Question 1

What are EPR packaging laws, and why do they matter for manufacturers?

Accepted Answer

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) packaging laws make manufacturers financially and operationally responsible for managing their packaging waste at the end of its life. Under these laws, producers must fund recycling, reporting, and waste management programs through Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs).In the U.S., EPR is state-driven, meaning compliance varies by state. Manufacturers must track packaging data, report to the appropriate PRO, and pay eco-modulated fees based on recyclability and material composition.EPR laws support a circular economy, reduce landfill waste, and help manufacturers meet sustainability goals.

Question 2

How do manufacturers comply with EPR packaging requirements?

Accepted Answer

Compliance typically involves four key steps:Register and join the appropriate Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO).Track and report the types, weights, and recyclability of packaging materials placed on the market.Pay PRO fees, which may vary based on packaging recyclability (eco-modulation).Meet recycling and content targets — for example, post-consumer recycled content in plastics and paper.Manufacturers must also monitor updates to avoid gaps in compliance across states. Using centralized EPR compliance software helps automate reporting and ensures data accuracy across jurisdictions.

Question 3

How can manufacturers prepare for EPR compliance and avoid penalties?

Accepted Answer

The best way to avoid EPR compliance risks is through proactive preparation and consistent data management. Start by identifying where your products are sold, what materials your packaging uses, and whether those materials are in scope for EPR programs. From there, establish internal tracking processes and join a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) early.Manufacturers can also reduce costs and risk by designing recyclable or reusable packaging, centralizing reporting data, and automating updates across states as new regulations emerge. Investing in an EPR compliance platform helps ensure you meet reporting deadlines, maintain audit-ready documentation, and stay ahead of rapidly changing state requirements.

Question 4

How does Assent help manufacturers manage EPR packaging compliance?

Accepted Answer

Assent helps manufacturers simplify and scale their EPR compliance across multiple U.S. states. The Assent Sustainability Platform centralizes packaging data, automates reporting to Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs), and keeps you ahead of evolving requirements.With Assent, you can track material composition, calculate packaging weights, and generate audit-ready reports that align with state-specific EPR laws, from California’s SB 54 to Colorado’s HB 22-1355. The platform also provides real-time regulatory updates, so you’re never caught off guard by new reporting deadlines or scope changes.

Question 5

What are the Minnesota PFAS reporting rule requirements?

Accepted Answer

Minnesota’s final PFAS reporting rule requires manufacturers to report all products containing intentionally added PFAS that are sold, offered, or distributed in the state, including online sales. The rule covers a broad product scope, including fluoropolymers such as PTFE. Manufacturers must submit detailed product information, PFAS functions, and concentration ranges through Minnesota’s new PRISM reporting system. A one-time $800 fee per manufacturer applies, and most reported information will be publicly accessible unless trade-secret protection is approved.

Question 6

What is PRISM for PFAS reporting?

Accepted Answer

PRISM (PFAS Reporting and Information System for Manufacturers) is Minnesota’s online platform for submitting PFAS product data. Launched in January 2026, PRISM serves as the centralized system for Minnesota’s PFAS reporting program and is designed to support multi-state adoption in the future. Manufacturers will use PRISM to register, prepare submissions, report PFAS in products, request waivers, and manage trade-secret claims.

Question 7

What is the Minnesota PFAS reporting deadline?

Accepted Answer

The initial Minnesota PFAS reporting deadline is September 15, 2026. In the original rule, the deadline was July 1, 2026, but this was pushed back in an update published on April 15, 2026. This deadline applies to all in-scope products sold or distributed in the state. Beginning February 2027, manufacturers must report all new products containing intentionally added PFAS by February 1 each year. Ongoing re-reporting is not required unless a product changes, making it essential for companies to maintain a scalable, repeatable PFAS tracking process.

Question 8

What is Section 232 and why does it matter for steel, aluminum, and copper imports?

Accepted Answer

Section 232 of the U.S. Trade Expansion Act allows the president to impose tariffs if imports threaten national security. Since 2018, this has led to significant tariffs on steel and aluminum, and in 2025, copper was added. Importers must now provide detailed supply chain data (such as country of smelt, cast, melt, and pour) to avoid duties up to 200%.

Question 9

How can importers stay compliant with Section 232 reporting requirements?

Accepted Answer

Importers should:Collect mill test certificates, certificates of analysis, or supplier attestationsEngage suppliers early to ensure smelt/melt data is availableUse trade compliance software to trace metals back to the smelterWork with compliance experts to interpret CBP updates and avoid costly penalties

Question 10

What are the risks of not complying with Section 232 tariff requirements?

Accepted Answer

If importers cannot prove the country of smelt, cast, melt, or pour, U.S. CBP may assume the material originated from a restricted country (such as Russia). This can trigger a 200% duty, shipment delays, or even having goods stopped at the border. Lack of documentation creates significant financial and operational risks.

Question 11

Why do compliance response times matter for distributors?

Accepted Answer

Distributors compete on trust. OEMs and Tier 1 manufacturers expect fast access to compliance data for RoHS, REACH, PFAS, conflict minerals, and much more. Slow or incomplete responses can lead to escalations, lost deals, or supplier delisting. Fast, accurate responses help protect revenue and customer relationships.

Question 12

How is Assent’s distributor compliance software different from manufacturer compliance tools?

Accepted Answer

Distributors do not create products or manage bills of materials. They manage compliance documents from manufacturers. Assent’s distributor platform is designed for document handling, not material rollups. It centralizes requests, matches them to verified declarations, and automates responses without adding unnecessary complexity.

Question 13

How does Assent help distributors prevent compliance issues before customers ask?

Accepted Answer

Assent shows compliance coverage across the entire SKU catalog. Dashboards highlight missing or expired declarations so teams can fix gaps early. Access to a shared network of supplier-submitted data reduces repeated outreach. This helps distributors stay audit-ready and deliver consistent, reliable compliance data.

Question 14

What is extended producer responsibility (EPR)?

Accepted Answer

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a regulatory framework that makes producers responsible for the environmental impact of their products and packaging throughout the product life cycle, including collection, recycling, and disposal.Under EPR laws, manufacturers, brand owners, importers, and packaging producers may be required to finance recycling programs, submit packaging reports, track material usage, and meet recovery or recycling targets.In the U.S., EPR regulations are expanding at the state level, particularly for packaging materials. Because requirements vary between jurisdictions, companies often need detailed visibility into packaging composition, material weights, and supply chain data to maintain compliance.

Question 15

Why is EPR compliance becoming more difficult?

Accepted Answer

EPR compliance is becoming more complex because regulations are expanding rapidly across jurisdictions while reporting requirements are becoming more detailed.Many manufacturers must now manage multiple EPR obligations simultaneously, each with different:Reporting deadlinesPackaging definitionsFee structuresData formatsMaterial categoriesThreshold requirementsAt the same time, packaging and supplier data is often inconsistent or incomplete. Organizations relying on spreadsheets, email-based supplier outreach, or disconnected compliance systems may struggle to scale reporting processes effectively.As EPR enforcement increases, companies face growing pressure to improve data accuracy, supplier engagement, and audit readiness.

Question 16

What data do you need for EPR compliance?

Accepted Answer

Most EPR compliance requirements depend on accurate packaging and product data. Companies may need to collect and validate information such as:Packaging material compositionPrimary, secondary, and tertiary packaging typesPackaging weightsRecycled content percentagesProduct quantities sold or distributedSupplier declarationsCountry or state-specific market dataBecause this information often originates from suppliers, manufacturers frequently need structured supplier engagement processes to support reliable EPR reporting.Without centralized data management, companies may experience reporting inconsistencies, compliance gaps, and increased administrative burden.

Question 17

How do I report compliance under EPR laws?

Accepted Answer

Companies typically report under EPR laws by submitting required packaging and product information through government reporting portals or producer responsibility organizations.The reporting process often includes:Collecting supplier packaging data.Validating material information.Classifying packaging according to jurisdiction-specific rules.Calculating packaging volumes or weights.Submitting reports within required deadlines.Maintaining audit-ready documentation.Many organizations are adopting EPR data management software to streamline these workflows and improve reporting accuracy across multiple jurisdictions.

Question 18

What are the biggest EPR compliance challenges for manufacturers?

Accepted Answer

One of the biggest EPR compliance challenges is managing fragmented data across suppliers, internal systems, and regional teams.Manufacturers often struggle with:Incomplete supplier dataManual reporting workflowsInconsistent packaging classificationsLack of centralized compliance systemsFrequent regulatory changesLimited visibility into packaging compositionAs EPR requirements expand, these operational inefficiencies can increase compliance risk and make reporting more difficult to scale.Companies that centralize compliance data and improve supplier engagement processes are generally better positioned to manage evolving EPR obligations.

Question 19

What are the risks of inaccurate EPR reporting?

Accepted Answer

Inaccurate EPR reporting can expose companies to financial, operational, and reputational risk.Potential consequences include:Regulatory penalties and finesTime wasted on reporting resubmissionsIncreased compliance costsMarket access disruptionsDamage to brand reputationPoor data quality can also make it difficult for companies to demonstrate compliance during audits or respond quickly to changing regulatory requirements.Maintaining accurate, traceable, and up-to-date packaging data is becoming increasingly important as EPR enforcement grows.

Question 20

How can EPR data management software help?

Accepted Answer

EPR data management software, with Assent being the leader in this field, helps companies centralize the supplier and packing information needed to support EPR reporting.These systems can help organizations:Improve packaging data visibilityStreamline supplier engagementStandardize reporting workflowsReduce manual data collectionMaintain audit-ready recordsTrack changing EPR compliance requirementsImprove reporting consistency across jurisdictionsFor manufacturers managing multiple product lines or operating across several regions, scalable compliance systems can help reduce administrative burden while improving reporting accuracy. Assent streamlines your EPR packaging program with defensible supply chain data and actionable insights from our team of product sustainability experts.

Question 21

What are New Mexico PFAS labeling requirements?

Accepted Answer

Under New Mexico PFAS labeling requirements, manufacturers must label products containing intentionally added PFAS starting on January 1, 2027. The label must include a state-approved symbol and be visible prior to purchase. These requirements apply broadly to products containing intentionally added PFAS sold or distributed in the state, subject to specified exemptions.

Question 22

Which products are subject to PFAS labeling requirements in New Mexico?

Accepted Answer

Many products containing intentionally added PFAS are potentially in scope, including complex durable goods, unless specifically exempt.

Question 23

When do PFAS labeling requirements take effect?

Accepted Answer

20.13.2 NMAC is effective on July 1, 2026. The product labeling requirement applies after January 1, 2027, unless an exemption applies or the manufacturer documents compliance with corresponding labeling requirements enacted by another state.

Question 24

How can manufacturers ensure PFAS compliance for labeling?

Accepted Answer

To meet PFAS compliance requirements, manufacturers must identify PFAS in their products, collect supplier declarations, assess risk, and implement labeling processes across physical and digital channels. Many organizations rely on PFAS compliance solutions to centralize data collection, validate supplier inputs, and maintain ongoing regulatory compliance.

Question 25

What qualifies a product to be labeled “Made in USA”?

Accepted Answer

To make an unqualified “Made in America” claim, a product must be “all or virtually all” made in the United States. This means final assembly occurs in the U.S., and nearly all materials, parts, and processing are of domestic origin. If significant imported content is involved, companies should use a qualified claim (e.g., “Assembled in the USA with imported parts”).

Question 26

Why are “Made in America” claims facing increased enforcement?

Accepted Answer

Enforcement is increasing due to a 2026 executive order directing the FTC to prioritize action against deceptive U.S.-origin claims. Combined with existing rules that allow civil penalties, companies making unsupported claims face greater scrutiny, financial penalties, and reputational risk.

Question 27

How can companies ensure their U.S.-origin claims are compliant?

Accepted Answer

Companies should treat country of origin claims as a compliance process by collecting and validating supply chain data, documenting sourcing and manufacturing details, and aligning marketing language with evidence. Claims should be reviewed across all channels — including labels, websites, and marketplaces — to ensure consistency and accuracy.

Question 28

What changed in the 2026 EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) update?

Accepted Answer

The EU Council adopted revisions that postpone the application of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) while introducing simplification measures. Large and medium operators must comply by December 30, 2026, and small and micro operators have until June 2027. A new category of “downstream operator” was introduced, and certain small or micro primary operators may submit a simplified declaration instead of a full due diligence statement (DDS). These changes provide additional preparation time but do not reduce the regulation’s core due diligence and traceability requirements.

Question 29

What are companies required to do under EUDR by 2026?

Accepted Answer

Companies placing in-scope products on the EU market must demonstrate that their goods are deforestation-free as of December 31, 2020; produced in accordance with the relevant legislation of the country of production; and covered by a DDS. This requires tracing commodities to the exact geolocation of the plot of land, conducting a risk assessment, mitigating identified deforestation risks, and maintaining auditable supply chain documentation. Commodities in scope include cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, rubber, soya, and wood, along with many derived products.

Question 30

What are the risks of non-compliance with EUDR?

Accepted Answer

Non-compliance penalties are determined by EU member states and may include fines of up to 4% of total annual EU turnover, confiscation of goods or revenues, temporary exclusion from public procurement, and public naming of non-compliant companies. Beyond financial penalties, the most immediate risk is loss of EU market access. Without a valid Due Diligence Statement, in-scope products cannot legally be placed on the EU market.

Question 31

How should companies use the 2026 delay strategically?

Accepted Answer

The postponement to 2026 should be viewed as a strategic preparation window, not a pause. Companies should use this time to improve supplier engagement, close data gaps in traceability, implement structured risk assessment processes, centralize supply chain data management, and evaluate EUDR compliance software. Building traceability and defensible due diligence processes now will also strengthen readiness for related EU sustainability requirements.

Question 32

Why do compliance response times matter for distributors?

Accepted Answer

Distributors compete on trust. OEMs and Tier 1 manufacturers expect fast access to compliance data for RoHS, REACH, PFAS, conflict minerals, and much more. Slow or incomplete responses can lead to escalations, lost deals, or supplier delisting. Fast, accurate responses help protect revenue and customer relationships.

Question 33

How is Assent’s distributor compliance software different from manufacturer compliance tools?

Accepted Answer

Distributors do not create products or manage bills of materials. They manage compliance documents from manufacturers. Assent’s distributor platform is designed for document handling, not material rollups. It centralizes requests, matches them to verified declarations, and automates responses without adding unnecessary complexity.

Question 34

How does Assent help distributors prevent compliance issues before customers ask?

Accepted Answer

Assent shows compliance coverage across the entire SKU catalog. Dashboards highlight missing or expired declarations so teams can fix gaps early. Access to a shared network of supplier-submitted data reduces repeated outreach. This helps distributors stay audit-ready and deliver consistent, reliable compliance data.

Popular Posts

Canadian PFAS Reporting Crash Course

RoHS Vs REACH Compliance

Sustainability Experts Clear the Air on the Most Confusing & Misused ESG Buzzwords

Stay in the Know

The Latest

Quick Filter

Filter by:

PPWR Compliance Is Primarily a Supplier Data Challenge

Historical Supplier Data Isn’t Enough to Prove You’re Compliant

Packaging EPR Compliance Challenges: Why Data Is the Biggest Barrier

Simplify Compliance, Amplify Results

New Mexico PFAS Labeling Requirements: What You Need to Know

Import Compliance Now a National & Economic Security Priority: Are You Ready?

“Made in America”: Compliance, Risks & Enforcement

EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) 2026 Update

The Assent Solution Guide: Delivering Deep Supply Chain Sustainability

How to Protect Customer Trust as a Distributor

Ready to book a demo?