Manufacturers Express Concern During MPCA PFAS Reporting and Fee Rule Public Hearing

On May 22, 2025, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) held a public hearing regarding its proposed “PFAS in Products: Reporting and Fees Rule” (the Rule) (See Fredrikson’s prior summary of the proposed Rule). During the public comment portion of the hearing, representatives from a variety of manufacturers who will be subject to the proposed Rule voiced a number of consistent concerns regarding the scope and timing of MPCA’s proposed requirements.

Administrative Law Judge James Mortenson presided over the public hearing. Judge Mortenson began the WebEx hearing by noting the post-hearing public comment period would be open until June 23, 2025, with rebuttal comments accepted until June 30, 2025.

Following Judge Mortenson’s opening comments, MPCA staff summarized the background for, and general contents of, the Rule. At the conclusion of their presentation, MPCA staff acknowledged the language under proposed Minn. R. 7026.0100 regarding initial and annual reporting fees was unclear. Staff clarified those fees would apply per manufacturer, not per product or component, as the current draft may suggest. Commenters later in the meeting encouraged the MPCA to make necessary changes to make that expectation clear within the Rule itself.

Judge Mortenson then invited members of the public to ask questions or share concerns regarding the Rule. Representatives of a variety of manufacturers shared concerns specific to their respective industries. They also, however, offered a number of common concerns and requests regarding the Rule. The following were among the more common requests and concerns expressed by the commenters:

• The MPCA commissioner needs to extend the initial reporting deadline. Minn. Stat. § 116.943, subd. 2(a) requires manufacturers who sell, offer for sale or distribute within Minnesota products that contain intentionally added per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to submit information on those products to the MPCA commissioner on or before January 1, 2026. Subdivision 3(d) of section 116.943, however, also allows the commissioner to grant a manufacturer an extension to that deadline.

Virtually every commenter asked the MPCA to consider anywhere from a one- to two-year extension to this initial reporting deadline. The reasons given in support of this request included the fact that the deadline is just over seven months away, yet there is no final rule governing the reporting process nor has the MPCA shared any information about the infrastructure that will facilitate submission of the reports.

Others pointed out that despite their efforts to obtain the types of information listed in the underlying statute from their suppliers, the MPCA’s inclusion of additional information requirements in the Rule will necessitate new rounds of already challenging inquiries that are unlikely to be completed by January 1^st.

• The Rule’s due diligence standard is excessive and unrealistic. Proposed Minn. R. 7026.0080, subp. 2, requires a manufacturer or group of manufacturers to request from their supply chains the information set forth in Minn. R. 7026.0030 “until all required information is known.” Many commenters shared the challenges they have already faced in their good faith efforts to obtain information from their suppliers and the stark choices and risks they face if they fail to obtain “all required information” before a reporting deadline. These same commenters encouraged the MPCA to adopt the much more reasonable and realistic standard established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the reporting requirement under the Toxic Substances Control Act, section 8(a)(7). Rules promulgated under section 8(a)(7) require the submission to the EPA of certain PFAS product information only “to the extent known to or reasonably ascertainable” by applicable manufacturers or importers (40 C.F.R. § 705.15), as compared to the MPCA’s more onerous expectation that a manufacturer must obtain “all required information.”  
• The Rule should allow reporting at the “product” level rather than the “component” level. Representatives of complex product manufacturers, in particular, testified as to the unrealistic expectation of gathering and reporting on the intentional addition of PFAS in each component of their products, which can include hundreds or even thousands of components. They instead encouraged the MPCA instead to allow reporting at the higher “product” level.
• Extensions should be for longer than the proposed 90-day period. The Rule allows the commissioner to grant extensions to a reporting deadline for 90 days. Commenters pointed out, however, that if they are in a position where they need more time to gather requisite information, a mere three-month extension is unlikely to be of much help, particularly if the MPCA fails to act on the request in a timely fashion. Most commenters suggested doubling the extension period to 180 days, at a minimum, or clarifying that a reporting manufacturer may request more than one 90-day deadline.

Parties who wish to submit comments on the Rule or to view comments submitted by others during the initial comment period may do so using the comment portal for this proposed rule. Fredrikson’s Environmental Law Group stands ready to assist clients with the submission of comments or to help assess the potential effects and requirements of the Rule on their businesses. Please contact us if we may be of assistance with this or any other environmental law need.