We’ve been following Minnesota’s proposed PFAS-in-products reporting rules for the past several months. As part of the rulemaking process under the Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act, and following public comment and a public hearing, a Minnesota Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) last month identified procedural and substantive deficiencies with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) proposed rule package to implement the PFAS reporting requirements contained in the state’s Amara’s Law.  As a result, the Chief ALJ issued an order adopting in full the ALJ’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations and disapproving the rule package pending corrections.

On the procedural side, the ALJ pointed to a failure by the MPCA to include in the proposed rules package an assessment of the cumulative effects that the proposed rule would have with federal regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) concerning PFAS reporting.  The ALJ concluded that this procedural defect required disapproval of the entire proposed rule package, pending correction.  Substantively, the ALJ identified five specific provisions of the proposed rules that either were not rationally related to the MPCA’s objective, did not find support in the administrative record, or exceeded or conflicted or failed to comply with the underlying statute (including a definition of the term “manufacturer” in the proposed rules that deviated from the definition of the same term provided in Amara’s Law). The ALJ disapproved those five provisions but offered recommendations to correct the identified substantive defects (as well as additional suggestions for clarifying improvements to the rules). 

As a result, MPCA will need to either cure the deficiencies and resubmit the rule to the Chief ALJ for approval, or seek reconsideration from the Chief ALJ of the ALJ’s ruling.  It is not yet clear what avenue MPCA will pursue or how quickly it will act, but either path could necessitate revisiting the recently extended deadline for reporting compliance, currently July 1, 2026.  While the recommended substantive revisions appear to be fairly straightforward, the requirement to conduct a full assessment of the cumulative effects of the federal PFAS reporting rules could take some time, especially in light of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s recent announcement as part of its regulatory agenda that it would be revisiting aspects of its own reporting rules for PFAS under TSCA.