© lukasz_kochanek stock.adobe.com
Minnesota regulators have indicated they will likely reject a request from the state’s largest business group to delay PFAS product reporting requirements further, saying manufacturers have been given ample time to comply.
The posture, shared with Chemical Watch News & Insight this week, signals that companies affected by the state’s PFAS reporting requirements will not automatically receive additional time to comply and may need to move quickly to secure extensions or waivers from regulators if they cannot meet the state’s deadline next month.
Last week, the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce asked the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to postpone the state’s reporting deadline until at least 1 February 2027.
Under Amara’s Law, manufacturers must report by 15 September the presence of intentionally added PFAS in products sold in Minnesota ahead of a ban on most non-essential uses of the persistent chemical class by 2032.
The MPCA already extended the reporting deadline twice in response to industry requests. State lawmakers also recently narrowed the scope of the reporting mandate to exclude products manufactured before 1 July 2023.
In a 29 July letter, the Chamber asked for a third extension, citing significant burdens faced by manufacturers compiling PFAS data for the state’s PFAS Reporting Information System for Manufacturers (PRISM).
But the MPCA told Chemical Watch News & Insight on 4 August that it "does not plan on extending the due date again".
Instead, the agency said "reporting is going well", citing nearly 1,000 company registrations in PRISM to date and more than 100 reports covering over 10,000 products as evidence the system is functioning as intended.
Chamber sought February extension
In its letter, the Chamber said more time is needed because the reporting system creates "an infeasible administrative burden on the regulated and regulating communities".
The business group pointed to the amount of information submitted through PRISM, and said reporting volumes "will almost certainly increase exponentially" once manufacturers of more complex products begin filing disclosures.
It further argued that manufacturers are preparing initial reports while simultaneously gathering information for next year’s first annual reporting cycle due on 1 February 2027, leaving companies to complete two substantial reporting exercises in short order.
Moving the initial deadline to that February date would keep companies from having to "submit two large reports within just a few months of one another", instead giving them a single deadline that covers the first two reports, the Chamber said.
MPCA hints it will reject request
The MPCA indicated it will likely reject the request, noting companies have already had substantial time to prepare reports.
By the 15 September deadline, "companies will have had three and a half years to assemble data since Amara’s Law passed, and nearly 11 months to enter data into PRISM" following release of the software, the MPCA said.
"While there is a learning curve for any new system, PRISM has performed well for most manufacturers," the agency added.
Most technical support requests are resolved quickly, and a recent PRISM update increased system capacity, according to the MPCA. The agency also said it plans to use additional staff to process reports in the coming months.
Judah Prero, counsel at ArentFox Schiff, said he has heard of "some ‘clunkiness’ issues and confusion" for manufacturers working with PRISM. However, he said clients have not experienced any "major issues that would be indicative of complete meltdown".
Extension option available
With the MPCA poised to decline the Chamber’s request, companies may instead turn to the state’s existing extension process.
Manufacturers seeking a one-time reporting extension must submit a request to the MPCA by 16 August. Those that obtain an extension may report as late as 14 December.
Companies may alternatively seek a waiver from the reporting requirements under certain circumstances, including where substantially equivalent PFAS information is already publicly available. Those requests are also due on 16 August.
Bill Hefner, an officer at Fredrikson & Byron, said he is aware of companies considering filing extension requests "to buy themselves more time".
"A lot of manufacturers are still scrambling to assemble the required information," Hefner said. "They are certainly feeling the burden. That may be why the Chamber laid on the barbed wire on their behalf to make that mass extension request."
The MPCA said it has processed about 25 extension and waiver submissions so far and expects to receive additional requests over the next several weeks.