Producer Working Group Meeting #7
The Producer Working Group (PWG) is a monthly opportunity for producers, their legal representatives, and trade associations to learn about and discuss priority producer issues. Please do not share this content beyond the group.
May 13, 2024
Presentation
Key Takeaways
1. The Responsible End Market (REM) Process in California Raises Several Concerns that CAA is Working to Address. As the PRO, CAA is responsible for verifying that each end market is compliant with California’s REM requirements. It will be very difficult for the PRO to conduct credible audits without clarifying rules. Among the issues:
For plastics, California is requiring that manufacturers using recycled plastics would be considered an end market that requires verification. This would be a major undertaking. CAA is proposing California aligns with other jurisdictions and that verification compliance applies only to reclaimers.
California’s draft rules currently require that the PRO conduct an audit each year. This is an unrealistic expectation. Instead, CAA is proposing to align the certification with similar verification structures and use a five-year cycle.
California’s draft rules currently require that the PRO seek access to all verification data from end markets, which many end markets have expressed concern with. The requirement may jeopardize obtaining audits. Audits will be conducted by a third-party system and there must be a high-level of confidentiality. CAA is proposing that the full results of the audit be shared with “pass or fail” results. If the end market fails, more detail will be provided as to why the end market failed the audit.
2. The hierarchy of producer determination currently established by the law in Colorado is creating confusion. CAA’s primary’s concerns are:
Who is responsible if neither the brand nor the licensee is the manufacturer, as is the case with private label?
If the distributor into the state is different than the importer, who is the responsible party?
Unfilled packaging, service packaging, and food service ware are all covered materials, but it is unclear based on the current hierarchy who would be the responsible party.
To address these issues, CAA is proposing separate hierarchies for unfilled packaging and service packaging with more cleanly defined tiers.
Top Producer Questions
For a more Frequently Asked Questions, please visit CAA’s FAQ page.
-
CAA is still working with the states to determine when and how the list of registered companies will be made available to the state agency and published publicly, but at this point registrations will remain internal to CAA. CAA also understands that producers, material processors, and other stakeholders must share a great deal of data with CAA. The organization takes data privacy seriously and is developing relevant legal agreements and building secure reporting systems and IT infrastructure to ensure that stakeholders’ data is securely managed.
-
The hierarchy is intended to identify a single producer for any individual covered material. The primary obligation is typically the brand owner of the product associated with the packaging supplied into the state. If there is no brand owner or domestic producer responsible for a brand, then the producer may be the packaging manufacturer or the company that first imports the product and the associated packaging into the United States. In Oregon, the obligated entity for foodservice ware is the supplier. CAA has been reviewing and providing comments to state agencies through rulemaking processes to ensure that only one entity for any individual covered material can be identified.
Clarity in the producer hierarchy will eliminate double counting and duplicate fee payment, and ensure that all packaging material is accounted for, provided it is not exempted or excluded from the program.
-
California’s draft Covered Material Categories (CMCs) can be found here.
CAA’s proposed reporting categories for Oregon can be found on pages 99-100 of CAA’s program plan.