Update: USEPA proposed amendments to TSCA for PFAS reporting

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) reporting rule for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has faced multiple delays and revisions. Most significantly, in November 2025, USEPA published a proposed rule that includes exemptions and modifications to the original rule.

The original TSCA PFAS reporting rule was published in October 2023, which requires manufacturers and importers of PFAS between 2011 and 2022 to submit detailed information to USEPA about the production, use, disposal, exposure, and environmental and health effects of PFAS. Following the original rule, USEPA announced a direct final rule and a parallel proposed rule in September 2024 to delay the beginning of the submission period. In May 2025, the USEPA published an interim final rule to further postpone the start date of the submission period for the TSCA PFAS reporting rule to April 13, 2026. Most recently, USEPA published a separate final rule, effective April 13, 2026, extending the start of the reporting period to January 31, 2027, or 60 days following the effective date of a forthcoming final rule, whichever is earlier.

While the original 2023 rule did not include many of the exemptions commonly available under other TSCA reporting regulations, the November 2025 proposed rule includes certain exemptions and other modifications to the scope of the rule. USEPA stated that the proposal is intended to make the reporting rule more practical and reduce unnecessary or duplicative reporting, while preserving the agency's ability to collect information needed to better understand PFAS manufacture and use in commerce. USEPA also recognized the significant compliance burden associated with the original rule, particularly for downstream importers and companies with limited access to historical supplier information.

The proposed exemptions include:

• PFAS manufactured (including imported) in mixtures or products at concentrations 0.1% or lower
• Imported articles
• Certain byproducts
• Impurities
• Research and development (R&D) chemicals
• Non-isolated intermediates
• Substances manufactured under conditions described in 40 CFR 720.30(h)

Comments on the proposed rule were due on December 29, 2025. The proposed rule received about 9,000 comments, 591 of which are publicly available. Comments were received from citizens, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), industry, trade associations, consultants, and law firms.

The primary type of comments received on the proposed rule included the following:

1. Support for reducing burden on manufacturers and importers

Comments were received that supported USEPA's proposed exemptions, arguing that the original 2023 rule imposed reporting obligations that exceeded what companies could reasonably determine, particularly for historical imports. Those who made these comments included chemical manufacturers, electronics and automotive companies, retailers, trade associations, and small business organizations. For example, the U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy (SBA) stated that “(u)nder the 2023 rule, nine out of every 10 small businesses that were directed to report under the rule would have no useful information to share with the agency.“ SBA concluded its comment by stating that “(t)he exemptions proposed by the EPA will reduce unnecessary regulatory costs for small entities while also allowing the EPA to meet its statutory obligations under TSCA.”

2. Opposition to the proposed exemptions

Some commenters argued that USEPA's proposal would significantly weaken Congress's intent to create a comprehensive inventory of PFAS manufactured or imported since 2011. These commentors generally included environmental NGOs, public health organizations, and some state agencies. For example, the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) stated it is "concerned with this regulatory approach" and urged USEPA to "reconsider these proposed amendments and advance efforts to safeguard water quality from PFAS contamination." ACWA argued that exempting imported articles and other categories would reduce USEPA's understanding of PFAS entering commerce and ultimately hinder protection of drinking water. Furthermore, a coalition of 41 community, state, and national organizations, including Earthjustice, commented that “(i)t is alarming that an agency charged with protecting the public from PFAS does not want to know which imported articles contain those chemicals… EPA must abandon the Proposed Rollbacks and collect the PFAS information that Congress required.”

3. Recommendations to modify rather than eliminate requirements

Many commenters supported USEPA's direction but recommended additional refinements to improve implementation. Some of the suggested modifications include the following:

• Increase the proposed de minimis threshold from 0.1% to 1%, consistent with other TSCA reporting programs.
• Clarify how imported components within assembled products should be treated.
• Provide additional guidance on determining whether information is "known to or reasonably ascertainable by" the company.
• Clarify how companies should document supplier outreach efforts.
• Publish a list of Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) numbers and accession numbers for the full scope of reportable substances.
• Expand streamlined reporting for companies with very limited PFAS manufacturing activities.
• Include an additional volume-based exemption. For example, the American Coatings Association (ACA), Household & Commercial Products Association (HCPA), and Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) support a production volume threshold for reporting, with HCPA recommending a 100 pound-threshold to align with the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting and RILA suggesting a 2,500 pound-threshold to align with Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) for regulated substances.

4. Requests for additional time and better implementation

Most stakeholders, including both supporters and opponents of the proposed revisions, requested additional time before reporting begins. For example, HCPA recommended providing “a 6-month period between the final rule and the opening of the reporting period to allow EPA to conduct a second round of beta testing based on the final reporting requirements.” USEPA ultimately agreed that additional implementation time was warranted and, in April 2026, finalized a delay so that reporting will begin 60 days after the effective date of the final revised rule or January 31, 2027, whichever is earlier.

5. Legal and policy arguments regarding EPA's authority

Commenters, including industry trade associations, environmental organizations, and attorneys representing affected companies expressed differing views on whether EPA has legal authority to adopt the proposed exemptions. USEPA specifically requested comments on its revised legal interpretation regarding imported articles and whether the statute should be read as excluding articles from the reporting requirement, making this one of the most heavily debated legal issues in the docket. For example, the Coalition of State Attorneys General argued that EPA lacks authority to substantially narrow reporting through exemptions because Congress intended comprehensive PFAS reporting. The Coalition’s letter concludes that “(i)f EPA adopts its Proposal as a final rule, vital information about the types of PFAS used in U.S. commerce and the risks these chemicals pose will remain hidden away, arbitrarily and capriciously and unlawfully undermining States’ efforts to protect human health and the environment, as well as EPA’s mandate under TSCA to evaluate and minimize chemical risks.”

Overall, industry commenters generally characterized the proposal as a practical correction that would better align the rule with existing TSCA reporting programs, while environmental organizations argued that the proposed exemptions would significantly undermine the completeness of the PFAS dataset that Congress intended USEPA to collect.

The proposed TSCA PFAS Rule aligns with other TSCA Section 8(a) reporting and recordkeeping requirements, such as the CDR rule. CDR collects information every four years on chemical substances manufactured and imported into the United States. CDR includes an annual reporting threshold and exemptions for articles, byproducts, impurities, non-isolated intermediates, and research and development activities. CDR submitters also enter information on USEPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) portal, and the reporting tool for the TSCA PFAS reporting rule is expected to be very similar to the CDR reporting tool.

Ramboll recommends that entities who may be affected by the TSCA PFAS reporting rule closely monitor USEPA’s publication of a final rule. Businesses can also consider undertaking the following actions to prepare to respond to the TSCA PFAS Reporting Rule.

1. Do not wait for the final rule

Although USEPA's November 2025 proposed rule would significantly narrow the scope of the existing TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting rule by introducing new exemptions and shortening the reporting period, companies should not wait until the final rule is published to begin preparing. Organizations that start early will be better positioned to determine whether they qualify for an exemption, begin gathering relevant historical information, and complete any required reporting within the compressed submission window.

2. Evaluate potential exemptions – but do not assume they will apply

Given the exemptions in the November 2025 proposed rule—including exemptions for imported articles, impurities, certain byproducts, R&D substances, non-isolated intermediates, and a proposed 0.1% de minimis concentration threshold—the scope of the final rule remains uncertain. Until the final rule is issued, companies should avoid assuming they are exempt. Instead, companies should continue collecting information and document why an exemption may apply.

3. Begin supplier outreach early

Many reporting elements will depend on information obtained from suppliers. Companies should develop standardized questionnaires requesting PFAS identity, CAS Registry Numbers, concentrations, uses, impurity information, and confirmation of whether materials may qualify for any proposed exemptions.

4. Leverage information that has been previously collected

Ramboll suggests leveraging the information previously collected for the 2024 CDR reporting cycle which partially overlaps with the current lookback period (2011-2022). By initiating this preliminary data collection, submitters will effectively assess potential reporting obligations, while awaiting USEPA’s publication of the final TSCA 8(a)(7) reporting rule.

Preparing before the final TSCA PFAS reporting rule is published will place companies in a stronger position to respond efficiently once the reporting requirements become effective. Ramboll can help organizations develop a practical compliance strategy by identifying potentially reportable activities, organizing historical product and import data, developing supplier outreach programs, and creating documentation to support exemption determinations and reasonable diligence efforts. By taking these steps now, companies can reduce last-minute compliance challenges, improve data quality, and be well prepared to meet USEPA's reporting requirements when the final rule is issued.