Hogan Lovells 2024 Election Impact and Congressional Outlook Report
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) recently revised its proposed regulations to implement An Act to Stop Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Pollution (the Act) (38 Maine Revised Statutes (MRS) § 1614). The Act requires manufacturers of products containing intentionally added per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to report those uses to the state. Notably, DEP announced on its website and in a recent stakeholder engagement meeting that it interprets the Act as applying to food packaging. The reporting requirement takes effect January 1, 2023, and extensions to this deadline may be available on a case-by-case basis. Comments on the proposed regulations are due next Thursday, November 10, 2022.
Update January 4, 2023: The Maine DEP has updated its website to indicate food packaging containing intentionally added PFAS need not be reported under 38 MRS § 1614. Please see this article for more information.
Passed in July 2021, the Act requires manufacturers of products containing intentionally added PFAS to notify DEP about the presence of PFAS beginning January 1, 2023.1 The notification must include the following items:
Second, the Act phases in total bans on the use of PFAS in products, starting with a ban on intentionally added PFAS in carpets, rugs, and fabric treatments on January 1, 2023. Then, beginning January 1, 2030, the Act bans the use of intentionally added PFAS in any product. However, the Act gives DEP the authority to conduct rulemaking and prohibit the intentional use of PFAS in other product categories before the 2030 ban is effective. The state may also exempt certain uses of PFAS from the 2030 ban if it conducts a rulemaking and deems the use “unavoidable.”
Violations of this law are subject to the enforcement actions listed in 38 MRS § 347-A, which include resolving violations through a consent agreement; referring to the state attorney general for civil or criminal prosecution; scheduling and holding an enforcement hearing on the alleged violation; or commencing a civil action following issuance of a notice of violation. Civil penalties may include a fine of up to $10,000 per day per violation, or, for criminal penalties, a fine of up to $25,000 per day per violation. 38 MRS § 349.
The Act contains two exemptions from both the reporting requirement and the total ban, which are found in 38 MRS § 1614(4):
The state explained during its October 27 stakeholder engagement meeting and in the Frequently Asked Questions on its website that it is not aware of any federal law or regulation that would pre-empt any product from the state’s PFAS reporting requirements.5
Chapter 26-A prohibits the sale of packaging containing certain contaminants, including heavy metals, phthalates, and, when the DEP determines a safer alternative is available, PFAS in food packaging. Chapter 26-B contains mechanisms for the state to identify priority food contact chemicals and prohibit sales of food packaging containing those chemicals.
This second exemption has historically been interpreted as exempting food packaging from the reporting requirement. However, in an unexpected development, the state explained during the stakeholder engagement meeting and on its website that it interprets the exemptions for products subject to Chapters 26-A and 26-B as applying only after the DEP finalizes a rule identifying a safer alternative to PFAS in food packaging and prohibiting the use of PFAS in food packaging under Chapter 26-A or designates PFAS as a priority food contact chemical under Chapter 26-B.6 It has not yet done either. Consequently, DEP stated that food packaging containing intentionally added PFAS is subject to the Act’s reporting requirement and the 2030 total ban, pending any further action by the state under Chapters 26-A or 26-B. Notably, if the state were to prohibit the sale of food packages containing PFAS under Chapter 26-A, that prohibition would only apply to manufacturers of food or beverage products with total annual national sales of over $1 billion. However, this dollar threshold does not carry over to the state’s reporting requirement and general ban on PFAS in products under 38 MRS § 1614, described above.
Manufacturers that are in the process of determining whether their product contains intentionally added PFAS or are still gathering sufficient information to satisfy the reporting requirement can request an extension to the January 1, 2023 reporting deadline. These requests will be considered by DEP on a case-by-case basis. Requests for extensions should be submitted to [email protected]. The DEP publishes the names of manufacturers that have been granted an extension on its website.7
DEP’s recently released revised draft regulations (referred to by DEP as the “second concept draft”) address several key areas of relevance for potential comments as well as compliance planning.
DEP noted that it is in the process of creating a digital reporting database, but that such database will not be in use by January 1, 2023. In the October 27 stakeholder engagement meeting, it stated that it anticipates it will complete this rulemaking, finalize the revised draft regulations, and create the digital database to facilitate reporting by the spring of 2023. In the meantime, the state advised companies should submit their notifications to the state by email to [email protected] in an Excel spreadsheet or other electronic format or via mail. Manufacturers that submit a notification to the state before the reporting database is available must re-submit the notification using the digital database within 90 days of the effective date of the finalized regulations.
As noted above, comments on the revised draft regulations are due November 10 and can be submitted by email to [email protected]. Companies can request an extension to the reporting requirement from the DEP via email [email protected].
We will continue to monitor developments regarding Maine PFAS reporting requirements and are available to assist with questions as well as the preparation of comments on the revised draft regulations.
Authored by Elizabeth Fawell, Andrea Bruce, and Connie Potter.