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.

Senate EPW Committee to Examine the Future of PFAS Cleanup and Disposal

/in , ,

On November 19, 2025, at 10am, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) will hold a hearing to “Examine the Future of PFAS Cleanup and Disposal Policy.”

The hearing will include the following panelists:

  • Eric Gerstenberg, Co-CEO of Clean Harbors, an environmental and industrial services company
  • Leah Pilconis, General Counsel of Associated General Contractors of America
  • Kate R. Bowers, Supervisory Attorney at the Congressional Research Service

Clean Harbors conducted a PFAS incineration study in 2024 in conjunction with EPA and the Defense Department (DOD).  According to EPA, the incinerator’s tested PFAS destruction and removal efficiencies “ranged from 99.95 to 99.9999 percent.”

The study followed procedures outlined in EPA’s 2024 interim guidance on PFAS destruction and disposal, discussed in a previous post.  EPA must update this guidance as necessary and at least every three years.  The forthcoming hearing is likely to shape the direction of those updates.

Union Says EPA’s New Chemicals Rule Fails Transparency Mandate Under TSCA

/in , , , ,

EPA’s 2024 new chemicals procedural rule fails to satisfy Congress’s intent that Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) new chemical and significant new use reviews be transparent, a workers union told the Ninth Circuit on October 16, 2025.

In its opening brief, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) cites its own experience attempting to secure information about the health hazards facing employees in one of its bargaining units.  Although a UAW representative was told by the company that it was producing two new chemicals, he was unable to locate any information on them on ChemView, EPA’s database of new chemical information, the brief states.

“EPA’s disclosures about new chemicals do not routinely include…two key factual components – employer name and location – since the employer is not necessarily the submitter, the submitter’s name is often claimed as CBI, and facility location is not among the fields that can be searched in ChemView,” UAW states.

“Without access to information about who may produce a new chemical and where it may be manufactured, potentially exposed workers and their unions cannot – as a practical matter – engage with EPA before the Agency imposes occupational controls that may or may not adequately protect the workers,” which is their right under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the brief reads.

UAW and other unions jointly raised these concerns in August 2023 comments on EPA’s proposed new chemicals procedural rule.  However, according to the brief, EPA completely ignored the comment during the rulemaking—a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), according to the brief.

Proposed Disclosure Requirements

In their 2023 comments, the unions proposed a mechanism through which EPA could mandate the disclosure of information to unions or workers, which they argue would preserve the information’s confidential status.

“EPA can require entities submitting new chemical or significant new use applications to notify their affected employees that they are submitting these applications and to make the applications, the health and safety studies submitted with the application, and any risk evaluations completed by EPA available to the employees and their unions upon request, contingent on the requester agreeing to confidentiality protections,” the comments state.

Reiterating arguments made in the comments, UAW’s brief contends that this process would not run afoul of TSCA section 14, which governs CBI protections: “While Section 14, like [Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)]  Exemption 4, allows EPA to withhold confidential information submitted to the federal government…neither Exemption 4 nor TSCA Section 14 prohibits EPA from mandating third party disclosure of CBI.”

UAW argues that unions and workers routinely enter into similar confidentiality agreements to access other sensitive information, like financial information about corporate profits.  The union also points to a 1985 Third Circuit decision, which it argues “directed OSHA to permit direct employee access to claimed trade secret information if the workers signed a confidentiality agreement” under OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard.

Case Details

The suit is consolidated with other challenges to the 2024 new chemicals procedural rule brought by environmental groups.  As discussed in a previous post, those groups are arguing that the rule’s failure to categorically exempt new persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals (PBTs) from certain expedited reviews violates TSCA.

The case is Alaska Community Action on Toxics v. EPA, No. 25-158 (9th Cir.), filed 1/10/2025.

EPA Issues Proposed Rule Adding Significant PFAS Reporting Exemptions

/in , ,

As anticipated, EPA has published a proposed rule that would introduce several significant exemptions to the one-time PFAS reporting requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) PFAS reporting rule.

The proposal, published November 13, 2025, follows significant industry criticism of the 2023 rule’s expansive scope.  EPA first signaled that it was considering narrowing the rule’s requirements in May of this year, when the agency delayed its implementation for the second time.

“The proposed changes to improve reporting regulations will support [EPA] Administrator [Lee] Zeldin’s ‘Powering the Great American Comeback’ initiative by reducing regulatory reporting burdens and providing greater regulatory certainty to industry, resulting in a net reduction in cost while ensuring that EPA receives the PFAS data that are most relevant to the agency,” the agency said in a press release accompanying the proposed rule.

What are the Proposed Exemptions?

EPA proposes to exempt the following categories from the PFAS reporting requirements:

  • PFAS manufactured (including imported) in mixtures or products at concentrations of 0.1% or lower
  • Imported articles
  • Byproducts not used for commercial purposes
  • Impurities
  • Research and development chemicals
  • Non-isolated intermediates

These exemptions are similar to those under the TSCA Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule, with the addition of the 0.1% de minimis exemption.

EPA is also proposing to eliminate the streamlined reporting form for article importers and R&D manufacturers because those entities would now be fully exempt under the proposed rule.  For the same reason, EPA would remove the alternative reporting deadline for small manufacturers that would exclusively report as article importers.

Changes to the Submission Period

EPA’s proposal would likely delay the start of the reporting period once again.  The current opening date is April 13, 2026, but under the proposed rule, the reporting window would begin 60 days after the final rule’s effective date.

If EPA issues a final rule in June 2026—as indicated by the Spring 2025 Unified Agenda—and the rule takes effect 30 days after publication, the reporting period would open in September 2026.  However, because the proposal was released a month earlier than the Unified Agenda projected, EPA may also finalize the rule ahead of schedule, potentially resulting in an earlier start date.

The proposal would also shorten the reporting window from six months to three months, with EPA claiming that submitters “have had adequate time to consider how they intend to comply with the rule.”

Statutory Basis

In the proposed rule, EPA argues that the exemptions would better align the regulation with TSCA section 8, which directs EPA to avoid duplicative reporting, minimize compliance costs on small manufacturers, and limit reporting obligations to persons likely to have relevant information.

EPA also cites TSCA section 2(c), which requires that EPA carry out the statute “in a reasonable and prudent manner” and to “consider the environmental, economic, and social impact of any action.”

At the same time, EPA notes that it may in the future determine that certain currently exempted information “is necessary to support particular regulatory actions.”

Comments on the proposed rule are due December 29, 2025.  More on the TSCA PFAS reporting rule can be found in our archive.

ACI Pushes Senate to Address EPA Bottlenecks in New Chemical Reviews

/in , ,

In an October 23, 2025, letter to leaders of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and its Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, the American Cleaning Institute (ACI) called for “targeted changes” to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to accelerate new chemical reviews under the statute.

“ACI members are experiencing considerable challenges with [EPA’s] ability to meet its statutory deadlines under [TSCA], namely, to review and make final determinations on new chemicals within 90 days,” hindering innovation and the development of more eco-friendly products, the letter reads.

ACI also asked the committee to consider the “adverse impact” of significant new use rules (SNURs), which it claims are being applied to restrict “most” new chemicals.

“EPA has taken this route as TSCA requires EPA to consider ‘reasonably foreseen’ uses in new chemical reviews,” ACI wrote.  “The lack of a clear definition in the TSCA for the term ‘reasonably foreseen’ has led EPA staff to take an overly conservative approach that focuses heavily on theoretical hazards instead of utilizing a risk-based approach that prioritizes the specific conditions of use provided by manufacturers about the intended use of new chemistries.”

Meanwhile, ACI’s general counsel, Douglas Troutman, has been nominated by President Trump to lead EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee advanced his nomination to the full Senate on October 29, 2025, in a party-line vote.

PFAS Reporting Rule Update: OMB Clears Path for EPA to Ease Requirements

/in , ,

EPA is a step closer to easing PFAS reporting requirements for manufacturers and importers after the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) completed its review of a proposed rule on October 24, 2025, that is likely to introduce exemptions.

Background: The Current PFAS Reporting Rule

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting rule, finalized in 2023, requires entities that manufactured or imported PFAS in any year from 2011–2022 to report extensive data to EPA.  Unlike other TSCA reporting obligations, the rule does not exempt articles, de minimis quantities, byproducts, or impurities—drawing criticism from industry groups, who argue that its broad scope is both unnecessary and overly burdensome.

As discussed in a previous post, the rule’s original 2024 reporting deadline has already been delayed twice to 2026 because of technical difficulties.  However, in the most recent postponement, EPA signaled that it was considering reopening elements of the rule to align with the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda.  On August 29, 2025, it submitted the proposal to OMB for regulatory review.

What’s Next

According to the Spring 2025 Unified Agenda, the rulemaking will incorporate “certain exemptions and other modifications to the scope of the reporting rule.”  The proposed rule is expected in December 2025, and EPA plans to finalize the rulemaking in June 2026.

More on the PFAS reporting rule’s requirements can be found in a previous post.

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.

Climate Neutral Labeling Lawsuit Dismissed by Court

/in ,

A proposed class action lawsuit challenging Mondelēz International, Inc.’s labeling on its “Zbar” snack bars has been tossed by a federal judge, who held that the company’s “climate neutral certified” claim was factual and could not mislead a reasonable consumer.

The court’s October 27, 2025, order turns on the inclusion of the word “certified” in the claim.  Since the product was factually certified by a third party called Change Climate Project, the court found no likelihood of deception, and dismissed the case with prejudice.

“Mondelēz did not advertise that its product was in fact climate neutral, but instead that its product was certified as climate neutral….There is nothing deceptive about Mondelēz including on its packaging a true statement,” the court wrote.

The plaintiff had alleged that the label is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer into believing that the product does not contribute to climate change, despite the fact that the product results in “roughly 54,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent” emissions annually.  According to the complaint, the product only obtained its certification due to the purchase of carbon offset credits, which are often fraudulent.

FTC Green Guides

To support her arguments, the plaintiff pointed to environmental guidance promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) known as the Green Guides, which are codified into California law.  The Green Guides caution that third-party certifications do not relieve marketers of the obligation to substantiate all claims reasonably conveyed by the certification.

The court, however, found that although the label did not identify the certifier by name, the climate neutral claim’s placement, design, and wording made clear that the certification came from a third party.  Accordingly, “it cannot reasonably be attributed to Mondelēz.”

“Reasonable consumers are generally not expected to conduct independent research to substantiate claims made on a product’s packaging, but neither are they permitted to defy common sense and everyday experiences,” order states.

The case is Salguero v. Mondelēz International, Inc., No. 25-cv-2139 (N.D. Ill.), filed 2/28/2025.

Lawsuit Challenges “Organic” Claims on PFAS-Containing Soil Products

/in , , ,

A proposed class action lawsuit in California federal court targets Kellogg Supply Inc., arguing that the soil and fertilizer company falsely represents products as “organic” despite containing PFAS such as PFOA and PFOS.

According to the October 29, 2025, complaint, multiple organic-labeled Kellogg products contained levels of specific PFAS that exceed EPA screening thresholds.  Under EPA guidance, these levels “could trigger further action or study under [the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)].”

The plaintiffs contend that “PFAS do not fall within any definition of organic.”  Kellogg’s use of organic labeling “induce[s] consumers into believing that the Products contain only naturally occurring, non-synthetic ingredients and are therefore a superior alternative to competing—and less expensive—products that are not labeled as organic,” the lawsuit states.

While Kellogg’s packaging displays a certification logo from OMRI, a third-party organic certifier, the plaintiffs allege this certification contradicts OMRI’s own standards.  According to the complaint, the certification was granted only because “OMRI does not test for PFAS as part of their process.”

The complaint addresses a common weakness in similar litigation by specifying that the plaintiffs’ own purchased products were among those tested and that proper chain-of-custody procedures were followed.  Judges in other cases have dismissed claims due to inadequate connections between products purchased and laboratory samples.

The lawsuit seeks to represent consumers in California and New York under those states’ consumer protection and false advertising laws.

The case is Valdez v. Kellogg Supply, Inc., No. 25-cv-02917 (S.D. Cal.), filed 10/29/2025.

Groups Challenge EPA Rule Allowing PBTs in TSCA Exemption Reviews

/in , ,

New persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals (PBTs) should not be eligible for expedited reviews under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) known as the low volume exemption (LVE) and low releases and exposures exemption (LoREX), environmental groups told the Ninth Circuit on October 17, 2025.

The lawsuit challenges EPA regulations finalized in December 2024 that allow companies to continue to continue to apply those exemptions for certain PBTs.  In their opening brief, the petitioners argue that the rule violates TSCA’s requirement that exemptions protect against unreasonable risk.

“The record, including EPA’s own findings, establishes that the category of new PBTs may—indeed, will likely—present unreasonable risk even when complying with the terms of the LVE and LoREX Exemptions,” the brief states.

Disputed Eligibility Standards

The 2024 rule made PFAS categorically ineligible for the exemptions, as well as PBTs “with anticipated environmental releases and potentially unreasonable exposures to humans or environmental organisms.”  The petitioners contend that this “turns the statute on its head” because it requires that EPA affirmatively determine “that a specific PBT is unsafe” for it to be ineligible.

“In effect, the rule treats an absence of evidence as a reason to expedite the approval of a new PBT chemical, rather than a reason to deny an exemption application,” their brief states.

EPA justified its decision to allow certain PBTs to remain eligible by suggesting that PBT use may not always result in exposure, “such as chemical substances used in a closed system to make semiconductors.”  In the rule, EPA also stated that it “expects that most exemptions for PBT chemical substances will not be granted.”

The petitioners, however, describe EPA’s “zero-release-zero-exposure” scenarios as “fanciful.”   All “new PBTs will eventually be released into the environment, cause exposures, and thereby result in serious injury,” they argue.

Speedier Reviews

LVE and LoREX applications are subject to a 30 day review period, compared to 90-to-180 days for standard reviews, though review backlogs mean reviews often take much longer in practice.  The petitioners claim that LVE and LoREX reviews are less “detailed and comprehensive” than standard reviews, and observe that EPA does not require testing or impose additional restrictions on approved exemption applications—incentivizing companies to use them.

Publicly available EPA data shows that 221 valid LVEs were submitted in fiscal year 2025, which was greater than the number of standard review applications.  No LoREX submissions were received during the year, however.

In August 2025, EPA announced that it had made substantial progress on the LVE backlog thanks to process improvements.  However, its continued progress may be jeopardized by the ongoing government shutdown.

More on EPA’s 2024 new chemicals procedural rule can be found in a previous post.  The case is Alaska Community Action on Toxics v. EPA, No. 25-158 (9th Cir.), filed 1/10/2025.