© Mr.Frost stock.adobe.com
The US EPA has indicated it does not expect to push back the start of the TSCA PFAS reporting rule’s submission period again, even though the agency has yet to finalise planned revisions that would significantly narrow the reach of the data call-in.
With no further delays anticipated, the reporting window could open on 31 January 2027 under the existing version of the TSCA section 8(a)(7) rule while the EPA is still working to complete amendments to the regulation. According to experts, that could leave companies in a position where they must make compliance decisions before knowing whether they may ultimately be exempt from the reporting requirement in the longer term.
The potential uncertainty stems from an April rule in which the EPA pushed back the start of PFAS reporting to give it more time to complete amendments to the 2023 version of the rule finalised under the Biden administration.
The April changes set the reporting window to open 60 days after the finalised revisions take effect, or on 31 January 2027, whichever comes first. At the time, the EPA said it expected to finalise its planned revisions "well before" that backstop date, and that linking the timeline to adoption of the rule amendments would "ensure EPA does not need to later readjust the start of the submission period".
That April rule came roughly six months after the EPA proposed revisions in November 2025 to integrate exemptions common in other TSCA section 8 reporting rules. As proposed, the rule would no longer require reporting for PFAS contained in imported articles, low concentrations of PFAS in mixtures and products, and several other activities. The EPA estimated the exemptions would relieve more than 127,000 small article importers of reporting obligations, leaving roughly 255 companies subject to the rule.
Now, the agency says it is still working on the revisions, with a goal to publish before 31 January 2027. The agency told Chemical Watch News & Insight that it does "not anticipate needing to revisit" the submission window.
The next step for the EPA will be to send the final revisions rule to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for interagency review, a process that typically takes about 90 days.
The agency said it is also working on guidance for the rule and that a reporting tool in the online Central Data Exchange (CDX) "will be available before the reporting period starts".
Backstop reporting start date likely to be triggered
Camille Heyboer, a senior attorney at Arnold & Porter, said that "with each passing day, it is less likely that the revisions will take effect prior to January 31, 2027". Even if the EPA is nearly finished with the revisions rule, the need for OIRA review and Federal Register publication mean the timing would be "very tight".
What that means for companies in practice will depend on where the rule stands once the backstop date kicks in, Heyboer said.
If the final rule has cleared OIRA by that 31 January date and is only awaiting formal publication, she would expect the EPA to release a pre-publication version showing companies what to report and when.
The 31 January date marks only the start of the window, so there is "a little bit of room" for the agency to miss the date while still letting companies report under the revised requirements, Heyboer said.
On the other hand, "the situation would be trickier" if the rule is still undergoing review at the end of January, she said. Companies would then have to weigh the cost of collecting data that may never need to be reported against the risk of leaving themselves too little time once the final rule lands.
Michael Boucher, partner at law firm Steptoe, similarly noted the potential for compliance questions if a final rule is not in place by the time the reporting period opens.
In such a scenario, "companies would be inside the submission window under the rule as it then exists", Boucher said. "This does not mean that all reports are due on this day, but it does mean that companies would be making compliance decisions before there is final clarity on any reporting rule revisions that are not yet effective."
‘Treat this date as real’
Notwithstanding the potential confusion, neither attorney said to expect further delays to the reporting start date.
"I would not advise companies to count on another extension," Boucher said. "EPA has built the current reporting rule around the January 31, 2027, backstop, and EPA’s statement that it does not anticipate revisiting the submission period reinforces the need to treat this date as real."
Heyboer agreed. Another delay would require either notice-and-comment rulemaking, which would be hard to complete before 31 January, or a shortcut mechanism like an interim final rule or direct final rule, which could be hard to legally justify given the April rule's stated aim of avoiding further readjustment to the start date, she said.
Instead, it is "more likely that EPA will leave the start of the submission period as it is, but may consider providing a longer time for companies to report once the submission period is open", Heyboer said.
‘No regrets’ preparation
For now, Boucher said companies should continue "no regrets" preparation. That means identifying potentially covered entities and product lines, preserving records and documenting due diligence, while being ready to report if the current rule applies.
Companies should also be prepared for potential technical challenges, as has been seen in past chemical data reporting (CDR) cycles.
Late changes to the TSCA section 8(a)(7) rule could force the EPA to revise the reporting tool, guidance and instructions, Boucher said, so "even a technically available reporting system may not avoid implementation issues".
Heyboer said she is hopeful the EPA has been adjusting CDX alongside its work on the final revisions rule. Nonetheless, "it unfortunately would not be surprising to see technical issues arise once reporting is underway", she said. She advised companies to leave themselves "plenty of time" to submit.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) also flagged concern about technical readiness, noting that an updated CDX tool "cannot be finalised until the revised rule is complete".
The ACC said that its members provided extensive feedback during CDX beta testing in 2025, and the trade group urged the EPA to conduct another round of testing to "help ensure the updated system is ready before reporting begins".
Litigation on the horizon
Compounding the uncertainty is the potential for litigation over the final rule revisions, after 15 state attorneys general and a separate coalition of environmental and public health groups led by Earthjustice called the November proposal unlawful.
According to Heyboer, "it is almost a certainty that environmental groups will challenge the final rule if it is adopted as proposed".
She does not expect litigation to halt reporting, however.
Environmental groups would be unlikely to seek to block the rule while the case proceeds "because they are interested in the data that would be reported under this final rule", she said.
Instead, the challengers would likely argue that the revised rule is incomplete. If such a lawsuit were successful, companies could be asked years from now to report information that the EPA's revision rule carved out from the Biden-era rule, Heyboer said.
As such, businesses that have already put in work to gather data should consider keeping those records in case they ever get brought back into the reporting mandate.
"If companies have collected data in anticipation of having to report under the existing rule, they would be well-served to maintain those data until after resolution of any lawsuits on the anticipated final rule," she said.