The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) has initiated a review of the exemptions contained in the state's PFAS Protection Act, following a request from the New Mexico Legislature under House Joint Memorial 3 (HJM 3).
On 18 August 2026, NMED held a public webinar explaining how stakeholders and members of the public can participate in the review. Public comments are being accepted until 17 September 2026.
The review is particularly relevant to the sealing industry because the New Mexico PFAS Protection Act currently contains a broad exemption for certain fluoropolymers, including polymeric substances with a per- or polyfluorinated carbon-only backbone or a perfluorinated polyether backbone that is solid at standard temperature and pressure.
This exemption is now subject to specific scrutiny regarding the scientific evidence surrounding the environmental and health risks associated with these materials.
What does HJM 3 require?
On 18 February 2026, the New Mexico Legislature adopted HJM 3, requesting two separate reports.
The first report, to be prepared by the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (NMEIB), will examine the implementation of the PFAS Protection Act, including the effectiveness of the rules adopted under the Act.
The second report, being prepared by NMED in consultation with other state agencies, will assess the public health risks, the environmental risks, and the economic risks associated with the exemptions currently included in the PFAS Protection Act.
Importantly, NMED has also been asked to provide recommendations to the Legislature on whether individual exemptions should be continued, modified or removed.
This explicitly includes the exemption for fluoropolymers.
Why is the fluoropolymer exemption important?
The current New Mexico legislation recognises that not all PFAS-containing materials and applications can necessarily be treated in the same way. Among the exemptions is a specific provision covering certain fluoropolymers.
This is particularly relevant to high-performance sealing applications, where fluoropolymer materials such as PTFE and other fluoropolymer-based materials can provide a combination of chemical resistance, temperature resistance, low friction and long-term reliability that can be difficult to reproduce with alternative materials.
Such materials are used in demanding applications across industries, including chemical processing, petrochemicals, energy, pharmaceuticals, food processing, semiconductor manufacturing and other critical industrial applications.
However, the New Mexico Legislature has indicated that the existing exemptions were adopted when scientific information regarding aspects such as degradation, persistence, environmental mobility and potential health impacts was considered to be incomplete.
NMED is therefore undertaking a review of the scientific literature to establish the current state of knowledge.
NMED's technical review
According to NMED's stakeholder presentation, the department is conducting primary literature reviews in consultation with other state agencies. The objective is to assess the available scientific evidence concerning the public health, environmental and economic risks associated with the exemptions.
Stakeholders have been invited to submit comments through the NMED public comment portal, with submissions due by 17 September 2026.
NMED will then continue its technical analysis and incorporate relevant public comments into its report. A preliminary presentation of the findings is scheduled for the Radioactive and Hazardous Materials Interim Committee on 5 November 2026.
The outcome of this process will therefore be important for companies manufacturing, supplying or using products that currently benefit from one of the PFAS exemptions.
Potential implications for the sealing industry
Although the review is taking place at state level in the United States, it is potentially significant for the wider sealing industry.
1. Increased regulatory uncertainty for fluoropolymer seals
The most immediate concern is the possibility that the existing fluoropolymer exemption could be narrowed, modified or removed.
For manufacturers of seals, gaskets, packings and mechanical seals, this could create additional uncertainty around the future regulatory status of fluoropolymer materials used in critical applications.
The impact would depend heavily on the final scope of any amendments. A distinction between different fluoropolymer chemistries, applications, exposure scenarios and end-of-life pathways could become increasingly important.
2. Limited availability of technically equivalent alternatives
One of the key challenges for the sealing industry is that fluoropolymers are not simply interchangeable with conventional polymers or elastomers.
PTFE and other fluoropolymer materials can provide exceptional resistance to aggressive chemicals, high temperatures and demanding operating conditions. In certain applications, particularly where leakage prevention is safety-critical, replacing these materials may require substantial redesign, qualification and testing.
Potential alternatives therefore need to be evaluated not only for chemical compatibility but also for:
- temperature resistance;
- pressure capability;
- permeation and leakage performance;
- mechanical properties;
- durability and ageing;
- friction and wear;
- media compatibility;
- fire and safety performance; and
- regulatory approvals.
A regulatory restriction without sufficient transition time could therefore create significant technical and economic challenges.
3. Qualification and validation requirements
Where alternatives are technically available, changing a sealing material is rarely a simple one-for-one substitution.
Sealing systems are generally designed and qualified for specific operating conditions. A change in material can require new testing, customer approval, equipment qualification and, in some sectors, regulatory certification.
This is particularly relevant for applications in the chemical, petrochemical, pharmaceutical, food, semiconductor, energy and other safety-critical industries.
The industry may therefore require sufficiently long transition periods to identify, test and qualify alternative materials before existing products can be phased out.
4. Economic and competitiveness impacts
The HJM 3 review specifically requires NMED to consider the economic risks associated with the existing exemptions.
For the sealing industry, this assessment should also consider the economic consequences of removing or restricting fluoropolymer materials.
Potential impacts include:
- increased material and manufacturing costs;
- additional R&D expenditure;
- qualification and testing costs;
- redesign of sealing products and equipment;
- increased maintenance requirements;
- reduced equipment reliability;
- supply-chain disruption; and
- potential loss of competitiveness for manufacturers operating in the affected market.
There is also a broader question of whether restrictions introduced at state level could contribute to a fragmented regulatory environment within the United States.
5. Importance of a science- and application-based approach
For the sealing industry, an important principle is that PFAS should not necessarily be treated as a single homogeneous group of materials.
The term ‘PFAS’ covers a very broad range of substances with significantly different chemical structures, properties, uses and environmental profiles.
Fluoropolymers used in engineered sealing applications may have very different characteristics from low-molecular-weight PFAS substances that can be mobile in the environment.
The industry's position should therefore continue to emphasise the importance of considering the specific chemistry, lifecycle, use conditions, emissions potential and risk profile of individual materials and applications.
A differentiated, risk-based and science-based assessment could be particularly important when determining whether exemptions remain justified.
What happens next?
17 September 2026 was the deadline for public comments.
NMED is expected to consider stakeholder input as part of its ongoing technical assessment before presenting preliminary findings to the Radioactive and Hazardous Materials Interim Committee on 5 November 2026.
The eventual recommendations could influence the future treatment of fluoropolymers under New Mexico's PFAS Protection Act.
At this stage, it is too early to predict whether the existing fluoropolymer exemption will ultimately be retained, modified or removed. Nevertheless, the fact that the exemption has been specifically identified for review makes this an important development for manufacturers and users of fluoropolymer-based sealing products.
Why this matters to the sealing industry
The New Mexico HJM 3 review is another indication of the increasing regulatory and scientific scrutiny surrounding PFAS and, in particular, fluoropolymer materials.
For the sealing industry, the principal concern is not simply whether PFAS restrictions will be introduced, but how regulators distinguish between different PFAS chemistries and applications.
Fluoropolymers play an important role in maintaining leak-tightness, reliability and safety in demanding industrial applications. In many cases, suitable alternatives are either not currently available or require significant technical development and qualification.
The industry should therefore continue to:
- closely monitor the NMED HJM 3 review and subsequent legislative developments;
- engage constructively in scientific and regulatory discussions;
- provide regulators with application-specific information on the function and criticality of fluoropolymers in sealing applications;
- support scientifically robust differentiation between fluoropolymers and other PFAS substances;
- evaluate potential alternative materials and technologies and advocate for realistic transition periods where substitution is technically or economically challenging.
The New Mexico process should also be viewed in the broader context of international PFAS regulation. Developments in one jurisdiction can influence regulatory discussions elsewhere and may contribute to increasing pressure for restrictions or reassessment of exemptions.
For organisations such as ESA and FSA, this reinforces the importance of coordinated industry engagement, sharing sound technical evidence and ensuring that the specific role of high-performance sealing materials is properly understood by policymakers.
Sandy Van den Broeck,
ESG Director, ESA