EPR Packaging Laws: Key Requirements and Compliance Challenges

/in ,

A significant regulatory shift is underway across the United States as multiple states adopt extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws targeting packaging waste.  In 2025, Maryland and Washington State joined a growing list of jurisdictions—including Maine, Oregon, Colorado, California, and Minnesota—that now require producers of packaged goods to engage in one or more of the following: funding or managing recycling programs, reporting material use, and meeting eco-design standards.

Under these laws, companies that introduce packaged goods into covered states often must register with a producer responsibility organization (PRO), submit detailed data on packaging materials, and pay eco-modulated fees based on environmental characteristics such as recyclability, toxicity, and use of post-consumer recycled content.  Maryland’s law is particularly notable for permitting multiple PROs, opening the door to competitive service models.  Washington’s SB 5284, enacted in May 2025, emphasizes equitable access to recycling across rural and underserved communities.

Key elements across state EPR packaging laws include:
  • Mandatory producer registration with PROs or state authorities
  • Annual data submissions on packaging volume, format, and materials
  • Fee structures that reward low-impact design, such as compostability or reusability
  • Coverage of a broad range of industries, including food and beverage, e-commerce, and personal care
  • Implementation timelines beginning in 2025 and accelerating through 2030

Companies should anticipate increased scrutiny of packaging design and growing complexity in compliance as additional states consider EPR legislation.  The resulting patchwork of state requirements will demand careful monitoring and tailored compliance strategies.

Preparing for What’s Ahead

As this regulatory landscape evolves, many companies are beginning to review packaging portfolios, evaluate data collection capabilities, and consider how these rules may affect their compliance, contracting, and product design strategies.  Early engagement with legal, regulatory, and sustainability advisors may help manage risk and identify business opportunities in a more circular packaging economy.

Our team continues to monitor these developments closely and is available to assist with compliance planning, legal analysis, and multi-state tracking strategies tailored to your operational footprint.

“Made in the USA” Claims Face Renewed FTC Scrutiny

/in , ,

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has recently intensified enforcement of “Made in the USA” claims, signaling that such marketing representations remain a priority even amid broader deregulatory themes in the second Trump administration.   In July, the commission designated “Made in the USA Month” and used the occasion to highlight the legal standards companies must meet when promoting domestic manufacturing.

“It is important to protect Americans from deceptive advertising, and also important because it provides consumers with confidence that when they buy something that says ‘Made in the USA’ they are actually supporting American workers, American manufacturers, and American communities,” FTC’s July 1 press release stated.

Recent Enforcement Actions

Just days later, on July 8, FTC announced that it had issued warning letters to four manufacturers—Americana Liberty, Oak Street Manufacturing, Pro Sports Group, and USA Big Mountain Paper—for potentially deceptive US-origin claims.  “Companies that falsely claim their products are ‘Made in the USA’ can expect to hear from the FTC,” the commission warned.

FTC also notified Amazon and Walmart, urging them to strengthen oversight of “Made in the USA” representations made by third-party sellers on their platforms.

Legal Framework and Risk

Under the FTC’s 2021 Made in USA Labeling Rule, marketers must ensure that any unqualified “Made in USA” claim is backed by evidence showing that the product is “all or virtually all” made in the United States.  That requirement extends beyond final assembly—virtually all components must be US-sourced, and all significant processing must occur domestically.  FTC can seek civil penalties exceeding $50,000 per violation.

What Businesses Should Do Now

Companies making US-origin claims—whether on packaging, advertising, or e-commerce listings—should immediately assess whether those claims are substantiated and appropriately qualified.  Supply chain documentation, legal review of marketing copy, and platform-level seller oversight are all critical steps.  FTC’s recent actions make clear that “Made in USA” claims are no longer low-risk, especially for businesses operating under public scrutiny or national branding strategies.

For support with compliance reviews, developing lawful origin claims, or navigating FTC correspondence, our team is here to help.

EPA’s 2025 FIFRA Enforcement Trends

/in , ,

EPA has maintained a surprisingly aggressive enforcement posture under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in 2025, even as broader deregulatory and budget-cutting initiatives move forward.  Data from the first part of the year suggest that civil enforcement remains vigorous across multiple sectors and may be exceeding levels seen in previous years.

Key Enforcement Activity

Increased Volume of Cases:  EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database indicates that 84 FIFRA administrative enforcement cases with civil penalties were opened from February through July 2025.  This represents a notable increase compared to the same period in 2024 and 2023, when approximately 59 and 51 cases were issued, respectively.

Rising Penalties:  EPA’s enforcement in 2025 has produced some of the largest FIFRA settlements on record.  In May, Costco Wholesale Corp. agreed to a $3.07 million settlement for selling unregistered antimicrobial gloves and misbranded air filters, failing to file import notices, and violating a stop‑sale order.  As part of the same enforcement action, Winix America settled for more than $1 million.  A third seven-figure settlement was reached with Stepan Co. for selling or distributing a misbranded pesticide.

Notices of Refusal of Admission:  EPA Region 8 has been actively monitoring pesticide imports along the northern border.  EPA’s administrative enforcement dockets webpage indicates that nearly 50 notices of refusal of admission have been issued in 2025 so far.

FIFRA Expedited Settlement Agreement Pilot Program

A significant number of civil penalties have been assessed through EPA’s Expedited Settlement Agreement (ESA) Pilot Program under FIFRA, launched in January 2025.  The program targets minor, easily correctable violations and provides discounted, non-negotiable settlements, in lieu of formal enforcement.  The pilot program is intended to streamline enforcement while prioritizing resource efficiency and deterrence.

This pilot program will remain available for 36 months from its approval date, with evaluation of its effectiveness slated after 30 months.  ESA penalties have generally ranged from several hundred to several thousand dollars.

Implications for Regulated Entities
  • Enforcement focus remains strong on labeling, registration, import compliance, and antimicrobial products.
  • The ESA Pilot Program may allow expedited resolution but applies only to specific, low-severity violations.
  • Companies should continue to operate under the assumption that enforcement remains robust.
Practical Steps

To manage enforcement risk:

  • Review labeling, registration status, and marketing claims for all pesticide and antimicrobial products.
  • Confirm compliance with import documentation such as notices of arrival and relevant filings.
  • Strengthen supplier and private-label compliance monitoring.
  • Conduct a proactive self‑audit under EPA’s Audit Policy, especially if potential minor violations are identified.
  • Evaluate whether any matters may qualify for the FIFRA ESA Pilot Program.
Final Thought

Despite changes in the regulatory landscape, 2025 shows that EPA’s FIFRA enforcement remains serious.  Taking preemptive steps can provide meaningful protection and potentially reduce enforcement exposure.

Environmental Compliance Under the Trump Administration: Why Maintaining Compliance and Self-Auditing Makes Business Sense

/in

The current federal enforcement climate may appear lenient, but the importance of environmental compliance under the Trump administration remains significant for regulated industries.  Short-term political shifts should not distract from long-term business, legal, and reputational realities.  Below are seven key reasons why companies should continue prioritizing compliance and consider proactive self-auditing during this administration—even amid reduced federal enforcement.

1. Enforcement Risk is Cyclical

Political cycles are short, and a change in administration or state leadership can quickly swing enforcement priorities back toward aggressive oversight.  EPA and state agencies often enforce against violations discovered long after they occurred.  Moreover, many states maintain aggressive enforcement regardless of federal posture, meaning state regulators may pursue violations even if EPA does not.  Short-term leniency today can turn into a costly liability tomorrow.

2. Civil and Criminal Liability Still Exist

Even in a softer federal enforcement climate, businesses remain at risk of significant civil penalties if violations are uncovered during inspections or deemed serious enough to warrant action.  Political priorities have no effect on criminal liability—knowing or willful violations can still lead to prosecution, including personal liability for executives.  Citizen suits under laws such as the Clean Water Act, RCRA, and the Clean Air Act also remain a powerful enforcement tool for NGOs and private parties.  On top of that, many insurance policies exclude coverage for pollution events tied to noncompliance, leaving companies financially exposed.

3. Regulatory Compliance is a Business Asset

Staying in compliance helps keep the permits and licenses that are essential for day-to-day operations, while avoiding the risk of suspension or revocation that can halt business entirely.  It also preserves enterprise value, since buyers, investors, and lenders closely review compliance history during mergers, acquisitions, or refinancing, and violations can lower a sale price or derail a deal altogether.  A strong compliance record can even provide a competitive edge, helping secure government contracts and attracting customers who prioritize environmental and social responsibility.

4. Market & Reputation Pressures Can Outweigh Federal Policy

Compliance is a market expectation.  Lenders, investors, and insurers increasingly require documented environmental compliance or strong ESG performance as a condition for doing business.  Public perception, shaped by media coverage and NGO activism, can inflict far greater damage to a company’s brand than an EPA fine ever could.  Supply chain dynamics add another layer of pressure, as large corporations often require vendors to meet standards that exceed federal regulations.  Ultimately, reputation and contracts depend on compliance more than who occupies the White House.

5. Self-Auditing Offers Strong Protections

Under EPA’s Audit Policy and many state laws, voluntarily disclosing violations can lead to reduced or eliminated penalties.  Some states also offer audit privilege, shielding certain findings from disclosure in enforcement actions.  Self-auditing demonstrates good faith to regulators, signaling a proactive compliance culture, while early detection of issues prevents them from escalating into costly enforcement or litigation.  A proactive audit today is almost always less expensive and safer than reacting to a violation tomorrow.

6. Risk Management and Cost Control

Compliance is cheaper to maintain than repair.  Strong compliance practices help prevent the sudden and expensive crises that can arise from noncompliance, such as emergency response actions and costly cleanups.  By identifying and addressing issues voluntarily, businesses can schedule fixes strategically, minimizing operational disruption and downtime.  Finally, self-directed compliance efforts provide cost certainty and tend to be significantly less expensive than making corrections under a consent decree.

7. Enforcement Can Escalate Mid-Administration

Lax enforcement is never guaranteed.  A major spill, accident, or environmental disaster can prompt regulators to pivot suddenly toward stricter oversight.  Public outrage and pressure from Congress can also compel the EPA or Department of Justice to target specific industries or facilities regardless of the administration’s general enforcement stance.

Closing Thought

Even with changes in federal enforcement policy, maintaining environmental compliance under the Trump administration is crucial to managing risks and protecting business value.  Taking a proactive approach through diligent compliance and self-auditing helps safeguard reputations and keep operations running smoothly.  Ultimately, a consistent commitment to environmental responsibility is the smarter, safer, and more cost-effective path forward.

CEH Settles with Chemical Importer over Alleged CDR Omissions

/in ,

Last month, the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) announced a “legally binding agreement” with Wego Chemical Group over alleged failures to disclose chemical imports to EPA.  The agreement is the latest negotiated by CEH, which has aggressively pursued violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act’s (TSCA’s) Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) requirements.

“Between 2016-2019, Wego imported tens of millions of pounds of chemicals but failed to submit any reports of these imports to the EPA in 2020 as required by TSCA,” CEH’s press release states.  The company allegedly failed to report a total of 104 chemicals, including ethylene thiourea, which EPA classifies as a potential carcinogen.

CEH uncovers possible CDR violations by cross-referencing import data with CDR submissions.  The environmental organization has reached a number of settlements with chemical companies, including an October 2024 agreement with AOC LLC, discussed in a previous blog post.

Wego, based in New York, describes itself as a “chemical supply and distribution group.”  The full text of the settlement agreement has not been made publicly available.

EPA Requests Comment on Reconsideration of PCE Rule

/in , ,

On July 30, 2025, EPA published a request for comment as it reconsiders its regulation of perchloroethylene (PCE) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  The request marks the first step toward potentially amending the rule issued in December 2024, which prohibited or phased out most uses of the solvent.

EPA is particularly interested in receiving comment on:

  • Whether the existing chemical exposure limit of 0.14 parts per million (ppm) should be replaced by a different limit, such as the non-cancer exposure limit of 0.5 ppm or the lifetime cancer exposure limit of 0.47 ppm;
  • Conditions of use that may be better managed through workplace protections rather than bans; and
  • Use of PCE in industrial dry cleaning processes, including workplace controls and the performance of alternatives in those operations.

EPA first announced its intent to revisit the rule in a May 12 motion requesting that the Fifth Circuit place a consolidated legal challenge to the regulation on indefinite hold.  The court denied that request, instead granting a 90-day stay.

The PCE rule was primarily driven by concerns over the solvent’s neurotoxicity.  It bans all consumer uses of PCE as well as many industrial and commercial uses, including a 10-year phaseout for use in dry cleaning.  Many of the uses that are not prohibited, such as use in aircraft and petrochemical manufacturing, will be subject to workplace exposure controls.

According to EPA’s May 12 filing, any revisions to the rule are expected to take 12 to 18 months.  Comments on the notice are due August 29, 2025.

PFAS Phaseouts Pose National Security Risk, Pentagon Says

/in ,

In a new report to Congress, the Defense Department (DOD) is warning that mounting regulatory pressure on PFAS and a “dwindling number of domestic PFAS manufacturers” pose a growing threat to national security.

“An increasing number of mission critical PFAS and PFAS-enabled products are at risk for obsolescence due to market phase outs; manufacturer liability; complex geopolitical escalation dynamics; and  regulatory complexity, uncertainty, and inconsistency,” the July 17 report states.

“The rate of obsolescence of existing chemicals is outpacing the defense sectors and other private industries’ abilities to research, develop, test, evaluate, and adopt new chemical technologies, resulting in disruption to existing capabilities and/or sourcing from foreign entities of concern,” it adds.

The report sets out a strategy for DOD to invest in the development of PFAS alternatives, which will begin with the prioritization of critical uses.  The department will simultaneously engage with regulators and industry to ensure the “continued domestic availability of PFAS critical for defense over the next 10 years or longer.”  According the report, phasing out PFAS from materials like semiconductors could take as long as 25 years.

DOD also argues against the use of “broad” structure-based definitions of PFAS, which “do not inform whether a substance is harmful.”  A risk-based approach incorporating “chemical/physical properties and exposure properties should be considered,” the report states.

Congress requested the report in the FY 2024 defense appropriations bill.  It builds on an earlier 2023 report which focused on the five sectors with “supply chain vulnerabilities posing the most pressing threats to national security”: kinetic capabilities, energy storage and batteries, microelectronics and semiconductors, castings and forgings, and strategic and critical minerals.

EPA Updates Safer Choice Program’s Ingredients List

/in , ,

On July 21, 2025, EPA added 18 chemicals to the Safer Chemicals Ingredients List (SCIL).  The move may signal that the agency plans to continue the Safer Choice program, despite earlier speculation that the Trump administration might transition it to the private sector.

With the update, there are now 983 chemicals on the SCIL.  The list is designed to help manufacturers find safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals.  Products that meet the criteria of the Safer Choice program are eligible to carry the “Safer Choice” label.  The SCIL can be found here.

The voluntary program was targeted for elimination by the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” initiative.  However, industry groups such as the American Cleaning Institute urged the Trump administration to retain it.

In a press release announcing the update, EPA states that the additions “support[] Administrator Zeldin’s commitment to transparency, innovation and safer chemistry.”  The agency also notes that using existing SCIL-listed chemicals can help companies avoid delays tied to the approval of new substances—an acknowledgment of industry concerns about the backlog in EPA’s review process.

“Without an approval from EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act, new chemistries don’t make it to market, which simultaneously holds back the manufacturing and innovation sectors and keeps older chemistries in regulation,” the release states.

The 18 additions represent a variety of functional classes, including emollients, polymers, and surfactants.  All but one are either verified or expected to be of low concern based on experimental and modelled data.

The exception, sodium polyphosphates, is only allowed as an oxidant stabilizer due to possible hazards.  Its “yellow triangle” designation indicates that it is one of the safest chemicals available for its function, but that its function is in need of safer chemistry innovation.

Last year, EPA expanded the Safer Choice program by introducing sustainable packaging criteria and a Safer Choice Cleaning Service certification.  More on that update can be found here.

California Proposes Listing Microplastics as an SCP Candidate Chemical

/in , ,

California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has proposed to designate microplastics as a “candidate chemical,” a move that could lead to future regulation of products that contain or generate microplastics under the state’s Safer Consumer Products (SCP) program.

Adding microplastics to the SCP candidate chemical list would not in itself create new regulatory requirements.  However, it would allow SCP to evaluate specific types of products containing microplastics for possible designation as a “priority product,” which could ultimately result in restrictions or other regulatory measures.

“Microplastics are pervasive, persistent, and increasingly linked to potential risks to human health, wildlife and the environment,”  DTSC stated in a June 20 press release.  “They have been found in nearly every corner of the planet, including oceans, soil, indoor air, and even on the highest mountain peaks.”

The press release also highlights the “economic burden” of microplastic pollution, noting that “healthcare costs linked to plastic-associated chemicals are projected to exceed $144 billion by 2025” in California.

A technical document accompanying the proposal defines microplastics as “plastics that are less than 5 millimeters (mm) in their longest dimension, inclusive of those materials that are intentionally manufactured at those dimensions or are generated by the fragmentation of larger particles.”

The document acknowledges the “structural heterogeneity and complexity of different plastic polymers,” but argues that microplastics still constitute a “chemical” under SCP’s governing regulations.

The proposal was foreshadowed by SCP’s most recent priority products work plan, released in 2024 and discussed in a previous blog post.  For the first time, the work plan identified products containing or generating microplastics as a consumer product category warranting evaluation for priority products.

Comments on the proposal will be accepted through August 4 via CalSAFER.

DOD Requests Information on Chemicals Undergoing TSCA Risk Evaluation

/in , ,

Last month, the Defense Department (DOD) issued a request for information (RFI) seeking input on critical military uses of 11 chemicals currently undergoing Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk evaluation.

The “ability to identify critical applications earlier in the TSCA Section 6 risk evaluation process will allow [DOD] to investigate the availability of alternatives, inform industry and interagency engagement, and better manage chemicals critical to national defense,” the RFI states.

DOD will likely use the information it collects to help ensure that critical applications are protected in any future TSCA risk management rule.

The 11 chemicals include 1,3-Butadiene, 1,1-Dichloroethane, 1,2-Dichloroethane, D4, and seven phthalates: BBP, DBP, DCHP, DEHP, DIBP, DIDP, and DINP.  Some, like DIDP, have finalized risk evaluations.  For others, such as D4, EPA has yet to release a draft.

The RFI focuses on identifying specific DOD applications that require these substances and their industrial criticality.  It asks for details such as annual usage quantities, whether viable alternatives exist, and which TSCA condition of use best matches each application.

According to the RFI, DOD currently relies on safety data sheets (SDSs) for chemical ingredient data, which contain limited information.  As a result, DOD “lacks visibility in tracking upstream applications to understand the implications of developing regulatory drivers, such as TSCA.”

Responses to the RFI were due June 20, but DOD will consider late comments to the extent practicable.  The department also stated that it “will continue to issue RFIs to consider additional TSCA chemicals.”