EPA Proposes Exemptions to TSCA PFAS Reporting Rule

On November 13, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposed rule that would revise the scope of EPA’s Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a) rule requiring a one-time expansive data submission on per- and polyfluoroalkylated substances (PFAS Reporting Rule). The proposal introduces several exemptions designed to reduce compliance costs and improve implementation. The revisions aim to make the one-time PFAS reporting requirements more practical, particularly for small manufacturers and importers, while preserving EPA’s access to use and exposure information. EPA will accept public comments until December 29, 2025.

Legal Framework

Congress directed EPA to issue a PFAS Reporting Rule in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2020. There, Congress amended Section 8(a) to require reporting from any person who has manufactured or imported PFAS since January 1, 2011. EPA then promulgated the PFAS Reporting Rule in October 2023, to require any person who manufactured or imported an expansive list of PFAS (including PFAS-containing articles) between 2011 and 2022 to make a one-time report to the EPA about production volumes, uses, degree of human exposure, and existing environmental and health effects. The rule represented EPA’s first comprehensive data call for over 12,000 PFAS manufactured and imported. For more details on the scope and requirements of the PFAS Reporting Rule, refer to Sidley’s initial update here.

Since its promulgation, the rule has faced several delays. EPA pushed back the deadline for the reporting period twice over the last two years, with submissions currently opening on April 13, 2026, and closing on October 13, 2026. Technical issues with EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) portal used to upload the submissions also delayed implementation, prompting Congress to allocate US$17 million for software upgrades to the portal earlier this year.

Proposed Changes

EPA’s new proposal maintains the Biden-era definition of PFAS and the overall scope of reportable substances but introduces key exemptions and clarifications. The proposed exemptions include:

• Imported articles: The proposed rule would exempt PFAS imported as part of finished goods (articles), such as treated textiles, coated equipment, or plastic components. EPA found that most importers are unlikely to have “known or reasonably ascertainable information” on PFAS content in such articles because suppliers were not obligated to disclose PFAS below the 0.1% level under prior international standards.
• PFAS manufactured or imported in mixtures or products at concentrations ≤0.1%: EPA is proposing a de minimis exemption for PFAS present at or below 0.1% by weight in mixtures or articles. This threshold aligns with international disclosure standards such as the European Union’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA’s) Hazard Communication rules, which generally do not require reporting at concentrations below 0.1%.
• Certain byproducts: PFAS that are unintentionally produced as byproducts during the manufacturing of other chemicals and are not used for any commercial purpose would be exempt from reporting. EPA concluded that such byproducts, when not sold or reused, present minimal exposure potential and that collecting data on them would be duplicative of information already required for reportable PFAS. However, PFAS byproducts that are used commercially — for example, wastes applied to land or burned as fuel — would remain reportable.
• Impurities: The rule would exempt PFAS that occur solely as impurities—chemicals unintentionally present in another product and without a distinct commercial purpose. EPA found that importers are unlikely to have knowledge of PFAS impurities, and that domestic manufacture of PFAS impurities is rare. Because these entities lack relevant data to report, EPA determined that requiring them to investigate and certify such information would provide little regulatory benefit while significantly increasing compliance burden.
• Non-isolated intermediates: PFAS that are created and consumed entirely within a closed system as non-isolated intermediates would be exempt. EPA explained that these chemicals are not typically stored, packaged, transported, handled by workers, or released to the environment.
• Research and development (R&D) chemicals: PFAS manufactured or imported solely in small quantities for R&D would be exempt. EPA explained that such R&D substances are typically produced in micro-scale batches not entering commerce and are therefore unlikely to provide meaningful exposure or use data. EPA explained the exemption is intended to minimize compliance burdens on laboratory-scale innovators and small research firms.

In addition to these exemptions, the proposed rule seeks to shift compliance deadlines. Under the proposed rule, the submission period would open 60 days after the effective date of the final rule and would last for three months.

Conclusion

Businesses manufacturing or importing PFAS should review the proposed exemptions and updated timelines to determine how their reporting obligations may change if the proposed rule is adopted. Stakeholders, including those who stand to benefit from the proposed revisions, should also consider submitting comments during the public comment period. Among other issues, EPA is explicitly seeking comments on whether EPA should amend the scope of reportable PFAS chemicals and whether EPA should modify any of its assumptions or cost savings calculations in its Economic Analysis for this proposed rule.

This post is as of the posting date stated above. Sidley Austin LLP assumes no duty to update this post or post about any subsequent developments having a bearing on this post.