to those implementation concerns. EPA framed the proposal as an effort to make PFAS reporting more practical and implementable while preserving the agency’s ability to obtain important use and safety information. The proposal does not eliminate PFAS reporting. Instead, it narrows the universe of reportable activity so the agency can focus on information it considers more useful and reasonably available.

In plain English, EPA appears to be saying: “We still want meaningful PFAS data, but we do not want companies spending months digging through dusty 2013 import records only to discover that nobody knows whether a zipper coating contained a trace amount of PFAS.” Compliance officers everywhere may now exhalebut only slightly.

Key Proposed Changes in the EPA PFAS Reporting Rule

1. A De Minimis Exemption for PFAS Below 0.1%

One of the most important proposed changes is a de minimis exemption for PFAS in mixtures or articles at concentrations below 0.1%. If finalized, PFAS below that threshold would not trigger reporting for those mixtures or articles. EPA proposed this threshold partly because historical records often would not identify PFAS at extremely low concentrations.

This matters for businesses that import or manufacture complex goods. Consider a company that imported weather-resistant backpacks between 2011 and 2022. The backpacks may have included coatings, adhesives, zippers, labels, and textile treatments sourced from multiple suppliers. If a PFAS was present at a tiny concentration, the company may not have received that information in a safety data sheet or supplier declaration. A 0.1% threshold gives companies a clearer line to apply during due diligence.

2. Exemption for Imported Articles

EPA also proposed exempting PFAS imported as part of an article. An article is generally a manufactured item formed to a specific shape or design whose end-use function depends on that shape or design. Examples may include finished electronics, apparel, machinery components, tools, furniture, or treated consumer goods.

This proposed exemption is significant because the 2023 rule captured importers of PFAS-containing articles. Many article importers do not have direct knowledge of chemical formulations used several tiers upstream. For example, a U.S. company importing stain-resistant seat covers may know the fabric is treated, but it may not know the exact fluorinated chemistry used by a foreign mill years earlier. EPA’s proposed exemption would reduce reporting obligations for these businesses, while still allowing EPA to receive information from original PFAS manufacturers that are more likely to know the chemistry.

3. Exemptions for Certain Byproducts, Impurities, and Non-Isolated Intermediates

The proposed rule would also exempt certain PFAS that appear as byproducts, impurities, or non-isolated intermediates under specified conditions. EPA has historically treated these categories differently under other TSCA reporting programs because they often are not manufactured for a separate commercial purpose.

A byproduct may be created during manufacturing but not intentionally produced as a product. An impurity may be unintentionally present in another substance. A non-isolated intermediate may be formed and consumed inside a closed system during production. EPA’s proposal recognizes that requiring historical reporting for these categories may generate limited useful information while creating a substantial compliance burden.

4. Exemption for Small-Quantity Research and Development Chemicals

EPA proposed an exemption for PFAS manufactured solely in small quantities for research and development. This is especially relevant for laboratories, pilot projects, analytical work, and experimental chemistry. R&D records can be highly technical, scattered across lab notebooks, project folders, and archived research systems. Requiring extensive retroactive reporting for small research quantities could drain resources from the very innovation that may help develop safer alternatives or better remediation technologies.

5. Adjusted Reporting Period

EPA proposed changing the data submission period so companies would have time to understand the final amended rule before reporting. In April 2026, EPA finalized a timing change for the start of the submission period. Under that action, the reporting period will begin 60 days after the effective date of the forthcoming final rule on the substantive PFAS reporting revisions, or January 31, 2027, whichever comes first.

This timing shift matters because companies should not have to submit reports under one version of the rule while EPA is still finalizing another version. A moving target may be thrilling in carnival games, but it is not ideal for federal compliance reporting.

Who May Still Need to Report?

Even if EPA finalizes the proposed exemptions, many manufacturers and importers may still need to report. The rule remains focused on companies that manufactured or imported PFAS chemical substances for commercial purposes during the lookback period. Companies that produced PFAS, imported PFAS as chemical substances, incorporated PFAS into mixtures, or used PFAS in manufacturing processes should review the rule carefully.

For example, a company that manufactured a fluoropolymer resin between 2011 and 2022 may still be within the reporting universe. A business that imported PFAS as a standalone chemical ingredient for use in coatings may also remain covered. A company that used PFAS in industrial surfactants, processing aids, or specialty applications should not assume the proposed exemptions make the rule irrelevant.

Why This Rule Matters Beyond Paperwork

PFAS reporting is not just an administrative exercise. EPA and other agencies are trying to understand the movement of PFAS through commerce, workplaces, waste streams, water systems, consumer products, and environmental media. Scientific studies have linked exposure to some PFAS with potential health effects, including changes in cholesterol levels, immune response, liver enzymes, pregnancy-related outcomes, and certain cancers. Research is ongoing, and the science varies by compound, exposure level, and population.

The difficulty is that PFAS are not one chemical. They are a large class of substances with different structures, uses, persistence, mobility, and toxicological profiles. Treating all PFAS as identical can oversimplify the science. Treating each PFAS as completely isolated from the broader class can also miss patterns. That is why data collection is so important. Without better information, regulators, communities, and businesses are left trying to solve a puzzle while half the pieces are hiding in supplier archives.

Compliance Challenges for Businesses

Supply-Chain Visibility

One of the biggest challenges is supply-chain visibility. Many companies buy parts, materials, or finished goods from suppliers who rely on their own suppliers. A U.S. importer may be three, four, or five steps removed from the original chemical formulation. Asking whether a product contained PFAS in 2014 can feel like asking a restaurant server to identify the farm where a garnish was grown during a thunderstorm twelve years ago.

The proposed amendments may reduce that burden for article importers and low-concentration PFAS, but companies should still document their due diligence. If a company determines that it is exempt, it should keep a clear record explaining why. Good compliance is not only about the answer; it is also about being able to show how the answer was reached.

Historical Records

The lookback period from 2011 to 2022 creates another challenge. Companies may have changed enterprise systems, merged with other businesses, switched suppliers, discontinued product lines, or archived records in formats that require digital archaeology. Some employees with relevant knowledge may have retired, moved on, or forgotten the details. The rule forces businesses to connect legal, procurement, product stewardship, environmental health and safety, research, and operations teams.

Confidential Business Information

PFAS reporting can also involve confidential business information. Suppliers may resist disclosing exact chemical identities or formulations. EPA’s reporting framework allows confidentiality claims in certain circumstances, but those claims must be supported properly. Companies should not treat confidentiality as a magic invisibility cloak. It is more like a locked file cabinet: useful, but only when labeled and justified correctly.

Practical Steps Companies Can Take Now

Build a PFAS Inventory Map

Companies should start by identifying products, raw materials, mixtures, components, and processes that may involve PFAS. This does not require panic. It requires organization. A basic PFAS inventory map can list product families, suppliers, known chemical substances, suspected PFAS uses, import status, concentration information, and supporting documents.

Prioritize High-Risk Product Categories

Not every product deserves the same level of review. Businesses should prioritize categories where PFAS are more likely to appear, such as water-resistant textiles, nonstick surfaces, specialty coatings, electronics, wire and cable insulation, firefighting-related products, certain industrial processing aids, and oil- or grease-resistant materials.

Ask Suppliers Better Questions

Supplier surveys should be specific. Instead of asking, “Does this product contain bad chemicals?” companies should ask whether the product contains PFAS as defined under applicable U.S. regulations, whether PFAS were intentionally added, whether any PFAS exceed relevant thresholds, and whether the supplier can provide supporting documentation. Clear questions get better answers. Vague questions get replies that sound like they were written by a fog machine.

Track the Final Rule

Because EPA’s November 2025 action is a proposed rule, companies should monitor the final version. EPA may finalize all, some, or none of the proposed changes. The April 2026 timing action gives more breathing room, but it does not eliminate the need to prepare. A business that waits until the final rule is effective may discover that the reporting window arrives faster than its data collection process can move.

Examples of How the Proposed Rule Could Apply

Example 1: Imported Waterproof Jackets

A small retailer imported waterproof jackets from overseas between 2015 and 2019. The jackets may have used a durable water-repellent treatment. Under the original 2023 rule, the retailer might have needed to evaluate whether PFAS in the imported article triggered reporting. Under EPA’s proposed amendments, imported articles may be exempt, and PFAS below 0.1% in articles may also be exempt. The retailer should still document supplier inquiries and the basis for any exemption.

Example 2: Specialty Coating Manufacturer

A U.S. manufacturer produced a specialty coating that intentionally used a PFAS ingredient from 2011 to 2022. This business may still have reporting obligations because it manufactured or used PFAS in a commercial product. The proposed imported-article exemption would not necessarily help because the company is closer to the chemical formulation and likely has relevant information.

Example 3: Laboratory R&D Activity

A research lab manufactured small quantities of PFAS solely for experimental analysis. The proposed R&D exemption could reduce or eliminate reporting for that activity if the final rule adopts the exemption. However, the lab should keep records showing that the activity was truly small-quantity R&D and not commercial production in a lab coat.

Experience-Based Insights: What PFAS Reporting Feels Like in the Real World

In practical compliance settings, PFAS reporting feels less like filling out a simple form and more like reconstructing a family tree where half the relatives changed their names, moved abroad, and stopped answering email. The first experience many companies have is surprise. A business may not consider itself part of the chemical industry, yet the rule can still reach importers, product brands, component assemblers, and manufacturers that used PFAS-containing substances years ago.

The second common experience is supplier confusion. When companies send PFAS questionnaires, suppliers may respond with broad statements such as “compliant with applicable law” or “no intentionally added restricted substances.” Those answers can be helpful, but they may not answer the specific TSCA question. PFAS definitions vary across regulations, and “intentionally added” is not always the same as “present.” A good compliance team learns to ask follow-up questions without turning the supplier relationship into a courtroom drama.

Another real-world lesson is that old records are rarely tidy. Product specifications from 2012 may be stored in one system, purchase orders in another, and safety data sheets in a forgotten folder named “final_final_REAL_final.” Companies that begin early often discover that the biggest task is not chemical analysis but information management. The work requires a practical chain of custody for documents: where the information came from, who reviewed it, what it showed, and why the company reached its conclusion.

Cross-functional communication is also essential. Legal teams understand regulatory risk, but they may not know which coating was used on a discontinued product. Product engineers may understand materials, but they may not know what TSCA requires. Procurement may know the supplier history, while environmental health and safety teams may understand exposure and disposal records. The most successful PFAS reporting projects bring these groups together early and assign clear ownership.

A useful experience-based strategy is to categorize products into confidence levels. High-confidence non-PFAS products can be set aside with supporting documentation. High-risk or unknown products can receive deeper review. Products with known PFAS can be routed into reporting analysis. This triage approach prevents teams from spending equal time on everything, which is how compliance projects become expensive, slow, and emotionally similar to assembling furniture without instructions.

Finally, companies should treat the EPA proposal as a reason to prepare smarter, not a reason to stop preparing. The proposed exemptions may reduce the burden, especially for article importers, low-concentration PFAS, impurities, byproducts, non-isolated intermediates, and small-quantity R&D chemicals. But until the final rule is published, the safest approach is to preserve records, continue supplier outreach, monitor EPA updates, and build a defensible compliance file. PFAS reporting is not going away; it is becoming more targeted.

Conclusion

EPA’s proposed rule to amend PFAS reporting under TSCA is a major development for manufacturers, importers, suppliers, and compliance teams. The proposal would narrow the scope of reportable activity, introduce practical exemptions, reduce costs for many businesses, and align PFAS reporting more closely with information EPA believes is useful and reasonably obtainable. At the same time, the rule continues to support EPA’s broader effort to understand PFAS in commerce and address potential exposure risks.

The main takeaway is simple: do not ignore the rule, and do not assume the proposal automatically exempts your business. Review your products, suppliers, imports, mixtures, and manufacturing history. Track the final rule. Document your decisions. PFAS compliance may not be glamorous, but neither is discovering at the last minute that your company’s old product catalog has turned into a regulatory treasure hunt.