States Identify Exemptions to Bans on PFAS in Consumer Products

June 6, 2025

Authors

Sarah Parker, Ph.D.

Senior Managing Scientist

Polymers & Chemistry

Natick

Kristin Robrock, Ph.D., P.E.

Senior Managing Engineer

Environmental and Earth Sciences

Oakland

Allie Gobeil, Ph.D.

Managing Scientist

Ecological and Biological Sciences

Burlington

Sara Hearon, Ph.D., M.P.H.

Managing Scientist

Environmental and Earth Sciences

Senior Scientist

Maine and Minnesota among states embracing exemptions for PFAS-containing products, including those designated for "currently unavoidable use"

While several U.S. states — including Maine, Minnesota, and New Mexico — have adopted laws broadly banning the sale of consumer products containing intentionally added per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), exemptions for certain types of products are emerging through amendments to some of these laws. These exemptions underline the complexity of regulatory actions involving PFAS, the critical nature of some PFAS-containing products, and the essential functions these chemicals perform in many products, which cannot be achieved by available or suitable alternatives.

On April 7, Maine became the first state to adopt rules for determining "currently unavoidable uses" (CUUs) of PFAS in products. These rules allow the sale of PFAS-containing products through an application process that includes an evaluation of whether a particular use is "essential" for human health, safety, and the functioning of society. New Mexico (HB 212) and Maine (LD 1503) have similar provisions, allowing for the adoption of rules for determining "currently unavoidable uses."

Series of state-based PFAS exemption amendments

A number of states have passed or proposed specific exemptions to PFAS bans, including Maine (LD 1537, LD 827), New Mexico (HB 212), Minnesota (HF 654, HF 1627, HF 1868, HF 2947, and HF 1906), Rhode Island (H 6059), California (SB 730 and AB 872), New York (S 1322 and A 994), and New Jersey (A5600). In recognition of the critical nature of certain PFAS and the difficulty in finding replacements, these amendments would exempt distinct types of PFAS-containing products, such as consumer electronics, semiconductors, non-consumer electronics and laboratory equipment, motor vehicles, veterinary products, aircraft, watercraft, used products, FDA- or USDA-approved drugs, and medical devices, and would delay, in some cases, compliance requirements for products including electronics components, mechanical parts used in furniture, and commercial or industrial-use products.

These exemptions are complex and vary state by state. For example, Maine has proposed an exemption for cookware formulated with three specific PFAS in the cooking surface, while NJ's proposed cookware exemption depends on the specific characteristics of the cookware labeling. Notably, and in contrast to related laws in Maine and Minnesota, New Mexico's newly enacted PFAS ban includes an exemption for fluoropolymers — a type of PFAS generally considered non-bioaccumulative, chemically inert, and non-toxic.

Growing number of "currently unavoidable use" programs

In recognition of the use of PFAS in critical health and safety functions, the necessity of PFAS use for specific products, and the current lack of alternatives, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), and New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) are tasked with providing rulemakings for "currently unavoidable use" (CUU) exemptions for products containing intentionally added PFAS (an approach also embraced in proposed California legislation SB 682). While MDEP has adopted and released rules for determinations and associated proposal submissions for products within specifically banned product categories, the MPCA has indicated it will not grant CUUs within its banned product categories, and neither the MPCA nor NMED have released proposal guidelines for CUU applications.

The Maine regulation, originally passed in 2021 and amended in 2024 to include a phased approach to product bans and additional product exemptions, defines a CUU as PFAS use determined "essential for health, safety or the functioning of society and for which alternatives are not reasonably available." The regulation further defines "health, safety or the functioning of society" as circumstances where "the function provided" by PFAS "is necessary for the product to perform as intended, such that the unavailability of the PFAS for use in the product would cause the product to be unavailable," resulting in:

"A significant increase in negative health outcomes;
"An inability to mitigate significant risks to human health or the environment; or
"A significant disruption of the daily functions on which society relies."

To address questions and confusion that may arise as the rule is implemented, MDEP posted an FAQ section on their website to assist manufacturers in understanding the rule's provisions, including clarifying definitions for terms such as "manufacturer" and determining liability.

As complex state PFAS regulations change at a rapid pace, global manufacturers may need to carefully track their progress to support compliance and submission of CUU or other applications for exemptions where appropriate across multiple jurisdictions.

What Can We Help You Solve?

Exponent's multidisciplinary teams of industrial hygienists, toxicologists, and risk assessors help clients track and navigate emerging PFAS bans and exemptions. We have extensive experience performing consumer product exposure studies, supply chain analysis, and alternatives evaluation, providing product manufacturers with expert guidance for emerging global regulatory compliance obligations.

Get in touch