Technical corrections only. The Engrossed in Senate (v3) version of S. 1092 presents the final text of the bill as passed by the Senate, which is identical in substance to the amended text reported by the committee in the Reported in Senate (v2) version. No substantive policy changes were made between these two versions.
WIPPES Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 24, 2026
Bottom line
This bill establishes federal standards for 'Do Not Flush' labeling on non-flushable wipes, aiming to protect wastewater systems and preempt state-level regulations.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that certain disposable wipes, identified as 'covered products,' must be labeled with a 'Do Not Flush' symbol and notice. It establishes detailed requirements for how these labels must be displayed on various types of product packaging to ensure visibility. The bill also prohibits manufacturers from making any express or implied claims that these covered products can or should be flushed and grants the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) authority to enforce these provisions, while preempting non-identical state and local labeling laws.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is crucial for protecting public wastewater infrastructure from costly damage caused by non-flushable wipes, which clog pipes and pumps. They contend that clear, consistent labeling will educate consumers, reduce misflushing, and provide a uniform national standard, preventing a patchwork of state laws that could burden manufacturers.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill imposes unnecessary regulatory burdens on manufacturers, potentially increasing costs for consumer products. They might also contend that existing voluntary industry standards or consumer education campaigns are sufficient, or that the specific labeling requirements are overly prescriptive and difficult to implement across diverse product lines.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward, allowing for a quick and comprehensive understanding of its provisions.
Section 2(a), (b), (c)
Mandatory 'Do Not Flush' Labeling Requirements
This provision requires manufacturers, wholesalers, suppliers, and retailers (covered entities) to label certain disposable wipes (covered products) with a 'Do Not Flush' symbol and written notice. It specifies detailed requirements for label placement, size, and contrast depending on the product's packaging type (cylindrical, flexible film, rigid, bulk, or combined products) to ensure high visibility to the user.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue these specific, clear, and conspicuous labeling requirements are essential to effectively communicate to consumers that certain wipes should not be flushed, thereby preventing costly damage to wastewater systems. They emphasize the need for a uniform standard to maximize impact.
Critics contend
Some manufacturers might argue that the highly prescriptive nature of the labeling requirements, particularly regarding size and contrast, could necessitate significant and costly redesigns of existing packaging, leading to increased production expenses that may be passed on to consumers.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the need for clear consumer information to protect public infrastructure against the potential compliance costs and design challenges for manufacturers.
Section 2(d)
Ban on Flushability Claims
This provision explicitly prohibits any covered entity from making express or implied representations that a covered product (certain disposable wipes) can or should be flushed. This aims to eliminate misleading marketing that might encourage improper disposal.
Section 2(e)
FTC Enforcement Authority
This section designates violations of the 'Do Not Flush' labeling requirements and the prohibition on flushability claims as unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act. It grants the FTC full authority to enforce these provisions, including powers related to investigations, penalties, and privileges and immunities as outlined in the FTC Act.
Section 2(h)
Federal Preemption of State Labeling Laws
This provision explicitly states that no state or local government may establish or maintain 'Do Not Flush' labeling requirements for covered products that are not identical to the federal requirements set forth in this Act. This ensures a single, uniform national standard for labeling.
Section 2(i)
Definitions and Scope of Covered Products
This section defines key terms such as 'covered entity,' 'label notice,' 'principal display panel,' and 'symbol.' Crucially, it defines 'covered product' as premoistened, nonwoven disposable wipes marketed as baby/diapering wipes, or household/personal care wipes (like antibacterial, cleaning, makeup removal, feminine/adult hygiene wipes) that are composed partly or entirely of petrochemical-derived fibers and have a significant potential to be flushed.
The bill defines the 'symbol' as the 'Do Not Flush' symbol depicted in the most recent edition of the Guidelines for Assessing the Flushability of Disposable Nonwoven Products published by the Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry (INDA) and the European Disposables And Nonwovens Association (EDANA).
Section 2(i)(9)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to reference established industry standards or external documents, rather than embedding complex visual or technical specifications directly into the statute. It allows for adaptation if the industry standard evolves.
Case for: Referencing an existing industry standard (INDA/EDANA) ensures that the mandated symbol is already recognized and potentially in use by some manufacturers, simplifying adoption. It also leverages industry expertise in developing appropriate visual cues.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying on an external, industry-developed standard for a regulatory requirement delegates too much authority to private organizations. Future changes to the INDA/EDANA guidelines could effectively alter federal law without congressional review.
Estimated impact: Ensures consistency in the visual 'Do Not Flush' message across all covered products, impacting consumer recognition and industry compliance.
The section states that the Act applies to covered entities one year after enactment and 'shall not apply to any covered product packaged or sold before such date.'
Section 2(j)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for effective dates and transition periods, often placed at the end of a bill or section.
Case for: The one-year grace period provides manufacturers sufficient time to redesign packaging, update labeling, and deplete existing stock, minimizing economic disruption. The grandfathering clause prevents immediate obsolescence of already packaged products.
Case against: Environmental advocates might argue that a one-year delay is too long, allowing continued damage to wastewater systems during the transition period. They might also contend that grandfathering products packaged before the effective date prolongs the problem.
Estimated impact: Provides a clear timeline for industry compliance and avoids retroactive application, impacting the speed of implementation and initial costs for manufacturers.