A specialty materials manufacturer is suing EPA to prevent the release of its unredacted premanufacture notices (PMNs) under seal in separate litigation challenging the transparency of EPA’s new chemicals program under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
A March 23, 2026, court deadline for EPA to produce the documents has now passed without EPA compliance, as the agency, environmental groups, and the manufacturer battle over the appropriate course of action.
The five environmental groups brought the original suit in 2020, alleging that EPA violates TSCA by withholding certain information from the public and allowing overly broad confidential business information (CBI) claims. In December 2025, over EPA’s objections, the D.C. District Court ordered the agency to produce unredacted PMNs under a protective order as part of the administrative record.
Arkema, Inc. submitted two of those 84 PMNs. After EPA notified the company of the impending disclosure, Arkema filed suit on March 13, 2026, to block it.
While TSCA allows EPA to disclose CBI as required by a court order, Arkema argues that the scope of the disclosure encompasses information beyond what is at issue in the case. EPA’s failure “to narrow appropriately the scope of CBI disclosures to only those necessary and related to the claims at issue is both arbitrary and capricious,” the complaint states.
Arkema further contends that “the terms of the protective order are insufficiently protective of proprietary information” and impose “substantially less stringent requirements than EPA itself requires to protect CBI” because they lack provisions for safe storage and handling, training, designated work areas, limits on the number of recipients, a central oversight contact, or recourse for inadvertent disclosures.
Arkema’s suit prompted EPA to move for a stay of the disclosure order on March 17. While “Arkema seeks relief only as to the information that it claims is CBI,” EPA argues that the lawsuit implicates all CBI-designated materials at issue in the case. In addition, the agency warns that allowing separate production of Arkema’s PMNs could inadvertently reveal which PMNs belong to Arkema and thereby compromise its CBI claim.
Environmentalists’ Response
In a March 19 response, the plaintiffs argue that Arkema’s suit and EPA’s motion are a delay tactic in the long-running litigation.
EPA should never have notified Arkema of the impending disclosure, the plaintiffs contend, because multiple statutory notification exceptions apply. Under the plaintiffs’ reading of TSCA, notification is a precondition to filing suit—meaning there is “no basis for” the new challenge.
This “should have been evident to EPA,” the plaintiffs allege. “Nevertheless, EPA voluntarily sent a letter to Arkema incorrectly stating they had a right to appeal….Now that a single manufacturer has submitted such an appeal, EPA turns around and asks this Court yet again to halt production of all 84” contested PMNs, not just Arkema’s.
If EPA believed that a manufacturer could challenge the disclosure and enjoin EPA from complying with the court’s order, it should have said so, the plaintiffs argue. “Instead, it remained silent, thereby inviting the current procedural mess.”
Nor has EPA met its burden to receive its requested relief, since it has not alleged any hardship, the response continues. And despite the company’s CBI claims, the plaintiffs note that it may already be apparent which of the sanitized PMNs—already provided to the court—belong to Arkema: one contains an attached safety data sheet identifying the company by name, and another includes “a number of documents with Arkema’s letter head.”
The plaintiffs further argue that six years of media coverage make it implausible Arkema was unaware its PMNs might be disclosed, alleging the company “has slept on its rights.” Arkema “never claims that it did not know of this lawsuit or the potential implications for its PMNs, but instead has carefully worded its allegations” to say only that it was never informed of active discussions about the scope and terms of releasing its CBI.
EPA’s Reply
In a March 20 reply, EPA says it is agreeable to the environmental groups’ suggestion that the parties meet and confer about potential consolidation or modification of the protective order to address Arkema’s concerns. But EPA reiterates its request for a stay, arguing that the agency “is caught in an untenable situation” that demonstrates “clear hardship.”
“Requiring EPA to produce any of the unredacted PMNs would prematurely decide Arkema before the parties (EPA, Plaintiffs, and Arkema) have an opportunity to resolve the competing positions and defeat the purpose of coordination and possible consolidation or modifications to the protective order,” the reply states.
EPA contends its disclosure notifications to Arkema and other companies were required, arguing that none of the statutory exemptions apply. The agency also notes that, due to difficulties confirming receipt, a subset of companies are still within TSCA’s 30-day window—triggered by notification—to file suit to enjoin disclosure.
EPA further argues that whether it can selectively withhold only Arkema’s PMNs is a legal question that should be resolved in the new litigation. “Until the parties or the Court resolve that legal question, EPA proceeds cautiously,” the reply states, citing TSCA provisions imposing criminal penalties for wrongful CBI disclosures.
On March 25, the environmental groups notified the court that EPA failed to produce the unredacted PMNs by the March 23 deadline.
The case is Arkema Inc. v. EPA, No. 26-cv-886 (D.D.C.). The underlying case is Environmental Defense Fund v. Zeldin, No. 20-cv-762 (D.D.C.).
New Mexico Adopts Nation’s Most Far-Reaching PFAS Labeling Rules
/in PFAS, Right-to-Know, State PolicyNew Mexico has approved “universal” PFAS labeling requirements beginning in 2027, according to the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED).
The Environmental Improvement Board approved the requirements on March 23, 2026. Although the final rule is not yet available, the final proposed rule requires the term “PFAS” inside an Erlenmeyer flask on all products containing intentionally added PFAS manufactured on or after January 1, 2027. “PFAS” is broadly defined by statute to include all substances with at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.
Only used products, pesticides, veterinary products, and medical devices and drugs are exempt from the labeling requirements. Although the controlling statute includes additional exemptions from PFAS prohibitions and reporting requirements, the final proposed rule does not extend them to labeling. Manufacturers may, however, request a labeling waiver if the product falls within one of the statutory exemptions and no PFAS will ever come into direct contact with a consumer.
The New Mexico legislature recently instructed NMED to make recommendations on whether those statutory exemptions should be modified or removed, including an exemption for fluoropolymers.
In addition to the labeling requirements, the adopted regulations will implement the statutory prohibitions and reporting requirements, which also begin in 2027.
Changes Made During Rulemaking
The final proposed rule’s labeling requirements substantially differ from the original proposal. After commenters raised First Amendment concerns, NMED removed a requirement that manufacturers use labels with claims about the hazards of PFAS and link to a NMED webpage on PFAS.
In response to concerns about the practicability of labeling before January 1, 2027, NMED relaxed the deadline, allowing continued sale of unlabeled products manufactured prior to that date. And, after commenters argued that certain products labels are preempted by federal law, NMED added the exemptions for pesticides, veterinary products, and medical devices.
Nevertheless, New Mexico’s PFAS labeling requirements are now the most far-reaching in the country. Other states, like Connecticut, have adopted labeling requirements, but they only apply to a discrete selection of products.
Apple’s Own Chemical Policies Sink Its Bid to Toss PFAS Watch Band Suit
/in Green Marketing, PFASA federal court has refused to toss a proposed class action accusing Apple of selling smartwatch bands laced with a PFAS known as PFHxA, finding that Apple’s own internal restrictions on PFHxA gave the plaintiffs enough to show the watchbands posed a plausible health risk.
The Northern District of California’s March 16, 2026, order found that the plaintiffs had adequately established standing and stated viable claims on nearly every count, citing both independent lab results and Apple’s internal supplier policies. According to the plaintiffs, Apple previously designated PFHxA as “reportable” at 25 parts per billion (ppb) and elevated the designation to “restricted” in 2023, prohibiting suppliers from exceeding that threshold.
Combined with the plaintiffs’ test results showing PFHxA concentrations exceeding 1,000 ppb, the court found sufficient basis for standing. Given that Apple and the European Union have designated 25 ppb PFHxA as “significant enough to raise concerns warranting some type of disclosure or prohibition,” the plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the bands “have risky levels of PFHxA,” the court held.
Neither the lab results nor the internal Apple policies were included in the original complaint; both were added by amendment. The study underlying the original suit presented anonymized results and therefore “does not quite say” that the contested bands contain PFAS, the court noted, which was a central focus of Apple’s initial motion to dismiss.
Notably, the court did not address Apple’s arguments in its subsequent motion that the plaintiffs’ test results came from a single tested product and that the plaintiffs failed to allege that the specific products they purchased contained PFHxA—an omission that other courts have found fatal in similar suits.
Most Claims Clear the Pleading Bar
Apple’s supplier classifications proved central to the plaintiffs’ fraudulent concealment/omission claim, which the court found plausible given Apple’s internal recognition of PFHxA’s risks. The plaintiffs’ negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and California Unfair Competition Law claims also survived. On negligent misrepresentation, the court rejected Apple’s economic loss rule argument, reasoning that the alleged health risks placed the claims outside the rule’s reach.
The court similarly rejected Apple’s argument that the suit’s nationwide common law causes of action should be dismissed because the plaintiffs did not plead which state laws govern them. That analysis is inappropriate for the pleadings stage, and “Apple does not identify which other state law claims might apply or why they would apply over California law,” the opinion states.
Two claims did not survive. Despite making a variety of health and wellness representations about the watchbands, Apple secured dismissal of the suit’s fraudulent misrepresentations claim because the plaintiffs did not identify the specific claims they relied upon. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ implied warranty of merchantability claims, which were essentially conceded.
The case is Cavalier v. Apple, Inc., No. 25-cv-713 (N.D. Cal.), filed 1/21/2025.
California Bill Would Phase Out PFAS Pesticides, Require Label Disclosures
/in California, FIFRA, Pesticides, PFAS, Right-to-KnowCalifornia is considering legislation to phase out use, require labeling, and prohibit registrations of pesticides containing PFAS, defined as a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.
AB 1603 states that PFAS exposure “poses a significant threat to the environment and public health” and that their intentional use in pesticides is increasing. The bill notes that EPA has approved 70 active ingredient PFAS pesticides, including 53 allowed for use in California by state regulators, and that a 2025 analysis found that approximately 2.5 million pounds of active ingredient PFAS pesticides are applied in California annually.
The bill would immediately prohibit the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) from registering or re-registering pesticides with intentionally added PFAS as an active or inert ingredient, and would phase in the following additional requirements:
AB 1603 would also designate pesticides with intentionally added PFAS as a restricted material. By January 1, 2028, CDPR would be required to prescribe the times and conditions under which such materials may be used or possessed across the state, with authority to prohibit use or possession in certain areas. Use or possession would require a written permit from the county agricultural commissioner, and those permits and related public disclosures would be subject to the same label statement described above.
Any state labeling requirement must contend with the preemption provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which prohibit states from imposing labeling requirements “in addition to or different from those required under” the statute. EPA does not currently require any label disclosure for pesticides containing PFAS.
AB 1603 was introduced on January 16, 2026. The Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials will hold a hearing on the bill on April 14, 2026.
EPA: Single Fluorinated Compounds Aren’t PFAS
Late last year, EPA published a webpage pushing back on concerns about pesticides containing a single fluorinated carbon—the threshold for designation as PFAS under AB 1603.
“EPA-approved single fluorinated compounds are not forever chemicals, they are not PFAS, and do not pose any risks of concern when used as labeled,” the webpage states.
EPA emphasizes that, regardless of a pesticide’s contents, registration under FIFRA requires a determination that the product will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. The agency conducts “robust, chemical-specific” hazard and exposure assessments, “ensuring that every scientific aspect of these compounds is thoroughly evaluated before any registration decision is made.” It conducts a similarly thorough evaluation when setting food tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), which requires a “reasonable certainty of no harm,” EPA states.
EPA notes that pesticides containing a single fluorinated carbon can offer agronomic benefits and may replace more harmful alternatives, such as organochlorines. The agency also points to the European Union, United Kingdom, Canada, and other jurisdictions that have registered or are considering registering pesticides containing a fluorinated carbon.
Manufacturer Challenges Court-Ordered CBI Disclosure
/in CBI, EPA, New Chemicals, Transparency, TSCAA specialty materials manufacturer is suing EPA to prevent the release of its unredacted premanufacture notices (PMNs) under seal in separate litigation challenging the transparency of EPA’s new chemicals program under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
A March 23, 2026, court deadline for EPA to produce the documents has now passed without EPA compliance, as the agency, environmental groups, and the manufacturer battle over the appropriate course of action.
The five environmental groups brought the original suit in 2020, alleging that EPA violates TSCA by withholding certain information from the public and allowing overly broad confidential business information (CBI) claims. In December 2025, over EPA’s objections, the D.C. District Court ordered the agency to produce unredacted PMNs under a protective order as part of the administrative record.
Arkema, Inc. submitted two of those 84 PMNs. After EPA notified the company of the impending disclosure, Arkema filed suit on March 13, 2026, to block it.
While TSCA allows EPA to disclose CBI as required by a court order, Arkema argues that the scope of the disclosure encompasses information beyond what is at issue in the case. EPA’s failure “to narrow appropriately the scope of CBI disclosures to only those necessary and related to the claims at issue is both arbitrary and capricious,” the complaint states.
Arkema further contends that “the terms of the protective order are insufficiently protective of proprietary information” and impose “substantially less stringent requirements than EPA itself requires to protect CBI” because they lack provisions for safe storage and handling, training, designated work areas, limits on the number of recipients, a central oversight contact, or recourse for inadvertent disclosures.
Arkema’s suit prompted EPA to move for a stay of the disclosure order on March 17. While “Arkema seeks relief only as to the information that it claims is CBI,” EPA argues that the lawsuit implicates all CBI-designated materials at issue in the case. In addition, the agency warns that allowing separate production of Arkema’s PMNs could inadvertently reveal which PMNs belong to Arkema and thereby compromise its CBI claim.
Environmentalists’ Response
In a March 19 response, the plaintiffs argue that Arkema’s suit and EPA’s motion are a delay tactic in the long-running litigation.
EPA should never have notified Arkema of the impending disclosure, the plaintiffs contend, because multiple statutory notification exceptions apply. Under the plaintiffs’ reading of TSCA, notification is a precondition to filing suit—meaning there is “no basis for” the new challenge.
This “should have been evident to EPA,” the plaintiffs allege. “Nevertheless, EPA voluntarily sent a letter to Arkema incorrectly stating they had a right to appeal….Now that a single manufacturer has submitted such an appeal, EPA turns around and asks this Court yet again to halt production of all 84” contested PMNs, not just Arkema’s.
If EPA believed that a manufacturer could challenge the disclosure and enjoin EPA from complying with the court’s order, it should have said so, the plaintiffs argue. “Instead, it remained silent, thereby inviting the current procedural mess.”
Nor has EPA met its burden to receive its requested relief, since it has not alleged any hardship, the response continues. And despite the company’s CBI claims, the plaintiffs note that it may already be apparent which of the sanitized PMNs—already provided to the court—belong to Arkema: one contains an attached safety data sheet identifying the company by name, and another includes “a number of documents with Arkema’s letter head.”
The plaintiffs further argue that six years of media coverage make it implausible Arkema was unaware its PMNs might be disclosed, alleging the company “has slept on its rights.” Arkema “never claims that it did not know of this lawsuit or the potential implications for its PMNs, but instead has carefully worded its allegations” to say only that it was never informed of active discussions about the scope and terms of releasing its CBI.
EPA’s Reply
In a March 20 reply, EPA says it is agreeable to the environmental groups’ suggestion that the parties meet and confer about potential consolidation or modification of the protective order to address Arkema’s concerns. But EPA reiterates its request for a stay, arguing that the agency “is caught in an untenable situation” that demonstrates “clear hardship.”
“Requiring EPA to produce any of the unredacted PMNs would prematurely decide Arkema before the parties (EPA, Plaintiffs, and Arkema) have an opportunity to resolve the competing positions and defeat the purpose of coordination and possible consolidation or modifications to the protective order,” the reply states.
EPA contends its disclosure notifications to Arkema and other companies were required, arguing that none of the statutory exemptions apply. The agency also notes that, due to difficulties confirming receipt, a subset of companies are still within TSCA’s 30-day window—triggered by notification—to file suit to enjoin disclosure.
EPA further argues that whether it can selectively withhold only Arkema’s PMNs is a legal question that should be resolved in the new litigation. “Until the parties or the Court resolve that legal question, EPA proceeds cautiously,” the reply states, citing TSCA provisions imposing criminal penalties for wrongful CBI disclosures.
On March 25, the environmental groups notified the court that EPA failed to produce the unredacted PMNs by the March 23 deadline.
The case is Arkema Inc. v. EPA, No. 26-cv-886 (D.D.C.). The underlying case is Environmental Defense Fund v. Zeldin, No. 20-cv-762 (D.D.C.).
Ohio Introduces Phased PFAS Ban and Reporting Requirements
/in PFAS, State PolicyOn March 10, 2026, Ohio legislators introduced a bill that would phase-in prohibitions on the intentional addition of PFAS in products and require reporting to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA).
HB 743 closely resembles Minnesota’s PFAS-in-products law, including its definition of PFAS as a class of chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.
Reporting Requirements
The bill’s reporting requirements would take effect first, by January 1, 2027. Manufacturers would be required to provide a brief product description, the purpose of PFAS in the product, the amount of each PFAS by reporting range, contact information, and any other information requested by Ohio EPA.
Reporting would not apply to products exempted by statute: products preempted by federal law, used products, firefighting foam, pesticides, or medical devices and drugs. Products designated by Ohio EPA as having a currently unavoidable use would also be exempt.
Manufacturers would be required to update their reports within 30 days of a significant change and file reports for new products after January 1, 2027, within a time period specified by rulemaking. If Ohio EPA has reason to believe a product is noncompliant, the agency may require the manufacturer to provide testing results within 30 days.
Product Prohibitions
On January 1, 2028, HB 743’s first product prohibitions would take effect, banning the intentional use of PFAS in: carpets and rugs, cleaning products, cookware, cosmetics, dental floss, fabric treatments, juvenile products, feminine hygiene products, textile furnishings, ski wax, and upholstered furniture.
Beginning January 1, 2033, the prohibition would expand to all products not covered by a statutory exemption or designated as a currently unavoidable use by Ohio EPA. The agency may add prohibitions to additional products by rule before the 2033 general prohibition, though none could take effect earlier than 2028.
HB 743 grants Ohio EPA rulemaking authority to implement the legislation, including the ability to require reporting fees. Violations would be subject to civil penalties of up to $15,000 per day.
Latest Prop 65 Challenge Targets DEA After Series of Industry Wins
/in California, Prop. 65A cosmetics industry trade group is asking the Eastern District of California to enjoin a Proposition 65 warning for diethanolamine (DEA), arguing that the label disclosure violates the First Amendment.
The suit was filed March 2, 2026, by the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC). It follows a string of court victories challenging other Prop 65 warning requirements for chemicals including glyphosate, acrylamide, and titanium dioxide, the last of which was also brought by PCPC.
DEA was automatically added to the Prop 65 list after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that the substance is “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” However, PCPC argues that IARC was unable to find a single study establishing a link between DEA and cancer in humans, instead basing the determination on a study of “questionable relevance” in a highly susceptible strain of mice. Other regulatory bodies, like FDA and EPA, have not reached the same conclusion, and some have “expressed skepticism” about the mouse study, PCPC argues.
“Indeed, no California agency has made any scientific determination as to whether DEA causes cancer in humans. Nor has any federal agency done so,” the complaint states.
According to PCPC, laws regulating commercial speech are typically subject to intermediate scrutiny, with a more lenient standard for purely factual and noncontroversial disclosures. However, because the “cancer warning requirement as applied to DEA in cosmetic and personal products is false, misleading, and factually controversial, it cannot survive any level of constitutional scrutiny” and therefore violates the First Amendment, the complaint alleges.
PCPC argues that the warning requirement effectively forces companies to choose between “conveying the unsubstantiated message that DEA in cosmetic products increases cancer risk in humans” or facing “a significant and imminent risk of an enforcement action.” Although an exception exists for products that do not present significant risk, the complaint notes that companies must be able to prove that defense in court if challenged, a costly and uncertain process that leads many to “acquiesce and provide a warning” even if they believe it is inaccurate.
PCPC also claims that, since the warning requirement took effect in 2013, hundreds of companies manufacturing or selling personal care products have paid over $7 million in settlements with private enforcers.
The trade association seeks a declaration that the warning is unconstitutional as applied to personal care products and a permanent injunction barring enforcement by California or private parties.
The case is The Personal Care Products Council v. Bonta, No. 26-cv-682 (E.D. Cal.), filed 3/2/26.
DOJ Unveils First Unified Corporate Enforcement Policy
/in EnforcementOn March 10, 2026, the Department of Justice (DOJ) released its first-ever department-wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP). The CEP supersedes all existing enforcement policies at DOJ, including the Criminal Division’s policy that it closely resembles. The CEP applies to corporate criminal cases except those relating to antitrust.
“Incentivizing corporate self-disclosures — while still permitting prosecutions in appropriate circumstances — allows the Department to quickly pursue culpable individuals, secure justice for victims, and deter white-collar crime, all while not unduly burdening American businesses,” DOJ stated in a press release.
Part I: Declination Path
Under the CEP, DOJ will decline to prosecute a company for criminal conduct if all of the following criteria are met:
Even where aggravating circumstances exist, prosecutors retain discretion to recommend a declination. In all cases, the company must pay all disgorgement, forfeiture, restitution, and victim compensation. All declinations will be made public.
Part II: “Near Miss” Path
Companies that do not qualify for the Part I Declination Path—because their self-report falls short of a qualifying voluntary disclosure or because aggravating circumstances warrant a criminal resolution—may still be eligible for eased enforcement under Part II, provided they fully cooperated and timely remediated. Under Part II, DOJ shall:
Part III: All Other Cases
All remaining cases proceed under Part III, which grants prosecutors discretion to determine the appropriate resolution but caps any fine reduction at 50% under the Sentencing Guidelines.
How the CEP Differs from Existing Policy
The CEP’s three-part structure and criteria are largely identical to the DOJ Criminal Division’s enforcement policy, released in May 2025. However, there are a few differences:
The CEP also aligns with EPA’s new “Compliance First” enforcement policy, memorialized in December 2025, further signaling a broader regulatory shift toward industry self-policing and voluntary disclosure. While a disclosure made solely to a regulatory agency generally does not qualify under the CEP, “good faith disclosures…may qualify if appropriate under the circumstances.”
Minnesota Bill Would Delay PFAS Reporting Deadline and Add Exemptions
/in PFAS, State PolicyUpdate – 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:
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:
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.
New Executive Order Targets False “Made in USA” Claims
/in Enforcement, Made in USAOn March 13, 2026, President Trump signed an executive order directing the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prioritize enforcement of false “Made in America” claims.
“Americans have a right to clear, accurate, substantiated, and accessible information regarding whether products advertised as “Made in America” are actually made in the United States,” the order states. “Yet in the age of the modern digital marketplace, foreign manufacturers and sellers represent that their products are made in the United States to target patriotic consumers when, in fact, those products are largely produced and manufactured in other countries.”
The executive order includes several directives:
Even before the executive order, the FTC had signaled increased scrutiny of “Made in USA” claims. The agency designated July 2025 as “Made in the USA” Month and sent warning letters to four manufacturers regarding potentially deceptive origin claims. The FTC also contacted Amazon and Walmart, urging both platforms to strengthen oversight of claims made by third-party seller.
Enforcement activity is also occurring in federal procurement. DOJ is currently prosecuting two federal contractors who allegedly misrepresented the origins of forklifts sold to the US government.
For more information on the FTC’s “all or virtually all” standard governing “Made in USA” claims, visit the FTC’s website.
Michigan Bill Would Mandate PFAS Labeling for 13 Product Categories
/in PFAS, Right-to-Know, State PolicyOn 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:
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.