With the January 1, 2026, reporting deadline fast approaching for reporting on products containing intentionally added per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), on April 21, 2025, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) published a proposed rule intended to clarify the reporting requirements, specify how and what to report, and establish fees. Written comments on the proposed rule are due May 21, 2025, at 4:30 p.m. (CDT). On May 22, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. (CDT), MPCA will hold a public hearing during which it will accept oral comments on the proposed rule. The hearing will end at 5:00 p.m. (CDT), but additional days of hearings may be scheduled if necessary. The procedural rulemaking documents available include:
Definitions
The proposed rule includes definitions not included in Minnesota’s statute, including:
- Component: 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.
- Distribute for sale: To ship or otherwise transport a product with the intent or understanding that the product will be sold or offered for sale by a receiving party after the product is delivered.
- Function: The explicit purpose or role served by PFAS when intentionally incorporated at any stage in the process of preparing a product or its constituent components for sale, offer for sale, or distribution for sale.
- Homogenous material: One material of uniform composition throughout or a material, consisting of a combination of materials, that cannot be disjointed or separated into different materials by mechanical actions.
- Packaging: The meaning given under Minnesota Statutes, Section 115A.03 — “‘Packaging’ means a container and any appurtenant material that provide a means of transporting, marketing, protecting, or handling a product. ‘Packaging’ includes pallets and packing such as blocking, bracing, cushioning, weatherproofing, strapping, coatings, closures, inks, dyes, pigments, and labels.”
- Significant change: 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.
- Substantially equivalent information: Information that the MPCA commissioner can identify as conveying the same information required under Part 7026.0030 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 116.943, Subdivision 2. Substantially equivalent information includes an existing notification by a person who manufactures a product or component when the same product or component is offered for sale under multiple brands.
For some definitions, the proposed rule expands on definitions that are included in the statute. The statute defines manufacturer, but MPCA proposes additional language to clarify the definition (new language is italicized):
- Manufacturer: The person that creates or produces a product, that has a product created or produced, or whose brand name is legally affixed to the product. In the case of a product that is imported into the United States when the person that created or produced the product or whose brand name is affixed to the product does not have a presence in the United States, manufacturer means either the importer or the first domestic distributor of the product, whichever is first to sell, offer for sale, or distribute for sale the product in the state.
According to the SONAR, MPCA inserted the phrase “has a product created or produced” to clarify the parties responsible for reporting. MPCA states that “[s]imilarly, the definition encompasses parties that either import or are the first domestic distributor of the product, whichever is first to sell, offer for sale, or distribute the product for sale in the state.” MPCA intends the revisions to clarify that companies that do not manufacture their own products are subject to the reporting and fee requirements.
Parties Responsible for Reporting
Under the proposed rule, a manufacturer or a group of manufacturers must submit a report for each product or component that contains intentionally added PFAS. Manufacturers in the same supply chain may enter into an agreement to establish their reporting responsibilities. The proposed rule allows a manufacturer to submit information on behalf of another manufacturer if the following requirements are met:
- The reporting manufacturer must notify any other manufacturer that is a party to the agreement that the reporting manufacturer has fulfilled the reporting requirements;
- All manufacturers must maintain documentation of a reporting responsibility agreement and must provide the documentation to MPCA upon request;
- All manufacturers must verify that the data submitted on their behalf are accurate and complete; and
- For the verification to be considered complete, all manufacturers must submit the required fee, as applicable.
MPCA states in the SONAR that “[i]t is reasonable to allow a manufacturer to submit the reporting requirements for another manufacturer because of the large overlap in common components used throughout the manufacturing of complex products.” According to MPCA, it will provide detailed guidance on how reporting entities can submit on behalf of multiple manufacturers in the reporting system instructions or in supplemental guidance.
Information Required
Under the statute, the following information must be reported:
(1) A brief description of the product, including a universal product code (UPC), stock keeping unit (SKU), or other numeric code assigned to the product;
(2) The purpose for which PFAS are used in the product, including in any product components;
(3) The amount of each PFAS, identified by its Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number® (CAS RN®), in the product, reported as an exact quantity determined using commercially available analytical methods or as falling within a range approved for reporting purposes;
(4) The name and address of the manufacturer and the name, address, and phone number of a contact person for the manufacturer; and
(5) Any additional information requested by the commissioner as necessary to implement the requirements of this section.
Rather than requiring information regarding the purpose for which PFAS are used in the product, the proposed rule would require that manufacturers provide “the function that each PFAS chemical provides to the product or its components.” Under the proposed rule’s definition of function (“the explicit purpose or role served by PFAS when intentionally incorporated at any stage in the process of preparing a product or its constituent components for sale, offer for sale, or distribution for sale”), manufacturers would be required to report not only any PFAS intentionally added to the product, but PFAS used during the manufacturing process even if the PFAS are not present in the final product.
A manufacturer would be allowed to group similar products compromised of homogenous materials if the following criteria are met:
- The PFAS chemical composition is the same;
- The PFAS chemicals fall into the same reporting concentration ranges;
- The PFAS chemicals provide the same function; and
- The products have the same basic form and function and only differ in size, color, or other superficial qualities that do not impact the composition of the intentionally added PFAS.
If the product consists of multiple PFAS-containing components, the manufacturer would be required to report each component under the product name provided in the brief description of the product. Similar components listed within a product could be grouped together if the components meet the criteria listed above.
The proposed rule will allow manufacturers to report the concentration of PFAS using the following ranges:
- Practical detection limit to less than (<) 100 parts per million (ppm);
- 100 ppm to <1,000 ppm (0.1 percent);
- 1,000 ppm to <10,000 ppm (one percent);
- 10,000 ppm to <150,000 ppm (15 percent);
- 50,000 ppm to <300,000 ppm (30 percent);
- 300,000 ppm to <600,000 ppm (60 percent);
- 600,000 ppm to <900,000 ppm (90 percent);
- Present but the amount or concentration range is unknown.
Instead of using a range, manufacturers would also have the option of reporting the total organic fluorine (TOF), “determined using commercially available analytical methods, if the amount of each PFAS is not known within applicable due diligence standards.” The SONAR states that manufacturers “may provide a TOF concentration for a product or a component as an option when a supply chain is not able or not willing to provide exact PFAS data downstream.” According to MPCA, “[i]t is reasonable to allow facilities to report TOF because TOF levels are considered as a reporting option when specific chemicals are not known due to the difficulty and lack of standardized test methods for the majority of PFAS chemicals in various matrices.”
Reporting Updates
By February 1 of every year, a manufacturer or group of manufacturers would be required to submit an update if during the previous 12 months:
- A significant change was made to a product;
- New product information was provided to a manufacturer; or
- A new product was sold, offered for sale, or distributed in or into the state.
If no update is required, then a manufacturer or group of manufacturers must recertify the report submitted previously by February 1 each year. A manufacturer or group of manufacturers may voluntarily update the initial report whenever a PFAS is reduced or eliminated from a product or component or there is a change in the information reported.
Waivers
The proposed rule would allow the MPCA commissioner to waive all or part of the information if the commissioner determines that substantially equivalent information is publicly available. Waiver requests would be due 30 days before the reporting deadline. For any requirements not waived, a manufacturer or group of manufacturers would still be required to submit a report. If a waiver request is denied, the report would be due within 30 days or by the reporting due date, whichever is later.
Extensions
Under the proposed rule, the MPCA commissioner must extend the deadline for submitting information if the commissioner determines that more time is justified to comply with the reporting requirements. Extension requests would be required to include:
- The reason for the extension request, including a detailed explanation of the circumstances that prevent timely submission;
- Supporting documentation, including any relevant documents that substantiate the need for an extension, such as communication records with other manufacturers, evidence of technical challenges, or third-party testing delays; and
- A plan for completion, including an outline of how the manufacturer will submit the remaining work by the new deadline.
Extension requests would be due at least 30 days before the reporting due date. If the MPCA commissioner determines that the extension is justified, a 90-day extension of the reporting due date would be granted. If an extension request is denied, reports will be due within 30 days after the notice of denial or by the established reporting due date, whichever is later.
Trade Secret Data Request
The proposed rule would allow a manufacturer or group of manufacturers to request that the following be maintained as trade secret data and not as public information:
- Chemical identifying number; and
- Specific supply chain information.
Requests would be required to include a chemical subclass to designate as public data.
Due Diligence
The proposed rule would require a manufacturer or group of manufacturers to request detailed disclosure of information from their supply chain “until all required information is known.” Documentation of all communication with other manufacturers would be required to be kept for five years and to be provided to the MPCA commissioner upon request.
Reporting Exemptions
The proposed rule would not require reporting for:
- A product for which federal law governs the presence of PFAS in the product in a manner that preempts state authority;
- A product regulated under Minnesota Statutes, Section 325F.072 (firefighting foam) or 325F.075 (PFAS in food packaging);
- The sale or resale of a used product;
- A product reported to the Minnesota Department of Agriculture as meeting the reporting waiver requirements under the statute for pesticides regulated under Chapter 18B, fertilizers, agricultural liming materials, plant amendments, or soil amendments regulated under Chapter 18C; and
- Information regarding PFAS-containing products or components that is provided to any federal government agency and that is classified information as defined in U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 798.
Fees
The proposed rule would establish a $1,000 fee for manufacturers to submit the initial report. If a group of manufacturers is reporting, or a manufacturer is reporting on behalf of multiple manufacturers, each individual manufacturer must pay $1,000. The fee of annual updates or recertifications would be $500. If a group of manufacturers or a manufacturer is reporting on behalf of multiple manufacturers, each must pay the $500. A reporting waiver request would not be considered without payment of the fee. If the waiver request is denied and a report is required, it would not be subject to duplicative fees. The fee for extension requests would be $300. If a group of manufacturers requests an extension, each must pay a $300 fee. No fee would be required for voluntary updates. Beginning July 1, 2027, and each odd-number year thereafter, MPCA would adjust the fees for inflation.
Commentary
In addition to reviewing the proposed rule, stakeholders should read MPCA’s SONAR. There is much to absorb, and we highlight only some of the issues here. In discussing the parties responsible for reporting, MPCA states that it will provide detailed guidance on how reporting entities can submit on behalf of multiple manufacturers in the reporting system instructions or in supplemental guidance. According to MPCA, this information “will be available once the reporting system’s functional capabilities are fully established, ensuring that entities have clear, practical steps for submission on behalf of multiple manufacturers.” Given the rapidly approaching January 1, 2026, reporting deadline, and the likely interest in allowing one entity to report for the entire supply chain, this detailed guidance is critical.
Allowing reporting based on TOF testing will not result in accurate reporting on the quantities of PFAS in products in Minnesota. The SONAR acknowledges that a supplier may not be able or willing to provide exact PFAS data, but then states that “[i]t is reasonable to allow facilities to report TOF because TOF levels are considered as a reporting option when specific chemicals are not known due to the difficulty and lack of standardized test methods for the majority of PFAS chemicals in various matrices.” TOF testing measures only the total amount of fluorine in a sample that is bound to organic compounds. Such measurements do not necessarily reflect the presence of PFAS.
In the SONAR, MPCA discusses due diligence, stating that “[i]t is reasonable to require manufacturers or a group of manufacturers to continue to request information from their supply chain until the reporting requirements can be fulfilled because PFAS can be present at various stages of product manufacturing and may be introduced at different points within the supply chain.” The idea that information can be obtained from the entire supply chain, if only requested enough times, seemingly ignores the reality of a global supply chain creating complex products. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s “known to or reasonably ascertainable” due diligence standard is a much more realistic standard for manufacturers to meet.
For manufacturers that have expressed concerns about how the reported information will be shared with the public, the SONAR states that an indirect result of the reporting rule “is that Minnesotans will have a database to consult so they can be better informed of which consumer products contain PFAS and can take action to safeguard their health.” MPCA estimates that 5,000 to 10,000 manufacturers may report on products containing intentionally added PFAS. MPCA still intends to use the Interstate Chemicals Clearinghouse (IC2) High Priority Chemicals Data System for manufacturers to submit their reports.
