U.S. Chamber Urges Senate to Block PFAS Reporting Resolution

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is pressing senators to reject S.J. Res. 187, a joint resolution that would strike down an EPA rule delaying the start of the PFAS reporting submission period under TSCA Section 8(a)(7).

The rule in question, finalized April 13, 2026, modifies the start of the submission period for Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Reporting and Recordkeeping (docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0549; FRL-7902.4-02-OCSPP). In a letter to members of the United States Senate, Marty Durbin, Senior Vice President for Policy at the Chamber and President of its Global Energy Institute, urged opposition to the disapproval resolution.

"This resolution would undermine practical implementation of a complex reporting rule and create unnecessary confusion for businesses seeking to comply in good faith," Durbin wrote.

The Chamber's argument rests on a straightforward operational claim: EPA's electronic reporting system is not ready. According to the letter, the agency has acknowledged that regulated entities need time, clear guidance, a functional reporting tool, and adequate testing before submitting data. The system, Durbin wrote, "has not been ready to process the volume, complexity, and confidentiality demands of the data that EPA seeks."

Forcing submissions before that system is tested, the Chamber argues, would produce three predictable outcomes: higher costs, lower data quality, and avoidable failures. The business group frames the extension to January 2027 as "a commonsense and rational approach to addressing these challenges."

The stakes for companies covered by the rule extend beyond timing. The letter warns that disapproving the EPA's modification would compel compliance under uncertain requirements before the agency finalizes revisions, updates and tests the reporting system, publishes guidance, and ensures confidential business information is protected.

The Chamber also makes the case on environmental grounds, arguing the resolution would be self-defeating even for lawmakers focused on PFAS oversight. "Disapproving EPA's timing modification would not improve environmental outcomes," Durbin wrote.

Instead, the letter calls on Congress to let EPA finish its work to make the PFAS reporting rule "more targeted, workable, and consistent with TSCA." The Chamber defines the standard for a durable program in practical terms: it should produce decision-useful data while minimizing unnecessary burdens and ensuring compliance is practically feasible. In the group's assessment, "S.J. Res. 187 would move regulation in the opposite direction."

The fight over S.J. Res. 187 is ultimately a fight over sequencing rather than substance. The Chamber is not opposing PFAS reporting itself; it is opposing a congressional intervention that would lock companies into deadlines tied to an unfinished reporting infrastructure. If senators side with the Chamber, companies gain breathing room until January 2027 while EPA completes system testing, guidance, and confidentiality safeguards. If the resolution advances, businesses face compliance obligations under rules the agency itself is still revising.