Minnesota has joined the wave of states enacting laws to regulate per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). In 2023, Minnesota passed Amara’s Law, Minnesota Statute Section 116.943, which has two primary functions: banning certain PFAS-containing products and gathering information about the prevalence of such products distributed or sold in Minnesota.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has spent the beginning of 2026 working on the implementation of manufacturer reporting rules adopted pursuant to the statute. As the new rules are implemented and enforced, manufacturers will face hurdles including challenges in working with supply chains on compliance, low concentration thresholds triggering reporting, and managing potential risks to data confidentiality.
While the initial reporting deadline has been delayed, it is crucial for companies to start understanding the scope of their obligations and developing a compliance plan. For petroleum marketers, this means understanding where PFAS is being used in manufacturing processes or equipment, including coated plastics used in tanks, liners, hoses, and packaging, and imported lubricant containers and, importantly, where PFAS may be incorporated into the products being manufactured.
Product Ban
The first product ban began on January 1, 2025, and prohibited the distribution or sale of eleven categories of products containing intentionally-added PFAS:
- Carpets and rugs
- Cleaning products
- Cookware
- Cosmetics
- Dental floss
- Fabric treatments
- Juvenile products
- Menstruation products
- Textile furnishings
- Ski wax
- Upholstered furniture
While the initial ban is relatively limited in scope, beginning January 1, 2032, the ban expands to any products with intentionally-added PFAS that do not qualify for an exemption.
Information Gathering
Amara’s Law also requires manufacturers of products containing intentionally-added PFAS to submit an initial report to the MPCA listing such products. The initial report must include: a description of the product, the reason PFAS was used in the product, the name of the PFAS chemical used and its concentration as well as contact information for the manufacturer. The new rules provide additional guidance on the report requirements and reporting process.
These reports, while straightforward in concept, could raise a host of practical issues including coordination with suppliers, limitations on testing capabilities, and data confidentiality among other concerns.
Supply Chain
One of the primary hurdles will be determining the PFAS concentration in components supplied by other entities. Manufacturers that sell or distribute a product into Minnesota, regardless of where the manufacturer itself is located, are responsible for reporting the presence of PFAS for each product and its components, even if it did not manufacture each of the components.
The new rules set a demanding standard for compliance, requiring that manufacturers “request detailed disclosure of information…from their supply chain until all required information is known.” Minn. R. 7026.0080. As a result, there will be a significant (and likely repeated) need to communicate with suppliers at various stages in the supply chain, and even companies that are not directly regulated by Amara’s Law are likely to face questions about their PFAS usage from their downstream, regulated customers.
Reporting Threshold
The rules require reporting even when a product or a component has very low concentration of intentionally-added PFAS. The lowest concentration category is for products with less than 100 parts per million, and the rules do not include a de minimis exemption. Even where there are minimal amounts of PFAS detected, manufacturers are still required to submit a report categorizing the product or component as one where PFAS is “present but the amount or concentration range is unknown.” Minn. R. 7026.0030.
Data Confidentiality
The reporting requirement increases the risk of confidential information being publicized. Under Minnesota’s Data Practices Act (DPA), information submitted to a state agency, such as the MPCA, is typically considered public data accessible to the public except where law or regulations make the data not public. The DPA and the new rules allow manufacturers to request protections for “trade secret information,” including some chemical information and supply chain information.
However, the MPCA retains the ultimate authority to decide whether the requested information is entitled to trade secret protection. If the MPCA determines that the requested information is public data, the information will be available in the publicly accessible, searchable PFAS reporting database.
Compliance Timeline
Implementation of the reporting requirement in Minnesota has proven complicated. The original reporting deadline was January 1, 2026, but the MPCA delayed the January reporting deadline once to allow it to finalize the reporting software, PRISM. In April, the deadline was delayed a second time until September 15, 2026. Since the initial delay, the MPCA has finalized PRISM and published guidance for the initial report (available here). Currently, over a dozen companies have submitted initial reports and many of those are accessible on PRISM (searchable here).
Manufacturers can request an extension of the September deadline, but extensions may not be readily or easily granted. The extension request must explain why additional time is necessary, substantiate the need with documentation, and include a plan for completing the work before the end of the extended deadline. Manufacturers must also pay a fee for an extension.
Enforcement
Failure to submit a report risks an enforcement action from the MPCA, which can include penalties up to $25,000 per violation per day. Beyond the MPCA’s traditional enforcement authority, Amara’s Law also grants the MPCA the authority to require a manufacturer test a product if it “has reason to believe that a product contains intentionally added PFAS.” Once the MPCA has made its request, a manufacturer has just 30 days to test the product, including its components, and provide the results to the MPCA that show the PFAS concentration along with the chemical abstracts service registry number.
We recommend that companies seek legal advice when determining the applicability of Amara’s Law and the manufacturer reporting rules and when preparing compliance filings on PFAS usage for the MPCA. If you’d like to learn more about PFAS reporting, whether in Minnesota or elsewhere, visit us at winthrop.com.
The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.
