Listen to this post

In February 2025, the United States Environmental Protection Agency announced it will delay the addition of nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) to its Toxics Release Inventory Report for the 2025 reporting year. “PFAS” is a term used to describe a diverse group of chemicals contained in many consumer products and industrial processes. The EPA’s announcement followed President Trump’s January 2025 memorandum “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” which, among other things, requested a 60-day postponement “to the effective date memorandum for any rules that have been published in the Federal Register, or any rules that have been issued in any manner but have not taken effect, so that the administration may review any questions of fact, law, and policy that the rules may raise.” Accordingly, impacted industries now have additional time to prepare for new PFAS reporting requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (“EPCRA”) and the Pollution Prevention Act (“PPA”) following the addition of nine PFAS chemicals to the Toxics Release Inventory (“TRI”).

Why Was the Delay Implemented?

The EPA implemented the delay without notice and public procedure under the good cause exceptions in
5 U.S.C § 553(b)(B) and (d)(3), citing the imminence of the effective dates. See 90 Fed. Reg. 9010 (Feb. 5, 2025). The postponement will extend the EPA’s time to review and consider the new regulations following Trump’s memorandum. The delay extends the effective date of the January 6, 2025, rule to March 21, 2025, giving impacted industries more time to assess and adapt to the new reporting requirements.

What Does the Delay Mean for PFAS Reporting?

On January 6, 2025, the EPA issued a final rule updating the list of chemicals subject to toxic chemical release reporting under the EPCRA and the PPA. See 90 Fed. Reg. 573 (Jan. 6, 2025). The rule added nine PFAS chemicals to the TRI, classified as “Chemicals of Special Concern” under
40 C.F.R. § 372.28, including them in 40 C.F.R. § 372.65, and establishing that impacted industries must report their use of these chemicals as part of their mandatory reporting requirements beginning with fiscal year 2025, due by July 1, 2026.

The chemicals added to the TRI include: ammonium perfluorodecanoate, sodium perfluorodecanoate, perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid, 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate acid,
6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate anion, 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate potassium salt, 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate ammonium salt, and 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate sodium salt.

Other Delayed Regulations

In addition to PFAS, the EPA has delayed the implementation of several other regulations, including the Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule and the Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals Rule. These regulations, which aim to require impacted industries to adapt to new standards for hazardous waste management, have been delayed to allow the chemical industry and related businesses additional time to assess their operations, conduct internal audits, and prepare for compliance. However, impacted industries should remain alert for any additional updates, extensions, or even cancellations in light of the new administrations’ evolving policy priorities and stated goal of reviewing any questions of fact, law, and policy that the EPA’s new PFAS reporting requirements may raise.

Conclusion

The EPA’s extension of the effective date for PFAS reporting offers impacted industries extra time to prepare for compliance. Industries affected by these changes should use this time to review their operations, consult with environmental experts, and remain alert for any further updates or extensions from the EPA.

Husch Blackwell LLP has experience working with clients to prepare for regulatory compliance with PFAS reporting requirements. Should you have any questions regarding these requirements, feel free to reach out to one of the authors of this article.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Audrey Allen Audrey Allen

Audrey focuses her legal practice on resolving mass toxic tort and product liability litigation for clients.

As a member of the firm’s Toxic Tort team, Audrey concentrates her practice on the defense of oil refineries and premises defendants involved in asbestos exposure claims

Audrey focuses her legal practice on resolving mass toxic tort and product liability litigation for clients.

As a member of the firm’s Toxic Tort team, Audrey concentrates her practice on the defense of oil refineries and premises defendants involved in asbestos exposure claims nationwide. She also focuses on products liability and complex commercial litigation matters. Audrey works closely with clients throughout all stages of litigation, including drafting motions and pleadings, completing discovery, taking and defending depositions, arguing motions and negotiating settlements. She is also experienced in analyzing and summarizing medical records and conducting research to retain experts.

Photo of James Battle James Battle

James chose to pursue a career as an attorney after working as a legal assistant and paralegal in mass torts and multi-district litigation. His experience in fast-paced environments, handling ESI and discovery, and participating in deposition and trial teams fueled his desire to…

James chose to pursue a career as an attorney after working as a legal assistant and paralegal in mass torts and multi-district litigation. His experience in fast-paced environments, handling ESI and discovery, and participating in deposition and trial teams fueled his desire to attend law school himself.

As a law student, James gained valuable experience as a student attorney in the Veterans Legal Clinic. Working with veterans and obtaining favorable outcomes on their behalf deepened his appreciation for the practical aspects of law and the importance of effective client counseling. His pre-law work experience as a visiting English teacher in France also emphasized the importance of effective communication, a skill he applies daily in his legal practice.

James chose to focus his practice on Mass Tort and Product Liability out of a passion for working with expert witnesses, developing case strategies, and seeing cases through to the end.

As a summer associate at Husch Blackwell, he gained experience drafting a fact witness deposition outline, participating in an accident site investigation, and contributing to various litigation and real estate matters.

Clients can expect James to be diligent, attentive to their business needs, and adept at solving complex legal problems. Known for his strong communication skills and thorough approach, James is committed to helping clients achieve their goals while navigating intricate legal landscapes.

Photo of Tim Larkin Tim Larkin

Tim is a toxic tort and product liability attorney passionate about the benefits the law provides. His practice focuses on the defense of complex, multi-party civil cases, including all aspects of product liability, consumer fraud and mass toxic tort. Tim sees the

Tim is a toxic tort and product liability attorney passionate about the benefits the law provides. His practice focuses on the defense of complex, multi-party civil cases, including all aspects of product liability, consumer fraud and mass toxic tort. Tim sees the law as a strategy game: his understanding of the science, medical issues, factual investigation and complexity of toxic tort claims help him craft legal arguments and plan the best defense possible for clients to achieve a successful resolution.

Photo of Dominique Savinelli Dominique Savinelli

Dominique litigates and advises on behalf of clients in the pharmaceutical, chemical and agribusiness industries in high-stakes toxic tort and product liability cases. She also manages expert teams for complex commercial and mass tort litigation.