MDEP Receives 11 CUU Proposals for Products Containing Intentionally Added PFAS Scheduled for Prohibition in 2026, Recommends Two for CUU Determinations

As reported in our April 11, 2025, blog item, applications for currently unavoidable use determinations for products containing intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and scheduled to be prohibited in Maine on January 1, 2026, were due June 1, 2025. The agenda for the July 17, 2025, meeting of the Maine Board of Environmental Protection (MBEP) includes a proposed amendment to Chapter 90: Products Containing PFAS. According to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) Staff Memo hyperlinked in the agenda, MDEP received 11 proposals for CUU determinations in the following product categories: cookware (five proposals); cleaning products (four proposals); cosmetic product container (one proposal); and upholstered furniture (one proposal). MDEP has recommended that two of the proposals for CUU determinations, both for cleaning products, be granted. 

Maine’s PFAS regulations require that CUU proposals include an explanation of why the availability of PFAS in the specific product is essential for health, safety, or the functioning of society and whether alternatives are available. Maine’s PFAS statute defines “essential for health, safety or the functioning of society” as: 

[A] use of a PFAS in a product when the function provided by the PFAS is necessary for the product to perform as intended, such that the unavailability of the PFAS for use in the product would cause the product to be unavailable, which would result in: 

(1) A significant increase in negative health outcomes; 

(2) An inability to mitigate significant risks to human health or the environment; or 

(3) A significant disruption of the daily functions on which society relies. 

Under the PFAS statute, intentionally added PFAS will be banned in the following products on January 1, 2026, unless the product has a CUU determination: 

• Cleaning products; 

• Cookware; 

• Cosmetics; 

• Dental floss; 

• Juvenile products; 

• Menstruation products; 

• Textile articles (the prohibition does not include outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions or textile articles that are included in or a component part of a watercraft, aircraft, or motor vehicle, including an off-highway vehicle); 

• Ski wax; and 

• Upholstered furniture. 

The prohibition applies to any of these products that do not contain intentionally added PFAS but that are sold, offered for sale, or distributed for sale in a fluorinated container or in a container that otherwise contains intentionally added PFAS. 

The Staff Memo summarizes the CUU proposals received, grouping them by category: 

Cookware Category 

Product Description: Cookware and Bakeware 

Three proposals request a CUU determination for polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) as a coating that comes in contact with food on cookware surfaces for its non-stick behavior, chemical and abrasion resistance, resistance to heat and corrosion, and long-lasting product performance. Each proposal states that these properties are essential for consumers’ health and safety when cooking due to the resulting low or no fat use during cooking, predictable results by preserving food texture, prevention of burning, and easy clean-up which reduces detergent and water use. The Staff Memo states that the alternatives identified are commonly known and readily available. Based on the lack of evidence that the products meet the statutory definition of essential for health, safety, and the functioning of society, and that reasonably available alternatives that function similarly are readily obtainable, MDEP “does not recommend approving the CUU proposals for the use of PFAS in cookware.” 

Product Description: Cookware, Small Kitchen Appliances 

This proposal requests a CUU determination for fluoropolymer-coated small kitchen appliances. The submitter states that fluoropolymers, particularly PTFE, are essential components for this product category, ensuring the long-term effectiveness of small kitchen appliances and supporting healthier cooking practices by reducing the need for added fats and enabling easier cleaning. According to the proposal, alternatives such as cast iron, stainless steel, and raw aluminum do not possess natural non-stick capabilities, and ceramic coatings lack non-stick durability and overall performance over time. Based on the lack of evidence that the product meets the statutory definition of essential for health, safety, and the functioning of society, and that reasonably available alternatives that function similarly are readily obtainable, MDEP “does not recommend approving the CUU proposals for the use of PFAS in this type of cookware.” 

Product Description: Coffee Maker 

The proposal requests a CUU determination for PFAS compounds intentionally added to component parts of coffee makers such as tubing, gaskets, solenoid valves, and vibrating pumps. The submitter describes the PFAS use as essential for chemical stability, resistance to high pressure, durability, maintenance through high temperatures, and long-lasting non-stick and self-lubricating properties. The proposal states that the properties provided by intentionally added PFAS are essential for consumers’ health and safety when using the product because it can be “…more cost-effective than purchasing coffee from outside sources as consumers can choose the type of coffee, quantity, and minimize waste.” Alternatives include silicone, non-PFAS polymers, and ceramics, which are commonly known and readily available. According to the submitter, these alternatives “do not offer the same combination of properties such as resistance to high pressure and temperature, as well as resistance to friction.” Based on the lack of evidence provided that the unavailability of PFAS for use in this product category would result in any of the negative outcomes set forth in the criteria of essential for health, safety, or the functioning of society and that reasonably available alternatives that function similarly are obtainable, MDEP “does not recommend approving the CUU proposal for the use of PFAS in this type of cookware.” 

Cleaning Product 

Product Description: Liquid Cleaner Container — Internal Cartridge Valve 

The proposal requests a CUU determination for PFAS compounds in component parts of a container valve located at the top of the internal cartridge. According to the Staff Memo, the vent described is designed to withstand chemical compatibility challenges posed by highly corrosive formulations and associated off gassing of the liquid cleaning product within the container. The PFAS used in the component “allow[] for delicate and finely tuned mechanical interaction that helps repel aggressive substances and maintain performance integrity. The vent controls the dilution ratio of concentrated cleaners held within the container, ensuring control of the dilution ratio of concentrated cleaners.” The properties provided by the intentionally added PFAS are essential for consumers’ health and safety when using the product “because controlled dilution is critical to efficacy and limited exposure to concentrated cleaners held within the container.” The Staff Memo notes that the submitter states there are no alternatives currently available that are adequate to meet the performance criteria for the product. Because this component of the container performs a vital role for the product within it to function properly and there is concern for consumer safety should this container valve fail, MDEP “recommends approval of this CUU proposal.” 

Product Description: Electric Air Care Product Components 

The proposal requests a CUU determination for PFAS compounds in internal component parts of an electric fragrance warmer. According to the Staff Memo, within tubes located in the resistor assembly, “PFAS are used to provide a flame-retardant barrier around conductive elements, protect against high temperatures, humidity, and mechanical stress.” The submitter claims the PFAS is “critical as a protective barrier to prevent human contact with live electrical parts, resist fatigued wiring wear over time, as well as reduce risk of short circuits” and the properties provided are essential for consumers’ health and safety “to prevent insulation failure, reduce risk of short circuits, prevent human contact, and overheating or fire.” Although silicone is an alternative that offers flexibility and heat resistance, the Staff Memo notes that according to the proposal, “it typically does not meet the full performance profile criteria for this product; particularly, chemical resistance and long-term endurance.” Based on the lack of evidence provided that the unavailability of PFAS for use in this product category would result in any of the negative outcomes set forth in the criteria of essential for health, safety, or the functioning of society and that reasonably available alternatives that function similarly are obtainable by consumers, MDEP “does not recommend approving this CUU proposal.” 

Product Description: Electric Air Care Product Plug-In 

The proposal requests a CUU determination for PFAS compounds in internal component parts of an electric air freshener. Within the plug deck of the device, PFAS is used to coat the wiring jackets. The Staff Memo states that the submitter describes the PFAS in the component as providing a flame-retardant barrier around stranded copper conductors, providing resistance to heat, cold, humidity, and mechanical stress, as well as preventing insulation failure that could lead to short circuits or fires. Use of PFAS is essential for electrical safety and prevention of human contact with live electrical parts, reducing the risk of electric shock. The proposal notes that silicone is an alternative that offers flexibility and heat resistance, although it typically does not meet the full performance profile criteria for this product; particularly, chemical resistance and long-term endurance. Based on the lack of evidence provided that the unavailability of PFAS for use in this product category would result in any of the negative outcomes set forth in the criteria of essential for health, safety, or the functioning of society and that reasonably available alternatives that function similarly are obtainable by consumers, MDEP “does not recommend approving this CUU proposal.” 

Product Description: Container Vented Cap Liners 

This proposal requests a CUU determination for PFAS in components of a container. According to the Staff Memo, specific to vented cap liners of foam and induction foils, the submitter states that intentionally added PFAS allows lighter weight packaging, higher concentration of active ingredients, and more effective products. The submitter describes the PFAS applied to finished cap liner vents specific to the proposal as components of containers for several product categories, such as cleaning products, haircare products, and liquid chemicals. The vents provide the necessary function of safely allowing off gassing from the containers across all three product categories, avoiding containment failure. The proposal notes that alternatives such as polypropylene membranes, cellulose acetate membranes, polyester polyethersulfone membranes, polyethylene, and polyolefin membranes have been assessed, but none are suitable for this application and performance standard. Because this internal component of a container performs vital roles for the product to function in a safe manner across multiple product categories (cleaning products and cosmetic products) subject to the 2026 sales prohibition, MDEP “recommends approval of this CUU proposal.” 

Cosmetics 

Product Description: Container O-Ring, Used For Hand Lotion 

The proposal requests continued use of PFAS compounds in internal component parts of a container cartridge; specifically, the O-ring made with vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropene polymer. According to the Staff Memo, the submitter states that the PFAS used is inert and has superior properties to provide the seal functionality necessary to ensure chemical compatibility with these complex product formulations. The product is marketed to provide accessible skin protection and hydration in high-risk environments like industrial, healthcare, and food service settings. Alternatives such as silicones, ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM), and other elastomers have been identified, but the submitter states that none match the compatibility necessary for this specific product formulation. Identified alternatives show unacceptable levels of degradation, cracking, brittleness, hardness, or swelling of the material due to chemical incompatibility, leading to seal failure. The submitter notes that an alternative material may be found if given additional time for development. The Staff Memo notes that the product is outside the statutory exemption for “any product that is a medical device, drug or biologic or that is otherwise used in a medical setting or in medical applications that are regulated by or under the jurisdiction of the United States Food and Drug Administration,” and lacks evidence that the unavailability of PFAS for use in this product category would result in any of the negative outcomes set forth in the criteria of essential for health, safety, or the functioning of society. MDEP “does not recommend approval of this CUU proposal for the continued use of PFAS in the O-ring of this product.” 

Upholstered Furniture 

Product Description: Massage Chair, Internal Mechanical Component 

The proposal requests a CUU determination for PFAS in internal component parts of a massage chair, specifically in the ball bearings of internal mechanical components of the massage chair. The submitter states that PFAS help prevent mechanical noise, as well as providing longevity and safe performance for the product. The proposal describes the importance of PFAS use as including reduced friction and ensuring safe operability of internal mechanical components. The non-PFAS alternatives tested do not meet performance standards. Based on the lack of evidence provided that the unavailability of PFAS for use in this product category would result in any of the negative outcomes set forth in the criteria of essential for health, safety, or the functioning of society and that reasonably available alternatives that function similarly are obtainable, MDEP “does not recommend approving this CUU proposal.” 

Next Steps 

The Staff Memo recommends that the MBEP initiate rulemaking by posting for public comment and a public hearing the proposed amendments to rule Chapter 90 and to coordinate with the MBEP Executive Analyst regarding the date of the hearing and close of comment period. The amendments proposed by MDEP would amend the PFAS regulations to add the two CUU determinations recommended for approval. The MBEP meeting will be available via Zoom at https://mainestate.zoom.us/j/84609389474. 

Commentary 

These are the first CUU proposals to be submitted in Maine, and the Staff Memo offers important insight into how MDEP will evaluate CUU proposals. Given the similarity with other state CUU approaches, these first CUU decisions may be illustrative of how other states may deliberate. After the January 1, 2026, prohibition takes effect, the next prohibition date is January 1, 2032. That will apply to all products containing intentionally added PFAS that are not otherwise exempt, are cooling, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, or refrigeration equipment, or are refrigerants, foams, or aerosol propellants. Under the regulations, MDEP will not consider any proposals for an initial CUU determination prior to 60 months in advance of the applicable sales prohibition; any proposals received prior to this date will need to be updated and resubmitted between 60 and 18 months before the effective date of the applicable sales prohibition. For the January 1, 2032, prohibition, CUU proposals will be due between January 1, 2027, and July 1, 2030. 

Stakeholders with products subject to the January 1, 2032, prohibition should carefully review the CUU proposals submitted to MDEP and determine whether the use of PFAS in their products is “essential for health, safety or the functioning of society” and what data are necessary to support that judgment.