PFAS product reporting moved from a drafting-table idea to a filed obligation in Minnesota this year, and the definition of who has to file is wider than many equipment businesses may assume. It is not written only for the factory that builds the machine. In defined circumstances it reaches the company that brings the machine into the country.
Minnesota Statutes section 116.943, the law usually called Amara’s Law, sets the duty. Subdivision 2, paragraph (a) provides that “On or before January 1, 2026, a manufacturer of a product sold, offered for sale, or distributed in the state” that contains intentionally added PFAS must report to the commissioner.
The legislature amended subdivision 2 in 2026, in Laws 2026, chapter 127, article 14, section 4, to limit the reporting duty by date of manufacture. The MPCA now states that the initial reporting due date applies to products sold in Minnesota “except for products manufactured before July 1, 2023.”
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency adopted the implementing rules, Minnesota Rules Chapter 7026, on December 8, 2025, with an initial report date of July 1, 2026, which the agency later pushed back to September 15, 2026. That initial deadline has now passed. The agency schedule states that “Initial reports from manufacturers who request and receive an extension are due by Dec. 14, 2026,” and that “Subsequent reports are due February 1 of each year.”
For a dealer or distributor the question is not whether the date is in the past. It is whether the duty applied to their company, whether a supplier filed on their behalf, and what happens on the next product they bring in.
Why PFAS product reporting can land on an importer
The statute defines “manufacturer” in subdivision 1, paragraph (o), as “the person that creates or produces a product or whose brand name is affixed to the product.” It then adds the provision that matters in this channel: “In the case of a product imported into the United States, manufacturer includes the importer” and “or first domestic distributor of the product if the person that manufactured or assembled the product” and “or whose brand name is affixed to the product does not have a presence in the United States.”
Read that against how a lot of commercial equipment reaches a US gym floor. A brand with no US entity, a domestic distributor holding the line, and a dealer network underneath. If the overseas maker has no US presence, the statutory definition can put the importer or first domestic distributor in the manufacturer seat for this purpose. Whether a particular supply chain fits that description is a legal determination about specific facts, and a company in that position generally confirms it with counsel rather than reading the sentence alone.
The reportable substance class is drawn broadly. Subdivision 1, paragraph (q) defines PFAS as “a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.” That is a chemistry test, not a list of named compounds, and it is the reason a supplier questionnaire has to ask for data rather than for reassurance.
What a PFAS product reporting filing has to contain
Subdivision 2, paragraph (a) sets out what a report must include: a product description with a UPC, SKU or other numeric code; the purpose PFAS serve in the product, including in its components; the amount of each PFAS identified by its chemical abstracts service registry number; the manufacturer name and address with a named contact; and any additional information the commissioner requests. Paragraph (c) adds a continuing duty to report new products and to update information after significant changes.
There is one piece of relief in the text. Subdivision 2, paragraph (b) provides that “With the approval of the commissioner, a manufacturer may supply the information required in paragraph (a)” and “for a category or type of product rather than for each individual product.” For a line with dozens of SKUs built on shared frames and shared coatings, that approval is worth asking about before anyone starts building a file per model. Subdivision 6 allows the commissioner to set a fee by rule, payable on submission, deposited in an account in the environmental fund.
The 2025 category bans and the 2032 backstop
Reporting is only one half of the statute. Subdivision 5, paragraph (a) provides that beginning January 1, 2025, a person may not sell, offer for sale, or distribute for sale in Minnesota a product in a listed category if it contains intentionally added PFAS. The listed categories are carpets or rugs, cleaning products, cookware, cosmetics, dental floss, fabric treatments, juvenile products, menstruation products, textile furnishings, ski wax and upholstered furniture.
Two of those definitions are worth reading slowly if your catalog includes padded equipment. Subdivision 1, paragraph (w) defines “upholstered furniture” as “an article of furniture that is designed to be used for sitting, resting, or reclining” and “that is wholly or partly stuffed or filled with any filling material.” Paragraph (v) defines “textile furnishings” as “textile goods of a type customarily used in households and businesses” and “including but not limited to draperies, floor coverings, furnishings, bedding, towels, and tablecloths.”
Whether a padded weight bench, a seated machine pad or a treatment table is caught by either definition is a question of statutory interpretation that this article does not answer, and the answer may differ by product. It is a question worth putting to counsel with a photograph and a bill of materials rather than leaving to a procurement guess.
Subdivision 5, paragraph (d) sets the long horizon. Beginning January 1, 2032, a person may not sell, offer for sale, or distribute for sale in Minnesota any product containing intentionally added PFAS unless the commissioner has determined by rule that the use is a currently unavoidable use, and the commissioner cannot make that determination for the categories listed in paragraph (a). Enforcement runs through subdivision 7, paragraph (a), which allows the commissioner to enforce the section under sections 115.071 and 116.072 and to coordinate with the commissioners of agriculture, commerce and health.
The federal filing window opens next
A separate federal duty sits under the Toxic Substances Control Act. In a final rule effective April 13, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency modified the start of the submission period for PFAS reporting under TSCA section 8(a)(7). The submission period now begins on “January 31, 2027, or 60 days following the effective date of a forthcoming final” rule, whichever is earlier, and the rule states the period will “last for six months.” For small manufacturers reporting solely as article importers, the period will “last for twelve months” from the same start.
The scope is the part equipment importers should read twice. The rule reaches any entity that “manufactured (including imported) PFAS or PFAS-containing articles” since January 1, 2011, and it addresses article importers separately at 40 CFR 705.18(a). A finished treadmill, a rack or a cable machine will generally meet the definition of an article the rule uses. A company that has imported equipment at any point since 2011 is inside the population the rule describes, subject to the exemptions the rule itself sets out, which are worth reviewing with counsel.
| Element | Minnesota, Minn. Stat. 116.943 | Federal, TSCA 8(a)(7) |
|---|---|---|
| Who files | Manufacturer, which can include the importer or first domestic distributor where the maker has no US presence | Entities that manufactured, including imported, PFAS or PFAS-containing articles |
| Look-back | Products sold, offered for sale or distributed in the state, limited by the 2026 amendment to products manufactured on or after July 1, 2023 | Since January 1, 2011 |
| Timing | Statute says on or before January 1, 2026; MPCA set the initial report at September 15, 2026 | Submission period begins January 31, 2027, or 60 days after a forthcoming final rule, whichever is earlier |
| Window length | Continuing duty to report new products and significant changes | Six months, or twelve months for small manufacturers reporting solely as article importers |
| Sales restriction | Listed categories banned from January 1, 2025, general prohibition from January 1, 2032 absent a currently unavoidable use rule | Reporting and recordkeeping rule, not a sales restriction |
Six checks for a dealer or distributor
- Establish whether any supplier lacks a US presence. That single fact is what can move the Minnesota manufacturer definition onto your company. Ask for the US entity name and address in writing, not for a verbal assurance.
- Ask suppliers directly whether they filed in Minnesota, and for what. A supplier that filed by category under subdivision 2, paragraph (b) should be able to say which category covered which of your SKUs.
- Build the data request around CAS numbers. The statute asks for the amount of each PFAS by chemical abstracts service registry number. A supplier answer of no PFAS without supporting data is not the same thing.
- Separate the reporting question from the sales-restriction question. Reporting is about disclosure. The January 1, 2025 category list is about whether the product can be sold in the state at all, and the two can apply to the same item.
- Check who is the importer of record on your inbound shipments. Importer status drives more than one regime, which is also the point of our walkthrough of CPSC certificate eFiling and who files as importer of record.
- Put the chemical question into the pad and cover specification. Replacement upholstery is sourced separately from the machine, so a clean answer on the frame says nothing about the cover, a point that also runs through grading pads and choosing between re-covering and replacement.
What this looks like next to Proposition 65
Dealers who have worked through a California Proposition 65 notice will recognize the shape of the problem and should not assume the answers transfer. Proposition 65 is a warning regime driven in large part by private enforcement, as the pattern behind the DEHP notices filed over vinyl dumbbells and kettlebells shows. Minnesota PFAS product reporting is a disclosure regime enforced by a state agency, and the 2032 provision is a sales prohibition rather than a labeling duty. A warning will not satisfy it.
Does a dealer that only resells have to file?
The statute places the duty on the manufacturer, and defines that term to include the importer or first domestic distributor only where the person that manufactured or assembled the product, or whose brand name is affixed to it, does not have a presence in the United States. A dealer buying from a US distributor of a US-present brand is generally not the person the definition describes, but the determination turns on the specific chain and is one for counsel.
What should go in a purchase order now?
A practical clause asks the supplier to state whether the product contains intentionally added PFAS, to identify each substance by CAS number and function, to confirm whether it filed in Minnesota and under what category, and to notify the buyer before any formulation change. None of that is legal advice, and the wording should be reviewed by counsel before it goes into terms.
The useful way to hold this is as a data problem with a legal deadline attached. PFAS product reporting asks a company to know what is in the goods it sells, down to a registry number, and many equipment businesses have never had to answer at that resolution. The companies that will handle the 2027 federal window calmly are the ones building the supplier file now, while the main cost is the asking.
