Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often dubbed "forever chemicals," continue to be a major focus of environmental regulation across the United States. At least 10 states have enacted prohibitions on sales of certain products containing PFAS, such as in carpets and rugs and personal care products. Several states have enacted very broad prohibitions affecting a substantial number of consumer use product categories; New Mexico is the most recent to join the ranks of a handful of others, with California's legislature actively considering doing the same. Such statutes often include a reporting requirement obligating manufacturers of PFAS-containing products to submit a notification to the state detailing the PFAS content and other features of products manufactured for sale within the state. Notably, among these states, Maine and Minnesota continue to work actively to shape their regulatory frameworks for implementing statutory PFAS in product prohibitions.
The manufacturers and importers of nationally distributed products that contain PFAS (including internal components) need to be very much aware of these state laws.
Currently Unavoidable Uses
Many of the state laws that have been recently enacted to prohibit PFAS-containing products also have included a provision allowing the state to exempt a "currently unavoidable use" (CUU) of PFAS. Such a use is one that the state has determined (typically in response to a request from a product manufacturer) to be "essential for health, safety or the functioning of society" and for which "alternatives are not reasonably available." In the absence of such a determination, or some other form of statutory exemption, sales of numerous PFAS-containing products within those states will be prohibited after specified deadlines.
Maine's CUU Determinations: A First-Of-Its-Kind Action
Maine was the first state to enact a law prohibiting the sales of nearly all products containing PFAS, and over time, the legislature has scaled back the scope of the law. Regulations implementing the more modest edition of the statute were completed by Maine's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP or the Department) earlier this year. The first wave of specific product category prohibitions now will begin January 1, 2026. DEP just recently issued a proposal to amend its existing rule (Products Containing PFAS, 06 096 C.M.R. Ch. 90) to include CUU determinations for two cleaning product-related applications: a vented cap liner in a container and the internal cartridge valve in a liquid cleaner container. Overall, Maine DEP considered 11 proposals, which covered cookware products (5), cleaning goods (4), a cosmetic product container (1), and upholstered furniture (1). A combined roster of the 11 submissions is available for review. The Department recommended that the Board of Environmental Protection initiate rulemaking to amend the Chapter 90 regulations to reflect the two selected CUUs and allow for public comment and a public hearing. At its July 17, 2025 meeting, the board voted to accept the DEP recommendation and commence the rulemaking process for those CUUs. At the end of July, DEP announced the availability of its formal proposal to amend the existing regulations with the two CUU determinations, that it will accept public comments until September 2, 2025, and will hold a public hearing on August 21, 2025.
After prohibitions begin on January 1, 2026, manufacturers that continue using PFAS in authorized CUU must fulfill notification requirements in the PFAS-containing products regulation the agency adopted in April of this year. A $1,500 fee also must be paid with the notification. The next prohibition date falls on January 1, 2032, for which CUU proposals will be due between January 1, 2027 and July 1, 2030.
The current regulations in Maine provide an extensive list of information requirements that must be addressed in the CUU application. DEP advises that the applicant must provide information in "sufficient detail or supporting documentation to satisfy the requirements of the currently unavoidable use as essential for health, safety or the functioning of society for which alternatives are not reasonably available." To receive consideration for a CUU determination, the applicant must file not later than 18 months prior to the applicable sales prohibition. Proposals received after the sales prohibition is in effect will be evaluated for inclusion in subsequent Department CUU rulemakings.
This marks the first time a state with a comprehensive PFAS-in-products law has a CUU determination and solicited public comment on the proposal.
Minnesota Extends PFAS Reporting Deadline
Minnesota has become another closely watched state as it engages in drafting its PFAS in products regulations. Most recently, Minnesota's Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has extended its PFAS-in-products reporting deadline from January 1, 2026 to July 1, 2026. This decision follows significant public feedback from manufacturers and stakeholders who raised concerns about the feasibility of meeting the original timeline. Many cited challenges in gathering PFAS content information throughout complicated supply chains (especially for products containing multiple components). Other commenters have raised questions seeking a better understanding of regulatory definitions and cite challenges they will face in preparing for compliance under what will be the state's new reporting system. MPCA notes the extension will give manufacturers more time to establish agreements with suppliers to report on their behalf and to familiarize themselves with the new reporting platform that will not be released until sometime during the fall.
The extension aligns Minnesota's timeline more closely with the EPA's updated federal reporting requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and Maine's own delayed implementation schedule. By implementing what the legislature has dubbed "Amara's Law," Minnesota seeks to eliminate "nonessential" PFAS use by 2032, and the PFAS-in-products reporting requirement is a foundational step toward that goal.
With the announcement of the deadline extension, MCPA noted that internal components (such as internal electronic parts) of products are exempt from Minnesota's initial 2025 PFAS prohibitions. Intentionally added PFAS in these components will be prohibited beginning in 2032, unless the use of PFAS is determined to be a CUU. Legislative action also clarified that the definition of "juvenile products" used in the 2025 PFAS prohibitions excludes ATVs, motorcycles, snowmobiles, e-bikes, and replacement parts for these products designed for children.
A Broader Trend in State-Level PFAS Action
These developments in Maine and Minnesota are only a part of the broader trend on which we have previously reported: states are no longer waiting for federal action on PFAS. Instead, more state legislatures are willing to craft their own PFAS regulatory frameworks, including in collaboration with like-minded states. In light of the current trend toward removing or relaxing federal environmental requirements that are viewed as impediments on the U.S. economy, more state-led initiatives can be expected to emerge, and to reflect stricter standards and more aggressive timelines than federal actions.
Going Forward From Here
As manufacturers of PFAS-containing products recognize the need to seek exemptions and CUU determinations before state law prohibition deadlines take effect, Maine's initial two CUU determinations will begin to represent only the first of what will be many such actions. These decisions should be scrutinized closely because nine out of the 11 applications considered by the Department were rejected. Many states may lack the resources to carefully consider what may soon be an onslaught of similar requests. Minnesota's recent reporting period extension reflects the difficulties faced by many states seeking to implement comprehensive PFAS prohibitions. Such state resource limitations will necessitate manufacturers taking the time to submit their CUU requests early, and to do so with great care, being sure to present a comprehensive and sufficient basis to support the CUU request.
* Anika Rutah contributed to this Advisory. Anika is an Environmental Paralegal in Arnold & Porter's Washington, D.C. office.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
