The Environmental Protection Agency has unveiled a proposal aimed at reshaping how businesses report information on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The agency says the changes would make reporting more practical, reduce duplicative requirements, and cut unnecessary costs for companies while still preserving access to critical health and safety data.

The proposal responds to concerns raised since EPA finalized a one-time PFAS reporting and recordkeeping rule in October 2023. That earlier rule required manufacturers and importers of PFAS to submit data covering activities between 2011 and 2022. While it marked a significant step in federal PFAS oversight, it also drew widespread criticism from industry groups that said the rule created a nearly billion-dollar compliance burden without providing clear expectations for how EPA planned to use the data collected.

EPA’s new proposal attempts to address those concerns. The agency says the revisions reflect its goal of gathering PFAS information “as Congress envisioned” under TSCA section 8(a)(7), but in a way that is more workable for manufacturers. The approach aligns with Administrator Lee Zeldin’s “Powering the Great American Comeback” framework, which emphasizes easing regulatory pressures on businesses while maintaining environmental protections.

The centerpiece of the proposal is a suite of exemptions and clarifications designed to focus reporting on PFAS information companies are reasonably expected to know. That list includes exemptions for PFAS present in mixtures or products at concentrations at or below 0.1 percent, imported articles, certain byproducts, impurities, research and development chemicals, and non-isolated intermediates. EPA is also suggesting technical corrections to fix confusing data fields and adjustments to the submission timeline meant to make compliance smoother.

EPA argues these changes would deliver a meaningful reduction in reporting costs and uncertainty, especially for small businesses. The agency maintains that the revised approach still ensures access to relevant PFAS data while cutting what it views as unnecessary or burdensome obligations. Administrator Zeldin described the proposal as a straightforward correction to a rule that, in his view, would have placed “crushing” and “ridiculous” demands on manufacturers.

Why Businesses Are Applauding the Changes

For companies that manufacture or import PFAS or PFAS-containing products, the proposal is a noticeable shift in tone compared to the more expansive 2023 requirements. Industry groups have long argued that many companies were being asked to provide data they did not have and could not reasonably obtain, especially for older imported articles or complex supply chains. The new exemptions for low-concentration PFAS and imported articles directly address those pain points.

Businesses are also encouraged by EPA’s acknowledgment of technical difficulties that arose during the early implementation of the 2023 rule. The agency faced significant IT challenges, including system failures and delays, that complicated the reporting process for manufacturers attempting to comply. EPA says the proposed revisions reflect lessons learned and are intended to prevent those issues from resurfacing.

In short, many in the manufacturing and importing community see the proposal as a step toward a more predictable, manageable regulatory environment. Reducing costs while keeping reporting requirements focused on the most relevant data is likely to win broad industry support.

Why Some Public Health and Environmental Advocates Are Concerned

While the proposal has been welcomed by businesses, some environmental groups and PFAS-affected communities are already expressing caution. PFAS compounds are persistent, bioaccumulative, and linked to various health risks, which makes comprehensive tracking and data collection a core priority for many public health advocates. Critics worry that scaling back reporting requirements could mean gaps in understanding where PFAS are used, how they move through supply chains, and where exposure risks may still exist.

One point of concern is the proposed exemption for PFAS present at or below 0.1 percent in products or mixtures. Some advocates argue that low concentrations can still contribute to cumulative environmental loading when products are disposed of or degraded. Others question the exemption for imported articles, noting that imports have been a major source of unreported PFAS in the past.

Skeptics also point to the larger context of federal PFAS regulation. While EPA has made significant progress through drinking water standards, cleanup designations, and research initiatives, the regulatory landscape remains fragmented. Any reduction in data collection could limit the agency’s ability to identify emerging PFAS uses or evaluate long-term risks, critics argue.

The tension ultimately comes down to a common question in environmental regulation: how to balance the need for clear, actionable information with the realities of compliance cost and complexity. PFAS chemistry is notoriously broad, and thousands of compounds are used across industries. A reporting rule that is too narrow might miss critical data, but one that is too broad may overwhelm both regulators and the businesses they oversee.

The Road Ahead

Nothing in the proposal is final yet. EPA will accept public comments and could revise the rule further based on feedback from industry representatives, environmental organizations, state regulators, and community groups. The final rule will likely reflect a mix of those perspectives as EPA tries to reconcile the competing priorities.

For now, the proposed changes signal a shift toward a more targeted approach to PFAS reporting, emphasizing practicality and cost reduction while aiming to preserve the flow of essential safety information. Whether that balance satisfies both industry and public health groups will become clearer as the debate unfolds.

The conversation around PFAS is far from over. The stakes are high for manufacturers navigating complex supply chains and for communities seeking greater transparency about chemicals in their environment. EPA’s new proposal steps directly into that tension and invites another round of discussion about how best to regulate a class of chemicals that remains both widely used and deeply scrutinized.