The post Minnesota Delays Initial Reporting Deadline a Second Time appeared first on PFAS Observer.

PFAS may be added to textiles, including those used in clothing, to impart the qualities of water- and stain-resistance.

In response to the CID, Lululemon stated that it phased out intentionally added PFAS in all its products in fiscal year 2023. Although the company outsources its manufacturing, it maintains a strict Restricted Substances List (RSL) consistent with the 2025 Apparel and Footwear International RSL Management (AFIRM) Group, caps total organic fluorine at 50 ppm, and takes steps to minimize any PFAS variants in its products by engaging in ongoing vendor audits and lab testing.

The Texas CID continues the trend of businesses, aside from those engaged in the manufacture of PFAS, becoming the subject of enforcement actions and litigation. More specifically, it may serve as a harbinger for similar actions against other clothing manufacturers. Furthermore, implicit in the complaint is an understanding that PFAS may be potentially harmful through dermal contact. This is notable since the initial wave of PFAS litigation in the second half of the last decade focused on harmful exposure through ingestion (e.g., potable water supplies impacted by PFAS).

All this may accentuate existing trends whereby companies investigate their supply chains for the potential presence of PFAS and seek certifications from supply chain partners that these chemicals are not present in their products. If they have not done so already, companies similarly situated to Lululemon, may wish to consider initiating such investigation, while those that have taken steps may wish to consider the adequacy of measures taken to death, as well as specific means (e.g., contractual indemnities, insurance, re-evaluating advertising claims) of potentially offsetting PFAS-related liabilities.

The post Texas Attorney General to Investigate Potential PFAS in Lululemon appeared first on PFAS Observer.

On April 2, EPA announced the release of the draft Sixth CCL (CCL 6) marking the first time that microplastics and pharmaceuticals have been designated as potential contaminants for regulation under the SDWA. The CCL 6 also lists, as a class, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and disinfection byproducts, as well as 75 chemicals and nine microbes.

• Microplastics are tiny plastic particles measuring less than five millimeters in size that are ubiquitous in the environment and easily ingested by humans. Because this is the first time that microplastics have been included on the CCL, there are still significant data gaps and more investigation is necessary to determine detection methods, potential sources, and impacts on human health.
• PFAS have been included on CCL lists as far back as 2009. The latest SDWA Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5) required regulated public water systems to sample for 29 PFAS chemicals. Notably, CCL 6 defines PFAS broadly, using the definition that EPA has developed for, among other things, the one-time PFAS Reporting Rule under Section 8(a)(7) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. This definition is notably controversial, as it includes fluoropolymers, which are widely used in commercial and industrial applications and do not present the same concerns of persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity as certain other types of PFAS (for example, long-chain alkyl acid PFAS). It remains to be seen which specific PFAS are selected for inclusion on the next UCMR list or for MCLs (similar to those finalized in 2024 for PFOA and PFOS).
• The CCL employs a broad definition of pharmaceuticals, which covers any substance that meets the definition of a “drug” under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. § 321).
• Disinfection byproducts (DBP) are formed when disinfectants used for antimicrobial treatment in drinking water react with organic or inorganic materials. The EPA has listed 27 unregulated DBPs, 23 of which were previously listed on CCL 5.

EPA is seeking comments on the draft CCL 6 as well as on the process used to select the contaminants. Comments must be received on or before June 01, 2026.

The post EPA Takes Steps to Regulate Microplastics, PFAS and Pharmaceuticals under the Safe Drinking Water Act appeared first on PFAS Observer.

Maine
In 2021, Maine enacted 38 M.R.S. § 1614, a sweeping and, in many ways, unprecedented state law to regulate PFAS in consumer and commercial products. Administered by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP), the law created a two-part framework. The first part required manufacturers to notify MDEP of products that they introduce into Maine commerce that contain “intentionally added” PFAS (broadly defined).¹ The second part entailed a broad prohibition on the sale and distribution of such products, to be implemented in several phases.

The law has since been amended to eliminate the initial notification requirement altogether due to difficulties that MDEP encountered in implementing this portion of the law.² But the series of product phaseouts remains, highlighted by a prohibition on the sale or distribution of almost all products with intentionally added PFAS by 2032.

However, exceptions to these phaseouts exist for products that the MDEP determines constitute “currently unavoidable uses” (CUUs). Such CUU designations are appropriate for products that confer a benefit, where the presence of PFAS is essential to product functionality, and where viable alternatives to PFAS do not exist. Industry has had the opportunity to petition MDEP for such designations and will have opportunities again in the future (see below).

The full schedule of sales prohibitions can be found on the MDEP website and is listed here.

Maine
(all dates effective January 1)

2023

2026

2029

2032

2040

Although MDEP has already solicited industry input on CUU determinations, opportunities to secure CUU status for products will exist in the future. Specifically, businesses must submit proposals for CUU determinations to MDEP no earlier than 60 months and no later than 18 months before the applicable sales prohibition.³ Once approved, CUUs are effective for a five-year period following either the effective date of the rulemaking or the date of the sales prohibition, whichever is longer. Although the formal notification deadline has passed for the 2026 product prohibitions, it is our experience that MDEP would still consider a well-argued case for a CUU determination.

With regards to enforcement, MDEP has indicated in its Chapter 90 rule that its focus will be on “encouraging voluntary compliance.” However, MDEP is empowered under 38 M.R.S. §§ 347-A – 349 to issue civil penalties of up to $10,000 for each day that manufacturers are in violation.

Minnesota
In 2023, the Minnesota legislature passed Minnesota Statute § 116.943—commonly known as Amara’s Law. As with the Maine law, Amara’s Law also regulates PFAS in consumer and commercial products by instituting a manufacturer reporting requirement, and a phased prohibition on the sale and distribution of products containing intentionally added PFAS.⁴ Because Minnesota has used Maine’s law as a model, many terms and definitions in the Minnesota Statute are similar or identical. This includes the definitions of “manufacturer,” “PFAS” and “CUU.”

Under Subdivision 2, every manufacturer of a product sold, offered for sale, or distributed in Minnesota that contains intentionally added PFAS must submit a notification to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). All manufacturers are responsible for submitting notice to MPCA for each product and component unless manufacturers in the same supply chain enter into an agreement to establish their respective reporting requirements.⁵ Moreover, each manufacturer or group of manufacturers is obligated to either recertify its report annually or submit an updated report if a significant change is made to the product, new product information was provided to the manufacturer, or a new product not covered by an existing notice is sold or distributed in state.⁶

The rules and fees associated with this general notification requirement are currently being finalized by MPCA and are projected to be adopted by January 2026. The deadline for manufacturers to submit initial reports is July 1, 2026; however, MPCA must extend this deadline by 90 days if it determines that more time is justified for the manufacturer to comply with reporting requirements. Manufacturers may apply for an extension up to 30 days prior to the reporting deadline.

If a manufacturer wishes to continue selling a product with intentionally added PFAS after the phaseout provision is effective, it must apply to the MPCA for a CUU. Minnesota is currently drafting rules on the specific criteria and process for determining whether a product qualifies as a CUU. MPCA has submitted draft rules for public comment but there is no estimated timeline for the release of proposed rules or final adoption.

Under Amara’s law, the deadline for phasing out certain consumer products has already passed (see the table below) with the next deadline not until January 1, 2032. From that date on, it will be unlawful to sell, offer for sale, or distribute any product containing intentionally added PFAS in Minnesota unless it is designated as a CUU. The schedule of product phaseouts can be found on the MPCA website and is listed here.

Minnesota
(all dates effective January 1)

2025

2032

Notably, Amara’s Law also outlines four specific exemptions where the statute does not apply. These are (1) products whose PFAS content is already regulated under federal law, (2) medical devices and drugs regulated by the FDA, (3) products covered under existing Minnesota state PFAS statutes (notably firefighting foam and food packaging), and (4) the sale or resale of used products containing PFAS.⁷

The MPCA may enforce Amara’s law under Minnesota Statute §§ 115.071 and 116.072 which include civil penalties of up to $15,000 per day of the violation.

[1] Under the statute, a “manufacturer” is defined to include the brand owner and extends to the importer or the first domestic distributor if the manufacturer or brand owner does not have a presence in the United States.

[2] MDEP recently finalized rules which, most notably, replaced the initial reporting requirement system with one in which manufacturers apply for CUU determinations if they wish to continue selling their products after the applicable phaseout deadline. These rules are effective as of October 7, 2025.

[3] This timing requirement does not apply to sales prohibitions taking effect in 2026 which must have been submitted by June 1, 2025.

[4] “Intentionally added” means PFAS deliberately added to during the manufacture of a product where the presence of PFAS in the product or one of its components performs a specific function.

[5] The draft rules define a “component” as a distinct and identifiable element or constituent of a product. Component includes packaging only when the packaging is inseparable or integral to the final product’s containment, dispensing, or preservation.

[6] “Significant change” means a change in the composition​ of a product that results in the addition of a specific PFAS not previously reported in a​ product or component or a measurable change in the amount of a specific PFAS from the​ initial amount reported that would move the product into a different concentration range

[7] Food packaging is defined in § 325F.075 as “ a container applied to or providing a means to market, protect, handle, deliver, serve, contain, or store a food or beverage.”

The post Revisiting Maine and Minnesota PFAS Laws appeared first on PFAS Observer.

Hazardous Substance Listings
On September 17, 2025, EPA filed an unopposed motion to lift the EPA-requested abeyance in U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. EPA, No. 24-1193 (D.C. Cir. 2024), informing the Court that the Agency intends to keep in place the designations of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA. In a concurrent public statement, EPA confirmed that it will continue defending these designations in court and initiate a rulemaking to establish a uniform framework for future PFAS “hazardous substance” designations, including how costs will be considered.

The underlying litigation challenges the CERCLA designations as arbitrary and capricious on multiple grounds, including the alleged inadequacy of EPA’s regulatory impact analysis (discussed in detail in here). Given these arguments and the change in administration, many stakeholders anticipated that EPA would support rescission of the designations. The Agency’s recent filings, however, indicate that it intends to preserve them, signaling a continued commitment to maintaining PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances.

On September 25, 2025, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA’s motion to lift the abeyance and set briefing to resume, with petitioners’ joint reply due November 14, 2025.

Maximum Contaminant Levels
Separately, on September 10, 2025, EPA filed a motion in American Water Works Association v. EPA, No. 24-1188 (D.C. Cir. 2024), seeking partial vacatur of certain elements of its April 2024 PFAS drinking water rule. That rule established maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for six PFAS compounds: PFOA and PFOS, regulated individually, and PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (GenX) and certain mixtures, regulated collectively.

In May of 2025, however, EPA announced its intent to maintain its NPDWRs for PFOA and PFOS but withdraw the other four MCLs. During a July 2024 meeting of EPA’s National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC), the Agency indicated that by the end of 2025, it would propose a rulemaking to retain the MCLs for PFOA and PFOS but extend compliance deadlines to 2031. The September 10, 2025, motion is consistent with this announcement, as EPA requested that the Court vacate the MCLs for PFNA, PFHxS, HFPO-DA (GenX) and the combined Hazard Index for PFAS mixtures, while leaving the MCLs for PFOA and PFOS in place. Responses to the motion to vacate were filed; however, the case is currently stayed at EPA’s unopposed request in light of the lapse in federal appropriations.

The Unified Regulatory Agenda Indicates a More Comprehensive Regulatory Approach
EPA’s September 2025 Unified Regulatory Agenda further illustrates the Agency’s sustained yet more selective focus on PFAS regulation. Several pending and planned rulemakings indicate continued PFAS-focused regulatory activities from EPA, including:

• Clean Water Act Permitting. EPA is considering updates to PFAS-related requirements in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for sewage effluent treatment facilities. Currently, permit applicants are only required to report discharges of certain pollutants listed in existing regulations. (See 40 CFR 122.21.) A future rulemaking could add certain PFAS compounds to this list, though EPA has acknowledged that there are no currently approved analytical methods for PFAS in NPDES permitting.

The Agency anticipates a proposed rule by the end of 2025 and finalizing updates in 2027.

• Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs). EPA is also considering ELGs for organic chemicals, plastics and synthetic fibers to address discharges from facilities at which PFAS are manufactured. ELGs set industry-specific wastewater standards based on the performance of the best available, economically achievable technology. Facilities are not required to use the specific technology EPA identifies in setting the limits, but they must meet the resulting discharge limits.

EPA first signaled its intent to revisit PFAS-related ELGs in its 2023 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 15, which outlines the Agency’s strategy for reducing water pollution. In that plan, EPA noted that landfill ELGs should be revised to account for PFAS in landfill leachate. The September 2025 Unified Agenda indicates that a proposed ELG rulemaking is anticipated in 2026.

• TSCA Reporting Rule. EPA intends to revise the scope of the PFAS Reporting Rule under Section 8(a)(7) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The TSCA PFAS Reporting Rule creates a potentially time-consuming and onerous reporting obligation for any PFAS, including the importation of any PFAS incorporated within mixtures and articles. EPA has already moved to delay the PFAS Reporting Rule twice, with the required data submission window now set to open for most manufacturers on April 13, 2026, and close on October 13, 2026.

The Unified Agenda provides that “EPA plans to propose the incorporation of certain exemptions and other modifications to the scope of the reporting rule.” A proposed rule on this issue may be released by the end of 2025.

• Sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 6). The UCMR provides a mechanism for EPA to collect data regarding impacts to public water systems from “emerging contaminants,” for which the SDWA does not otherwise require sampling and mitigation. Both UCMRs 3 and 5 included PFAS among the 30 chemicals for which each rule required sampling. Although it is still unclear whether UCMR 6 will do so as well, several entities that responded to the request for comments on this rule—published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2024—advocated that PFAS be included within the sampling suite of chemicals.

Looking Ahead
Collectively, these actions indicate EPA’s apparent commitment to continuing to regulate PFAS, albeit with some targeted relaxations of regulatory requirements established under the Biden administration. Companies may find it worthwhile to stay abreast of any such developments in the fluid legal landscape involving PFAS. Pillsbury’s PFAS Task Force is monitoring these developments and assisting clients with compliance, litigation strategy and risk management amid this shifting regulatory environment.

The post EPA Sharpens the Focus of Its PFAS Regulatory Framework (October 2025 Update) appeared first on PFAS Observer.

Specifically, the law requires manufacturers (defined to include, depending on the situation, manufacturers, brand owners, importers, and distributors) of products with intentionally added PFAS (broadly defined to include any scenario in which PFAS is intended to be present in the final product[1]) to complete mandatory reporting to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) of each product sold, offered for sale, or distributed by the manufacturer in Minnesota. The law also requires phased prohibitions on the sale of certain PFAS-containing products in the state.  Carpets, cleaning products, cookware, cosmetics, menstruation products, and more, will be prohibited from sale as early as 2025, with a general ban on all PFAS-containing products taking effect by 2032 unless the product and its use are deemed “currently unavoidable.”

Minnesota’s law is modeled after Maine’s PFAS-in-products statute (Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 38, § 1614), which imposed similar reporting and prohibition requirements. However, both states have since acknowledged practical challenges of compliance with the statutes as written, particularly for manufacturers with complex global supply chains, which has prompted the states to delay implementation pending modification of the laws accordingly.

In the case of the Minnesota law, MPCA on July 23, 2025, extended the deadline for manufacturers to provide notice regarding intentionally modified PFAS from January 1, 2026, to July 1, 2026. As MPCA stated in its guidance regarding PFAS reporting, the purpose of the extension was intended to give manufacturers ample time to (1) put agreements in place with suppliers to make reports on their behalf and (2) to become familiar with MPCA’s reporting platform, which will become available in Fall 2025.

Despite the postponed reporting date, businesses may wish to consider proceeding with diligence in terms of preparing their notifications. This is due to the ubiquity of PFAS in industrial, commercial, and consumer products, as well as the fact that supply chain investigations will likely be necessary to discern whether certain types of products—such as manufactured articles that are not accompanied with chemical specification sheets—contain PFAS. One way to screen such products for reporting is to consider whether they are intended to exhibit traits such as fire-, water-, grease- and stain-resistance, characteristics often associated with the presence of PFAS.

As to covered products, the following information must be provided:

1. A description of the product, including a Universal Product Code (UPC), stock keeping unit (SKU), or other numeric identifier;
2. The purpose of the PFAS used in the product;
3. The amount of each PFAS compound (by weight or concentration), as highlighted by its chemical abstracts service registry number;
4. The name and address of the manufacturer and a contact person representing the manufacturer;
5. Any additional information required by MPCA rulemaking.

With permission from MPCA, a manufacturer may supply the required information described above for a type or category of products rather than each individual product. MPCA may also waive all or part of this information if the agency determines that the information is already publicly available.

Manufacturers failing to comply with the requirements may face both criminal and civil penalties, though it remains to be seen how enforcement will be implemented in practice. MPCA is authorized to enforce the statute under its general environmental enforcement authority. Penalties may include criminal misdemeanor convictions, civil penalties of up to $30,000 per day of violation, injunctions to cease operations, actions to compel compliance with the laws, and administrative penalties of up to $25,000 per violation.

MPCA’s extension has provided manufacturers with more time to identify products containing intentionally added PFAS sold in Minnesota, and request that upstream suppliers disclose any intentionally added PFAS in products sold. In the meantime, Minnesota’s PFAS framework is still under development and further rulemaking will occur throughout late 2025 and into 2026.

[1] https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/116.943. Notably, “PFAS” is defined as any fluorinated organic chemical that contains a minimum of one fluorinated carbon atom, encompassing widely fluoropolymers. Which are widely used in commercial and industrial applications.

The post Minnesota PFAS Reporting Requirements Delayed to July 2026 appeared first on PFAS Observer.

EPA’s NPDWR for PFAS established six maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for six PFAS compounds:

• PFOA and PFOS, regulated individually; and
• PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (GenX), and certain mixtures, regulated collectively.

Shortly after publication in 2024, multiple industry groups and water system stakeholders challenged the final rule in the D.C. Circuit. The briefing process began in late 2024 but remained incomplete when, following the inauguration of President Donald Trump in January 2025, EPA moved to pause the litigation to give the agency sufficient time to reconsider its regulatory approach. The Court granted EPA’s initial request to pause the case on February 7, 2025, and has since extended that pause three times.

In May of 2025, however, EPA announced its intent to (1) maintain its NPDWRs for PFOA and PFOS; but (2) rescind the NPDWR for hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA or GenX), perfluorononanoate (PFNA), and perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), as well as the hazard index used to evaluate the combined risk of those compounds and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS). This announcement afforded EPA the ability to defend its revised position in Court.

On August 1, the parties submitted a joint request for a September 10 deadline for EPA to inform the Court of its position in the litigation and a September 17 deadline for a joint proposed briefing schedule.

Another challenge to a 2024 EPA rule regulating PFAS remains stayed. Earlier this month, the D.C. Circuit once again extended the abeyance in Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. EPA, Case No. 24-1193, a consolidated challenge to EPA’s final rule designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). This latest stay, which will last until August 18, follows multiple extensions since the court first granted abeyance in February 2025 to provide time for new EPA leadership to evaluate the rule and determine the agency’s litigation posture. In its most recent filing, EPA explained that its review remains ongoing and is being conducted “within the broader context of EPA’s comprehensive strategy to address PFOA and PFOS.” The agency emphasized that continuing the abeyance would promote judicial efficiency and conserve party resources if ultimately it elects to revise or rescind the rule.

We will continue to monitor these cases and report on any developments.

RELATED ARTICLES

EPA to Reconsider Drinking Water Standards for Several PFAS

EPA’s PFAS Strategy Evolves Amid Continued Regulatory, Legislative, and Litigation Uncertainty

The post D.C. Circuit Restarts Litigation over EPA’s PFAS Drinking Water Standards, Continues Pause in CERCLA Litigation appeared first on PFAS Observer.

This 45-day extension follows EPA’s May 14, 2025, announcement that it intends to retain the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for PFOA and PFOS and support the Department of Justice in defending those standards in the pending litigation. At the same time, EPA announced plans to rescind the MCLs for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and mixtures containing those compounds and/or PFBS, and to reconsider the regulatory determinations for these substances. A proposed rule implementing these changes is expected this fall, with a final rule anticipated in spring 2026.

In its motion, EPA explained that the extension is necessary to allow further evaluation of how these planned changes affect the litigation. The agency acknowledged that “[t]his evaluation has taken longer than anticipated” and emphasized the need for more time to develop a proposal and confer with other parties on how to proceed. While the request was unopposed, certain petitioners and intervenors reserved their rights to oppose any future extensions and to seek to lift the abeyance, if necessary to protect their interests.

We will continue to monitor the docket as the July 21 deadline approaches and EPA finalizes its course of action.

RELATED ARTICLES

EPA to Reconsider Drinking Water Standards for Several PFAS

The post D.C. Circuit Grants Latest Abeyance Extension in PFAS MCL Litigation appeared first on PFAS Observer.

While withdrawing the limitations for these PFAS, EPA announced that it will preserve the MCLs for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). However, EPA plans to extend the compliance deadline for public water systems from 2029 to 2031, providing a seven-year implementation window from the date the standards were finalized. EPA also confirmed that it will support the Department of Justice in defending the SDWA rule in American Water Works Association v. EPA, No. 24-1188 (D.C. Cir. 2024), but only as to the MCLs for PFOA and PFOS. That case is currently stayed until June 4, 2024 on EPA’s request for additional time for the new Administration to review the rule.

The decision to retain the PFOA and PFOS standards may reflect a degree of continuity from Administrator Zeldin, who, during his time in Congress, supported PFAS regulation, co-founded the bipartisan PFAS Congressional Task Force, and voted for the PFAS Action Act of 2021.

EPA expects to issue a proposed rule revising the remaining PFAS standards in Fall 2025, with final action anticipated by Spring 2026.

The post EPA to Reconsider Drinking Water Standards for Several PFAS appeared first on PFAS Observer.

This marks the second time EPA has extended the reporting period. According to the Agency’s interim final rule, the extension is necessary to allow for the continued development and testing of EPA’s electronic reporting platform, which remains under construction. EPA noted that delaying the start of the submission period will allow additional time to incorporate beta tester feedback and develop guidance on the database for the regulated community.

The interim final rule is currently available in pre-publication form; a 30-day public comment period will commence upon its publication in the Federal Register.

RELATED ARTICLES

EPA’s PFAS Strategy Evolves Amid Continued Regulatory, Legislative, and Litigation Uncertainty

The post EPA Issues Second Extension of PFAS Reporting Timeline Under TSCA Section 8(a)(7) appeared first on PFAS Observer.