As we’ve discussed in a prior post, among states that have enacted statutory restrictions on sales of products containing intentionally added PFAS, New Mexico has been unique in crafting an exemption for fluoropolymers, which were carved out from the reporting requirements and the phased sales ban found in the Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances Protection Act (the “Act”), N.M.S.A. 74-15-1 et seq. (although not from the statute’s labeling requirements).  The exemption for fluoropolymers consisting of polymeric PFAS includes, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), commonly found in non-stick coatings in cookware applications, as well as in other industrial, medical, and consumer applications.

However, the New Mexico legislature may now be having second thoughts about the scope of the Act’s exemptions.  On February 18, 2026, the state legislature passed a joint resolution, House Joint Memorial 3, which among other things requests that the New Mexico Environmental Department (“NMED”) “develop a report on the public health, environmental and economic risks of the exemptions codified in the … Act and to provide recommendations to the legislature regarding whether such exemptions, such as the exemption for fluoropolymers, should be continued, modified or removed.”  Further, the legislature requests NMED to present its preliminary findings concerning the exemptions to the appropriate legislative committees by December 1, 2026, and its final report to the governor and legislature by August 1, 2027.  In parallel, House Joint Memorial 3 includes a request to the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (“NMEIB”) to develop its own report on the implementation of the Act, “including the efficacy of the rules promulgated by the [NMEIB]” to implement the Act.

It is notable that the legislature specifically identifies the fluoropolymer exemption as the lone explicit example among the sixteen categories of exemptions provided under the Act, and that the sole substantive rationale offered for Joint Memorial 3 is “additional health and environmental studies are needed to understand more fully the toxicological profiles, exposure risks and public health implications of fluoropolymers.”  For these reasons, it should be expected that the requested NMED evaluation and resulting reports will focus on the fluoropolymer exemption over the others.  Stay tuned for updates when NMED and NMEIB issue their preliminary and final reports over the next several months.