PFAS Regulatory Updates: NM, NY, CA, ME, EPA, EU, Canada & More

TGA continues to monitor PFAS developments across the U.S. and internationally. Below is a summary of key updates affecting our industry.

New Mexico

The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) has released a draft rule to implement HB 212, introducing:

• Reporting requirements for products containing intentionally added PFAS (similar to Maine and Minnesota).

• Labeling authority allowing NMED to require PFAS labeling on products

NMED is interpreting the labeling authority broadly and is expected to propose a detailed labeling scheme that would apply even to products exempt from reporting requirements, such as medical devices or products granted Currently Unavoidable Use (CUU) exemptions.

Labeling requirements would take effect January 1, 2027.

New York

On September 25, AAFA submitted a letter to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) on its pre-rulemaking proposal regarding PFAS in apparel.

In the letter:

• Noted the issues with testing specific PFAS analytes

• Pushed for DEC to introduce an exemption for products containing recycled content.

The DEC will now need to come back with a proposed rule, which will then allow opportunity for futher comments.

California

Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed AB 1181 into law, establishing a framework to regulate PFAS in firefighting personal protective equipment (PPE) — though the law does not impose a direct ban.

However, Newsom vetoed AB 682, which would have restricted PFAS in multiple product categories, including cookware, citing affordability concerns. This continues his pattern of vetoing PFAS category bans, citing frsutration with the legislature's pushing of ban bills when the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) already has a process to regulate chemicals in consumer products.

Maine

The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) quietly updated its FAQs on the state's PFAS prohibitions clarifying that:

“For the purposes of this program, PPE, as defined above, is not considered a textile article as it relates to the January 1, 2026, sales prohibition within rule chapter 90.”

This FAQ update effectively excludes PPE from the state’s PFAS prohibition — aligning Maine’s approach with California’s and addressing a long-standing industry concern, even though the change is attributed to a drafting oversight in the statute.

U.S. Federal Government (EPA)

Due to the ongoing U.S. government shutdown, the timeline for the EPA’s proposed PFAS reporting rule under TSCA is now uncertain.

The proposal was previously expected for publication in late fall.

European Union

NGO ChemSec has criticized the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) for updates to the proposed EU-wide PFAS restriction, citing:

• Long-term and unlimited derogations for certain PFAS uses

• The omission of 8 PFAS use categories from the restriction

Separately, a recent study estimated that removing all current PFAS emissions from the environment would cost more than the global GDP.

Researchers of this study instead advocate for policy and technological innovation to support a transition away from PFAS use.

Stay Informed

For a comprehensive view of all state-level PFAS regulations, both pending and enacted, visit our PFAS Tracker for the latest updates.

TGA Members with Gold, Platinum, or Diamond memberships can also access the full PFAS Regulations white paper, now available in the TGA Government Advocacy Group here.