New Mexico to Hold Hearing on PFAS in Products Rulemaking

/in , ,

Beginning February 23, 2026, at 9am MT, the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) will hold a hybrid public hearing to consider the adoption of a proposed rule to implement the state’s PFAS in products law.  EIB is currently accepting public comments in advance of the hearing.

A previous post addressed the proposal’s novel PFAS labeling requirements, which would apply to all products with intentionally added PFAS beginning January 1, 2027.  In addition to labeling, the proposed rule implements statutory product prohibitions, establishes manufacturer reporting obligations, and outlines the process for manufacturers to obtain “currently unavoidable use” (CUU) designations from the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED).

Much of the proposed rule closely tracks the underlying statute, HB 212.  However, the statute merely authorized—rather than required—labeling requirements, and left the CUU framework unspecified.  The proposed rule fills in those gaps.

Product Bans

The proposed rule implements HB 212’s phased-in product bans.  Beginning January 1, 2027, New Mexico will prohibit the sale of the following products with intentionally added PFAS:

  • Cookware
  • Food packaging
  • Dental floss
  • Juvenile products
  • Firefighting foam

On January 1, 2028, the prohibition will expand to include:

  • Carpets or rugs
  • Fabric treatments
  • Feminine hygiene products
  • Textiles
  • Textile furnishings
  • Ski wax
  • Upholstered furniture

Finally, beginning in 2032, the prohibition will apply to all products except:

  • Products exempt from regulation under HB 212 (such as used products, medical devices, and veterinary products); and
  • Uses that EIB designates as CUUs.

Although HB 212 authorizes the EIB to add additional product categories to the 2027 and 2028 bans, the proposed rule limits prohibitions to those required by the statute.

Manufacturer Reporting Requirements

On or before January 1, 2027, HB 212 requires manufacturers that sell products containing intentionally added PFAS to submit the following information to NMED:

  • A brief description of the product;
  • The purpose of the PFAS in the product;
  • The amount of each PFAS in the product by exact quantity or concentration range;
  • Manufacturer and contact information; and
  • Any other information requested by NMED.

Manufacturers must update their submissions within 30 days of a significant change.  The proposed rule defines “significant change” as the intentional addition of a new PFAS, a 10% or greater increase in the concentration of PFAS, or a change in responsible official or contact information.

The proposed rule sets a fee of $2,500 for the initial report and $1,000 for each subsequent significant change report, with fees adjusted for inflation.  It also establishes procedures for requesting reporting deadline extensions or waivers where substantially equivalent information is already publicly available.

Under HB 212, reporting obligations do not apply to products that are statutorily exempt or that have received a CUU designation.

Currently Unavailable Uses (CUUs)

To avoid prohibition of a product containing intentionally added PFAS, the proposed rule would allow a manufacturer—or a group of manufacturers—to submit a proposal to NMED requesting a CUU designation.  A separate proposal would be required for each individual combination of product category and associated industrial sector.

CUU proposals would generally be due at least 12 months before the effective date of the applicable sales prohibition.  For products subject to the January 1, 2027 prohibition, however, CUU proposals submitted by October 31, 2026 would be deemed approved pending NMED review.

The proposed rule would require that CUU proposals include:

  • Identification of the specific PFAS intentionally added to the product;
  • A brief description of the product;
  • An explanation of why the PFAS use “is essential for health, safety or the functioning of society”;
  • A description of how the PFAS is essential to the product’s function;
  • A description of whether alternatives for the specific use of PFAS are available;
  • A list of applicable federal and state regulations governing the product due to its intentional use of PFAS, including any sales prohibitions;
  • If the product is prohibited or lacks a CUU determination in another jurisdiction, a list of comparable products that remain on the market in that jurisdiction;
  • Where similar products are available despite a comparable prohibition, a justification for why those products are not reasonably available alternatives or documentation demonstrating that they would not perform as intended in New Mexico;
  • Contact information; and
  • Any known or reasonably ascertainable information regarding the human health or environmental impacts of PFAS in the product.

Most of these categories include additional, detailed information requests.  For example, when identifying comparable regulatory programs in other jurisdictions, submitters must specify whether the prohibition is absolute or includes a CUU-like process and, if so, whether the submitter has applied under that program and the status of the application.

CUU designations would expire three years after approval unless a manufacturer submits a new CUU proposal.  The proposed rule establishes a $5,000 fee for an initial CUU application and a $2,500 fee for renewals, with fees adjusted for inflation.

For CUU proposals related to the 2027 prohibitions, NMED would issue final determinations by March 1, 2027.  A list of approved CUUs would be made available on NMED’s website.

Testing and Enforcement

HB 212 authorizes NMED to require manufacturers to test products if the department has reason to believe that a product contains intentionally added PFAS.  The proposed rule sets a threshold for PFAS of 100 parts per million (ppm).  If test results exceed that threshold, the manufacturer would be required to submit an initial report and, if the product is prohibited, notify distributors and retailers.

Manufacturers that violate HB 212 or its implementing regulations may be subject to civil penalties of up to $15,000.  NMED may also assess administrative costs incurred in enforcing the statute and rules for each day a violation occurs.

More information about HB 212, also known as the PFAS Protection Act, is available on NMED’s website.

New Jersey PFAS in Products Bill Awaits Governor’s Signature

/in , ,

On December 22, 2025, New Jersey’s legislature passed SB 1042, which would restrict the use of intentionally added PFAS in cosmetics, carpet treatments, and food packaging, and impose additional labeling requirements for cookware.  If signed into law, New Jersey would join over a dozen states that have adopted similar restrictions.

The bill employs a familiar definition of PFAS: “any member of the class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.”

Product Bans and Labeling Requirements

Two years after enactment, SB 1042 would ban the sale of the following products with intentionally added PFAS:

  • Cosmetics
  • Carpet or fabric treatments
  • Food packaging

In addition, two years after enactment, SB 1042 would require that cookware containing intentionally added PFAS in a handle or food contact surface include the statement “This product contains PFAS” on its product label.  This statement would be required in both English and Spanish and on online listings.

The bill provides the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety’s Division of Consumer Affairs significant enforcement authority, including civil penalties of up to $20,000 per day per violation and the ability to conduct random audits to ensure manufacturer compliance.

Exceptions and Exclusions

The bill includes several exemptions that may reduce compliance burdens for manufacturers:

  • Trace quantities: Intentionally added PFAS does not include “a technically unavoidable trace quantity of PFAS which stems from impurities of natural or synthetic ingredients or the manufacturing process, storage, or migration from packaging of the product or product component.”
  • Cosmetics: The prohibition does not extend to electronic components or internal components of cosmetic products.
  • Cookware: Products intended solely for commercial use are exempt. Cookware is also exempt from labeling if its surface area cannot accommodate a label of at least two square inches and it lacks an exterior container, wrapper, or tag.

Unlike some state-level PFAS legislation, SB 1042 does not establish specific limits on the amount of total organic fluorine in covered products.

Other Provisions

The bill directs the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to:

  • Conduct PFAS research and environmental monitoring
  • Recommend additional product bans
  • Operate a source reduction program

The legislation appropriates $4.5 million for NJDEP to carry out these objectives.  NJDEP would be required to submit annual reports starting two years after enactment to summarize its findings.

More on SB 1042, known as the “Protecting Against Forever Chemicals Act,” can be found on the New Jersey Legislature’s website.

Oregon Defends Packaging EPR Program, Argues Court Lacks Jurisdiction

/in ,

Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) officials are asking a federal court to dismiss a challenge to the state’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) law and implementing regulations, arguing that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

The motion to dismiss, filed December 22, 2025, comes after the plaintiff, the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW), asked the District Court for the District of Oregon to halt the program on November 24, 2025.

According to the defendants, the Eleventh Amendment bars NAW from bringing suit against EQC officials.  While an exception to sovereign immunity exists for suits seeking prospective injunctive relief, the defendants contend that the named officials do not fall within the exception because they do not directly enforce the law.

“Absent allegations that EQC has an enforcement role or is continuously engaging in some activity that violates federal law, Plaintiff has not and cannot establish that the Ex parte Young exception should apply to the EQC Defendants,” the motion reads.

Enforcement authority, the defendants contend, rests with Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), while EQC’s role is limited to promulgating administrative rules that “guide DEQ in its…administration” of the program.  Although both EQC and DEQ were named in NAW’s original complaint, the association removed the agencies as defendants in an amended complaint filed October 27, 2025.

The defendants also argue that the Eleventh Amendment precludes NAW’s state-law claims from being heard in federal court.

Oregon’s packaging EPR program, which launched July 1, 2025, is the first such program to take effect nationwide.  Many of its obligations are currently fulfilled by a single producer responsibility organization (PRO), Circular Action Alliance (CAA), though DEQ is authorized to approve additional PROs.

Last month, the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy called for the federal government to preempt the program, citing concerns about interference with interstate commerce, the state’s delegation of authority to CAA, and the confidential methodologies used by CAA to calculate producer fees.

Merits Arguments

NAW raises similar concerns in its amended complaint, arguing that the program “produces unreasonable, arbitrary, and crushing burdens, including on wholesalers and distributors who are essential to moving products from manufacturers to Oregon consumers,” in part due to the delegation of  “essential regulatory authority to a private, third-party organization.”  CAA “has been granted wide discretion to apply a confidential methodology for setting fees, to establish other criteria and incentives for certain producers, and to penalize producers of certain materials,” NAW contends.

NAW alleges several constitutional violations.  After contesting the court’s jurisdiction, the defendants’ motion to dismiss addresses each, arguing that all fail to state a plausible claim for relief.

First, the motion challenges NAW’s dormant Commerce Clause claim, asserting that the program does not discriminate against interstate commerce.  “Increased compliance costs, even if borne largely by out-of-state businesses, do not amount to discrimination,” the defendants argue.  Nor, they add, does the program “establish a substantial or an excessive burden on interstate commerce, regardless of whether it is compared to the putative local interests.”

The defendants also contend that the program does not have impermissible extraterritorial effects because it “does not force any producer to make any product or packaging design, sourcing, or distribution decisions.”

The motion next addresses NAW’s unconstitutional conditions claim, which alleged that producers are compelled to surrender “freedom of contract and due process protections” when joining CAA.  In response, the defendants note that the law allows NAW’s members to form their own PRO, arguing that participation in CAA is a matter of choice.

NAW further argues that delegating fee-setting authority to CAA violates its members’ procedural due process rights.  The defendants counter by pointing to statutory safeguards that provide “opportunity for public input and continuing DEQ oversight” of the fees program.  These include DEQ approval of PRO program plans and fee methodologies, as well as annual reporting requirements.

Finally, the motion argues that Oregon has a rational basis for exempting small producers and does not unlawfully discriminate between mid-sized and large producers, rebutting NAW’s equal protection claim.

The case is National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon, 25-cv-1334 (D. Or.), filed July 30, 2025.

Connecticut Releases Approved PFAS Label Language

/in , ,

On December 1, 2025, the commissioner of Connecticut’s Department of Energy & Environmental Protection (DEEP) issued an order approving the following phrases that satisfy the state’s PFAS labeling requirements.  The approved language includes:

  • Contains PFAS
  • Made with PFAS
  • Made with PFAS chemicals
  • Made with intentionally added PFAS
  • This product contains PFAS chemicals

Manufacturers or producers can petition DEEP to approve other words or symbols.  Petitions must be submitted via email to DEEP.PFASInProduct@ct.gov.  Emails should include the proposed words or symbols, as well as the petitioner’s name, title, email address, and telephone number.

The order states that DEEP will publish and maintain an updated list of all approved labeling language on its PFAS in Products website.

Labeling Requirements

Beginning July 1, 2026, no person may sell or distribute certain products in Connecticut that contain intentionally-added PFAS unless the products include the required labeling disclosures.  A complete list of covered product categories can be found in a previous post.

Labeling is the responsibility of the manufacturer unless the wholesaler or retailer agrees to accept responsibility for their application.  Labels must:

  • Be clearly visible prior to sale
  • Use words or symbols approved by DEEP
  • Be sufficiently durable to remain legible for the product’s useful life

If a covered product is incorporated as a component of another product, the final product containing the component must be labeled.

Connecticut is not the only state that will soon impose PFAS labeling requirements.  Effective January 1, 2027, New Mexico will require labeling on all products containing intentionally added PFAS that are sold or distributed in the state.  More information on New Mexico’s requirements can be found here.

Final PFAS Reporting Requirements Set in Minnesota

/in ,

On December 8, 2025, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) adopted a final rule governing manufacturer reporting on intentionally added PFAS in products, ahead of the July 1, 2026 deadline for initial submissions.  The rule outlines what manufacturers must report, how reports must be submitted, and the conditions under which waivers or extensions may be granted.

Initial Reporting Requirements

A manufacturer or group of manufacturers of new products sold or distributed in the Minnesota that contain intentionally added PFAS must submit an initial report to MPCA by July 1, 2026.  Each report must include:

  • A description of the product or a description of the category or type of product.
  • The PFAS chemicals used in the product or its components.
  • The concentration range of PFAS chemicals in a product or components of a product made up of homogenous material.
  • The function that each PFAS chemical provides to the product or its components.
  • Manufacturer information.
  • Contact information.

A flat $800 fee must accompany each initial report. Manufacturers may request trade secret protection for chemical identities, identifying numbers, and certain supply-chain information.  On its website, MPCA says that reported information that is not trade secret will be disclosed to the public.

All manufacturers must​ assume responsibility to report unless manufacturers in the same supply chain enter into an​ agreement to establish their respective reporting responsibilities.  To meet due diligence requirements, manufacturers must “request detailed disclosure of information…from their supply​ chain until all required information is known.”  Manufacturers must maintain documentation of all communication with other manufacturers regarding PFAS reporting compliance and reporting responsibility agreements and provide it to MPCA upon request.

MPCA may grant waiver requests for all or part of the required information upon request if substantially equivalent information is publicly available.  Extension requests must be submitted at least 30 days before the deadline.  Reports will be filed through MPCA’s PFAS Reporting and Information System for Manufacturers (PRISM), which MPCA plans to soft-launch to selected manufacturers this month and release in full in January 2026.

Changes from the Proposal

After two public comment periods and an administrative law judge’s review, the final rule incorporates several adjustments, including:

  • Clarifying that manufacturers must submit a single initial report, not individual reports for each product or component.
  • Reducing the reporting fee from $1,000 to $800, and clarifying that only one fee be submitted per initial report, rather than a fee for each reported product or component.
  • Removing language that would have allowed MPCA to deny a waiver request based on the burden of accessing publicly available information.
  • Limiting manufacturers to one extension of the reporting deadline.

The final rule also makes several key changes to subsequent reporting requirements after the initial report, including:

  • Requiring that manufacturers of new products containing intentionally added PFAS report by February 1 of the following year, rather than prior to sale or distribution in the state.
  • Removing the requirement that manufacturers annually recertify their report. Now, manufacturers must only submit an update by February 1 of the following year if a significant change was made to a product, new product information was provided to a manufacturer, or a new product was sold or distributed in the state during the previous year.
  • Removing the option for manufacturers to voluntarily update their report whenever a PFAS is reduced or eliminated from a product or component.
  • Eliminating the fee for annual updates.

The Minnesota Register notice for the rule, including MPCA’s explanation of changes, can be found here.

MPCA is in the process of developing a separate rule establishing a process for currently unavoidable use (CUU) determinations.  More information on Minnesota’s PFAS in products program can be found on the agency’s website.

Prop 65 Updates: New MFH Listing and BPS Developmental Toxicity Endpoint Added

/in , ,

On December 5, 2025, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced the addition of N-methyl-N-formylhydrazine (MFH) to the Prop 65 list as a carcinogen.  On the same day, OEHHA also announced that it is adding the developmental toxicity endpoint to the listing for bisphenol S (BPS).  Both listings took effect December 8, 2025.

MFH (CAS RN 758-17-8)

MFH was added to the Prop 65 list via the “state’s qualified experts” mechanism following a November 18, 2025, determination by the Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC).  The warning requirement for significant exposures to MFH will take effect one year after its listing, on December 8, 2026.

According to an August 2025 OEHHA document describing the evidence of MFH’s carcinogenicity, MFH is naturally occurring in edible Gyromitra mushrooms.  MFH is also used in the production of marbofloxacin (an antibacterial agent used in veterinary medicine) and for research purposes.

BPS (CAS RN 80-09-1)

The developmental toxicity endpoint for BPS was also added via the state’s qualified experts mechanism after an October 9, 2025, meeting by the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DRTIC).  OEHHA’s evidence document for BPS’s developmental toxicity can be found here.

BPS has been included on the Prop 65 list since December 2023, when it was listed for female reproductive toxicity.  The warning requirement for significant exposures to BPS took effect in 2024.  In January 2025, OEHHA also added the male reproductive toxicity endpoint for BPS.

OEHHA has not established a maximum allowable dose level (MADL) safe harbor for BPS (under which a warning is not required).  As of the date of this post, private enforcers have sent over nine hundred 60-day notices to companies, alleging that customers may be receiving significant exposures to BPS from receipt papers without warning.

In recent out-of-court settlements, including an October 2025 settlement with Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc., companies have committed to using “BPS free” thermal receipt paper.  In these settlements, BPS free is typically defined as less than 100 or 200 parts per million BPS and no intentionally added BPS, with some agreements also requiring no intentionally added bisphenol A (BPA).

The complete, updated Prop 65 list can be found here.

SBA Calls for Federal Scrutiny of State EPR Laws

/in , ,

In comments submitted October 30, 2025, the Small Business Administration’s (SBA’s) Office of Advocacy is calling for the federal government to take action against state extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs “as barriers to interstate commerce.”

SBA’s comments are part of a larger document submitted in response to an August 2025 Department of Justice (DOJ) request for information on state laws that may adversely affect the national economy.  The agency highlights EPR programs’ fees and complexity, which SBA argues disproportionately burden small businesses.

Oregon’s EPR Program

SBA directs much of its criticism on Oregon’s EPR program for packaging, paper, and serviceware, which it describes as especially burdensome.

The law’s broad definition of “producers,” which includes wholesalers and distributors, affects businesses “who have no control over packaging design,” SBA writes.  In addition, while many state EPR laws require producers to join a producer responsibility organization (PRO) that collects fees and administers the program, SBA contends that Oregon’s PRO structure is monopolistic.

“Unlike traditional EPR programs that target specific products with transparent fees, Oregon’s system delegates vast regulatory authority to a single private entity, the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), which operates with a confidential fee methodology and minimal oversight,” the comments state.

SBA’s recommendations extend beyond Oregon, however.  The agency advocates for EPR laws to be struck down, calls for a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigation into whether PRO fees violate federal antitrust laws, and urges greater fee transparency and state oversight.

“Most importantly, other states should avoid Oregon’s model of delegating broad regulatory power to private monopolistic entities without adequate procedural protections,” SBA writes.  “Future EPR legislation should maintain direct state oversight, provide competitive alternatives to single PROs, and ensure that compliance costs are proportionate to businesses’ actual control over packaging decisions and ability to bear regulatory burdens.”

Addressing State Inconsistencies

Other commenters echoed concerns about the economic impacts of EPR laws, emphasizing inconsistencies among state programs.  The American Chemistry Council (ACC), the American Institute for Packaging and the Environment (AMERIPEN), and the National Restaurant Association all cited conflicting definitions, requirements, and program structures as drivers of cost and compliance challenges.

Notably, in its September 15 comments, ACC suggested that a federal EPR program may be the solution to these difficulties.  “EPA could establish a federal framework that promotes a common approach to EPR and recycling,” ACC stated.  “Setting common definitions, metrics, and data collection standards, could support compliance and stimulate the domestic economy.”

ACC also urged federal preemption of other state chemical restrictions, including PFAS laws and California’s Proposition 65.

The docket for DOJ’s request for information is available here.

DTSC Releases Microplastics Background Document Ahead of December Workshop

/in , , , ,

This month, California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) released a public background document summarizing its research on products that contain or generate microplastics.  DTSC is requesting comment on the specific product categories evaluated in the document through January 16, 2026.  The department will also hold a virtual workshop to receive public input on December 11, 2025, at 9:30am PT.

Background

The background document and workshop are part of DTSC’s rulemaking to add microplastics to the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) program candidate chemicals list.  As discussed previously, adding microplastics to the list would not itself create new regulatory requirements, but it would allow DTSC to pursue restrictions in specific products that contain or generate microplastics in the future.

According to DTSC, the background document is part of its “external engagement process, which helps us decide whether to conduct additional research or potentially list one or more products that contain or have the potential to generate microplastics as Priority Products.”  The department also notes that, based on its evaluation, it is “concerned about the potential for adverse impacts from exposure to microplastics in consumer products frequently used by the general public, workers, and children.”

Evaluated Product Categories

DTSC outlines preliminary screening results for the following product categories:

  • Artificial turf infill
  • Children’s toys that contain primary microplastics
  • Cleaning products
    • Intentionally added polymers in laundry and dishwashing detergents
    • Polymeric fragrance microcapsules in laundry detergents and fabric softeners
    • Water-soluble polymers in laundry and dishwashing detergents pods
  • Food contact articles
    • Plastic baby feeding bottles
    • Plastic beverage bottles and caps
    • Plastic cling wraps and films
    • Plastic wrappers for snacks and candy
    • Polystyrene foam foodware
    • Single-use plastic tea bags
  • Plastic film mulch used in agriculture
  • Single-use cigarette filters made of cellulose acetate
  • Water-based interior wall paints

For each evaluated product category, DTSC describes the type of microplastics present (primary/secondary), the potential for exposure, potential alternatives, and relevant US and international regulations.  An appendix lists additional evaluated product categories that may be considered for further research.

These categories fall under DTSC’s current work plan product category of products that contain or generate microplastics, discussed in a previous post.

Requested Information

The background document identifies a number of data gaps for which DTSC seeks public input.  For example, regarding water-based interior wall paints, DTSC requests information on whether manufacturers are developing non-plastic alternatives to primary microplastics, obstacles to replacing them, whether alternatives can provide comparable performance, and which types of paint could feasibly transition away from microplastics while still meeting performance requirements.

Interested parties can submit comments trough DTSC’s CalSAFER portal.  As noted above, comments will be accepted through January 16, 2026.

Update – December 4, 2025

DTSC has announced that written comments on the background document will now be accepted through 11:59pm PT on January 30, 2026.

Massachusetts Introduces Comprehensive Children’s Product Chemicals Regulation Bill

/in , , ,

On November 10, 2025, a Massachusetts state senator introduced a bill that would create an extensive regulatory program to restrict the use of chemicals of concern—including PFAS—in children’s products sold in the state.

If enacted, SB 2660 would prohibit the use of intentionally added PFAS in children’s products above a total organic fluorine threshold set by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP).  It would also allow MassDEP to screen chemicals, identify priority substances, and require their disclosure and eventual substitution in children’s products.

Children’s products are broadly defined as items “intended, made or marketed for use by children 12 years of age or under,” including toys, clothing, cosmetics, and jewelry, with specific exemptions (e.g., electronics and bicycles).  The bill applies only to new products.  SB 2660 adopts a familiar definition of PFAS: “any member of the class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.”

Regulatory Structure

SB 2660 would require that MassDEP create two primary public lists of chemicals:

  1. Chemicals of concern in children’s products
  2. High priority chemicals

The chemicals of concern list would include a broad set of chemicals that may pose hazards in children’s products. Listing would trigger manufacturer reporting.

The high priority chemicals list would be a narrower subset of chemicals of concern, elevated based on evidence of exposure or other regulatory triggers.  Placement on this list would initiate stronger obligations, including substitution and, eventually, sale prohibitions.

Chemicals of Concern List & Requirements

A chemical may be placed on the chemicals of concern list if it is identified as:

  • A carcinogen or mutagen
  • Persistent or bio-accumulative and toxic (PBT)
  • An endocrine disruptor
  • A reproductive or developmental toxicant
  • A neurotoxicant
  • A respiratory or skin sensitizer
  • Any other chemical of equivalent concern

Within 180 days of listing, and biennially thereafter, manufacturers of children’s products containing a chemical of concern above de minimis levels would be required to notify MassDEP.  Notifications would be made available to the public, and would be required to include:

  • Chemical name
  • Product description
  • Brand, model, and UPC (if applicable)
  • Chemical function in the product
  • Amount of the chemical (ranges permitted)
  • Company and contact information
High Priority Chemicals List & Requirements

MassDEP would be allowed to elevate a chemical of concern to the high priority list if:

  • The chemical or its metabolites are found in humans through biomonitoring
  • The chemical is detected in household dust, indoor air, drinking water, or other home environments
  • The chemical is shown to release from a product, leading to likely exposure to children
  • The chemical or products containing it are restricted in another state

Manufacturers of children’s products containing a high priority chemical would be required to notify downstream sellers within 180 days of listing.

Within three years of listing, high priority chemicals would be required to be removed or substituted in children’s products that are (1) mouthable, (2) personal care products or cosmetics, or (3) intended for children under three.

Within five years, high priority chemicals would be prohibited in all children’s products unless preempted by federal law or if MassDEP determines that a ban would pose an unreasonable risk to public health, safety, or welfare.

Chemical Substitutions

SB 2660 also authorizes MassDEP to publish a safer alternatives list.  Manufacturers would be freely allowed substitute high priority chemicals with listed safer alternatives.

If a manufacturer chooses a substitute not on the safer alternatives list, MassDEP approval would be required.  Manufacturers would be required to explain how the product is less hazardous, and MassDEP may require submission of a hazard assessment.

Manufacturers may not replace a high priority chemical with a chemical of concern.

Exceptions and Extensions

SB 2660 includes several provisions to ease compliance:

  • MassDEP may grant temporary or permanent waivers from substitution requirements if exposure is not reasonably anticipated.
  • Manufacturers with 25 or fewer employees may apply for a two-year extension to the deadlines resulting from high priority listing.
  • MassDEP may not impose a lower allowable level than a federal consumer product safety standard unless it completes a rulemaking.
  • Additional exemptions may be established by regulation.
Enforcement and Other Provisions

MassDEP would have authority to adopt rules, test children’s products, and impose civil penalties of $5,000 per violation (or up to $10,000 for repeat violations).

Every three years, MassDEP would be required to publish a report on toxic chemicals in children’s products, including reporting outcomes and policy recommendations.

* * *

Verdant Law closely monitors state-level chemical regulatory bills like SB 2660, including the rapidly expanding wave of PFAS-focused legislation.  Our team is ready to help your company assess potential compliance obligations, stay ahead of emerging requirements, and prepare for potential impacts across product lines and supply chains.

Connecticut PFAS in Products Notifications and Labeling Requirements Will Take Effect in 2026

/in , ,

Manufacturers of many products containing intentionally added PFAS will soon be required to add PFAS labels and notify Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) before they can be made or sold in the state—some of the first such requirements in the country.

Connecticut’s PFAS in products legislation, codified at Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-903c, will also prohibit the use of intentionally added PFAS in these products beginning in 2028.

Like many other states, Connecticut broadly defines PFAS as “all members of the class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.”  However, Connecticut’s legislation does not allow for exclusions for currently unavoidable uses, which is typically included in state-level PFAS legislation.

Labeling and Disclosure Requirements

Beginning January 1, 2026, PFAS disclosure requirements apply to outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions and “turnout” gear, which is used for firefighting.  Outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions must be accompanied by a disclosure with the statement “Made with PFAS chemicals,” including for online listings.  For turnout gear, sellers must provide written notice to the purchaser at the time of sale that indicates that the gear includes intentionally added PFAS and the reason for its addition.

Beginning July 1, 2026, products containing intentionally added PFAS in the following product categories must be labeled, using words or symbols approved by DEEP, to indicate that PFAS is present in the product:

  • Apparel (excluding including outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions)
  • Carpets or rugs
  • Cleaning products
  • Cookware
  • Cosmetic products
  • Dental floss
  • Fabric treatments
  • Children’s products
  • Menstruation products
  • Textile furnishings
  • Ski wax
  • Upholstered furniture

DEEP has released a draft order that would approve the words “Contains PFAS” or “Made with PFAS” as acceptable label language.  Labels must be durable and clearly visible prior to sale.  Manufacturers are responsible for labeling unless a wholesaler or retailer agrees to assume that responsibility.

Unlike New Mexico’s PFAS labeling requirements, finalized by regulation last month and discussed in a previous post, Connecticut does not currently offer an option to comply by following another state’s labeling scheme.

Notification Requirements

Starting July 1, 2026, manufacturers may not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, or distribute in Connecticut any product containing intentionally added PFAS in the categories listed above unless they provide prior written notice to DEEP.

Each notification must include:

  • A brief description of the product, including the product category and the function of PFAS in the product
  • All relevant CAS numbers, or, if unavailable, the molecular formulas and weights for all intentionally added PFAS
  • For each product category:
    • The amount of each PFAS or subgroup
    • The range of PFAS present by percentage weight
    • If no analytical method exists, the amount of total fluorine present
    • The purpose for which the PFAS is used
    • The manufacturer’s name, address, and contact information

Manufacturers must update the notification whenever any information changes. They may also report by product category or type rather than for each individual product.

DEEP has released a draft notification form for manufacturers, available here.

Sales Prohibitions

Beginning January 1, 2028, Connecticut will prohibit the sale or distribution of products in the categories listed above—as well as outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions and turnout gear—if they contain intentionally added PFAS.

The only exception is for cosmetic products containing “unavoidable trace quantity of PFAS that is attributable to impurities of natural or synthetic ingredients, the manufacturing process, storage or migration from packaging.”

Onne prohibition is already in effect: fertilizers intended for land application or soil amendment that contain biosolids or wastewater sludge with PFAS may not be used or sold in Connecticut.

More on Connecticut’s actions to address PFAS in consumer products, food packaging, and food serviceware can be found on DEEP’s website.