Hallelujah, EPA Proposes to Narrow Scope of TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS Reporting Rule

On Nov. 13, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed revisions (90 Fed. Reg. 50923) to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a)(7) regulation for reporting and recordkeeping requirements for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). This column summarizes the proposal and the reasons for it.

Proposed Exemptions 

The 2023 final rule requires manufacturers, including importers, of PFAS and PFAS-containing articles in any year since 2011 through 2022 to report information related to chemical identity, uses, volumes made and processed, byproducts, environmental and health effects, worker exposure, and disposal to EPA. The final rule contains virtually no exemptions. 

The proposal would incorporate exemptions to the scope of reportable manufacturing activities, including a de minimis exemption of 0.1%, imported articles, byproducts, impurities, research and development, and non-isolated intermediates. These exemptions are similar to the TSCA Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule. EPA also proposes to include a de minimis concentration exemption for reportable PFAS in mixtures or articles under which PFAS concentrations below 0.1% would be exempt from reporting. 

Importantly, EPA proposes to exempt PFAS imported as part of an article from the scope of reportable activities. As EPA noted in its discussion of the de minimis exemption, safety data sheet (SDS) and European Union Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Regulation notification requirements “are not likely to have revealed the content of PFAS in imported articles during the time span covered by this retroactive reporting rule, which is a perspective shared widely by commenters and the small entity representatives to the [Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR)] Panel.” 

EPA proposes to exempt the manufacture of PFAS as byproducts, impurities, non-isolated intermediates, or upon incidental exposure, or end use of another substance or mixture from the scope of reportable activities when such substances are manufactured under conditions described in 40 C.F.R. Section 720.30(h). As proposed, the exemptions “would ensure that manufacturers remain focused on reporting PFAS with greater commercial relevance and potential exposure pathways while relieving industry of disproportionately burdensome reporting.”

EPA proposes, finally, to exempt PFAS manufactured (including imported) in small quantities for R&D purposes. EPA highlights that the proposed exemption, while limited to PFAS manufactured solely for R&D purposes, has no threshold limit. EPA notes that “such quantities manufactured solely for R&D purposes are quantities no greater than reasonably necessary for those R&D activities.”

Discussion

The revisions were widely expected and hotly anticipated. The 2023 final rule’s steep price tag and reach that extended far beyond the typical set of TSCA-regulated entities created significant angst across the business community. These concerns were amplified by the rule’s bumpy rollout, including delays in the development of the necessary reporting tool that left EPA scrambling to extend, twice, the reporting window. 
Unsurprisingly, the proposed rule would exempt article importers — a savings to small businesses estimated to exceed $700 million. This exemption, by far, offered the most bang-for-the-buck savings in the proposed rule, purporting to eliminate a whopping 80% of the 2023 final rule’s $876 million total cost. It was less clear what other exemptions, if any, the EPA would choose to include in the proposed rule. 

The proposed rule marks a shift in EPA’s thinking and one likely to invite controversy. EPA no longer interprets any statutory limitation to include reporting exemptions — a notable reversal. EPA now seemingly departs from its own prior argument that Section 8(a)(7) operates as a freestanding, independent rulemaking authority and instead reads Section 8(a)(7) in the larger context of Section 8(a), including the provisions of TSCA Section 8(a)(5). Section 8(a)(5) mandates explicit considerations regarding burden reduction and small manufacturers. 

EPA also argues that the previous application of the rule to article importers exceeded EPA’s statutory authority, a position that could have significant implications for the decades-long interpretation by EPA that import of an article containing a chemical substance constitutes “manufacture” of that chemical under TSCA. The exemptions in the proposed rule largely align with a May 2025 industry petition that sought these changes, a petition that was withdrawn after EPA indicated it would reopen the rule.
The regulated community will breathe some collective sighs of relief. But one can assume there are also some simmering frustrations that the rollbacks came so late. Regulated entities took steps to put their business in a position to comply when the reporting window opened, only to have that deadline extended, twice, days prior. Many, however, see benefit in undertaking these steps to prepare for the many state PFAS reporting obligations already in effect and on the horizon.