Careers

Diversity

With 18 offices, from New York to Los Angeles and Seattle to Orlando, we live and work in communities all over the U.S., collaborating across locations, disciplines and even borders. Our experienced, highly ranked lawyers serve businesses wherever they are and wherever they want to go.

Offices

About Us

Pages

Professionals

Thought leadership: blogs, podcasts, videos, publications, events and news

Insights

Practices & Industries

Pro Bono

Am Law 100 firm with practices in Business, Digital Assets and Data Management, Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Litigation and Tax.

Home | BakerHostetler

Forever Chemicals and Shifting Deadlines: PFAS Reporting Timelines Delayed by EPA and Minnesota

Court Rulings Clarify When Performance Improvement Plans May Form Federal Discrimination Claims

BakerHostetler Earns Top-Performing Lobbying Firm Nod for Eighth Year in a Row by Bloomberg Government

Analía González Moderates Panel at Open de Arbitraje

core/heading

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) delayed the reporting window for its Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) §8(a)(7) per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) reporting window from opening on April 13, 2026, to Jan. 31, 2027, or 60 days after the effective date of a new final rule, currently under review, whichever is earlier.

core/list-item

Minnesota’s state PFAS reporting deadline was delayed from July 1, 2026, to Sept. 15, 2026.

With additional PFAS reports due for New Mexico (Jan. 1, 2027) and Washington state (Jan. 31, 2027), reporting entities should assess and plan for future PFAS reporting obligations in parallel.

core/list

Many companies spent the first quarter of 2026 preparing to comply with two separate but equally broad PFAS reporting requirements. The first is EPA’s long-awaited TSCA §8(a)(7) PFAS reporting requirement, currently on its third delay, and the second is Minnesota’s state PFAS reporting law, currently on its second. With these delays, it is likely that reporting will be due for both Minnesota and New Mexico, which is set to go online Jan. 1, 2027 – before reporting is required for EPA.

core/paragraph

TSCA §8(a)(7) Reporting Timeline Has Been Delayed

On April 13, 2026, EPA announced that it is delaying the start of the submission period for the TSCA §8(a)(7) PFAS reporting program.<a href="#_ftn1" id="_ftnref1">[1]</a> The new start date will be either 60 days after the effective date of the forthcoming final rule or Jan. 31, 2027 – whichever occurs first. This delay provides additional time for companies to prepare for federal reporting obligations.&nbsp;

Importantly, TSCA §8(a)(7) is a one-time, retrospective reporting requirement that applies broadly to companies that manufactured, imported, or manufactured and imported PFAS-containing articles at any point from Jan. 1, 2011, through 2022. Covered companies must report information that is known or reasonably ascertainable, including:

Chemical identity and scope: Identification of specific PFAS by chemical name and CAS number, including PFAS present in mixtures and finished articles

Manufacturing and import volumes: Annual quantities manufactured or imported, even where PFAS were present at low concentrations or not intentionally added

Uses across the supply chain: Industrial, commercial and consumer uses, including downstream uses by customers and whether products were used by children

By-products, releases and disposal: Information regarding PFAS by-products, environmental releases, waste streams and disposal practices

Exposure and hazard information: Available data on worker exposure, environmental exposure pathways, and known or reasonably available health and environmental effects

One of the key reasons EPA delayed the opening of the submission period was to accommodate several major regulatory changes that were initially proposed in November 2025 but have yet to be finalized.<a href="#_ftn2" id="_ftnref2">[2]</a> Those changes would provide a number of exemptions to include (i) a broad exemption for entities only importing articles containing intentionally added PFAS; (ii) a de minimis exemption for PFAS present in mixtures or products at concentrations of 0.1 percent or lower; and (iii) an exemption for certain by-products, impurities and chemicals used solely for research and development.

Minnesota PFAS Reporting Deadline Pushed to September

On April 15, 2026, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) pushed the deadline for reporting from July 1, 2026, to Sept. 15, 2026.<a href="#_ftn3" id="_ftnref3">[3]</a> We would expect that many companies will now face their first mandatory PFAS reporting under Minnesota’s state law before federal TSCA reporting begins. As you continue preparing for Minnesota compliance, this federal delay creates an opportunity to assess and plan for future PFAS reporting obligations in parallel.&nbsp;

MPCA pushed the deadline due to challenges that reporting entities faced in collecting the voluminous supply chain data necessary for compliance. Separately, there were issues with Minnesota’s reporting tool – PFAS Product Reporting Information System for Manufacturers. MPCA is expected to release additional guidance and instructions to help navigate the platform. The next version of the software is expected later this month.

Unlike EPA’s reporting rule, Minnesota focuses on current products sold, offered for sale or distributed in the state and requires manufacturers to report detailed, product-specific information where PFAS are intentionally added to bring about a specific characteristic in the product. Required disclosures include:&nbsp;

Product identification: A description of each covered product or component, including product categories and component-level detail for complex products

Purpose and function: The specific function PFAS serve in the product (e.g., water resistance, stain resistance, nonstick properties)

PFAS identity and concentration: Identification of each intentionally added PFAS, along with concentration information reported within prescribed ranges

Unlike TSCA’s historical lookback, Minnesota’s program creates a forward-looking, public-facing inventory of PFAS-containing products in the marketplace, making Minnesota reporting a potential first exposure point for many companies.

Importantly, for companies that may need additional time to comply with Minnesota’s law, a one-time 90-day extension is available&nbsp;if requested by Aug. 16, 2026, which would move the deadline to report to approximately Dec. 14, 2026. While helpful, this extension should be viewed in the broader context of rapidly emerging state PFAS reporting and product regulation regimes, including New Mexico’s reporting deadline of Jan. 1, 2027; Washington’s reporting deadline of Jan. 31, 2027; and similar laws under consideration in other states.

Public Disclosure and Potential Litigation Exposure

Information submitted under both the TSCA and the Minnesota programs will largely be made publicly available. Although limited protections exist for trade secrets and confidential business information, significant volumes of reported data are expected to enter the public domain.&nbsp;

This transparency may create alitigation risk&nbsp;for certain entities, particularly in the form of consumer class actions and exposure cases, as well as premises liability and environmental claims. In recent trends, plaintiffs’ firms have increasingly relied on regulatory disclosures, testing results and public databases to bring claims alleging that:

Products are sources of PFAS in the environment, including allegations that PFAS migrate from consumer products into household dust, indoor air, wastewater or drinking water supplies.

Consumers were exposed to PFAS through normal product use, forming the basis for personal injury, medical monitoring or toxic exposure claims – even where exposure levels are disputed or trace.

Marketing or labeling was misleading, with plaintiffs asserting that products marketed as “safe,” “nontoxic” or “environmentally friendly” contained undisclosed PFAS.

Reported PFAS data demonstrates knowledge or responsibility, with TSCA or state reporting used to argue that manufacturers knew or should have known about PFAS presence, persistence or alleged risks.

Notably, these claims are often pursued regardless of whether the PFAS use was lawful at the time and regardless of the lack of scientific or factual support, whether the data reflects historical activity, or whether the reported PFAS are present at de minimis levels. Reported information may also be repurposed by state regulators, attorneys general or advocacy groups to support investigations, enforcement actions or new regulatory initiatives. As a result, companies should carefully evaluate not only what&nbsp;is reported but also how&nbsp;information is framed, supported and internally documented.

How BakerHostetler Can Help

BakerHostetler is actively advising clients on navigating PFAS reporting obligations, managing public disclosure and litigation risk, and developing defensible compliance strategies across overlapping federal and state regimes. We are here to help you assess your obligations, align reporting across jurisdictions, and mitigate regulatory and litigation exposure. Please let us know if you would like to discuss these developments or your specific situation in more detail.

core/separator

<a href="#_ftnref1" id="_ftn1">[1]</a> See “Modification to the Start of the Submission Period for Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Reporting and Recordkeeping Under TSCA 8(a)(7).” 91 Fed. Reg. 18786, April 13, 2026.

<a href="#_ftnref2" id="_ftn2">[2]</a> See “Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Data Reporting and Recordkeeping Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Revision to Regulation,” 90 Fed. Reg. 5092, Nov. 13, 2025.

<a href="#_ftnref3" id="_ftn3">[3]</a> See “Reporting PFAS in Products,” https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air-water-land-climate/reporting-pfas-in-products (last visited April 20, 2026).

Related Services

Featured Insights