MPCA to Extend PFAS Product Reporting Deadline; Legislature Modifies Underlying Law

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has announced its intent to extend the deadline by which manufacturers who sell, offer for sale or distribute within Minnesota products that contain intentionally added per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) must submit information on those products to the MPCA Commissioner. In doing so, the MPCA follows in the footsteps of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), regulators who themselves were forced to extend ambitious initial PFAS product-related reporting deadlines in the face of difficult logistical challenges. The Minnesota Legislature also recently modified the underlying PFAS product statute to remove certain products from the sale and distribution ban that took effect earlier this year.

Reporting Deadline Extension and Other Responses to Comments

On May 22, 2025, MPCA held a public hearing regarding its proposed “PFAS in Products: Reporting and Fees Rule” (the Rule) (See Fredrikson’s summary of the hearing and its 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 expressed concerns regarding the scope and timing of MPCA’s proposed requirements. Among the most frequently voiced requests was that the Commissioner use her power under Minn. Stat. § 116.943, subd. 3(d) to extend the January 1, 2026, deadline by which manufacturers must submit information on products with intentionally added PFAS products to the Commissioner.

MPCA released Part One of its “Pre-Hearing and Hearing Response to Comments” on June 16, 2025 and Part Two one week later. In the latter, MPCA announced the Commissioner’s intention to use her statutory power to extend the January 1 reporting deadline “to ensure program success.” It did not, however, establish a new reporting deadline, promising instead to “provid[e] more information on the extension . . .in the near future.”   

Other notable MPCA responses to comments on the Rule include the following:

• Rejection of requests to modify the due diligence standard. The Rule currently requires a manufacturer or group of manufacturers to request certain information from their supply chains “until all required information is known.” Numerous commenters asked MPCA to modify this standard to a more reasonable standard, such as that established by the EPA 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).
  
  In response, MPCA said it “does not believe” EPA’s TSCA standard “is sufficient” to gather information to the extent MPCA believes is expected under the statute. MPCA also suggested a “reasonably ascertainable” standard is unclear and is less enforceable than the standard MPCA set in the proposed Rule. MPCA noted other product reporting rules, such as the Oregon Toxic-Free Kids Act, already have due diligence standards similar to the one established in the Rule. Nevertheless, MPCA said it “would consider the multiple steps a manufacturer took to consult their supply chain to fill in any gaps in the reported data” when enforcing its proposed standard and encourages diligent documentation to demonstrate efforts undertaken.
• Rejection of requests to allow reporting at the “product” level rather than the “component” level. Complex product manufacturers, in particular, lobbied MPCA to allow reporting on PFAS levels at the higher “product” level rather than at the “component” level required under the Rule. MPCA rejected this request, believing that reporting at the latter level is necessary because “products may have different types and amounts of intentionally added PFAS due to specific variations in their components.” MPCA said it also believes the ability of manufacturers to group products and components “if they have similar homogenous characteristics and only differ in a superficial sense . . . that do not impact the composition of the intentionally added PFAS” further alleviates some of the reporting burden noted by the commenters.

MPCA also proposed several changes to the Rule in Parts One and Two, none of which it believed were substantial enough to warrant formal re-noticing of the Rule.

Legislature Removes Certain Products from Existing Product Ban List

Minn. Stat. § 116.943, subd. 5, prohibits the sale, offer for sale, or distribution of 11 categories of products in Minnesota after January 1, 2025, if those products contain intentionally added PFAS. In response to public outcry, the Minnesota Legislature, on June 12, 2025, passed legislation that made the following changes to the statutory ban:

• “Juvenile Products” Amended. Products designed and marketed to children under 12 were among the products with intentionally added PFAS that were banned for sale and distribution in Minnesota beginning January 1. The Legislature modified the very far-reaching definition of “juvenile products” to exclude off-highway and all-terrain vehicles and motorcycles, snowmobiles and electric-assisted bicycles made for children and replacement parts for these vehicles.
• “Internal Components” Not Subject to the Ban. The Legislature also included a new provision that states that products in any of the 11 categories that contain intentionally added PFAS “only in electronic components or internal components” are not subject to the January 1, 2025, sale and distribution ban. The newly created definition of “internal components” at section 116.943, subd. 1(m) describes them as “internal parts of a product, whether permanently affixed or removable, that are designed and intended to not be touched by a person during intended use or handling. Internal components include parts of a product used for holding batteries regardless of whether the parts are touched when replacing batteries.”

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed this legislation into law on June 14, 2025.

Fredrikson’s Environmental Law Group will continue to monitor and report on developments in MPCA’s PFAS product reporting requirements, including the extension to the reporting deadline. Please contact us if we may be of assistance with this or any other environmental law need.