EPA Pushes PFAS Reporting to April 2026—What Companies Need To Know
What You Need to Know
Key takeaway #1
EPA has extended the PFAS reporting period under TSCA § 8(a)(7) by nine months. Most entities must now submit required data by October 13, 2026, and small manufacturers reporting only article imports have until April 13, 2027.
Key takeaway #2
Although EPA is not modifying other aspects of the rule at this time, the Agency is considering a separate rulemaking to modify other aspects of reporting. Industry stakeholders have petitioned EPA to reinstate common TSCA exemptions, but it is still unclear how EPA will respond.
Key takeaway #3
Despite the federal delay, Minnesota’s PFAS reporting mandate takes effect January 1, 2026. Manufacturers and importers of products with intentionally added PFAS that are sold, offered for sale, or distributed for sale in the state should prepare for detailed disclosures under the forthcoming Minnesota PFAS law.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.15.25
On May 13, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published an interim final rule in the Federal Register to extend the deadline for manufacturers and importers of products containing perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to report to EPA on their past activities.
As we’ve discussed in prior Client Alerts (see here and here), EPA’s PFAS reporting rule, promulgated under section 8(a)(7) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), requires anyone who manufactured (including imported) any PFAS compound, or who imported any article containing a PFAS compound, at any time during the period from 2011 through 2022 to submit detailed information regarding those past activities. The rule published on May 13, 2025, delays the start of the reporting period by nine months—from July 11, 2025, to April 13, 2026. Reporting must now be completed by October 13, 2026, for most manufacturers and by April 13, 2027, for small manufacturers reporting exclusively as article importers.[i]
EPA attributed the reporting extension to resource constraints that affected the timely development and testing of the software application intended to collect information under the rule. According to EPA, “[a]t this point in the project development timeline, EPA does not have time to conduct industry beta testing of the application and incorporate any tester feedback prior to the [current start date of July 11, 2025],” and thus “will not be in a position to verify that the data will be submitted and stored in a usable manner” by that time.[ii] A similar rationale led EPA to previously postpone the original start date from November 12, 2024, to July 11, 2025, in a Federal Register notice issued on September 5, 2024.
Although “EPA is not amending any other aspects of the regulation at this time,” the Agency is considering a separate notice‑and‑comment rulemaking to potentially modify other portions of the PFAS reporting rule.[iii] Industry stakeholders have long raised concerns about the significant burden the rule would impose on reporting parties, and they have urged EPA to reduce that burden by reinstating exemptions typically included in TSCA regulations by excluding from reporting imported articles, R&D materials, impurities, byproducts, non-isolated intermediates, and PFAS manufactured in small quantities. How EPA will respond to these industry requests—and which aspects of the rule it may ultimately propose to revise—is yet to be determined.
Industry stakeholders should take note that while the federal PFAS reporting deadlines have been delayed for nine months, Minnesota’s PFAS reporting mandate remains set to take effect on January 1, 2026. This state-level requirement will significantly impact manufacturers and importers by requiring detailed disclosures about products containing intentionally added PFAS that are sold, offered for sale, or distributed for sale in Minnesota. Watch for a separate alert from Crowell’s Chemicals team on Minnesota’s ongoing rulemaking process to implement the state’s PFAS law.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
