US EPA TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS Reporting – Regulatory recalibration, not retreat

TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting rule

What has changed

In April 2026, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) confirmed a further adjustment to the implementation of the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting rule. Mandatory reporting will now start either 60 days after the effective date of a forthcoming final rule revising the substantive reporting requirements, or on 31 January 2027 – whichever occurs first. The January 2027 date functions as a backstop, not a fixed start date.

This adjustment follows EPA’s November 2025 proposal to revise the rule’s scope, intended to make PFAS reporting more “practical and implementable” by proposing targeted exemptions and clarifying reporting expectations, including exemptions for imported articles, de minimis concentrations, impurities, by products, R&D uses, and non isolated intermediates.

EPA expects to finalize the revised rule later in 2026, triggering the reporting clock shortly thereafter. The EPA has been clear that this timing shift is intended to improve data quality and usability, not to dilute expectations for completeness or accuracy once reporting begins.

What this means for industry

The fundamental obligation remains unchanged: a one-time, retrospective report covering PFAS manufactured or imported for commercial purposes at any point between 2011 and 2022, supported by extensive data on uses, volumes, exposures, releases, by products, disposal, and known health and environmental effects.

The revised timeline should not be interpreted as a pause in regulatory intent. Instead, EPA is seeking to ensure that, once reporting begins, submissions are of sufficient quality and consistency to support downstream regulatory decision making, and that industry effort is not wasted on information that companies cannot reasonably obtain.

Watch-outs

EPA continues to seek comprehensive intelligence on PFAS use and exposure, even as it narrows the most burdensome elements of the original rule. Since report preparation takes months, not weeks, companies that pause preparation entirely risk being caught out if the revised rule is finalized and published sooner than the January 2027 backstop. Organizations with complex global supply chains should continue mapping historical PFAS use and imports, engaging suppliers and developing defensible positions on scope assumptions and exemptions.

Minnesota PFAS in Products reporting – Deadline extension and clarified compliance expectations

What has changed

On April 15, 2026, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) announced a further update to its PFAS in Products reporting program. It extended the initial reporting deadline from July 1, 2026, to September 15, 2026, and allows manufacturers to apply by August 16 for a single 90-day extension to December 14, 2026.

Crucially, the MPCA also clarified both its compliance expectations and what it will accept as adequate first-round reporting.

What this means for industry

Minnesota’s reporting obligations still apply to PFAS in consumer products sold into the state regardless of volume.
While the original statutory language implied that manufacturers must continue surveying their supply chains until information was complete, MPCA has confirmed that a manufacturer will be deemed compliant for the initial reporting round if it reports all PFAS information obtained by the applicable deadline, and retains documentation demonstrating good faith supply chain outreach.

Manufacturers must then continue pursuing missing information and update reports annually as new data becomes available.
This clarification shifts the focus from absolute data completeness to process, documentation, and ongoing effort, materially reducing early enforcement risk for manufacturers facing genuine supply-chain constraints.

To date, 18 manufacturers have submitted reports via the Minnesota reporting system – PRISM – which remains live and fully functional. The resulting public dataset offers a useful reference point, and may also form the basis for reporting waiver requests before August 16.

Watch outs

MPCA’s clarification of the compliance standard reduces enforcement risk for companies facing genuine supply-chain data constraints – but only where outreach efforts are demonstrable and well documented.

Scrutiny by customers, NGOs, or other regulators of publicly available reports means consistency between Minnesota submissions and other PFAS data reporting regimes will be critical. Companies should treat Minnesota reporting not as a one-off exercise, but as the foundation of a living PFAS data set likely to be reused across jurisdictions.

New Mexico PFAS in Products Regulation – Acceleration of bans, reporting and labeling – with early strategic decisions required

What has changed

On March 24, 2026, the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) approved the state’s PFAS in Products regulation, incorporating limited editorial changes proposed by the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED). Proposed industry amendments to delay certain obligations (including labeling) were not adopted.

NMED is now finalizing the rule text and accompanying guidance. The regulation establishes early reporting and labeling requirements, progressive product bans, and a detailed Currently Unavoidable Use (CUU) mechanism. The rule becomes effective July 1, 2026.

What this means for industry

The rule applies to manufacturers, distributors, and retailers selling products into New Mexico – including via intermediaries or online channels – where PFAS are intentionally added. Several aspects of the rule are particularly significant for industry planning:

• Ban – PFAS are prohibited in certain products from January 1, 2027 and January 1, 2028. A default ban on all PFAS-containing products (unless exempt or CUU status) applies from January 1, 2032.
• Reporting – Manufacturers must submit detailed PFAS product reports by January 1, 2027. Reports must include analytical data and be updated within 30 days of any significant change. Reporting can be waived only where substantially equivalent information is already publicly available.
• Labeling – From January 1, 2027, products containing intentionally added PFAS must carry a standardized PFAS label, including online and catalog sales. Labeling applies unless a time-limited label waiver – available only where direct consumer contact with PFAS is excluded – is approved.
• Currently Unavoidable Use (CUU) – Companies may apply for their products to have CUU status, with near-term deadlines for products facing 2027 bans. Applications are evidence-heavy, and approvals are time-limited (3-years).

Watch-outs

With binding deadlines in early-2027, companies need to make strategic decisions now on PFAS disclosure and whether products will be labelled, reformulated, withdrawn, or pursued through waiver or CUU pathways.

Although New Mexico will consider CUU determinations from other states, Maine’s experience shows that CUU approval is narrowly applied. Companies should ensure any CUU strategy is robust and well‑evidenced.

United States – State Level

Other US State Developments – Enforcement now drives product decisions

Several other states have moved decisively to manage PFAS in products, combining active enforcement with labeling mandates, analytical triggers, outright prohibitions and reporting obligations. These measures are already shaping product strategy, data requirements, and supply chain management.

Divergent state approaches to bans, labeling, reporting, and analytical enforcement underscore the need for coordinated, forward-looking PFAS strategies supported by reliable, portable data and early decision-making across jurisdictions.

Washington State has finalized a significant expansion of its Safer Products rules, introducing new PFAS bans and mandatory reporting across a wide range of consumer products. Notably, it has adopted a total fluorine enforcement trigger, under which products testing above a defined threshold are presumed to contain intentionally added PFAS unless manufacturers can rebut this with credible evidence.

Colorado has entered a new enforcement phase in 2026, with hard bans now in effect for several PFAS-containing consumer products. Flexibility mechanisms are limited, meaning reformulation or market exit is now required rather than optional planning.

Vermont has expanded and clarified its PFAS product prohibitions, widening the scope of covered products and tightening definitions around intentionally added PFAS, including treatment of fluorinated containers and certain processing uses. The result is a front loaded compliance regime with relatively short lead times between clarification and prohibition.

Connecticut has moved into implementation of labeling and notification requirements for a broad range of PFAS-containing products, combining product level labeling with mandatory reporting to state authorities. This dual obligation adds practical complexity for companies already managing multi-state disclosure and branding alignment.

Important developments and watch outs beyond the US

European Union – PFAS REACH restriction

A critical window has opened for industry to inform and influence EU’s universal PFAS restriction. ECHA’s public consultation on SEAC’s draft socio-economic opinion will run until May 25, 2026. With the RAC risk assessment now finalized, this consultation represents the last substantive opportunity for industry to influence the design, scope, derogations, and transition periods of the restriction by submitting robust evidence on uses, emissions, alternatives, and socio-economic impacts.

Companies that do not engage risk having assumptions about PFAS uses, the feasibility of alternatives, and associated costs embedded into the final opinion – assumptions that will directly inform the European Commission’s legislative proposal later in 2026.