SBA Calls for Federal Scrutiny of State EPR Laws
In comments submitted October 30, 2025, the Small Business Administration’s (SBA’s) Office of Advocacy urges the federal government to take challenge extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs “as barriers to interstate commerce.”
SBA’s comments are part of a broader 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 system operates as a monopoly.
“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.
