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.

Reminder: Upcoming New York Carpet EPR Deadlines

/in , ,

New York’s carpet extended producer responsibility (EPR) law will soon take effect, with important deadlines on the horizon for producers.  As discussed in a previous post, the law requires manufacturers to fund and manage the collection and recycling of post-consumer carpet sold in the state, while also phasing in recycled content minimums and a prohibition of PFAS in carpet products.  Oversight and enforcement will be carried out by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).

Here are the key deadlines producers should keep in mind:

  • Dec 31, 2025: Producer or representative organization plans due to NYSDEC (date set via 2023 chapter amendment).
  • July 1, 2026: Cannot sell carpet in NY unless participating in an approved plan; collection and recycling program begins.
  • Dec 31, 2026: PFAS-containing carpet ban takes effect.

Producers can find additional details on program implementation on NYSDEC’s Carpet Recycling page.  Specific information on the PFAS prohibition can be found in a previous post.

Colorado Proposes Amendments to EPR Regulations to Implement Eco-Modulation

/in , ,

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) has released a proposed rule to introduce eco-modulation—a system that lowers dues for producers who meet specific sustainability incentives under the state’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) program for packaging.

Under Colorado’s EPR program, producers of packaging and paper products will begin paying dues to a producer responsibility organization (PRO) in January 2026 and annually thereafter.  When CDPHE first adopted its implementing regulations in June 2024, it left the eco-modulation criteria undefined.  The new proposal fills in those details.

Like other state packaging EPR laws, Colorado’s program aims to shift recycling costs from taxpayers to producers.  Through a PRO, producers are responsible for expanding recycling access, increasing recycling rates, and funding the recycling system.

Eco-Modulation Benchmarks

The proposed rule establishes several voluntary benchmarks that allow producers to reduce their dues by achieving certain environmental performance goals:

  • On-package sorting criteria: Inclusion of sorting instructions and guidance directly on packaging.
  • Local end use: Use of materials that are on the state’s “minimum recyclable” list, contain at least 20% US-generated postconsumer-recycled content, and are utilized by an end-market business in Colorado.
  • Compostability: Use of a material that meets ASTM standards for compostability and complies with certain labeling requirements.
  • Case study: Development of a case study demonstrating measurable benefits to recyclability, waste reduction, or other environmental outcomes for a covered material.

Each benchmark achieved earns producers a 1% reduction in dues for each qualifying material.  Bonuses will be applied to 2027 invoices and all invoices thereafter, except the on-package sorting benchmark, which will only be available starting in 2029.

The proposal additionally provides a pathway for producers to dispute the final application of eco-modulation factors to their dues, and eliminates a requirement that producers “submit documents and records to the PRO if they believe they are exempt from covered material.”

According to CDPHE’s website, the public comment period for the rulemaking ended September 28, 2025.  However, the page states that the Solid & Hazardous Waste Commission is currently accepting comment, and “strongly encourages” that comments be submitted by November 7.  CDPHE will present the commission with its proposed amendments on November 18, 2025.

The statement of purpose accompanying the proposed rule can be found here.

New York to Ban PFAS in Carpet Beginning December 2026

/in , ,

A New York state law will ban the sale of carpet containing or treated with PFAS “for any purpose” starting December 31, 2026—following in the footsteps of other states, such as Colorado and Maryland, which have already forbid the intentional use of so-called “forever chemicals” in carpeting.

Like those states, the law broadly defines PFAS as “a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.”  The term “carpet” is also defined expansively, encompassing most manufactured articles that are:

  • Used by consumers;
  • Placed on walking surfaces (including outdoors); and
  • “Primarily constructed of a top surface of synthetic or natural face fibers or yarns or tufts attached to a backing system made of synthetic or natural materials.”

Handmade rugs, area rugs, and mats are excluded from the law’s scope.

The ban was originally set to take effect in 2024, but state lawmakers postponed its implementation in 2023.  To date, it does not appear that any New York lawmaker has proposed legislation to extend its effective date again, however.

This prohibition is part of New York’s broader carpet extended producer responsibility (EPR) framework.  As discussed in a recent post, the EPR program will require that carpet manufacturers fund a carpet collection program and phases-in post-consumer recycled content requirements.

According to a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) webpage, the agency is currently “in the preliminary stage of developing” regulations to implement the program and its associated requirements.

California Governor Blocks Bill Targeting Microbeads and Glitter

/in , ,

A California bill that sought to expand state restrictions on the use of small plastic particles known as microbeads in consumer products was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 11, 2025.

Beginning in 2029, AB 823 would have prohibited the sale of:

  • Personal care products containing plastic glitter.
  • Non-rinse-off personal care products that use microbeads as an abrasive to clean, exfoliate, or polish.
  • Cleaning products that use microbeads as an abrasive to clean, exfoliate, or polish.

Under the proposal, companies would have been permitted to sell their existing inventories of these products until 2030.

In his veto message, Newsom wrote:

“I support efforts to protect California’s waterways, ecosystems, and public health from the real and significant harms caused by the prevalence of microplastics in our environment.  However, I am not supportive of the approach this bill takes to ban specific ingredients, such as glitter, which may incidentally result in a prohibition on biodegradable or natural alternatives.”

Existing California law already prevents the sale of personal care products that use microbeads to exfoliate or cleanse in a rinse-off product, such as toothpaste.  Products containing less than one part per million by weight of plastic microbeads are exempt.

Two days after the veto, Newsom rejected a separate bill that would have expanded restrictions on the use of PFAS in many consumer products.  More on that can be found here.