Download PDF
October 5, 2023

Minnesota Requests Comments on Planned New Rules Governing PFAS in Products Reporting and PFAS in Products Fees

Lynn L. Bergeson Carla N. Hutton

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) published two Requests for Comments (RFC) on two planned per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) rulemakings in the September 25, 2023, State Register, the PFAS in Products Reporting Rule (Revisor ID Number R-4828) and the PFAS in Products Fees Rule (Revisor ID Number R-4827). Comments on the RFCs are due by 4:30 p.m. (CST) on Tuesday, November 28, 2023.

  • The PFAS in Products Reporting Rule: The main purpose of this rulemaking is to establish a program for MPCA to collect information about products containing PFAS intentionally added to products sold, offered for sale, or distributed in Minnesota. As reported in our June 14, 2023, blog item, on or before January 1, 2026, a manufacturer of a product sold, offered for sale, or distributed in Minnesota that contains intentionally added PFAS must submit information that includes:
  • A brief description of the product, including a universal product code (UPC), stock keeping unit (SKU), or other numeric code assigned to the product;
  • The purpose for which PFAS are used in the product, including in any product components;
  • The amount of each PFAS, identified by its Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number® (CAS®), in the product, reported as an exact quantity determined using commercially available analytical methods or as falling within a range approved for reporting purposes by MPCA;
  • The name and address of the manufacturer and the name, address, and phone number of a contact person for the manufacturer; and
  • Any additional information requested by the commissioner as necessary to implement the requirements of this section.
  • The PFAS in Products Fees Rule: The main purpose of this rulemaking is to establish PFAS in products reporting fees. MPCA states that creating a reporting process and reviewing PFAS compounds and concentrations for each manufacturer “will result in significant staff and information technology costs.” The rulemaking is intended to recoup those costs.