Packaging EPR Update: Week of September 14, 2026

Update  |  MD

MDE has posted a 36-page Compliance Guide with FAQs for COMAR 26.04.14, marked “Rev 1, September 2026”, which supersedes a June 2026 version of the same document. It is guidance rather than new law, and it carries its own caveat that it “is subject to change”.

It also states the registration duty more loosely than the regulation does. The guide put the July 2026 registration on every producer distributing covered materials into Maryland. COMAR 26.04.14.07A(1) put that filing on the PRO and on producers taking the Individual Producer Plan route; a PRO member sends brands, covered-material weights, and fee to its PRO, on the date the PRO sets (.07A(2)). The guide itself says the same thing four pages later. Where the two disagree, the regulation governs.

Three dates the guide states plainly and that are now on this site: the recurring annual registration deadline is June 30 from 2027 on, not July 1; IPPs are due July 1, 2028; and from October 29, 2028 no producer may sell, offer for sale, distribute, or import covered materials in Maryland without a Department-approved responsibility plan on file. Both 2028 dates carry the same qualifier in the regulation, which sets each date or a later date identified by the Department, so either can move. An annual registration fee is payable to MDE and no amount is published, but COMAR 26.04.14.07C(2) caps what a PRO may charge its members collectively at what the PRO itself pays MDE.

What this means for you: if you are a CAA member, nothing changes today. You report to CAA on CAA’s date and CAA files with MDE. If you are considering an Individual Producer Plan, the guide is the first plain-language statement of that path and the October 2028 date is the one to diary. Source: Maryland Department of the Environment, COMAR 26.04.14 Compliance Guide with FAQs (Rev 1, September 2026).

Update, September 24, 2026: COMAR 26.04.14.07C(1) does set one part of the MDE registration fee: the record-keeping component is capped at $1,000 a year (“not to exceed $1,000”), alongside the costs of the 9-2508 list and of regulations and, from 2028, service-provider registration. No total amount is published.

Litigation  |  CA, OR

California League of Food Producers v. Bonta, the case that produced July’s preliminary injunction against SB 343 labeling enforcement, has an early neutral evaluation set for October 28, 2026, with a joint discovery plan due October 19. Both dates come from the court’s order of August 25, 2026 (ECF 31), which denied a joint motion to vacate and moved the evaluation from September 24. Separately, the window for the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors to notice an appeal of Judge Simon’s August 27 judgment upholding Oregon’s Recycling Modernization Act runs out around September 28, thirty days from judgment. No notice of appeal appears on the public record as of September 14; that is a search of the record rather than a docket read, so treat it as none seen rather than none filed.

What this means for you: nothing changes for you today in either state. SB 343 labeling enforcement stays enjoined against the Attorney General. Oregon’s program stays fully in force for every producer that was not an NAW member as of February 6, 2026, and Oregon fees remain due on the published schedule. Sources: Packaging Dive (September 3, 2026) and Ballard Spahr (September 2026).

Update, September 24, 2026: in CLFP v. Bonta a motion to continue was filed September 22 and an order on it entered September 23, 2026 (ECF 32, 33); the order’s terms are not yet public, so the October 19 joint discovery plan and October 28 early neutral evaluation dates may have moved (CourtListener docket 72503977, read September 24, 2026).

Update, October 7, 2026: NAW filed its notice of appeal on September 24, 2026 (ECF 209), and the Ninth Circuit docketed it on September 30 as No. 26-6404, with NAW’s opening brief due December 17, 2026 and the Director’s answering brief due January 18, 2027. Neither docket, as mirrored October 1 and 2, 2026, shows a motion for a stay.

Comment Period  |  MN

MPCA has published the draft 2026 Needs Assessment for the Packaging Waste and Cost Reduction Act, prepared by Eunomia Research & Consulting, and opened a 60-day public comment period. Comment opened September 14, 2026 and closes November 13, 2026. The draft runs to 13.8 MB with a separate appendices archive.

Minn. Stat. 115A.144 to 115A.1463 requires MPCA to complete a needs assessment in 2026 and every five years after that. Five things are in scope: an official baseline for recycling rates including proposed statewide requirements, recommendations on where to invest in collection, sorting, and end markets, a recommended methodology for service provider reimbursement rates, an evaluation of sustainable design and accountability for covered materials, and best practices for education and outreach.

What this means for you: the reimbursement methodology is the half that eventually sets what producers pay. Minnesota has no live fee obligation yet and its 50 percent cost share does not start until February 1, 2029, so this is the cheapest point at which to influence the number. If you sell into Minnesota and you only track deadlines that invoice you, this one will not appear on your calendar and it closes in eight weeks. Source: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Packaging Waste and Cost Reduction Act 2026 Needs Assessment (September 14, 2026).

(Corrected October 7, 2026: February 1, 2029 is the date by which reimbursement rates must reach at least 50 percent of net cost, not the date a cost share starts (Minn. Stat. 115A.1455, subd. 4(a)). The PRO may already charge member producers a fee to cover MPCA’s costs (Minn. Stat. 115A.1443, subd. 3(c)).)

(Corrected October 8, 2026: “the cheapest point at which to influence the number” is withdrawn, because no source measures it. The comment period closes November 13, 2026, while Minnesota has no published producer fee.)

Update  |  ME

Maine DEP has said what it will do after its Stewardship Organization solicitation drew nothing. RFP-202605094 was issued June 15, 2026, closed August 18 with zero proposals, and CAA declined to bid. On September 11, 2026 DEP posted a newsletter titled “Maine DEP to Revise Request for Proposals for Stewardship Organization”.

DEP’s own program page now places the program at step four of nine, “Contracting with a SO”, and says the Department “is currently reassessing the anticipated schedule”, which will be posted once complete. No reissue date has been given and there is no open solicitation.

What this means for you: this is the first forward-looking statement Maine has made since the RFP failed, and it is an intention rather than a date. Every downstream Maine obligation still hangs off a contract that does not exist. Producer registration runs 90 days from the moment an SO makes a registration mechanism available, start-up fees follow registration, and neither clock can start until an SO is under contract. Maine’s recurring annual calendar in rule is unchanged, so if an SO is seated the May 31 reporting and September 1 payment dates are the ones to plan against. Source: Maine DEP, Extended Producer Responsibility for Packaging, recent newsletters (September 11, 2026).

(Corrected October 7, 2026: DEP’s program page names step four “Contracting an SO”, not “Contracting with a SO”.)

(Corrected October 7, 2026: under Chapter 428 the start-up registration fee is due within 180 days of the SO entering into a contract with DEP, as invoiced by the SO, so its clock runs from the contract rather than from registration.)

Litigation  |  OR

The July 16, 2026 stipulation in Lollicup USA v. Feldon paused DEQ pre-enforcement notices against Lollicup and putative class members, which is to say non-NAW Oregon producers, through at least August 31, 2026. That date has passed.

We read the full docket in 3:26-cv-01287 on September 16, 2026. The only filing after August 31 is ECF 11, the joint motion of September 9 that moved the joint status report from September 10 to October 16, and the court ruled on it September 10. No extension, no amended stipulation, and no dismissal appears on the public docket.

What this means for you: we are telling you what we can see rather than what we would guess. The stipulation allowed the parties to extend it by mutual written agreement, and an agreement of that kind does not have to be filed, so the public record cannot distinguish a quiet extension from a pause that simply expired on September 1. If you are an Oregon producer outside the February 6 NAW injunction, do not treat the pause as still in force, and note that it never covered CAA in any event: CAA is not a party, so it has been free throughout to assess fees and pursue non-payment. The next moment this resolves in public is the October 16 status report. Source: CourtListener docket, Lollicup USA, Inc. v. Feldon, 3:26-cv-01287 (D. Or.), read September 16, 2026.

(Corrected October 8, 2026: the public docket, as mirrored on September 21, shows two entries after August 31, the parties’ joint motion to extend the status report deadline (ECF 11, September 9) and the order granting it (ECF 12, September 10), which moved the joint status report to October 16, 2026.)

Legislative  |  FEDERAL

On September 16, 2026 the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted to report the PACK Act (H.R. 6832) to the House by a roll call vote of 25 to 18, and the Recycled Materials Attribution Act (H.R. 7502) by 28 to 19. Its Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade had forwarded both by voice vote on September 1, and the Library of Congress records both as amended at that stage. The PACK Act sets requirements for recyclable, compostable, and reusable claims on consumer product packaging. The RMAA prohibits misleading recycled content claims and would accept mass balance accounting to substantiate them. As introduced, each bill preempts state law: the PACK Act would bar any state requirement that is not identical to its own, and the RMAA any state law that relates to its prohibition and enforcement provisions.

What this means for you: nothing changes today. Neither bill has a House floor date, and the Library of Congress lists no Senate companion for either. If you make recyclability or recycled content claims on packaging sold in states with their own labeling rules, these are the bills that would replace those rules with one federal standard. Sources: House Energy and Commerce Committee (September 16, 2026); House Energy and Commerce Committee (September 1, 2026); H.R. 6832, introduced text; H.R. 7502, introduced text; Library of Congress, H.R. 6832 and H.R. 7502 actions.

Litigation  |  CO

In NAW v. Ryan (D. Colo., No. 1:26-cv-03460-PAB), the defendant, CDPHE Executive Director Jill Hunsaker Ryan, filed her response to NAW’s August 5, 2026 motion for a preliminary injunction on September 16, 2026 (ECF 15), with declarations from three witnesses and supporting exhibits. Her answer to the complaint is due October 5, 2026 (ECF 13), and a scheduling conference is set for October 21, 2026 at 11:30 a.m., by telephone, before Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter (ECF 12). The docket, as last refreshed on September 21, 2026, shows no reply from NAW and no ruling on the motion.

What this means for you: the court has not ruled, so nothing in this case has paused Colorado’s program. ILMA says it filed its own preliminary injunction motion in Colorado state court on August 18, 2026, asking only for relief for its members. Sources: NAW v. Ryan docket (D. Colo.), via CourtListener; CDPHE, About us; ILMA release.

Site Update

EPR laws by state now compares all seven enacted states across eleven rows: the governing statute, the PRO, when fees begin, whether a fee schedule is published, which data years you report and when, the de minimis test, covered scope, key exemptions, eco-modulation, the maximum penalty, and the next dated action on the record. Under every cell sits the provision that cell comes from and a link to the publisher that issues it, so a figure can be traced without leaving the page. Pick the states you sell into and the rows you care about, hide the rows where those states agree, and take the result away as a CSV. The selection travels in the link, so a view built for three states can be sent to a colleague as it stands. Few producers sell into all seven states and care equally about all of them, and the question that decides a compliance program is narrower: where do the states your packaging reaches actually differ, since that is where the program has to branch. Every cell is generated from the same data behind the individual state pages, so the comparison cannot drift away from them.