Minnesota eases ‘forever chemicals’ ban to exempt youth ATVs and dirt bikes

Minnesotans will now be able to buy youth ATVs, dirt bikes, and other items that were previously caught up in a ban on many products containing PFAS — the group of artificial and toxic “forever chemicals.”

Since Jan. 1, it has been illegal in Minnesota to sell PFAS-containing products in 11 categories, including toys and children’s clothing. That ban, the nation’s most far-reaching, threw the motor sports industry into chaos because of the logistical challenges of proving their products were free of the chemicals.

PFAS have been subject to restrictions in Minnesota and elsewhere because they do not break down, have been found in environments and wildlife across the globe, and are linked to health problems, including some cancers, in humans.

In June, the Minnesota Legislature exempted recreational vehicles from the definition of “juvenile product.” It also allowed the sale of items that contain added PFAS exclusively in electronic or internal components where exposure is unlikely, a change state regulators supported. These products are still subject to the full PFAS prohibition for avoidable uses in 2032.

The law also extended the PFAS reporting deadline for all consumer products by six months, allowing manufacturers until July 1, 2026, to submit their initial report on the purpose and amount of PFAS in their items.

Those selling juvenile motor sport vehicles say that the change doesn’t do enough to restore stability to the industry, while manufacturers across sectors maintain that even the extended PFAS reporting deadline is unrealistic.

“The state has done a lousy job for the amount of turmoil they put the industry through. They haven’t done anything in order to put our mind at rest that it’s OK to sell them now,” said Tom Stifter, general manager of Davis Motorsports, a dealership in Delano.

“The products that they prohibited us from selling were entry-level products, gateway products, stuff that young riders buy,” Stifter said.

Retailers will now be able to sell the newly exempt vehicles that have been sitting in their storerooms for six months. Stifter will be able to offload $30,000 worth of products, but he is concerned that the industry would lose more riders in 2032, when ATVs with PFAS will be banned in Minnesota again.

Some say that the temporary ban this year and lack of prompt information about PFAS regulations from the MPCA has already pushed them out of the market.

Tim Hammond, general manager of Simply Ride, a dealership in Eden Prairie, said that his dealership will have to sell its leftover bikes at a loss, because newer models came out while the ban was in place. He will stop selling youth ATVs because of the continuing uncertainty.

Major manufacturers like Honda and Yamaha had caused confusion for Minnesota dealers by delaying notifications about the state’s PFAS ban and the subsequent law in January.

The PFAS law does not require the MPCA or manufacturers to update retailers about what products can be sold in Minnesota, but the lack of a specific compound list or directions on where to look for PFAS makes it difficult for retailers to understand what not to sell, said Allison Lange Garrison, an attorney who advises and represents manufacturers in compliance and litigation matters involving PFAS.

In a webinar held by the MPCA last year, agency staff said companies will have to report on the PFAS in every component of their products.

One regulator gave the example of a line of trucks. A carmaker could make one report that covered every version of that truck, but they would have to report PFAS concentrations for every part included in the most deluxe model of the vehicle.

This means that much of the required data will need to be collected from all suppliers, including those based outside the country. Without more specifics from the MPCA, companies are unable to persuade suppliers to provide comprehensive PFAS data, Garrison said.

During the public comment period in June, manufacturers had requested up to two additional years to submit their initial reports. The MPCA compromised with a six-month extension.

Moreover, Minnesota’s definition of PFAS is broader than that used by most other regulatory authorities, and includes compounds likely not originally intended to be subject to outright bans, said Matt Simcik, professor of environmental health sciences at the University of Minnesota.

Manufacturers will have little to no guidance from regulations in other states. Next July, Minnesota will be the first state to have a widespread PFAS reporting requirement in effect, as Maine delayed its reporting obligations so that most businesses would not have to provide reports until 2032.

Avonna Starck, Minnesota state director of the activist group Clean Water Action, said she is pleased that no products are completely exempted from the 2032 prohibitions, but remains concerned about additional PFAS entering the environment through the temporary exemptions.

PFAS compounds will still leach into groundwater from landfills, and workers may still be exposed by handling internal and electronic components, she said.