Minnesota Bill Would Delay PFAS Reporting Deadline and Add Exemptions

/in ,
Update – March 21, 2026

The House Committee on Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy will hold a hearing on HF 4257 on March 24, 2026, at 1 p.m. CDT.  The bill’s sponsor has also introduced an amendment that would delete its CUU provisions but retain the proposed extension of the reporting deadline.

* * *

A Minnesota lawmaker has introduced legislation to delay and narrow the scope of Minnesota’s PFAS reporting requirements ahead of the current July 1, 2026, deadline for manufacturers to file initial reports with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).

Minnesota HF 4257, introduced March 12, 2026, would postpone initial notifications for manufacturers of products with intentionally added PFAS to July 1, 2027.  The bill would also limit reporting to products manufactured on or after that date, meaning products made before July 1, 2027, could be sold without any reporting obligation.

In addition, the bill would designate numerous PFAS uses—including fluoropolymers—as currently unavoidable uses (CUUs).  Products falling within these categories would be exempt from both the reporting requirements and the broader prohibition on products containing intentionally added PFAS, which will take effect in 2032.

HF 4257 would not change the substance of the reporting requirements, which were finalized by MPCA in December 2025.  It would also leave existing PFAS prohibitions for 11 product categories unchanged.

Meanwhile, MPCA is developing a rule to implement the state’s CUU framework, including a draft concept released last month that is currently open for public comment.

Currently Unavoidable Uses in HF 4257

The complete list of CUUs proposed by HF 4257 is as follows:

  • Cooling, heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, or refrigeration equipment.
  • Veterinary products regulated by FDA, USDA, or EPA.
  • Public health and water-quality testing products.
  • Products required to meet DOT, FAA, NASA, DOD, or DHS standards.
  • Motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.
  • Watercraft and aircraft.
  • Semiconductors.
  • Non-consumer electronics and laboratory equipment.
  • Products using PFAS as a substitute for an ozone-depleting substance under EPA’s Significant New Alternatives Policy program.
  • Electricity generation, distribution, and storage products.
  • Solid fluoropolymers.
  • Products with PFAS in electronic or internal components.
  • Complex manufactured goods with 100 or more components and an intended useful life of five or more years.
  • Electronic or mechanical devices with an intended useful life of three or more years whose components would be impracticable to redesign or replace.
  • Product components of the previous two categories.
  • Equipment used in the manufacture or maintenance of all the foregoing categories.

Existing Minnesota law also allows MPCA to designate uses as CUUs upon manufacturer request.  MPCA is currently developing a rule to implement this CUU mechanism, which is largely undefined in statute.

CUUs designated through this regulatory process would differ from those proposed in HF 4257 in two important respects.  First, MPCA-granted CUU status would exempt products only from the 2032 prohibition, not from reporting requirements.  Second, MPCA designations are expected to carry expiration dates, whereas the CUUs listed in HF 4257 would not expire.

Draft CUU Rule Concept

In February 2026, MPCA released a draft rule concept outlining how manufacturers could request CUU status.

The draft rule concept proposes a January 2030 deadline for CUU requests for existing products, which would allow sufficient time for agency review before the January 2032 prohibition takes effect.  Requests submitted after this deadline, including those for new products, would be termed “novel products” and reviewed on a lower-priority basis.

To apply, manufacturers would need to provide:

  • An explanation of why the use of PFAS in the product is “essential for health, safety, or the functioning of society” and explain how the lack of PFAS in that product would disrupt the service it provides.
  • Information on reasonably available alternatives to either the product itself or the intentionally added PFAS within the product.
  • If applicable, the “extreme conditions of use” that require intentionally added PFAS for the product to provide its service.
  • Any finalized CUU determinations made by other jurisdictions in the US, and information on restrictions on the sale or use of PFAS in the same product or product category both within and outside the US.

Upon receiving a request, MPCA would first assess completeness and allow applicants 30 days to correct any deficiencies.  The agency would then open a 30-day public comment period, followed by a 30-day applicant rebuttal period.

Approved CUU requests—referred to by MPCA as “positive” determinations—would be valid for eight years for existing products and five years for novel products.  Positive determinations could be renewed, with renewal applications due one year before expiration.  All renewals would be valid for five years, regardless of whether the product is classified as existing or novel.

Comments on the draft rule concept are due March 29, 2026, at 4:30 p.m. CDT.  Submit comments here.  More information is available on MPCA’s website.

Michigan Bill Would Mandate PFAS Labeling for 13 Product Categories

/in , ,

On March 4, 2026, Michigan lawmakers introduced legislation that would impose PFAS reporting and labeling requirements on manufacturers of 13 product categories.

Senate Bill 816’s reporting provisions would take effect first, prohibiting the manufacture or sale of covered products on January 1, 2028, unless prior notification is submitted to the state.  The labeling requirement—the phrase “Made with PFAS chemicals”—would apply one year later, on January 1, 2029.  Intentionally added PFAS in covered products would not be prohibited so long as the notification and labeling requirements are met.

PFAS is broadly defined as “all members of the class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least 1 fully fluorinated carbon atom.”  The bill grants the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy discretionary rulemaking authority to implement its provisions.

Covered Products

The bill covers the following product categories:

  • Apparel
  • Carpets and rugs
  • Cleaning products
  • Cookware
  • Dental floss
  • Fabric treatment
  • Children’s products
  • Menstruation products
  • Textile furnishings
  • Ski wax
  • Upholstered furniture
  • Turnout gear
  • Adult mattresses

These categories largely mirror those covered by Connecticut’s PFAS notification and labeling provisions, which take effect this July.

The bill excludes products manufactured before its effective date, which in Michigan is typically 90 days from the end of the session at which a bill is passed.  Also excluded are used products, products preempted by federal law, medical drugs and devices, and replacement parts for products manufactured before the effective date.  The bill does not apply to businesses with fewer than 10 employees.

Notifications and Labeling

Notifications would be required at least one month before a covered product’s release, including chemical identifiers, PFAS amounts and concentration ranges, and manufacturer contact information.  Manufacturers would be required to update notifications upon any change.

Labeling is established as a manufacturer responsibility unless a wholesaler or retailer agrees to assume it. The bill would require labels to be clearly visible prior to sale and sufficiently durable to remain legible for the product’s useful life.

Textile EPR Legislation Introduced in Minnesota

/in , ,

On February 25, 2026, Minnesota introduced legislation to implement an extended producer responsibility (EPR) program for textiles, carpet, and mattresses.

The “Responsible Textile Waste Recovery Act,” HF 3713, would require producers of covered products to appoint, join, and fund a producer responsibility organization (PRO), which would collect covered products for free and promote their reuse, repair, and recycling.

An initial PRO would be required to fully implement its plan within approximately one year of approval, granted no later than July 2030.  Many interim deadlines are left undefined or are tied to implementing regulations promulgated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).  After the initial PRO’s plan is approved, MPCA could approve additional PROs to jointly administer the program.

The bill uses a cascading definition of “producer”: if the manufacturer who owns or licenses the brand is present in the state, they are the producer; if not, responsibility falls to the brand owner or exclusive licensee, then the importer, and finally the distributor, retailer, or wholesaler.  HF 3713 excludes businesses that sell only secondhand covered products and producers with less than $1 million in annual aggregate global gross revenue from the program.

Internet sellers would be subject to an additional requirement to notify MPCA and the PRO of all third-party sellers with sales of covered products over $1 million the preceding year and provide those sellers with information describing their responsibility to comply with the program.

HF 3713 specifically requires that PROs address PFAS in covered products, including efforts to avoid PFAS contamination during their recycling and outreach to discourage the use of PFAS “and other harmful chemicals.”  The bill would also authorize MPCA to set performance standards for covered products.

Legal Challenges to State EPR

The bill’s introduction comes amid ongoing industry challenges to the legality of other state-level EPR programs.

Last month, the Oregon District Court granted a preliminary injunction against Oregon’s packaging EPR program, the first such program to take effect in the country.  The court based the injunction on arguments that the program unduly restricts interstate commerce and unlawfully delegates regulatory authority to the PRO, particularly as it relates to producer fees.

Separately, in October 2025, the Small Business Administration (SBA) argued in comments that PRO-imposed producer fees might violate federal antitrust laws.

HF 3713 appears to anticipate some of these arguments.  The bill provides that an approved PRO may engage in anticompetitive conduct to the extent necessary to meet its statutory obligations and grants immunity “from liability under state laws relating to antitrust, restraint of trade, and unfair trade practices.”  The bill also requires approved PROs to undergo annual holistic third-party audits.

That said, HF 3713 contains minimal discussion about producer fees, other than requiring that they be eco-modulated—i.e., adjusted to incentivize design choices that facilitate reuse, repair, and recycling—and approved by MPCA, although PROs must also outline strategies to reduce existing fees or “fee redistribution mechanisms that equitably distribute costs among producers” in a periodically updated “needs assessment.”

Rhode Island’s Microplastics Reduction Act Would Prohibit Sales by 2030

/in , , ,

Rhode Island lawmakers have introduced legislation that would ban products containing intentionally added microplastics and require the development of statewide testing and strategy plans.

The Microplastics Reduction Act, SB 2534, would prohibit the sale or distribution of any product containing intentionally added synthetic polymer microparticles starting January 1, 2030.  The definitions of key terms used in the legislation, like “synthetic polymer microparticles,” largely mirror those used in the European Union (EU) Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulations for microplastics adopted in 2023.

Unlike the phased implementation under REACH, however, SB 2534’s prohibition applies to all covered products simultaneously.  Only products preempted from regulation by federal law are excluded from the bill, which was introduced February 13, 2026.

SB 2534 would also require the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) to develop two reports:

  1. A microplastics testing plan, identifying analytical methods consistent with the best available science by July 2029, which must specifically consider microplastics shed from vehicle tires; and
  2. A microplastics strategy plan, characterizing ambient microplastics concentrations, investigating microplastics sources, summarizing scientific research on microplastics reduction, and recommending policy changes by January 2030.
Definition of Microplastics

SB 2534 defines “synthetic polymer microparticles” as solid polymers that meet both of the following conditions:

  • Are contained in particles and constitute at least 1% by weight of those particles; or build a continuous surface coating on particles; and
  • At least 1% by weight of the particles fulfill either of the following conditions:
    • All dimensions of the particles are equal to or less than 5mm; or
    • The length of the particles is equal to or less than 15mm and the particle’s length is greater than three times its diameter.

Naturally occurring particles are excluded.  However, unlike REACH, SB 2534 does not provide exemptions for degradable, soluble, or non-carbon-containing plastic particles.

A synthetic polymer microparticle is considered “intentionally added” if it is added to confer a sought-after characteristic in mixtures in a concentration equal to or greater than 0.01% by weight.  SB 2534 defines “product” broadly to include items sold for personal, residential, commercial, or industrial use.

Microplastics regulation is also under consideration in California.  Regulators have proposed a simpler definition: plastics less than 5mm in their longest dimension, including materials intentionally manufactured at those dimensions and materials generated by the fragmentation of larger plastics.

California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) will weigh listing microplastics as a “candidate chemical” through April 2026, according to a timeline on its website.  DTSC previously solicited comment, through January 2026, on a technical document outlining the rationale for listing microplastics and identifying products that may contain them.

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 , ,
Update – February 26, 2026

HJM 3 passed the New Mexico Legislature on February 18, 2026.  Two days prior, NMED released a third version of the proposed rule.  This rebuttal proposed rule revises the required label content to only require the term “PFAS” within an Erlenmeyer flask and removes the requirement that manufacturers link to NMED’s PFAS webpage.

EIB conducted a hearing on the rulemaking this week and will deliberate on the proposal on March 6, 2026.  Public comments are due on that date.

* * *

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.