Textile EPR Legislation Introduced in Minnesota

/in , ,

On February 25, 2026, Minnesota introduced legislation to implement an extended producer responsibility (EPR) program for textiles, carpet, and mattresses.

The “Responsible Textile Waste Recovery Act,” HF 3713, would require producers of covered products to appoint, join, and fund a producer responsibility organization (PRO), which would collect covered products for free and promote their reuse, repair, and recycling.

An initial PRO would be required to fully implement its plan within approximately one year of approval, granted no later than July 2030.  Many interim deadlines are left undefined or are tied to implementing regulations promulgated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).  After the initial PRO’s plan is approved, MPCA could approve additional PROs to jointly administer the program.

The bill uses a cascading definition of “producer”: if the manufacturer who owns or licenses the brand is present in the state, they are the producer; if not, responsibility falls to the brand owner or exclusive licensee, then the importer, and finally the distributor, retailer, or wholesaler.  HF 3713 excludes businesses that sell only secondhand covered products and producers with less than $1 million in annual aggregate global gross revenue from the program.

Internet sellers would be subject to an additional requirement to notify MPCA and the PRO of all third-party sellers with sales of covered products over $1 million the preceding year and provide those sellers with information describing their responsibility to comply with the program.

HF 3713 specifically requires that PROs address PFAS in covered products, including efforts to avoid PFAS contamination during their recycling and outreach to discourage the use of PFAS “and other harmful chemicals.”  The bill would also authorize MPCA to set performance standards for covered products.

Legal Challenges to State EPR

The bill’s introduction comes amid ongoing industry challenges to the legality of other state-level EPR programs.

Last month, the Oregon District Court granted a preliminary injunction against Oregon’s packaging EPR program, the first such program to take effect in the country.  The court based the injunction on arguments that the program unduly restricts interstate commerce and unlawfully delegates regulatory authority to the PRO, particularly as it relates to producer fees.

Separately, in October 2025, the Small Business Administration (SBA) argued in comments that PRO-imposed producer fees might violate federal antitrust laws.

HF 3713 appears to anticipate some of these arguments.  The bill provides that an approved PRO may engage in anticompetitive conduct to the extent necessary to meet its statutory obligations and grants immunity “from liability under state laws relating to antitrust, restraint of trade, and unfair trade practices.”  The bill also requires approved PROs to undergo annual holistic third-party audits.

That said, HF 3713 contains minimal discussion about producer fees, other than requiring that they be eco-modulated—i.e., adjusted to incentivize design choices that facilitate reuse, repair, and recycling—and approved by MPCA, although PROs must also outline strategies to reduce existing fees or “fee redistribution mechanisms that equitably distribute costs among producers” in a periodically updated “needs assessment.”

Court Enjoins Oregon Packaging EPR Law in NAW Challenge

/in ,

On February 6, 2026, the Oregon District Court granted a preliminary injunction in a challenge to Oregon’s packaging extended producer responsibility (EPR) scheme while dismissing other claims without prejudice.

The one-paragraph order bases the injunction on the plaintiff’s dormant Commerce Clause and due process claims.  Those claims allege that the scheme unduly restricts interstate commerce and delegates unprecedented regulatory authority to a producer responsibility organization (PRO).

“Serious questions go to the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, there is a likelihood of irreparable injury, and the balance of hardships tips sharply in favor of Plaintiff,” the court wrote.  “The Court therefore enjoins Defendant Leah Feldon from enforcing the Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act against Plaintiff National Association of Wholesale Distributors [(NAW)] and its members.”

The court dismissed NAW’s remaining claims, including its equal protection claim, unconstitutional conditions claim, and claims brought under the Oregon Constitution.  It also dismissed all claims against four Oregon officials, which the state argued were barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

NAW has until February 20, 2026, to replead the dismissed claims.  In a separate docket entry, the court set a five-day court trial to begin July 13, 2026.

The case is National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon, 25-cv-1334 (D. Or.), filed July 30, 2025.  A prior post discussing the motion for a preliminary injunction and motion to dismiss is available here.

EU Adopts New Textile EPR Requirements

/in ,

In September, the European Union (EU) took a significant step to address textile waste and recycling through amendments to the EU Waste Framework Directive (WFD).  Under Directive (EU) 2025/1892, Member States must implement extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes for textiles, establish national registers of textile producers, and adopt measures to improve the collection, sorting, and management of used textiles.

According to the directive, “[t]he appropriate collection of textiles will contribute to reducing the presence of waste synthetic textiles in the environment, including in terrestrial and marine ecosystems, by ensuring that textiles are reused, recycled and ultimately given a new life, thereby promoting a circular economy.”

Member States must transpose the amendments into national law by June 17, 2027.

Products Covered

The amendments apply to a broad range of textile, textile-related, and footwear products, including:

  • Articles of apparel and clothing accessories (including leather)
  • Blankets and travelling rugs
  • Bed/table/toilet/kitchen linen
  • Curtains and interior blinds
  • Worn clothing
  • Hats and other headgear
  • Footwear
EPR Requirements

Member States must establish textile EPR schemes by April 17, 2028.  The directive defines “producers” to include not only entities established in a Member State, but also foreign manufacturers, importers, and distributors that sell covered products directly to end users through distance contracts.

Producers will be required to cover the costs of collecting used textiles, transporting and sorting them based on their capability for reuse, and subsequent reuse and recycling operations.  These obligations will be fulfilled through producer responsibility organizations (PROs), which will collect fees from producers.  EPR fees must:

  • Be based on the weight, and, where appropriate, the quantity of the products placed on the market;
  • Be eco-modulated (i.e., adjusted based on sustainability criteria); and
  • Account for revenue generated by the PRO from reuse or recycling activities.

PROs may also modulate fees to discourage fast fashion practices.

The amendments do not exempt small producers from EPR obligations.  However, PROs are prohibited from imposing disproportionate fee burdens on small and medium-sized enterprises and must ensure equal treatment of producers regardless of size or origin.  Member States are encouraged to authorize multiple PROs to encourage competition, innovation, and cost efficiency.

Additional Obligations

Member States must establish national registers of textile producers.  Producers will be required to register in each Member State where they make textile products available, providing information such as their name, trademark, and brand names.  Where a producer has appointed a PRO, the PRO may fulfill these registration obligations on the producer’s behalf.

To address concerns that textile waste is frequently exported under the guise of reusable products, the directive introduces new shipment controls.  Textiles assessed as fit for reuse must be accompanied by evidence demonstrating their reusability, and exporters must retain records of the sorting process and professional assessments supporting that determination.

The directive also requires Member States to ensure that sorting operations:

  • Prioritize local sorting and local reuse;
  • Are conducted on an item-by-item basis that separates textiles fit for direct reuse from those that need additional preparation for reuse; and
  • Prioritize remanufacturing over recycling for textiles not suitable for reuse.

More on the WFD amendments, which also include measures addressing food waste, is available in a European Commission news article.

Oregon Defends Packaging EPR Program, Argues Court Lacks Jurisdiction

/in ,

Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) officials are asking a federal court to dismiss a challenge to the state’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) law and implementing regulations, arguing that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

The motion to dismiss, filed December 22, 2025, comes after the plaintiff, the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW), asked the District Court for the District of Oregon to halt the program on November 24, 2025.

According to the defendants, the Eleventh Amendment bars NAW from bringing suit against EQC officials.  While an exception to sovereign immunity exists for suits seeking prospective injunctive relief, the defendants contend that the named officials do not fall within the exception because they do not directly enforce the law.

“Absent allegations that EQC has an enforcement role or is continuously engaging in some activity that violates federal law, Plaintiff has not and cannot establish that the Ex parte Young exception should apply to the EQC Defendants,” the motion reads.

Enforcement authority, the defendants contend, rests with Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), while EQC’s role is limited to promulgating administrative rules that “guide DEQ in its…administration” of the program.  Although both EQC and DEQ were named in NAW’s original complaint, the association removed the agencies as defendants in an amended complaint filed October 27, 2025.

The defendants also argue that the Eleventh Amendment precludes NAW’s state-law claims from being heard in federal court.

Oregon’s packaging EPR program, which launched July 1, 2025, is the first such program to take effect nationwide.  Many of its obligations are currently fulfilled by a single producer responsibility organization (PRO), Circular Action Alliance (CAA), though DEQ is authorized to approve additional PROs.

Last month, the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy called for the federal government to preempt the program, citing concerns about interference with interstate commerce, the state’s delegation of authority to CAA, and the confidential methodologies used by CAA to calculate producer fees.

Merits Arguments

NAW raises similar concerns in its amended complaint, arguing that the program “produces unreasonable, arbitrary, and crushing burdens, including on wholesalers and distributors who are essential to moving products from manufacturers to Oregon consumers,” in part due to the delegation of  “essential regulatory authority to a private, third-party organization.”  CAA “has been granted wide discretion to apply a confidential methodology for setting fees, to establish other criteria and incentives for certain producers, and to penalize producers of certain materials,” NAW contends.

NAW alleges several constitutional violations.  After contesting the court’s jurisdiction, the defendants’ motion to dismiss addresses each, arguing that all fail to state a plausible claim for relief.

First, the motion challenges NAW’s dormant Commerce Clause claim, asserting that the program does not discriminate against interstate commerce.  “Increased compliance costs, even if borne largely by out-of-state businesses, do not amount to discrimination,” the defendants argue.  Nor, they add, does the program “establish a substantial or an excessive burden on interstate commerce, regardless of whether it is compared to the putative local interests.”

The defendants also contend that the program does not have impermissible extraterritorial effects because it “does not force any producer to make any product or packaging design, sourcing, or distribution decisions.”

The motion next addresses NAW’s unconstitutional conditions claim, which alleged that producers are compelled to surrender “freedom of contract and due process protections” when joining CAA.  In response, the defendants note that the law allows NAW’s members to form their own PRO, arguing that participation in CAA is a matter of choice.

NAW further argues that delegating fee-setting authority to CAA violates its members’ procedural due process rights.  The defendants counter by pointing to statutory safeguards that provide “opportunity for public input and continuing DEQ oversight” of the fees program.  These include DEQ approval of PRO program plans and fee methodologies, as well as annual reporting requirements.

Finally, the motion argues that Oregon has a rational basis for exempting small producers and does not unlawfully discriminate between mid-sized and large producers, rebutting NAW’s equal protection claim.

The case is National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon, 25-cv-1334 (D. Or.), filed July 30, 2025.

SBA Calls for Federal Scrutiny of State EPR Laws

/in , ,

In comments submitted October 30, 2025, the Small Business Administration’s (SBA’s) Office of Advocacy is calling for the federal government to take action against state extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs “as barriers to interstate commerce.”

SBA’s comments are part of a larger document submitted in response to an August 2025 Department of Justice (DOJ) request for information on state laws that may adversely affect the national economy.  The agency highlights EPR programs’ fees and complexity, which SBA argues disproportionately burden small businesses.

Oregon’s EPR Program

SBA directs much of its criticism on Oregon’s EPR program for packaging, paper, and serviceware, which it describes as especially burdensome.

The law’s broad definition of “producers,” which includes wholesalers and distributors, affects businesses “who have no control over packaging design,” SBA writes.  In addition, while many state EPR laws require producers to join a producer responsibility organization (PRO) that collects fees and administers the program, SBA contends that Oregon’s PRO structure is monopolistic.

“Unlike traditional EPR programs that target specific products with transparent fees, Oregon’s system delegates vast regulatory authority to a single private entity, the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), which operates with a confidential fee methodology and minimal oversight,” the comments state.

SBA’s recommendations extend beyond Oregon, however.  The agency advocates for EPR laws to be struck down, calls for a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigation into whether PRO fees violate federal antitrust laws, and urges greater fee transparency and state oversight.

“Most importantly, other states should avoid Oregon’s model of delegating broad regulatory power to private monopolistic entities without adequate procedural protections,” SBA writes.  “Future EPR legislation should maintain direct state oversight, provide competitive alternatives to single PROs, and ensure that compliance costs are proportionate to businesses’ actual control over packaging decisions and ability to bear regulatory burdens.”

Addressing State Inconsistencies

Other commenters echoed concerns about the economic impacts of EPR laws, emphasizing inconsistencies among state programs.  The American Chemistry Council (ACC), the American Institute for Packaging and the Environment (AMERIPEN), and the National Restaurant Association all cited conflicting definitions, requirements, and program structures as drivers of cost and compliance challenges.

Notably, in its September 15 comments, ACC suggested that a federal EPR program may be the solution to these difficulties.  “EPA could establish a federal framework that promotes a common approach to EPR and recycling,” ACC stated.  “Setting common definitions, metrics, and data collection standards, could support compliance and stimulate the domestic economy.”

ACC also urged federal preemption of other state chemical restrictions, including PFAS laws and California’s Proposition 65.

The docket for DOJ’s request for information is available here.

Reminder: Upcoming New York Carpet EPR Deadlines

/in , ,

New York’s carpet extended producer responsibility (EPR) law will soon take effect, with important deadlines on the horizon for producers.  As discussed in a previous post, the law requires manufacturers to fund and manage the collection and recycling of post-consumer carpet sold in the state, while also phasing in recycled content minimums and a prohibition of PFAS in carpet products.  Oversight and enforcement will be carried out by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).

Here are the key deadlines producers should keep in mind:

  • Dec 31, 2025: Producer or representative organization plans due to NYSDEC (date set via 2023 chapter amendment).
  • July 1, 2026: Cannot sell carpet in NY unless participating in an approved plan; collection and recycling program begins.
  • Dec 31, 2026: PFAS-containing carpet ban takes effect.

Producers can find additional details on program implementation on NYSDEC’s Carpet Recycling page.  Specific information on the PFAS prohibition can be found in a previous post.

Colorado Proposes Amendments to EPR Regulations to Implement Eco-Modulation

/in , ,

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) has released a proposed rule to introduce eco-modulation—a system that lowers dues for producers who meet specific sustainability incentives under the state’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) program for packaging.

Under Colorado’s EPR program, producers of packaging and paper products will begin paying dues to a producer responsibility organization (PRO) in January 2026 and annually thereafter.  When CDPHE first adopted its implementing regulations in June 2024, it left the eco-modulation criteria undefined.  The new proposal fills in those details.

Like other state packaging EPR laws, Colorado’s program aims to shift recycling costs from taxpayers to producers.  Through a PRO, producers are responsible for expanding recycling access, increasing recycling rates, and funding the recycling system.

Eco-Modulation Benchmarks

The proposed rule establishes several voluntary benchmarks that allow producers to reduce their dues by achieving certain environmental performance goals:

  • On-package sorting criteria: Inclusion of sorting instructions and guidance directly on packaging.
  • Local end use: Use of materials that are on the state’s “minimum recyclable” list, contain at least 20% US-generated postconsumer-recycled content, and are utilized by an end-market business in Colorado.
  • Compostability: Use of a material that meets ASTM standards for compostability and complies with certain labeling requirements.
  • Case study: Development of a case study demonstrating measurable benefits to recyclability, waste reduction, or other environmental outcomes for a covered material.

Each benchmark achieved earns producers a 1% reduction in dues for each qualifying material.  Bonuses will be applied to 2027 invoices and all invoices thereafter, except the on-package sorting benchmark, which will only be available starting in 2029.

The proposal additionally provides a pathway for producers to dispute the final application of eco-modulation factors to their dues, and eliminates a requirement that producers “submit documents and records to the PRO if they believe they are exempt from covered material.”

According to CDPHE’s website, the public comment period for the rulemaking ended September 28, 2025.  However, the page states that the Solid & Hazardous Waste Commission is currently accepting comment, and “strongly encourages” that comments be submitted by November 7.  CDPHE will present the commission with its proposed amendments on November 18, 2025.

The statement of purpose accompanying the proposed rule can be found here.

New York to Ban PFAS in Carpet Beginning December 2026

/in , ,

A New York state law will ban the sale of carpet containing or treated with PFAS “for any purpose” starting December 31, 2026—following in the footsteps of other states, such as Colorado and Maryland, which have already forbid the intentional use of so-called “forever chemicals” in carpeting.

Like those states, the law broadly defines PFAS as “a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.”  The term “carpet” is also defined expansively, encompassing most manufactured articles that are:

  • Used by consumers;
  • Placed on walking surfaces (including outdoors); and
  • “Primarily constructed of a top surface of synthetic or natural face fibers or yarns or tufts attached to a backing system made of synthetic or natural materials.”

Handmade rugs, area rugs, and mats are excluded from the law’s scope.

The ban was originally set to take effect in 2024, but state lawmakers postponed its implementation in 2023.  To date, it does not appear that any New York lawmaker has proposed legislation to extend its effective date again, however.

This prohibition is part of New York’s broader carpet extended producer responsibility (EPR) framework.  As discussed in a recent post, the EPR program will require that carpet manufacturers fund a carpet collection program and phases-in post-consumer recycled content requirements.

According to a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) webpage, the agency is currently “in the preliminary stage of developing” regulations to implement the program and its associated requirements.

New York Carpet Producer Responsibility Program to Launch January 2026

/in , ,

Carpet manufacturers selling in New York state will soon be required to fund a carpet collection and recycling program under New York’s new carpet extended producer responsibility (EPR) program, which is set to begin July 1, 2026.

New York’s carpet EPR law took effect in December 2024, and requires that carpet producers establish or join a collection program approved by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).  Producers may comply individually or by participating in a “representative organization”—the equivalent of a producer responsibility organization (PRO) under other EPR frameworks.

Covered Products

The program applies to most carpet types sold in New York, including but not limited to:

  • Broadloom carpet
  • Modular carpet tiles
  • Artificial turf
  • Carpet pads and underlayment

Handmade rugs, area rugs, and mats are excluded from the program’s scope.

Statutory Requirements

The law establishes phased-in requirements for recycled content and recycling performance based on the number of years following NYSDEC’s approval of a producer’s initial program plan.

One year after plan approval:

  • All carpet sold must contain at least 10% post-consumer recycled content.
  • All carpet must be accompanied with the producer’s name and contact information, as well as the material, composition, and construction type.

Five years after plan approval:

  • All carpet sold must contain at least 20% post-consumer recycled content.
  • Producers must achieve a 30% recycling rate, including at least 10% closed-loop recycling.

Ten years after plan approval:

  • All carpet sold must contain at least 30% post-consumer recycled content.
  • Producers must achieve a 50% recycling rate, with at least 20% closed-loop.

Fifteen years after plan approval:

  • Producers must achieve a 75% recycling rate, of which 40% must be closed-loop.

In addition, starting December 31, 2026, no carpet sold in New York may contain or be treated with PFAS for any purpose.

If a producer or representative organization fails to meet its performance targets, starting four years after plan approval, NYSDEC will assess a penalty of $0.25 per pound for the shortfall—the difference between the actual amount recycled and the amount required to meet the goal.

Key Deadlines
  • December 31, 2025: Deadline for producers or representative organizations to submit their collection program plans to NYSDEC. The department must approve or reject plans within 90 days.
  • July 1, 2026: Producers may not sell carpet into the state unless participating in an approved collection program plan.
  • December 31, 2026: Ban on PFAS-containing carpet takes effect.
  • July 1, 2027: Producers or representative organizations must submit their first annual report to NYSDEC on their program’s implementation.

NYSDEC’s website states that it is “in the preliminary stage of developing” regulations to implement the law.  More information is available in a June 2025 NYSDEC webinar slide deck.

California Packaging EPR Rulemaking Resumes With Key Deadlines Ahead

/in , , ,

On August 22, 2025, CalRecycle published proposed regulations to implement California’s SB 54, which imposes a state extended producer responsibility (EPR) program for single-use packaging and plastic food service ware.  Public comments on the proposal are due October 7, 2025, the same day CalRecycle will hold a hybrid public hearing.

The rulemaking is CalRecycle’s second attempt to implement SB 54.  In March 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom directed CalRecycle to restart the rulemaking process, citing concerns with its costs.

What does SB 54 Require?

SB 54 is designed to shift the burden of plastic pollution from consumers to producers, which are “typically the companies that create—or package their products in—single-use packaging and single-use plastic food service ware,” according to CalRecycle.  Beginning in 2027, producers will pay fees totaling $500 million per year to offset recycling costs and environmental impacts.

By 2032, all covered materials must be recyclable or compostable, and at least 65% must actually be recycled.  SB 54 also mandates a 25% source reduction in plastic covered material compared to 2023.

Upcoming Compliance Deadlines for Producers

Producers face several near-term obligations under the program:

  • September 5, 2025: Deadline to register with California’s inaugural producer responsibility organization (PRO), Circular Action Alliance (CAA), which will oversee program administration and fee collection.
  • September 15, 2025: CAA opens its reporting portal.
  • November 15, 2025: Deadline to submit 2023 supply data through the portal.

As discussed in a previous blog post, an increasing number of states are implementing packaging EPR laws.  Our team is available to help businesses navigate this evolving regulatory landscape.