Good News: PFAS Reporting Deadline Postponed

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) announced recently that it will postpone the Jan. 1, 2026, reporting deadline on products containing intentionally added per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). This is welcome news for businesses that were frantically preparing for the fast-approaching deadline. This column explains the state’s PFAS reporting rule, and summarizes the current, fluid state of play in this state’s evolving PFAS program.

Background on PFAS Reporting Programs

Not wishing to wait for comprehensive federal PFAS regulation, many states have forged ahead with state PFAS reporting and product restriction programs. According to Safer States, a national alliance of environmental health organizations and coalitions, 35 states have introduced some 207 policies intended to protect people from PFAS exposures. Among the states that have developed a comprehensive state program is Minnesota.

Beginning Jan. 1, 2025, Minnesota banned intentionally added PFAS in 11 product categories. These include carpets or rugs, cleaning products, cookware, cosmetics, dental floss, fabric treatments, juvenile products, menstruation products, textile furnishings, ski wax, and upholstered furniture. Up until late June 2025, the state law would have required any manufacturer selling products in Minnesota that contain intentionally added PFAS to report on the PFAS and the purpose served by the inclusion of PFAS in the product by Jan. 1, 2026.

Under the state law, Minnesota will ban all products that contain intentionally added PFAS by Jan. 1, 2032, unless the use of the PFAS in the product is determined to be a currently unavoidable use (CUU). This provision is similar to Maine and New Mexico laws that will ban in 2032 all products that do not have CUUs. While Maine and New Mexico’s statutes include several exemptions from the prohibition, Minnesota, as of now, exempts only some medical products, including prosthetic devices and any medical devices, drugs or products regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in medical applications.

Further PFAS Regulatory Revisions

In April, the MPCA proposed revisions to the PFAS reporting rule and convened a public hearing. In reviewing the comments on the proposal, MPCA “has identified some parts of the proposed rule that require clarification, or that the agency would consider minor, non-substantive changes to.” MPCA “does not believe that these potential changes will result in rules that are ‘substantially different.’”

Importantly, another of the responses to comments notes that the MCPA commissioner “has clear authority to extend the deadline if more time is needed for manufacturers to comply.” According to the document, MPCA “has decided outside of the rulemaking process to issue an extension to the initial due date to ensure program success.” MPCA intends to provide more information on extending the Jan. 1, 2026, reporting deadline “in the near future.” MPCA will respond to comments received during the post-hearing comment period in a future rebuttal document.

Discussion

While it is unclear as of this writing when exactly MPCA will announce the new deadline, the news is welcome, nonetheless. For those entities already deeply engaged in the due diligence required to identify which products contain intentionally added PFAS, what kind of PFAS and what explicit role the PFAS serves, the January 2026 deadline was inviting significant distress, to put it mildly.

Not only is the rule not yet final, but the regulatory infrastructure also needed to accommodate the significant information the state anticipates receiving in response to the reporting obligation is not yet developed. This and other aspects of the state action raised many questions and cast doubt on the state’s ability to proceed by the January 2026 deadline.

Entities subject to the reporting obligation have more to worry about than merely timely submitting the report. Under the rule, there is no “sell-through” provision, so regulated entities would have needed to decide well in advance of January whether to reformulate their products to be intentionally added PFAS-free to ensure existing inventories were depleted by the end of the year. Failure to do less would have risked triggering a reporting obligation or risk the adverse enforcement consequences that failing to report timely would invite.

Besides the regulatory issues, product manufacturers and distributors have also focused on developing supply chain communications, including customer outreach messaging. It goes without saying that having to decide whether to pull a product from a market or report the presence of intentionally added PFAS is not a choice product manufacturers are eager to make. Either way, the decision-making process is demanding and involves sorting complicated legal, economic, public relations and liability issues. The decision to delay the January 2026 date provides much-needed time to think through these issues. Use it wisely.