Regulate sales of certain products containing PFAs
HB 290 would restrict the manufacture, sale, and offering for sale in Montana of certain consumer and safety products containing intentionally added PFAS, beginning January 1, 2028. The bill’s consumer-product provisions cover cosmetics, juvenile products, and menstrual products. For those products, manufacturers would have to provide a certificate of compliance stating the product does not contain intentionally added PFAS, and retailers or distributors could rely in good faith on that certificate. The bill also exempts used products from these restrictions.
The bill separately regulates PFAS in class B firefighting foam and firefighting personal protective equipment. Starting in 2028, PFAS-containing class B foam would generally be prohibited, except in limited terminal-use circumstances where a purchaser files an annual notice with the state fire marshal and demonstrates there is no commercially available PFAS-free alternative capable of meeting the fire-suppression need. The bill imposes containment, reporting, recall, reimbursement, notice, and recordkeeping requirements, and it requires written notice when firefighting protective equipment sold to governments or agencies contains PFAS. Violations are subject to civil penalties.
HB 290 would add a new chapter to Title 50 and create statewide restrictions on PFAS in specified products, affecting manufacturers, importers, distributors, retailers, terminals, fire departments, local governments, and state agencies. It would establish compliance documentation requirements, reporting obligations to the state fire marshal, recall and reimbursement duties for prohibited firefighting foam, and civil penalties for violations. The bill would also shape procurement and product labeling/notice practices for firefighting equipment and consumer products sold in Montana.
The available voting history suggests the bill had some support in the House Business and Labor Committee, but not enough to advance. One committee action shows unanimous support on a procedural or informational item, while the do-pass motion failed 8-12, indicating a divided committee and insufficient consensus to move the bill forward. The bill ultimately died in process, so despite interest in PFAS regulation, it did not secure the votes needed for advancement.
The main points of contention likely centered on the breadth and timing of the PFAS restrictions, especially the 2028 sales ban and the compliance burden placed on manufacturers and sellers. Firefighting foam provisions appear to be another likely area of dispute because they restrict a product used for high-risk emergency response while allowing only narrow exceptions for terminals that can prove no viable alternative exists. The bill also shifts responsibility onto manufacturers to certify compliance, recall prohibited foam, and notify purchasers, which may have raised concerns about cost, feasibility, and supply impacts for retailers, local governments, and fire protection users.