Administrator Lee Zeldin released a pre-publication notice April 8 advising that the Environmental Protection Agency is again delaying the start date for reporting and recordkeeping requirements under the Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) Reporting and Recordkeeping Rule.

The PFAS Reporting Rule is an all-encompassing new regulation that applies to any entity that has manufactured or imported PFAS for a commercial purpose at any time between 2011-2022. Utilities, manufacturers, wholesale traders and waste management and remediation services are most likely to be affected, but other entities may be subject to the new reporting requirement as well. Reporting must be made through an agency-created software program, production of which has contributed to delays in the implementation of the Rule.

Under the final rule, the reporting period was scheduled to begin in July 2025. In November, EPA extended that deadline to April 13, 2026. But in the pre-publication notice issued earlier this month, EPA indicates that it expects to finalize the substantive requirements of the PFAS Reporting Rule in 2026 and that the deadline for reporting will commence 60 days after the Rule takes effect. The agency has created a backstop deadline of Jan. 31, 2027, whereby reporting must begin regardless of whether the substantive requirements have been finalized.

Certain industries are accustomed to meeting reporting requirements under EPA’s Chemical Data Reporting Rule. Due to amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), however, a wide range of utilities and corporate entities will be required to report to EPA – for the first time – their uses of PFAS, production volumes, disposal, exposures and hazards.

The Rule’s substantive requirements remain under consideration, as EPA reviews public comments previously submitted on possible exemptions to the Rule. The current version of the Rule takes a broadbrush approach without providing any exemptions regardless of how low the concentrations of PFAS may be or a product’s original source. This is a deviation from other TSCA reporting requirements and creates additional hardships for entities that are accustomed to making certain reports under TSCA.

EPA also is considering adding a de minimis concentration limit, under which reporting would not be required, as well as proposing to exempt reporting for articles imported by U.S. companies – a common-sense change that acknowledges the difficulty of analyzing upstream products for concentrations of PFAS.

State Efforts

These changes come amid various state-level efforts to pass legislation requiring reporting to state environmental agencies. For example, after surviving an administrative challenge, Minnesota launched its PFAS reporting system in late January. The state then announced earlier this month it was changing its reporting deadline: All entities subject to the rule are now required to submit their reports by Sept. 15, 2026, instead of July 1. This gives manufacturers more time to use an updated guide to the state’s reporting software and guidance on reporting scenarios.

PFAS bans and reporting requirements have also been passed into law in other states, including Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. The types of products and entities subject to regulation vary from state to state. A manufacturer with facilities in Maine and New Jersey might have entirely different reporting requirements in each state, for example. Likewise, a product sold in one state might be banned for containing PFAS but would be allowed to contain PFAS if sold in a different state.

Compliance Checklist

Presently, manufacturers, utilities and other entities using PFAS face a patchwork of varying state requirements, evolving federal requirements and changing deadlines. Meeting the reporting requirements will require dedicated staff, time and resources to:

• comply with the legal requirements for each state where the entity operates;
• identify the categories of information that must be analyzed; 
• collect the entity’s own reports for entry into various software systems provided by EPA and the states;
• respond to comments and information requests from state and federal environmental agencies after the data is submitted; and
• maintain compliance with ongoing requirements on an annual basis.

Miles & Stockbridge’s lawyers are monitoring changes to PFAS legal standards at the federal and state levels and are available to help clients identify legal requirements and procedural steps required for compliance with data submission requirements.

Opinions and conclusions in this post are solely those of the author unless otherwise indicated. The information contained in this blog is general in nature and is not offered and cannot be considered as legal advice for any particular situation. The author has provided the links referenced above for information purposes only and by doing so, does not adopt or incorporate the contents. Any federal tax advice provided in this communication is not intended or written by the author to be used, and cannot be used by the recipient, for the purpose of avoiding penalties which may be imposed on the recipient by the IRS. Please contact the author if you would like to receive written advice in a format which complies with IRS rules and may be relied upon to avoid penalties.