TSCA PFAS Reporting Deadline Extended

On May 12, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an interim final rule to amend the reporting period under the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) reporting rules issued in October 2023 under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA). The rules require entities that manufactured or imported PFAS and/or PFAS-containing articles between January 2011 and December 2022 to report certain data. EPA first established a reporting window of November 12, 2024, to May 8, 2025. The window was moved to July 2025 to January 2026 (or July 2026 for small manufacturers exclusively importing regulated products) due to delays in development of the Central Data Exchange (CDX), EPA’s web-based reporting tool for information submitted under the TSCA PFAS reporting rules. If finalized, EPA’s proposed rule will again change the data submission period to April 13, 2026, to October 13, 2026, to allow the Agency “more time to prepare the reporting application to collect this data.” Note that the end date for small manufacturers reporting exclusively as article importers of regulated products will shift to April 13, 2027.

After addressing a number of other programs over the first 100 days of the new administration, on April 28, 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finally addressed PFAS. Administrator Lee Zeldin outlined a number of actions—old and new—aimed at manufacturers and importers of PFAS and PFAS-containing products with an emphasis on “sound science” and the need for more robust data on PFAS toxicity.

Yesterday, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed the first state ban on products with intentionally added PFAS to exempt fluoropolymers. The Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Protection Act (HB 212) bans certain categories of products that contain intentionally added PFAS, including cookware and food packaging (beginning in 2027), cosmetics (2028) and all other products (2032). Importantly, the law exempts “fluoropolymers consisting of polymeric substances for which the backbone of the polymer is either a per- or polyfluorinated carbon-only backbone or a perfluorinated polyether backbone that is a solid at standard temperature and pressure.” In doing so, it protects critical uses of fluoropolymers for which there is no substitute, including electric vehicles and batteries, among many others. Note that the final version of the bill omitted an exemption for manufacturers with stewardship programs, a similarly first-in-kind provision that would have allowed sale of otherwise banned products where the manufacturer participated in a statewide take-back program.

In many ways, Maine and Minnesota had the first words on the regulation of PFAS in the U.S. Their broad definitions of the chemicals set the stage for similar regulation across the continent. So when legislators in both states nearly simultaneously propose to shrink those definitions, it bears watching.

On January 29, 2025, New Mexico threw its hat more fully into the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) legislation ring with the introduction of a bill that adopts a broad “phase-out” ban to PFAS-containing products. HB 212, now before the House Judiciary Committee, would require manufacturers to remove PFAS from their products over time or cease the sale thereof. A ban on cookware, food packaging, dental floss and juvenile products containing intentionally added PFAS would kick in on January 1, 2027, while a ban on carpets and rugs, cleaning products, cosmetics, fabric treatments, feminine hygiene products, textiles, textile furnishings, ski wax and upholstered furniture will start January 1, 2028. The bill would prohibit the sale of all remaining consumer products containing intentionally added PFAS beginning January 1, 2029, unless the use of PFAS constituted a “currently unavoidable use,” a concept we have seen employed elsewhere. What we have not seen employed elsewhere is the New Mexico bill’s “PFAS Stewardship Program,” which (once established) would allow a manufacturer to sell otherwise-banned, PFAS-containing consumer products so long as they participate in a statewide program to collect and dispose of those products. We will have to watch how that program develops if the bill passes, and whether other states copy the approach.

On February 3-5, the PLASTICS’ Fluoropolymers Conference gathered several professionals involved with fluoropolymers to discuss the latest challenges, opportunities and technological shifts that are defining the fluoropolymer industry.

As we turn to 2025 and a new administration, there are a few areas of PFAS law worth watching in the short term, including the regulation of the chemicals in water and their treatment under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.

While the results of consumer products litigation surrounding PFAS have been uneven (see prior blog posts), a new type of claimant may be emerging based on a recent claim filed by a Georgia-based carpet manufacturer against three major upstream PFAS manufacturers.  The complaint alleges that the PFAS manufacturers concealed potential human health and environmental impacts of PFAS that were known to them, failed to inform the carpet manufacturers that their fluoropolymer products could degrade to other PFAS and did not advise that disposal of PFAS-containing wastewater required the use of specialized PFAS removal technologies.  The lawsuit seeks costs for property damage and to recoup potential PFAS removal and remediation costs incurred as a result of PFAS contamination lawsuits against the carpet manufacturer, as well as over $100 million in past costs.