TSCA PFAS Reporting Rule: Who's Still Covered and Who Gets Relief Under the Proposed Exemptions

The EPA’s mandatory PFAS reporting rule under TSCA Section 8(a)(7) casts one of the widest nets in agency history. As originally written in October 2023, it required virtually any manufacturer who touched PFAS since 2011—including importers of finished goods—to report to the federal government on volumes, uses, and health effects.

⚡ TL;DR: Five proposed exemptions (article importers, trace amounts, byproducts, impurities, R&D) would dramatically reduce PFAS reporting obligations. But they’re not final. Betting on them and ignoring data preparation now is a high-risk strategy—you’ll be caught unprepared if they don’t survive.

But in November 2025, EPA released proposed amendments that would dramatically narrow that scope. If finalized, these changes would exempt article importers, PFAS at trace concentrations, R&D quantities, and several other categories. However, there’s a critical catch: these exemptions are not yet law. Until the final rule is published (expected mid-2026), the original broad scope remains in effect.

⚠️ The Pain Point: The proposed exemptions sound like relief. Article importers especially are hoping for relief from reporting PFAS in components they import but don’t design or control. But if you wait for exemptions and they don’t pass, you’re 6 months from the reporting window with 11 years of supply chain data still to search. That’s not possible.

For manufacturers and importers trying to figure out whether they’re covered, the answer is: assume yes, prepare accordingly, and stay ready to adjust.

The Original Rule: A Net So Wide It Catches Almost Everything

The October 2023 PFAS reporting rule defines “manufacture” under TSCA to include importation—a definition that caught many companies by surprise. Under this scope:

Chemical manufacturers and formulators using any of the 1,462+ PFAS substances on EPA’s structural list had to report.
Article importers who brought in finished goods containing PFAS—gaskets, electronics, coatings, textiles, food packaging—became “manufacturers” and faced reporting obligations.
Industrial users incorporating PFAS fluids (hydraulics, heat transfer media, non-stick coatings) into their manufacturing processes had to report.
Waste processors and recyclers handling PFAS-containing materials fell under the rule.

The reporting lookback period spans 2011–2022 (any year PFAS was manufactured or imported), and companies must conduct a “known or reasonably ascertainable” (KRA) search of existing records to compile the data. This is a one-time reporting obligation, not annual, but the scope is massive and the burden falls on companies with limited control over supply chain information.

So why the proposed changes? Because manufacturers complained—loudly and legitimately—that article importers simply don’t have access to data about PFAS concentrations in components they purchase from suppliers. The EPA listened. In November 2025, the agency proposed five major exemptions.

The Five Proposed Exemptions (And What They Actually Mean)

1. De Minimis Concentration Threshold: 0.1% (Maybe 1.0%)

The most proposed amendment adds a de minimis exemption for PFAS present at or below 0.1% (1,000 ppm) in mixtures or articles. PFAS below this level wouldn’t trigger reporting.

Why 0.1%? EPA aligned it with existing hazard communication standards. PFAS at trace concentrations rarely represent significant manufacturing volumes and don’t typically pose material health or environmental exposure risks. The threshold makes sense chemically and administratively.

But here’s the wrinkle: EPA explicitly asked for comment on whether 1.0% would be more appropriate. Comments closed December 29, 2025. The final rule could be more generous than the proposal.

Who benefits: Manufacturers using PFAS in small quantities—some coatings with trace perfluorooctane, certain non-stick polymers, diluted firefighting foams (AFFF). If the final rule adopts the exemption, these companies would have no reporting obligation for those products.

What it doesn’t exempt: Intentional blends, even if marketed as “low-PFAS” products at 0.5% concentration, would still be reportable under a 0.1% threshold (but exempt under a 1.0% threshold if EPA moves that direction).

2. Imported Articles: The Biggest Relief (If Finalized)

This exemption would completely relieve importers of finished articles from reporting PFAS in those articles. Period. No reporting on imported gaskets, seals, coatings, electronics, textiles, or other components.

Why it’s significant: The TSCA definition of “manufacture” includes importation, which technically made every importer of PFAS-containing articles a “PFAS manufacturer.” But article importers don’t design those components. They don’t control the PFAS concentration. They often don’t even know PFAS is in them. Asking them to report forces a chain-of-custody data collection burden on parties with no meaningful influence over the product composition.

EPA acknowledged this mismatch. The agency recognized that importers lack “known or reasonably ascertainable” information about PFAS in their imported goods. The proposed exemption eliminates reporting for article importers—but not for companies that import raw PFAS chemicals or fluorinated intermediates for use in manufacturing.

This exemption applies to:

Electronics manufacturers importing semiconductor components, connectors, circuit boards
Automotive suppliers importing gaskets, seals, hydraulic components
Textile manufacturers importing PFAS-treated fabrics and waterproof coatings
Food and beverage companies importing PFAS-lined packaging
Aerospace manufacturers importing non-stick coatings and seals
Wire and cable manufacturers importing PFAS-treated insulation

This exemption does NOT apply to:

Companies importing raw PFAS chemicals for their own manufacturing
Companies importing PFAS-containing intermediates (fluorinated prepolymers, partially fluorinated resins) for processing
Companies intentionally importing blends or mixtures with declared PFAS content

3. Byproducts: Only if Not Used Commercially

EPA proposes to exempt PFAS manufactured as byproducts—but only if the byproduct is not captured or used for any commercial purpose.

Regulatory definition: Under 40 CFR 704.3, a byproduct is a chemical produced without separate commercial intent during the manufacture, processing, use, or disposal of another chemical or mixture.

Practical examples:

Exempt: Trace fluorinated byproducts from chlorine chemistry that are never captured or recovered (fugitive losses, released to the atmosphere or wastewater). No commercial purpose = no reporting obligation.
Not exempt: A PFAS manufacturer that produces PFOA as a byproduct during PFOS synthesis, then intentionally captures and sells the PFOA to another company. Commercial use means reporting applies.

Real-world impact: Smaller than you’d think. Most industrial PFAS byproducts that have commercial value are already being recovered and sold (intentionally or incidentally). This exemption mainly relieves reporting on truly incidental losses with minimal volume.

4. Impurities: Unintentional PFAS in Other Substances

The proposed rule would exempt PFAS present as unintentional impurities in other chemical substances, as long as the PFAS has no distinct commercial purpose separate from the host substance.

Definition (from 40 CFR 720.30): An impurity is a chemical substance unintentionally present with another chemical substance, and the impurity has no independent commercial purpose.

Examples that would qualify:

Trace perfluorodecalin in fluorinated solvents (unintended carryover from synthesis; separating it isn’t cost-effective)
PFOA as a process residue in certain polymers (unintentional; removed through normal manufacturing steps)
Trace PFAS in recycled or secondary materials used as feedstock

What it doesn’t exempt: PFAS intentionally added to products in small quantities, or PFAS that could reasonably be separated. If a company uses a PFAS-containing material as a deliberate ingredient or feedstock, reporting applies—even if the PFAS itself is “impure.”

Impact: Moderate relief for formulators and manufacturers using secondary materials or recycled polymers that may contain trace PFAS as processing residues.

5. Research & Development: If “Reasonably Necessary”

PFAS manufactured solely in quantities “no greater than reasonably necessary” for R&D would be exempt. This gives materials scientists and chemical developers room to test PFAS chemistry without reporting obligations.

What “reasonably necessary” means: Quantities required to conduct legitimate research or development work. Not a fixed volume—depends on the research scope. EPA expects this standard to be auditable. Companies claiming the exemption need documentation showing the research purpose, quantities used, and timeframe.

Examples:

Pilot-scale testing of fluorinated polymers (batches of 10–50 kg for material property evaluation)
Laboratory synthesis of PFAS variants for performance comparison (sub-kilogram quantities)
Material testing in academic or commercial R&D settings

Not exempt: Production under the guise of “R&D” when the actual intent is commercial manufacture. EPA will look at quantities, production timelines, and whether the materials ever reach the market.

Impact: Meaningful for chemical manufacturers, polymer developers, and materials science companies. Allows exploration of PFAS chemistry without reporting—but only if volumes remain genuinely experimental.

Critical Context: These Exemptions Are Proposed, Not Final

As of April 2026, these exemptions exist only in the November 2025 proposed rule. EPA is reviewing thousands of public comments. The final rule is expected mid-2026, likely June.

Until finalized, the original October 2023 rule—with no exemptions—remains the law. This creates a compliance timing question for manufacturers: Do you prepare under the broad original rule, or wait for the exemptions?

The smart answer: Prepare under the original (broader) rule now. Here’s why:

The exemptions may not survive. Congress could intervene. Litigation could delay finalization. EPA could narrow the exemptions in response to comments. Waiting for certainty means you’ll be rushed when the reporting window opens.
EPA’s Compliance First policy rewards early action. If you conduct a “known or reasonably ascertainable” (KRA) data search now—under the original rule’s broad scope—and voluntarily disclose gaps through EPA’s eDisclosure system, you get 100% penalty relief. You can’t undo that advantage.
The data collection is the hard part. Finding 11 years of purchase orders, import records, SDS sheets, supplier certifications, and manufacturing specifications takes time. Waiting until the reporting window opens (expected late 2026 or early 2027) gives you only 6 months to compile this data. Companies with complex supply chains will run out of time.

The exemptions, if finalized, will reduce your reporting obligation. But the data search—the real burden—is the same either way. Start now.

What Manufacturers Still Need to Do (Regardless of Exemptions)

Assume you’re covered until proven otherwise. Here’s your action list:

1. Determine Your Coverage

Review your manufacturing, importing, and sourcing records from 2011–2022. Ask:

Did we manufacture, import, or use any PFAS chemicals (PFOA, PFOS, GenX, or any substance on EPA’s structural PFAS list?
Did we import articles containing PFAS (electronics, gaskets, coatings, textiles)?
Did we use PFAS-containing fluids, foams, or coatings in our manufacturing?
Did we generate PFAS as a byproduct or impurity?

If yes to any: you’re potentially covered (unless the proposed exemptions apply).

2. Conduct a KRA Search

“Known or reasonably ascertainable” (KRA) is your legal standard. This is not “try really hard.” It’s “conduct a documented, thorough search of existing records.”

Search these sources:

Purchase orders for PFAS chemicals, articles, or PFAS-containing materials (2011–2022)
Safety Data Sheets (SDS) for raw materials and components
Supplier certifications and product specifications
Import records (Customs entries, shipping documents)
Internal manufacturing records, formulations, process documents
Environmental monitoring data (if applicable)
Waste disposal records and material certifications

Document what you find. The standard requires evidence of your search, not just the results. EPA will ask: Where did you look? Who conducted the search? What criteria did you use to identify PFAS-containing materials?

3. Prepare Reporting Data

For each PFAS substance you identify, gather:

Chemical identity (IUPAC name, CAS number)
Categories of use (manufacturing, processing, articles, etc.)
Total volume manufactured or imported (by year, 2011–2022)
Byproducts and impurities (if applicable)
Disposal methods
Worker exposure data (if available)
Environmental or health effects information (if documented)

This data will be submitted through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) portal when the reporting window opens.

4. Register for CDX Now

EPA’s reporting application is still under development, but registration is open. Register your facility for CDX access at EPA’s eDisclosure website. You’ll need this when the submission period begins.

5. Stay Informed on Exemptions (But Don’t Bet On Them)

Subscribe to EPA’s TSCA 8(a)(7) updates page and industry regulatory updates. When the final rule publishes, adjust your reporting scope if exemptions apply to your operation.

But do the data collection now. The exemptions, if finalized, will only reduce your scope. The legwork stays the same.

The State Angle: Know Your Local Requirements Too

Federal TSCA 8(a)(7) reporting is national. But several states in the industrial heartland have independent PFAS requirements that don’t get suspended just because EPA delays:

Minnesota leads the pack with a strict independent rule: all products sold with intentionally-added PFAS must be reported to the state via the PRISM (PFAS Reporting and Information System for Manufacturers) platform by July 1, 2026. You disclose concentration and function. No exemptions. Minnesota applies to any company selling into Minnesota.

Colorado has product-specific restrictions (food packaging, children’s products, carpets, menstruation products) with labeling and reporting requirements, implementation 2024–2028. If your PFAS-containing products land in Colorado, you need to track these deadlines.

Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska follow federal guidance; no independent manufacturing reporting requirements.

Massachusetts has product labeling/reporting for cosmetics and food packaging.

For iSi’s service region, the main watchpoint is Minnesota (if your clients sell nationally) and Colorado (if you operate there or supply those markets).

The Strategy: Prepare Broad, Adjust Narrow

The smart compliance approach is not to wait for exemptions. It’s to:

Assume you’re covered under the original broad rule
Begin your “known or reasonably ascertainable” (KRA) data search now
Document everything—where you looked, what you found, what you can’t find
When the final rule publishes (expected June 2026), adjust your scope if exemptions apply
If exemptions don’t apply, you’re already ready

This approach locks in EPA’s Compliance First penalty relief (100% relief for voluntary disclosure of gaps), eliminates the time crunch, and positions you to adjust quickly when the final rule arrives. It’s the low-risk path.

💰 The Cost Calculation: Conducting a thorough KRA search now: $2,000–8,000. Penalty relief through voluntary disclosure: 100% if you identify gaps and disclose them before enforcement. The alternative—waiting for exemptions, discovering they didn’t pass, and scrambling in November 2026: deadline misses, late filings, incomplete data, and penalties averaging $25,000+ per violation.

Why This Matters: The Cost of Waiting

A single EPA PFAS reporting violation can cost $25,000+ per day in federal penalties. Corrective action often runs 2–5 times higher than penalties. Most manufacturers facing enforcement also face operational disruption—permit suspensions, facility inspections, mandatory audits.

The exemptions, if finalized, will ease the burden for some companies. But they don’t eliminate the obligation for anyone manufacturing or importing PFAS chemicals, or for companies that can’t prove article importer status.

The best compliance strategy isn’t to wait for exemptions. It’s to prepare under the original rule now, document your KRA search, voluntarily disclose gaps through EPA’s Compliance First pathway (which grants penalty relief), and adjust your scope if exemptions are finalized. You reduce regulatory exposure, lock in penalty relief, and avoid the time crunch when the reporting window finally opens.

What iSi Provides

iSi Environmental helps manufacturing clients navigate PFAS reporting obligations—determining coverage, conducting KRA searches, compiling required data, and managing submissions. We also track state-level PFAS requirements (Minnesota, Colorado, others) so you’re not blindsided by independent deadlines.

Whether the exemptions survive or not, the data work is the same. Let’s get ahead of it.

Sources

Need help determining whether the proposed exemptions apply to your facility or preparing a TSCA 8(a)(7) submission? Contact iSi Environmental for a same-day quote, or explore our TSCA PFAS compliance services to stay ahead of regulatory changes. We Plug In. You Level Up.