Fourth Circuit to Review West Virginia Dye Ban Injunction

/in ,

The Fourth Circuit will decide whether a lower court properly paused enforcement of a West Virginia law banning certain FDA-approved synthetic color additives over concerns the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

The case arises from a 2025 West Virginia law designating seven color additives as “poisonous and injurious” and prohibiting their use in school nutrition programs—including six additives currently approved by FDA for use in food, drugs, or cosmetics.

On December 23, 2025, the Southern District of West Virginia issued a preliminary injunction, agreeing with a color additive trade association that identifying FDA-approved additives as “poisonous and injurious” rendered the law’s requirements unclear.

“[T]he inclusion of a list of FDA-approved color additives muddies the water and creates confusion as to what substances now constitute ‘poisonous and injurious,’” the court wrote.  Food additive makers “cannot predict what substances may be considered ‘poisonous and injurious’ when such a slim explanation exists for the named color additives,” leaving the door open for arbitrary enforcement, the opinion continues.

The court further emphasized that, because FDA has not determined six of the seven listed additives to be unsafe, “it is imperative that West Virginia define and, thereby, give necessary notice and guidance as to what constitutes ‘poisonous and injurious.’”

The trade association’s additional claims—that the statute constitutes an unconstitutional bill of attainder and violates the Equal Protection Clause—were rejected.  West Virginia officials filed a notice of appeal on January 22, 2026.

Although West Virginia has long barred the sale of adulterated food, including food containing ingredients deemed “poisonous or injurious to health,” it had not previously identified specific substances as meeting that undefined statutory standard.

Contested Additives

The seven color additives named by the statute are FD&C Blue No. 1, FD&C Blue No. 2, FD&C Green No. 3, FD&C Red No. 3, FD&C Red No. 40, FD&C Yellow No. 5, and FD&C Yellow No. 6.  FDA has revoked authorization for FD&C Red No. 3 in food and ingested drugs, effective January 2027.  Only the six additives that remain FDA-approved are at issue in the litigation.

H.B. 2354 also names two preservatives, butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and propylparaben.  This month, FDA launched a reassessment of BHA’s safety, publishing a request for information on the use and safety of the substance.  BHA is currently listed as generally recognized as safe (GRAS).

The appellants, West Virginia officials from the Department of Health and Bureau for Health, must file their opening brief by March 4.  The trade association’s response is due April 3.

The case is International Association of Color Manufacturers v. Singh, No. 26-1085 (4th Cir.), appeal filed January 22, 2026.  The underlying case, No. 25-cv-588 (S.D. W. Va.), was filed October 10, 2025.

Court Enjoins Oregon Packaging EPR Law in NAW Challenge

/in ,

On February 6, 2026, the Oregon District Court granted a preliminary injunction in a challenge to Oregon’s packaging extended producer responsibility (EPR) scheme while dismissing other claims without prejudice.

The one-paragraph order bases the injunction on the plaintiff’s dormant Commerce Clause and due process claims.  Those claims allege that the scheme unduly restricts interstate commerce and delegates unprecedented regulatory authority to a producer responsibility organization (PRO).

“Serious questions go to the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, there is a likelihood of irreparable injury, and the balance of hardships tips sharply in favor of Plaintiff,” the court wrote.  “The Court therefore enjoins Defendant Leah Feldon from enforcing the Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act against Plaintiff National Association of Wholesale Distributors [(NAW)] and its members.”

The court dismissed NAW’s remaining claims, including its equal protection claim, unconstitutional conditions claim, and claims brought under the Oregon Constitution.  It also dismissed all claims against four Oregon officials, which the state argued were barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

NAW has until February 20, 2026, to replead the dismissed claims.  In a separate docket entry, the court set a five-day court trial to begin July 13, 2026.

The case is National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon, 25-cv-1334 (D. Or.), filed July 30, 2025.  A prior post discussing the motion for a preliminary injunction and motion to dismiss is available here.

New Mexico Lawmaker Calls for Review of PFAS Exemptions

/in , ,

Ahead of the Environmental Improvement Board’s (EIB’s) February 23 rulemaking hearing on regulations to implement New Mexico’s PFAS Protection Act, a New Mexico lawmaker has introduced legislation that could prompt renewed scrutiny of the statute’s product exemptions, including the exemption for fluoropolymers.

Introduced on January 29, 2026, House Joint Memorial 3 (HJM 3) would direct the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) to develop a report on the implementation of the PFAS Protection Act, including the “efficacy” of rules promulgated by EIB.  NMED would also be required to assess the health, environmental, and economic risks associated with the act’s exemptions and provide recommendations “regarding whether such exemptions, such as the exemption for fluoropolymers, should be continued, modified or removed.”

HJM 3 characterizes the exemptions as having been adopted “based on limited scientific literature regarding chemical degradation, environmental mobility and persistence, potential human health pathways and possible health effects.”  The memorial specifically calls for additional research into “the toxicological profiles, exposure risks and public health implications of fluoropolymers.”

This legislative development comes less than a year before product phaseouts and reporting requirements take effect on January 1, 2027—as well as controversial PFAS labeling requirements proposed by NMED that would apply to nearly all products, including those exempted from prohibition and reporting requirements by the statute.

The PFAS Protection Act provides that EIB “may…adopt rules to carry out” the act’s provisions, “including requiring the labeling of products in English and Spanish.”  HJM 3, however, states that the PFAS Protection Act “requires” PFAS labeling, “including [for] products exempted from the phaseout and prohibition.”  The memorial further asserts that the statute does not exempt “products from other aspects of [EIB’s] authority” beyond phaseout and prohibition.

Revised Labeling Provisions in NMED’s Proposed Rule

Labeling remains a central component of NMED’s proposed rule to implement the PFAS Protection Act.  NMED petitioned the EIB to adopt the rule in October 2025, and the proposal is the subject of the February hearing.

On January 16, 2026, in response to comments, NMED released a revised proposal with several notable changes to the labeling requirements.

First, the revised proposal would exempt the following products from labeling requirements:

  • Products for which labeling requirements are preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),
  • Veterinary products and the packaging of veterinary products regulated by FDA, and
  • Medical devices, drugs, and the packaging of medical devices and drugs regulated by FDA.

Each of these product categories falls within exemptions included in the PFAS Protection Act.  However, the revised proposal does not extend labeling exemptions to other product categories that are exempt from prohibition or reporting requirements under the statute.

Second, the revised proposal eliminates the requirement that labels use “words and symbols approved by the department.”  Instead, the proposal would permit the following statements: “This product is made with PFAS,” “Made with PFAS,” or “Contains PFAS.”

NMED previously released draft labels containing health and environmental statements about PFAS.  While those labels may no longer be required, the proposal would still require product packaging to include a link to a New Mexico PFAS webpage, which currently makes health and environmental statements about PFAS as a class.

Third, the revised proposal adjusts the scope of the January 1, 2027, labeling effective date, allowing the continued sale and distribution of unlabeled products manufactured before that date.

Finally, the revised proposal clarifies the process for seeking waivers from labeling obligations and establishes associated fees.  The prerequisites for obtaining a waiver remain unchanged: for NMED to grant a waiver request, a product must be exempt from prohibition or reporting requirements and “none of the product’s material containing intentionally added [PFAS] will ever come into direct contact with a customer while the product is being used as intended during the useful life of the product.”

The EIB docket for the rulemaking can be found here.

Tennessee Bill Targets “Forever Chemicals” in Food

/in , ,

Tennessee lawmakers have introduced legislation that would prohibit the sale of food containing PFAS beginning July 1, 2026, “unless the food is labeled as containing forever chemicals and discloses the known or possible health effects of the chemical.”

The legislation defines a “forever chemical” as a PFAS, described as a “group of man-made synthetic chemicals, including, but not limited to,” PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, and HFPO-DA, better known by the trade name GenX.  Tennessee’s definition of “food” is the same used by the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA), encompassing articles used for food or drink, chewing gum, and components of such articles.

SB 1818 and HB 1746 were introduced January 20, 2026.  The House bill has since been assigned to the Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee.

Washington State Expands PFAS Restrictions

/in ,

Last month, a Washington State Department of Ecology rule expanding the state’s restrictions on PFAS took effect.  The rule adds three new product categories subject to prohibition and imposes new reporting requirements for manufacturers of nine additional categories.

Beginning January 1, 2027, the manufacture or sale of the following products containing intentionally added PFAS will be prohibited in Washington:

  • Apparel and accessories
  • Automotive washes
  • Cleaning products

The rule includes a sell-through provision allowing the continued sale and distribution of products produced prior to the prohibition’s effective date.

Manufacturers of certain products containing intentionally added PFAS will also be subject to new reporting obligations.  By January 31, 2027, and annually thereafter, manufacturers of the following products must submit a notification to the Department of Ecology:

  • Apparel intended for extreme and extended use
  • Footwear
  • Gear for recreation and travel
  • Automotive waxes
  • Cookware and kitchen supplies
  • Firefighting PPE
  • Floor waxes and polishes
  • Hard surface sealers
  • Ski waxes

Pursuant to WAC 173-337-060, the notification must include the name and CAS number of each intentionally added PFAS, the applicable product category and component, a description of the PFAS function, the concentration range, contact information, and any other information the reporting party deems relevant to appropriate product use.

The rule also establishes a rebuttable presumption that PFAS have been intentionally added when total fluorine is detected above 50 parts per million in the newly regulated product categories.  This represents a departure from earlier PFAS restrictions, under which the detection of any total fluorine was sufficient to trigger the presumption.

Existing Restrictions

The rule was promulgated under Washington’s Toxic Pollution Law, which is implemented by the Safer Products for Washington program.  Through the program, the Department of Ecology prioritizes chemicals, identifies products, and conducts rulemakings to prohibit or otherwise restrict their manufacture or sale.

A previous round of PFAS prohibitions, which took effect in 2025, applied to aftermarket stain- and water resistance treatments and to carpets and rugs.  The department also prohibited intentionally added PFAS in indoor leather and textile furniture and furnishings beginning in 2026, while imposing annual reporting requirements for outdoor leather and textile furniture and furnishings starting in 2025.

Other products subject to restrictions or reporting requirements under the program include ortho-phthalates in vinyl flooring and personal care product fragrances, organohalogen flame retardants in electric and electronic products, flame retardants in recreational polyurethane foam, and phenolic compounds in laundry detergent, food and drink can linings, and thermal paper.

Additional information on Washington’s PFAS rule can be found on the department’s website.

 

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.

Update – January 18, 2026

On January 12, 2026, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed SB 1042 into law.

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 has proposed to require labeling on all products containing intentionally added PFAS that are sold or distributed in the state.  More information on New Mexico’s proposed rule 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.