There is no federal packaging EPR law, and none of these bills would create one. Two of them would set federal rules for what a package may claim and broadly preempt the states on that question, and a third preempts only state rules that conflict with its resin code requirement. This page tracks each bill's status, sponsors, and progress.
This page is free to read and updated weekly, and the fee calculator needs a free EPR Atlas account.
Last updated October 25, 2026.
Two of the bills below would broadly preempt state rules on what a package may claim, and that preemption would reach every consumer package that makes a covered claim, in every state at once; a third, the Truth in Labeling Act, preempts only state requirements that conflict with its resin identification code rule.
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Committee | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H.R. 6832 PACK Act |
Packaging and Claims Knowledge (PACK) Act of 2025 | Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX) | House Energy and Commerce | Ordered reported.current October 18, 2026 |
| H.R. 7502 RMAA |
Recycled Materials Attribution Act of 2026 | Rep. Nicholas Langworthy (R-NY) | House Energy and Commerce | Ordered reported.current October 18, 2026 |
| H.R. 4466 CIRCLE Act |
Cultivating Investment in Recycling and Circular Local Economies Act of 2025 | Rep. Thomas Suozzi (D-NY) | House Ways and Means | Referred to committee.current October 11, 2026 |
| H.R. 10048 / S. 5302 Truth in Labeling Act |
Truth in Labeling Act of 2026 | Rep. J. Luis Correa (D-CA); Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) in the Senate | House Energy and Commerce; Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation | Introduced August 6, 2026 and referred to committee in both chambers.current October 11, 2026 |
The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade held a legislative hearing on July 22, 2026. The PACK Act and the RMAA were 2 of 12 bills on a broad consumer protection docket that also covered nitrous oxide safety, app store regulation, ticketing, and scam prevention.
John Hewitt of the Consumer Brands Association and the Recycling Leadership Council testified in support of both bills. John Breyault of the National Consumers League opposed both, arguing the PACK Act would preempt state labeling standards without establishing a strong federal baseline, and that the RMAA would legitimize mass balance accounting.
Both bills have since cleared committee. At the September 1, 2026 subcommittee markup the PACK Act and the RMAA were each forwarded to the full committee by voice vote (committee vote summary, September 1, 2026); Rep. Weber's office says the PACK Act amendment, a substitute offered by Rep. Russ Fulcher, clarified the role of FTC guidance and set minimum requirements for third-party certifications, and the Library of Congress records the bill as forwarded "(Amended)"; the committee's own summary does not itemize it. On September 16, 2026 the full Energy and Commerce Committee voted to report the PACK Act to the House, 25 to 18, and the RMAA, 28 to 19 (committee vote summary, September 16, 2026). No written committee report has been filed for either bill, no floor date is set, and neither has a Senate companion.
Packaging and Claims Knowledge (PACK) Act of 2025 | Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX) | Introduced December 17, 2025 | House Energy and Commerce
What it does: Amends the FTC Act to set federal requirements for recyclable, compostable, and reusable claims on consumer product packaging.
Status: Ordered reported. Legislative hearing July 22, 2026; forwarded to the full committee by voice vote at the September 1, 2026 subcommittee markup; ordered reported by the Energy and Commerce Committee on September 16, 2026 by a roll call vote of 25 yeas to 18 nays (committee vote summary); no written committee report has been filed. No floor date set.
Cosponsors: 18 as of September 19, 2026: 17 Republicans and one Democrat (Rep. Adam Gray, D-CA), per the Library of Congress bill status record; the latest, Rep. Troy Balderson (R-OH), joined September 15, 2026.
The PACK Act reaches packaging producers through its preemption clause. As introduced, the bill bars any state requirement that is not identical to a requirement under it, including stricter ones (new FTC Act section 27(c)(3)), so the federal standard would be a ceiling as well as a floor and would displace California SB 343. The Attorney General has been preliminarily enjoined from enforcing SB 343 since July 14, 2026, which changes what preemption would be replacing.
Recycled Materials Attribution Act of 2026 | Rep. Nicholas Langworthy (R-NY) | Introduced February 11, 2026 | House Energy and Commerce
What it does: Prohibits misleading recycled content claims.
Status: Ordered reported. Heard alongside the PACK Act on July 22, 2026; forwarded to the full committee by voice vote at the September 1, 2026 subcommittee markup; ordered reported by the Energy and Commerce Committee on September 16, 2026 by a roll call vote of 28 yeas to 19 nays (committee vote summary); no written committee report has been filed. No floor date set.
Cosponsors: 13 as of September 19, 2026: 8 Republicans and 5 Democrats, per the Library of Congress bill status record.
The dispute over this bill is about mass balance accounting. The bill explicitly encompasses chemical recycling, and opponents argue it would legitimize recycled content claims that are not tied to physical recycled material in the package. California AB 2253 was once the state counterweight to this, but its mass balance prohibition was struck on July 2, 2026, and the bill was vetoed on September 27, 2026, so no California statute sets a conflicting mass balance rule.
Cultivating Investment in Recycling and Circular Local Economies Act of 2025 | Rep. Thomas Suozzi (D-NY) | Introduced July 16, 2025 | House Ways and Means
What it does: Amends the Internal Revenue Code to create a recycling property investment credit.
Status: Referred to committee. No action and no hearing in more than a year.
Cosponsors: Five as of September 19, 2026 (three Republicans, two Democrats), per the Library of Congress bill status record.
It is a tax bill in a different committee, so it is not moving with the other two and was not part of the July 22 hearing. It carries no compliance obligation for producers and matters as a signal on recycling capital investment.
Truth in Labeling Act of 2026 | Rep. J. Luis Correa (D-CA); Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) in the Senate | Introduced August 6, 2026 | House Energy and Commerce; Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
What it does: Sets national standards for recyclable, compostable, reusable, and refillable labels, with EPA setting the criteria, and makes a false claim a deceptive practice under section 5 of the FTC Act. It does not preempt state law (sec. 11(f)(4)) except that a state may not impose a requirement that conflicts with its resin identification code rule (sec. 4(c)(2)).
Status: Introduced August 6, 2026 and referred to committee in both chambers. No action since.
Cosponsors: House, one (Rep. Ami Bera, D-CA, joined August 31, 2026); Senate, none, per the Library of Congress bill records read September 30, 2026.
It is the counterweight to the PACK Act. Both set federal claim standards, but this bill leaves state laws such as California SB 343 in place except for resin codes, and both were referred to House Energy and Commerce, which reported the PACK Act on September 16, 2026. It creates no producer EPR obligation.
No compliance step is needed yet, because no obligation attaches to any of these bills; the Energy and Commerce Committee has ordered the PACK Act and RMAA reported, with no written committee report filed and no floor date set, and the CIRCLE Act has not moved past referral. The reason to watch is planning: if the PACK Act advances, on-pack recyclability claims become a federal question with a single national standard, and design and artwork decisions made now under state rules would need revisiting. The Recycled Materials Attribution Act would recognize mass balance accounting for recycled content claims and carries a state preemption clause at Section 6. California AB 2253, which by the end no longer barred mass balance, was vetoed on September 27, 2026, so the conflict AB 2253 once posed with this bill is gone.
The state EPR laws page covers the obligations in force today, and this page tracks the federal bills that could change the labeling rules that apply alongside them.
Every state guide has the fee schedule where one has been published, registration deadlines, program plan status, eco-modulation detail, the statute and any implementing rule, and exemptions.