NMED Seeks Public Input on New Mexico’s PFAS Exemptions
On October 8, 2026, the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) held an in-person meeting to discuss whether certain products and materials should continue to be exempted from the state’s Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances Protection Act.
The meeting follows the February 2026 passage of HJM 3, which directs NMED to report to the legislature “on the public health, environmental and economic risks of the exemptions codified in the” Act. The report must include recommendations on “whether such exemptions, such as the exemption for fluoropolymers, should be continued, modified or removed.”
HJM 3 characterizes the exemptions as “based on limited scientific literature regarding chemical degradation, environmental mobility and persistence, potential human exposure pathways and possible health impacts.”
The memorial also separately directs the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) to report on the Act’s implementation.
According to the meeting slides, NMED plans to present its interim findings to the Radioactive and Hazardous Materials Interim Committee on November 5, 2026. NMED is accepting public comments on the exemptions through December 31, 2026. The report to the legislature is due August 1, 2027.
NMED also held a webinar on HJM 3 on August 18, 2026.
Legal Background
Enacted in 2025, the Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances Protection Act imposes phased prohibitions on products containing intentionally added PFAS. The Act also requires manufacturers to report products containing intentionally added PFAS to NMED by January 1, 2027. However, sixteen categories of products and materials—including fluoropolymers, used products, medical devices, semiconductors, certain refrigerants, and motor vehicles—are exempt from these requirements.
Earlier this year, EIB adopted regulations proposed by NMED to implement the statute. The regulations also establish a near-universal PFAS labeling requirement for consumer products, effective January 1, 2027. The labeling requirement applies even to products covered by the statute’s exemptions, subject to limited exceptions for used products, pesticides, veterinary products, medical devices, and drugs.
The District of New Mexico has since preliminarily blocked the labeling mandate on First Amendment grounds. A separate state-court challenge to the rule is also ongoing.
Focus on the Fluoropolymer Exemption
Much of the discussion surrounding the statutory exemptions has focused on fluoropolymers, a subclass of PFAS consisting of substances with polymeric per- or polyfluorinated carbon backbones. One of the best-known fluoropolymers is polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), also known by the brand name Teflon. PTFE is used in nonstick cookware, electronics, industrial equipment, medical devices, and numerous other applications.
The statutory exemption for fluoropolymers also encompasses a separate but related PFAS subclass known as polymeric perfluoropolyethers.
Fluoropolymers are the only exemption specifically identified in HJM 3. The memorial directs NMED to consider whether the exemptions, “such as the exemption for fluoropolymers,” should be modified. It also states that “additional health and environmental studies are needed to understand more fully the toxicological profiles, exposure risks and public health implications of fluoropolymers.”
Several plaintiffs in the federal litigation challenging the regulations implementing the Act have submitted comments urging NMED to recommend continuing the fluoropolymer exemption. They argue that fluoropolymers do not present health or environmental risks, serve critical or irreplaceable functions, and have been treated separately from other PFAS in other jurisdictions.
For more on New Mexico’s regulation of PFAS in products, visit our NM PFAS archive.
