Thus, originally set to begin on November 12, the submission period has been moved to July 11, 2026. A welcomed time extension for those still struggling to gather the immense amount of data required under the rule. STATE-LEVEL ACTION Moving our attention to the States, there is a lot to keep track of, though I won’t be going into detail for every bill that was passed. No state was able to pass any full ban or phase out legislation for PFAS in 2024. While each state has passed its own unique legislation, many of the requirements for reporting and restricting PFAS share significant similarities. Of the states that did pass restrictions, all of them were targeting specific uses and products, with most bills focusing on cleaning products, apparel, textile articles, firefighting products, carpets and rugs, upholstered furniture, juvenile products, and fabric treatments. For more information, you can see each state’s passed PFAS bills: Colorado (SB 81), Vermont (SB 25), New Hampshire (HB 1649), Rhode Island (HB 7356), and Connecticut (SB 292). Minnesota was one of the states which, in 2023, passed a bill that would eventually ban the sale of products containing intentionally added PFAS in the state. For now, the state remains steadfast in its intent to not alter its PFAS bill, known as Amara’s Law, and continue full ahead with the ban. At the end of that same year, the state promulgated two Requests for Comments, or RFCs, on the law, which focused on the ins and outs of the reporting, how to define and implement the currently unavoidable use exemptions, and the fees covered in the law. After receiving more than 500 pages worth of comments on both rules, the state pollution control agency, which is in charge of implementing the law, is now planning to combine these rules “to ensure that the fee process is directly a part of the reporting system being created for products with intentionally-added PFAS.” The agency is hoping to get help from the public in answering questions such as “How should the MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) balance public availability of data and trade secrecy as part of the reporting requirements?” “Are there specific portions of the reporting process that should not be defined through guidance or the development of an application form?” and “Should the agency consider a per-PFAS or PFAS amount fee?” CANADA’S NEW REPORTING MANDATES The U.S. isn’t the only country with reporting requirements either. On July 27, 2023, Canada joined the PFAS regulatory effort, with Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) publishing a notice requiring companies to report on their manufacture, import, and use of PFAS substances within Canada. Similar to the EPA TSCA 8(a)(7) requirements in the intent and type of information being requested, the ECCC PFAS reporting requirement does have some key differences. For starters, the ECCC did include a list of 312 PFAS substances, with CAS numbers, that are in scope of the requirement, as opposed to the chemical structure definition used by the EPA. Additionally, the scope is limited to PFAS activities that took place only in the 2023 calendar year. A much smaller timeline compared to the EPA’s 10-year lookback. Both of these differences place much less burden on the reporting persons, though I still wouldn’t underestimate the time it will take to gather the data. The information is all due to the ECCC by January 29, 2025, so those who determine they must report have much less time to gather the required information. This deadline is quickly approaching, so if you are in scope, you will want to start your data gathering immediately. THE EU: A COMPREHENSIVE PROPOSAL Finally let’s take a look at the EU and their proposed PFAS ban. For those unfamiliar, in February 2023, ECHA published a proposal to ban PFAS within the EU. The proposal was authored and submitted by five national authorities: the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. The proposal was followed by a six-month consultation, in which the public could submit comments on the proposal, and submit they did. In the six-month consultation phase, ECHA received nearly 6,000 scientific and technical comments, highlighting the complex socio-economic impacts of INDUSTRY In recent years, regulatory bodies worldwide have accelerated efforts to control, restrict, and, in some cases, ban PFAS entirely. The rapid evolution of these regulations sharply juxtaposes the unchanging nature of the chemicals they target. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) (top) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) (bottom), perhaps the two best-known PFAS, aren’t made intentionally in the U.S. anymore. But they are the most widespread pollutants of concern from this chemical class, at least so far. F FF FF F F F3C F F F F F O OH F FF FF FF F F FF FF F F3C O O OH S WWW.ARPMINC.COM / 21
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Nzc3ODM=