Dual Delay: Minnesota Extends PFAS Products Reporting Deadline

After the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) delayed the submission period for its one-time per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) reporting requirement under the Toxic Substances Control Act, Minnesota just extended its own (previously extended) PFAS products reporting deadline from July 1, 2026, to September 15, 2026. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency cited challenges in collecting and submitting data under the state’s reporting rule, adopted in December 2025, as necessitating the delay. That rule requires manufacturers of intentionally added PFAS-containing products to submit a description of each product and the concentration and function of PFAS in it. Manufacturers unable to meet the new deadline may request a single, 90-day extension, which would extend reporting to December 2026. The Agency notes that 18 companies submitted reports ahead of the original deadline, data from which (except for protected trade secrets) is now publicly available. Given the fluidity of the rules and the deadlines, we continue to advise submitting closer to the (now later) end of the reporting period.

On April 9, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a long-anticipated delay in the reporting window for the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) reporting rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). In October 2023, EPA imposed a one-time requirement under TSCA on entities that manufactured (including imported) PFAS or PFAS containing products between 2011 and 2022 to submit to EPA information regarding PFAS exposure and environmental and health effects. After two extensions due to delays in developing the web-based reporting portal, the reporting window under the rule was set to open on April 13, 2026, and close on October 13, 2026. As the opening date approached, EPA proposed a partial rollback of the rule that would both exempt certain categories of PFAS from the reporting requirements and change the reporting period (a prior PFAS Press blog post discusses the proposed rollback) but until today it had not formally cancelled the original start date. With the announcement, EPA resolved the uncertainty, confirming that reporting will not commence on April 13 and instead will begin only 60 days after the revised rule becomes effective (although questions still remain as to whether EPA will shorten the reporting window from the original six months to the proposed three months). EPA plans to issue a final rule on reporting later this year, with updated guidance and reporting tools accompanying the revised requirements.

We have previously discussed here the somewhat groundbreaking approach (in the U.S. anyway) taken by New Mexico’s Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Protection Act, enacted in March 2025, which included a first of its kind exemption for fluoropolymers from the law’s sales bans on PFAS-containing products. Subsequent regulatory actions in the state proposed excluding certain federally-regulated (and fluoropolymer-containing) products, including U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulated medical devices, from the scope of labeling requirements. The New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) currently is accepting public input on those proposed labeling rules, with public testimony scheduled to begin February 23 and written comments due by March 31. After recent legislative moves, it appears that participation in this comment period may be of the utmost importance to the regulated community. On February 5, 2026, the House Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee recommended passage of House Joint Memorial 3, which alleges a “limited scientific literature” supporting the above moves to exempt fluoropolymers and requests that the New Mexico Environment Department prepare a report evaluating implementation of the PFAS Protection Act, including the effectiveness of EIB’s rules and assessing the health, environmental and economic implications of statutory and regulatory exemptions, and provide recommendations on whether exemptions such as the fluoropolymer carve out should be maintained, revised or eliminated. Manufacturers seeking to maintain the exemptions will want to use the comment period to support doing so.

Akin environment & natural resources practice head David Quigley is quoted by Chemical Watch news & events by Enhesa in the third part of its 2026 Global Outlook series titled, “What’s next for state-level chemicals policy in the US in 2026?” discussing his expectations for state-level chemical policy trends in 2026 and the outlook for regulation and enforcement especially as it relates to PFAS.