If you manufacture, import, or simply sell finished goods into the United States, December 2025 brought a regulatory mixed signal you cannot ignore. On 13 November the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to relax part of its national PFAS reporting rule, yet in the same month more than a dozen U.S. states filed new bills that would ban “intentionally added” per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) by 2030-2032. Global consultancy ERM summarised the chess board in a 12-page client alert that landed in inboxes just before the holiday break. Below is a plain-English tour of the memo—and what it means for your 2026 action plan.
- Federal TSCA: a narrower trip-wire
Who it hits
• Any facility that MAKES or IMPORTS PFAS (alone, in mixtures, or in articles) >1 % w/w.
What changed
EPA wants to insert four sweeping exemptions:
- PFAS below 1 % in mixtures/articles
- PFAS imported only as part of an finished article
- By-products/impurities not commercially separated
- Small R&D quantities
Dead-line dance
The original 13 Oct 2026 submission date would slide to “five months after the final rule,” probably Aug-Nov 2026. Comment deadline: 29 Dec 2025 (docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0549).
ERM bottom line
“Less paperwork” ≠ “less liability.” States, retailers, and tort lawyers will still ask, “Is there PFAS in your product?” If you cannot answer, the exemptions offer no shelter.
- State laws: the no-PFAS train is already rolling
By the numbers
• >100 product-specific PFAS statutes or bills
• ~20 packaging laws
• 7 states (ME, CT, MN, NM, IL, IA, OH) have set 2030-2033 hard bans on “intentionally added” PFAS with only “currently unavoidable use” escape clauses.
Typical sequence
- Mandatory reporting (CA, WA, CO)
- Restrictions on high-exposure categories—food packaging, fire-fighting foam, juvenile products
- Total phase-outs for textiles, ski wax, menstrual products, electronics housings, …
ERM watch-list for 2026
• Minnesota: “No data, no market” rule kicks in July 2026—products without a PFAS disclosure filed with the MPCA cannot be sold.
• New York: S.5648/A.3550 could extend the apparel ban to 2027.
• California: Green Chemistry lists PFAS as “priority product”; alternatives analysis due 2027.
- Pesticides: feds say “follow the science,” states say “just ban it”
Federal tilt
EPA’s November 2025 policy statement divorces the term “PFAS” from pesticide approvals; instead it will review fluorinated actives on a “weight-of-evidence” basis. Between February and June 2025 the Agency approved or proposed four fluorinated ingredients that many NGOs label PFAS.
State push-back
• Maine: bans distribution of PFAS-contaminated or PFAS-intentional pesticides starting 1 Jan 2030.
• Minnesota: requires registrants to report PFAS content by 1 Jan 2026; sales ban in 2032.
Take-away for ag-chem players
Even if EPA registers your active, you can still lose access to key farm states. Build non-fluorinated back-ups into your registration pipeline now.
- TRI: the ever-growing Christmas list
Congress ordered EPA to auto-add PFAS that meet any listing trigger. Result: 172 substances for reporting year (RY) 2020 → 196 for RY 2024. January 2025 will add another 10, including PFHxS-Na salt. A proposed “categories” rule would dump >100 more onto the list without giving you the CAS numbers—compliance by chemical structure detective work.
Thresholds are also tightening: from 100 lb to 10 lb for certain “chemicals of special concern.” Miss the July 1 filing and civil penalties run up to $75k per day, per site.
- Non-regulatory pressure: lawsuits, shelves, and ESG
• CSRD spill-over: EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive tags PFAS as SVHC; U.S. parents with EU subsidiaries must audit.
• Retail gatekeepers: IKEA, Walmart, REI, Amazon’s “Climate Pledge Friendly” label all demand PFAS-free evidence.
• Green-washing litigation: >50 U.S. class actions 2023-25; single-case settlements as high as $400m.
- ERM’s four-step playbook
- Quantify risk appetite
Map products, states, customers, and end-of-life routes into a dollar-exposure matrix. - Close the data gap
Insert PFAS-clauses into purchase orders; build a 3-D database (chemical – CAS – function) and link it to your ERP lot numbers. - Evaluate alternatives
Score candidates on hazard, exposure, technical performance, and cost; avoid “regrettable substitution” (e.g., short-chain PFAS that soon face the same bans). - Build a living compliance calendar
• Federal TSCA: watch for the final rule (expected June 2026).
• State bans: work back 18 months from effective date for reformulation.
• TRI: update the chemical list every January, validate usage by March, file by July 1.
- What if you manufacture in Asia?
You may be outside EPA’s direct jurisdiction, but your U.S. customers will still demand third-party PFAS certificates. Fluorinated water/oil repellents, surfactants, and PTFE tapes are the first questions on most questionnaires. Start qualifying fluorine-free finishes (silicones, hyper-branched hydrocarbons, bio-based barrier coatings) and run durability tests now—well before the 2027 retail deadlines.
Source
This blog is a 2,000-word English digest of ERM’s December 2025 client alert “Navigating the evolving landscape of regulations on PFAS in products in the United States,” authored by Kathleen Sellers, PE, Lori Dinkelmann, and colleagues. The full PDF is available at ERM’s web site or through your ERM account manager.