Minnesota Senate Bill SF5092

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/13/26
• Refer: 4/13/26

Caption

Products containing intentionally added PFAS manufacturers submission of information date modification and certain products usage of PFAS as currently unavoidable uses clarification provision

Summary

SF5092 amends Minnesota’s PFAS product law to delay the first reporting deadline for manufacturers of products containing intentionally added PFAS. Under the bill, manufacturers would begin submitting required product information to the commissioner on or before July 1, 2027, instead of January 1, 2026, for products manufactured on or after that date. The required disclosure includes product identification, the purpose and amount of PFAS used, manufacturer contact information, and any additional information the commissioner requests. The bill also allows manufacturers, with commissioner approval, to report by product category rather than by individual product, and it continues to prohibit sale of products containing intentionally added PFAS when a manufacturer has failed to provide required information after notice.

Impact

The bill would amend Minnesota Statutes section 116.943 by changing the timing and administration of PFAS reporting requirements and by clarifying the state’s PFAS prohibition framework. It preserves the existing ban on intentionally added PFAS in certain consumer products, while reaffirming and expanding the list of products and categories treated as “currently unavoidable uses,” including several industrial, transportation, medical, electronic, and long-life manufactured goods. It also maintains the commissioner’s authority to identify additional prohibited product categories by rule, with limits on timing and with special coordination requirements for pesticides, fertilizers, and related agricultural products. The practical effect is to give manufacturers more time to comply with reporting obligations while keeping Minnesota’s broader PFAS restrictions and exemptions in place.

Sentiment

The available bill text suggests a policy approach that is still strongly anti-PFAS, but with a compliance-oriented adjustment for manufacturers. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or partisan division in the materials supplied. The bill’s structure indicates an intent to preserve environmental protections while easing the immediate reporting timeline and clarifying which uses are exempt from the general ban.

Contention

The main points of potential contention are the delayed reporting deadline and the scope of the exemptions for “currently unavoidable uses.” Environmental advocates may view the later submission date and broad carveouts as weakening near-term PFAS oversight, while manufacturers and affected industries are likely to support the added time and the ability to report by product category. Another likely area of dispute is the commissioner’s authority to add new prohibited product categories and determine unavoidable uses, especially where those decisions could affect consumer goods, industrial products, agriculture-related products, and federally regulated equipment.