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

Services

Pro Bono

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

Home | BakerHostetler

Daniel Goettle Shares His Journey to Office Managing Partner in Law.com Article

ADventures in Law

FTC’s Junk Fee Rule FAQs Give Road Map for Displaying Price

Peter Roskam, Jeff Paravano Provide Federal Insights at TEI Regions 4 and 5 Conference

The Delayed, but Not Forgotten, Disclosure of PFAS: TSCA Section 8(a)(7) Postponed While States Fill the Gaps

core/heading

Reporting dates for manufacturers and importers of PFAS under the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”) Section 8(a)(7) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements that were scheduled to begin July 11, 2025, were delayed to April 13, 2026, with the submission period ending for most reporters on October 13, 2026.

core/list-item

Certain manufacturers and importers have until January 1, 2026, to comply with Minnesota’s PFAS reporting requirements.

Given the broad nature of the PFAS reporting requirements at the state and federal levels, any company that manufactures or imports PFAS or PFAS-containing articles should ensure that it is in a position to comply with PFAS laws.

core/list

When Congress passed the fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”), it included a mandate that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) take steps to require all manufacturers, including importers, of PFAS and PFAS-containing articles in any year since 2011 to report information related to chemical identity, uses, volumes made and processed, byproducts, environmental health effects, worker exposure, and disposal methods to EPA. In the years since, EPA completed the necessary rulemaking process but has delayed the reporting window due to budgetary constraints. In May 2025, EPA faced another obstacle related to testing the software to be used for reporting entities, and delayed the reporting window for a second time.

core/paragraph

Since Congress passed the 2020 NDAA, individual states have moved forward with their own reporting and disclosure requirements. While these requirements started out with a narrow focus on specific PFAS chemicals or a limited consumer product category such as cookware or juvenile products, the state of Minnesota has put forward a reporting rule that in some respects is more burdensome than the one developed by EPA.

This alert memo discusses changes made to TSCA’s Section 8(a)(7) Reporting and Recordkeeping Rule and provides an overview of what companies can expect from Minnesota’s PFAS reporting rules.

TSCA §8(a)(7) Recordkeeping and Reporting Rule

EPA finalized reporting and recordkeeping requirements for PFAS in October 2023. The regulation requires any person who manufactures or imports or has manufactured or imported PFAS or PFAS-containing articles in any year from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2022, to electronically report information regarding PFAS uses, production volumes, disposal, exposures and hazards. Entities are expected to work with suppliers to secure information necessary to satisfy the data requirements by employing a “known to or reasonably ascertainable by” due diligence standard.

On May 13, 2025, EPA amended its data submission period for the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) reporting rule for the second time, changing the window for submission to run from April 13, 2026 to October 13, 2026, with an alternate end date for small manufacturers reporting exclusively as article importers of April 13, 2027.<a href="#_ftn1" id="_ftnref1">[1]</a>

Under this interim final rule, the extension of the reporting window will allow EPA to develop and test further software being used to collect data from manufacturers. EPA explained that it “does not have time to conduct industry beta testing of the application and incorporate any tester feedback prior to the start of the submission period” and that without “a period of industry beta testing as previously planned, the current reporting timeline is no longer tenable.”<a href="#_ftn2" id="_ftnref2">[2]</a> But EPA made clear that this interim final action was not an opportunity to “reopen or reconsider any provisions of the underlying reporting rule other than the submission period dates”; however, EPA did make clear that in the future it may “reopen other aspects of this rule for public comment.”<a href="#_ftn3" id="_ftnref3">[3]</a>

Regulated industry is, indeed, interested in seeing more substantive changes to the elements of EPA’s reporting rule. On May 2, 2025, a coalition of chemical companies submitted a petition under Section 21 of TSCA asking EPA to withdraw the current reporting obligations to allow EPA “sufficient time to repropose the rule. . . .”<a href="#_ftn4" id="_ftnref4">[4]</a> Proposed amendments included allowing an exemption from reporting for imported articles, research and development materials, impurities, byproducts, non-isolated intermediates, and for PFAS manufactured in quantities less than 2,500 pounds. While the coalition of chemical companies withdrew the petition and EPA now considers it closed,<a href="#_ftn5" id="_ftnref5">[5]</a> the types of exemptions identified by the coalition are supported by entities across multiple industries. If EPA reopened the rule for substantive reconsideration, these exemptions would be at the forefront of potential amendments.

On May 22, 2025, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (“MPCA”) held a public hearing on its proposed regulations governing its PFAS reporting requirements as part of the state’s Amara’s Law. The statute requires manufacturers to report information on PFAS-containing products that are sold within Minnesota, a step before Minnesota’s eventual ban of PFAS in all consumer products, with limited exceptions, by 2032.

The law requires that by January 1, 2026, manufacturers of products sold, offered for sale or distributed in Minnesota that contain intentionally added PFAS must submit a report that contains a brief description of the product, the purpose or function of PFAS in the product, the amount of each PFAS by CASRN (reported as an exact quantity or approved range), information on the manufacturer, as well as other details.<a href="#_ftn6" id="_ftnref6">[6]</a>

The definition of “manufacturer” under the proposed regulations means “the person that creates or produces a product, that has a product created or produced, or whose brand name is legally affixed to the product. In the case of a product that is imported into the United States when the person that created or produced the product or whose brand name is affixed to the product does not have a presence in the United States, manufacturer means either the importer or the first domestic distributor of the product, whichever is first to sell, offer for sale, or distribute for sale the product in the state.”<a href="#_ftn7" id="_ftnref7">[7]</a>

When reporting the concentration of PFAS chemicals in a product or components of a product made up of “homogenous material,” a manufacturer can report the concentration of PFAS in specific ranges or by using the total organic fluorine count.<a href="#_ftn8" id="_ftnref8">[8]</a> However, total organic fluorine count is a measurement of the total amount of fluorine in a given sample that is bound to organic compounds; it does not necessarily reflect the presence or concentration of PFAS.

Updates are required by February 1st each year “if during the previous 12 months: (i) a significant change was made to a product; (ii) new product information was provided to a manufacturer; or (iii) a new product was sold, offered for sale, or distributed in or into the state.”<a href="#_ftn9" id="_ftnref9">[9]</a> This is in contrast with TSCA’s one-time and backward-looking reporting requirement.

There are opportunities for waivers of information requested where substantially equivalent information is publicly available as well as opportunities for extensions where more time is justified to comply with the reporting requirements. Any extension requests are due at least 30 days before the reporting due date. Some reporting exemptions do exist for products where federal law preempts state authority, for used products, and for those regulated under other Minnesota statutes such as aqueous film-forming foam (“AFFF”).

MPCA requires manufacturers to “assume responsibility for reporting products containing intentionally added PFAS unless notification from another manufacturer is received ... confirming that the requirements” have already been fulfilled.<a href="#_ftn10" id="_ftnref10">[10]</a> Where a manufacturer must identify and locate necessary information, MPCA requires that manufacturers “request detailed disclosure of information required ... from their supply chain until all required information is known.”<a href="#_ftn11" id="_ftnref11">[11]</a> This also stands in contrast with TSCA’s standard of “known to or reasonably ascertainable,” which would not require a repeated attempt to gather information that very well may not exist.

Entities within a diverse group of industries will be responsible for complying with both TSCA §8(a)(7) and Minnesota’s reporting law. Manufacturers and importers that could be responsible for compliance include entities in the automotive, construction, manufacturing, retail, wholesale, energy and other industries. Entities responsible for compliance should familiarize themselves with TSCA and work with knowledgeable attorneys to create standing operating procedures for the management, reporting and recordkeeping of chemical use, including PFAS. Proper management of PFAS records and regulatory requirements will be crucial to ensure compliance.

core/separator

<a href="#_ftnref1" id="_ftn1">[1]</a> 90 Fed. Reg. 20236, “Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Data Reporting and Recordkeeping under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Change to Submission Period” (May 13, 2025).

<a href="#_ftnref2" id="_ftn2">[2]</a> Id. at 20237.

<a href="#_ftnref3" id="_ftn3">[3]</a> Id. at 20236.

<a href="#_ftnref4" id="_ftn4">[4]</a> “TSCA Section 21 Petition to Initiate a Proceeding for the Amendment of 40 C.F.R. Part 705 – Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Certain Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances,” Letter to Lee Zeldin, May 2, 2025.

<a href="#_ftnref5" id="_ftn5">[5]</a> “Closeout of Petition PET-001907: TSCA Section 21 Petition to Initiate a Proceeding for the Amendment of 40 C.F.R. Part 705 – Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Certain Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS),” Letter from EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, May 22, 2025.

<a href="#_ftnref6" id="_ftn6">[6]</a> See Minnesota §116.943, subd. 2.

<a href="#_ftnref7" id="_ftn7">[7]</a> MPCA, §7026.0010, Subp. 14.

<a href="#_ftnref8" id="_ftn8">[8]</a> MPCA, §7026.0030, Subp. 1(C). “Homogenous material” is defined as “one material of uniform composition throughout or a material, consistent of a combination of materials, that cannot be disjointed or separated into different materials by mechanical actions.”

<a href="#_ftnref9" id="_ftn9">[9]</a> MPCA, §7026.0040, Subp. 1.

<a href="#_ftnref10" id="_ftn10">[10]</a> MPCA, §7026.0080, Subp. 1.

<a href="#_ftnref11" id="_ftn11">[11]</a> MPCA, §7026.0080, Subp. 2 (emphasis added).

Related Services

Featured Insights