Which U.S. states have enacted packaging EPR laws?

Seven states have enacted packaging Extended Producer Responsibility laws as of 2026: Maine (LD 1541, 2021, amended by LD 1423, 2025), Oregon (SB 582, 2021), Colorado (HB 22-1355, 2022), California (SB 54, 2022), Minnesota (HF 3911, 2024), Maryland (SB 901, 2025), and Washington (E2SSB 5284, 2025). Oregon and Colorado have active fees. California fees begin 2027.

What are the EPR packaging compliance deadlines for 2026?

Key 2026 deadlines: May 31 -- Annual Supply Reports were due in Oregon, Colorado, California, Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington (now past due -- contact CAA immediately if not filed). June 1 -- California producer registration deadline via PEPRS/CAA (now past due). July 1 -- Washington producers must be PRO members via CAA (direct producer obligation). Also July 1 -- CAA submits its producer/brand/material list to Maryland MDE (CAA obligation, not producer). All registration goes through the Circular Action Alliance (circularactionalliance.org).

How do I register with the Circular Action Alliance (CAA) for EPR compliance?

The Circular Action Alliance (CAA) is the only approved Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) in all 7 enacted U.S. EPR states. Register at circularactionalliance.org. You will sign a Participant Producer Agreement (PPA) and gain access to the harmonized reporting portal for all states. Registration covers Oregon, Colorado, California, Maine, Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington through a single enrollment.

What are the EPR packaging fee rates by material type?

Oregon published 2025-26 rates (indicative for all states): Aluminum cans ~$0.06/lb (lowest), Clear PET ~$0.25/lb, HDPE ~$0.09/lb, PP ~$0.38/lb, LDPE/mono-PE film ~$0.43/lb, multi-layer laminates ~$1.02/lb, EPS (expanded polystyrene) ~$1.38/lb (highest). Fees follow the formula: Annual Fee = Tonnage x Base Rate x Eco-Modulation Multiplier. Budget 15-40% uplift on current packaging spend.

What is eco-modulation and how can it reduce EPR fees?

Eco-modulation adjusts EPR fees based on packaging design attributes, but the mechanism differs sharply by state. Oregon's 2025-2027 program is LCA-bonus-only: the only fee reductions come from three life cycle assessment bonuses (Bonus A disclosure, Bonus B impact reduction, Bonus C reuse), and Oregon applies no maluses and no standalone attribute credits (no carbon black or PCR credit) this cycle. Colorado caps total eco-modulation reduction at 10% via qualifying benchmarks (factor schedule forthcoming from CDPHE). Improving recyclability (mono-material construction, removing carbon black so packaging is detectable by NIR sorters, adding PCR) strengthens an Oregon LCA bonus and reduces future-cycle malus risk, rather than earning a flat current credit. Reusable and refillable packaging that meets SB 54 reuse criteria is treated as exempt from California fees (confirm specifics with CalRecycle, as fees have not yet started).

What are the penalties for non-compliance with U.S. packaging EPR laws?

California: up to $50,000 per day per violation (highest in the U.S.). Oregon: up to $25,000 per day. Maryland: $5,000-$20,000 per violation. Oregon began issuing enforcement warning letters in March 2026. California fees become active in 2027. Non-compliance penalties stack per SKU and per reporting period -- a brand with 50 SKUs in California faces potential exposure in the tens of millions per quarter.

Which states are likely to pass packaging EPR laws next?

New York's PRRIA (S.1464-A / A.1749-A) failed to receive an Assembly floor vote before the June 2026 session ended -- the bill stalled for a second consecutive year despite Senate passage. Sponsors plan 2027 reintroduction. Massachusetts (SB 571) and New Jersey remain the next highest-priority pending states. Rhode Island and Hawaii have enacted needs-assessment legislation (full EPR expected 2028-2030). Illinois, Michigan, and Georgia have introduced bills with medium-term likelihood.

U.S. Packaging EPR Tracker 2026 | Laws by State & Fees

Name: U.S. Packaging EPR State Compliance Data
Creator: Dave Hartter
Published: 2026-05-01
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Navigate U.S. packaging EPR with confidence.

EPR Atlas is a live tracker of U.S. packaging EPR laws, fees, and deadlines, updated weekly. 7 states have enacted packaging Extended Producer Responsibility laws covering about 1 in 5 Americans (~20% of the U.S. population). If your brand appears on packaging, you are likely an obligated producer with active compliance deadlines.

States Enacted

ME · OR · CO · CA · MN · MD · WA

~20%

U.S. Pop. Covered

~1 in 5 Americans, by enacted EPR states

More States In Play

10 pending bills · RI + HI laws enacted · NY reintro 2027

$50K

Max Daily Penalty

Per violation - California

15–40%

Fee Uplift Est.

On current packaging spend

~250

Producers Flagged

Oregon DEQ noncompliance list (Apr 2026)

📅 Upcoming Deadlines - Next 90 Days

Next major deadlines: Aug 1, 2026 (California Individual Source Reduction Plans due); Aug 14, 2026 (CA SB 54 draft program plan public comment closes); Aug 2026 (CAA invoices CA early pre-program fees); Oct 2026 (CA final 2027 fee rates published). Enable JavaScript for the live, date-aware list.

⚖️ Litigation Watch - Active Court Challenges

Bottom line: compliance obligations remain in force in every state. The only carve-out is Oregon enforcement against NAW members who joined on or before February 6, 2026. Full case detail is on each state's profile in the State Tracker.

Case	State	What Is Challenged	Status
NAW v. Oregon DEQ U.S. Dist. Ct., D. Or.	OR	Constitutionality of the Recycling Modernization Act (dormant Commerce Clause, due process, equal protection, nondelegation). Feb 6, 2026 preliminary injunction shields NAW members only; all other producers face full enforcement.	Trial set for Jul 13, 2026
Lollicup USA v. Feldon U.S. Dist. Ct., D. Or.	OR	Putative class action (filed June 25, 2026) seeking to represent producers not covered by the NAW injunction; pleads dormant Commerce Clause and Fourteenth Amendment due process. Program remains in effect.	Filed
17 States + NAW v. CalRecycle / CAA U.S. Dist. Ct., E.D. Cal.	CA	SB 54 itself (dormant Commerce Clause, First Amendment). Plaintiffs seek to enjoin enforcement. Filed June 22, 2026; no injunction issued - all SB 54 obligations remain in effect.	Filed
Oceana / NRDC / CAW v. CalRecycle S.F. Superior Ct.	CA	Not the law - the implementing regulations (effective May 1, 2026), alleged to be too lenient: unauthorized carveouts, indefinite exemptions, hazardous-waste-generating technologies counted as recycling. Filed June 2, 2026.	Filed
ILMA v. CDPHE Denver Dist. Ct. 2026CV30902	CO	Colorado's packaging EPR program (due process, nondelegation, First Amendment), brought by lubricant packaging makers. No injunction sought - program fully in effect. CDPHE motion to dismiss pending. Last confirmed July 30, 2026. A hearing was reported as expected during July 2026, but July closed with no public record of a hearing or a ruling. Denver District Court dockets are not publicly accessible, so this status rests on secondary reporting.	MTD pending

Sources: Oregon DEQ; KGW (July 2026); Packaging Dive, Waste Dive, Recycling Today (June 2026); Resource Recycling (June 5, 2026); Arnold and Porter (June 1, 2026). See What's New for full entries.

What Is EPR?

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) shifts the cost of managing packaging waste from municipalities and taxpayers onto the companies that make and sell packaged goods. If your brand name appears on packaging, you are likely an obligated producer.

EPR is not a product ban. It creates a fee structure where hard-to-recycle packaging costs more - driving redesign toward recyclable, lower-impact formats.

Fee Formula

Annual Fee = Tonnage × Base Rate × Eco-Modulation Multiplier

Eco-modulation can reduce fees 20–50% through smart packaging design.

Top 5 Actions Right Now

1Determine obligated status - work the producer cascade for each state, then check the de minimis thresholds. The tests differ by state, and both revenue thresholds are measured on company-wide revenue rather than in-state. Run the Scope Screener →
2Register with the CAA at circularactionalliance.org ↗ - the single gateway for all 7 states.
3Build a packaging Bill of Materials - document material type and weight for every component across every SKU.
4Hit the next deadlines - CA Individual Source Reduction Plans due Aug 1, 2026 (grab the prep checklist); CA program plan comments close Aug 14. Missed a May 31 supply report? File late through CAA now to limit penalty exposure.
5Model fee exposure by material type - flexible film and EPS cost 10–15× more per ton than aluminum or clear PET.

💰 EPR Fee Rate by Material - Relative Cost Index

Indicative rates based on Oregon's published 2025–26 fee schedule. All states use similar tier structures. Optimize your portfolio toward low-fee materials.

📅 National EPR Timeline

Period	Key Events	State Count
Now - Aug 2026	Oregon & Colorado fees active; OR DEQ enforcement underway (first noncompliance list April 2026). Oregon constitutional trial held July 13-17; ruling expected by end of August. CA Individual Source Reduction Plans due Aug 1; CA program plan comment period closes Aug 14. NY PRRIA failed June 2026 -- 2027 reintroduction planned.	7 enacted
Late 2026	Maine SO selection and startup fees expected (contract-dependent). California final fee rates published (Oct); CAA files revised CA program plan (Oct). Rhode Island needs assessment report due Dec 1. Oregon Top 25 mandatory LCAs due Dec 31.	7
2027–2028	California fees begin. Minnesota & Maryland fees start. NJ, MA, IL likely enactments. Rhode Island & Hawaii needs assessments complete → full EPR rulemaking.	9–12
2029–2030	Washington full fees. Michigan, Connecticut, Tennessee likely. Oregon/Colorado second-generation fee schedules. Federal harmonization pressure intensifies.	13–17
2032–2035	Possible federal EPR framework. 26+ states projected. Southeast states begin enacting (Tennessee as bridgehead).	26+

🏢 The Circular Action Alliance (CAA) - Your Compliance Gateway

The CAA is a nonprofit, producer-led organization and the only approved Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) in the U.S. - designated in all 7 enacted states. Producers sign a Participant Producer Agreement (PPA), submit packaging data once through CAA's portal, and CAA handles all state-by-state filings, fee calculations, and distribution of funds to local recycling infrastructure. One portal. All states. Start at circularactionalliance.org ↗

ℹ️ About This Hub

This hub is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, regulatory, or compliance advice. U.S. packaging EPR programs are evolving rapidly - deadlines, thresholds, fee rates, and exemptions change as rules are finalized. Verify all information with the Circular Action Alliance, relevant state agencies, or qualified legal counsel before taking compliance action.

EPRAtlas.com is built and maintained by Dave Hartter, a packaging and product sustainability advisor with more than 20 years at global manufacturers, most recently as Director of Sustainability at Huber Engineered Materials (J.M. Huber). He builds the programs that connect regulation and customer requirements to real product decisions.

He now advises manufacturers and packaging suppliers on U.S. packaging EPR: where the fees land, how design and material choices change them, and how to turn early compliance into a sales and product advantage. EPR Atlas is the public version of that work, updated weekly from primary sources. For advisory engagements or corrections, reach Dave at info@hartteradvisory.com.

More about the author and advisory services →

About EPR Atlas

About the Author

I'm Dave Hartter, a packaging and product sustainability advisor based in Charlotte, NC, with more than 20 years of sustainability, R&D and quality experience inside global manufacturers. I view sustainability as a driver of business performance, not just a reporting requirement: understand the market and regulatory environment, identify the risks and opportunities, and build programs that go beyond compliance to drive business value.

As Director of Sustainability, I led product sustainability at Huber Engineered Materials, a division of J.M. Huber. There, I applied tools such as Life Cycle Assessment and Portfolio Sustainability Assessment to understand the regulatory environment, market trends, and customer requirements to drive sustainability into business decisions and customer messaging. At Newell Brands, I led the development of the packaging sustainability program from the ground up, from developing 2025 goals aligned to internal and external stakeholders to building out the tools, systems and training that delivered measurable results. Sustainability programs are only successful when cross-functional teams are engaged and empowered with the tools and training necessary to deliver on the goals.

Today, I advise manufacturers and packaging suppliers directly. The Atlas hubs are the public side of that work. I built them so teams spend less time getting up to speed and more time delivering results. Connect with me on LinkedIn.

Advisory Services

The Atlas provides the information necessary to understand what the EPR laws require and what they cost. Companies throughout the packaging supply chain can then understand the near and long-term risks and opportunities to their business. Whether your company hasn't started the journey or now understands the significant financial impacts of EPR fees and needs a customized strategy to reduce them, I can help.

Engagements I can help you with:

EPR strategy and fee-reduction roadmaps: where your fees will land across states, and which design, material, and data moves reduce them.
Design for recyclability: assessing a portfolio against state recyclability lists and eco-modulation criteria, and prioritizing the changes that pay back.
LCA and packaging sustainability programs: building the measurement and design capability in-house, from a first LCA to portfolio coverage.
Regulatory readiness: registration, reporting, and data requirements, and getting a company through its first compliance cycle without surprises.

If you are working to future-proof your product and packaging portfolio, let's talk: info@hartteradvisory.com

About the Site

U.S. packaging EPR activity is moving fast and is difficult to keep up with. Seven states have enacted programs, ten more have live bills, fee schedules change every year, and constitutional challenges are running in multiple states at once. Most coverage assumes you already know what you're doing, or sits behind a consulting paywall. Sustainability, packaging, and regulatory leaders needed one trusted place that tracks all of it, stays current, and is free to use.

That is what the EPR Atlas is: a live intelligence hub covering fee tables, deadlines, eco-modulation, exemptions, litigation, and pending legislation across all states, updated every week from primary and trusted sources.

How the data is maintained

Regulatory data is only useful if you can trust it and if it's current, so EPR Atlas runs on a few standing rules.

Every fee, threshold, and deadline is tied to a primary source: state statute, agency rule text, or a published CAA program plan or fee schedule. Where a program hasn't finalized its rules, the site states it. Eco-modulation data carries a visible confidence badge (confirmed, signaled, or speculative) so you can see the difference between a figure read from an adopted rule and a projection. All primary sources are shared.

The site is not to be viewed as legal advice. Rules change, and your obligations depend on the specifics of your company. Verify anything consequential with the CAA, the state agency, or counsel before acting on it.

The other Atlases

EPR Atlas is one of three regulatory intelligence sites:

EPRAtlas.com: U.S. packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (this site)
ESPRAtlas.com: the EU Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation and Digital Product Passports
PPWRAtlas.com: the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation

Click a state on the map or in the table to see its full profile. The all-states table sits below the map until a state is selected, then the profile opens between them.

Active EPR Program (7)

Pending Legislation (10)

Early Stage / Needs Assessment (6)

No Current Program

Click any state tile for details →

EPR laws by state → Fees by state → Reporting deadlines by state → De minimis thresholds → Litigation tracker → Federal bills → Update archive → Resource directory →

What counts here. This tracker covers packaging and paper products EPR only: laws that make producers financially responsible for the end-of-life management of the packaging they put on the market. Beverage container deposit and redemption laws are a different mechanism and are not counted, even when they are amended or expanded in ways that are described as EPR. Two 2026 examples that do not appear above: Vermont H.915, signed June 17, 2026, and Connecticut Public Act 26-148 (SB 457), signed June 4, 2026. Both are genuine producer responsibility measures for beverage containers, and neither creates a packaging and paper products program. Recyclability labeling and environmental marketing claims laws are also excluded, since they govern what a package may say rather than who pays for it.

🗺️

Select a State

Click any tile on the map (or a row in the table below) to see EPR program details, fee structure, key dates, and compliance requirements.

All States - EPR Status Tracker

State	Status	Signal	Law	PRO / Pathway	Fee Start	Next Action

Signal is an editorial read of legislative momentum, not a prediction of passage: Enrolled means the law is active; High, Medium, and Watch rank momentum among pending bills. De minimis and penalty details open in each state's card above.

EPR creates a new, recurring cost line tied directly to packaging weight and material type - not a one-time fee. It grows as more states enact laws and fee schedules mature. Here's what finance needs to model, budget, and monitor.

📊 Financial Modeling Inputs

1Budget 15–40% uplift on packaging spend as your planning range. Heavy EPS/flexible film users sit at the high end; aluminum and clear PET portfolios at the low end.
2Fee formula: Tonnage × Rate × Eco-Mod Multiplier. Oregon average: ~$615/metric ton across all materials in 2025–26.
3California is the largest exposure - projected $500M/year program. Your California liability will likely exceed all other states combined.
4Eco-modulation can cut fees 20–50%. Model the NPV of packaging redesign investments vs. multi-year fee savings - redesign often pays back in 2–4 years.
5First-year compliance cost: 80–320 internal hours depending on SKU count. EPR software reduces this 50–70%. Budget for this setup cost now.

⚠️ Penalty Exposure - The Hidden P&L Risk

State	Max Daily Penalty	90-Day Exposure
California	$50,000/day/violation	$4.5M+ per SKU
Oregon	$25,000/day	$2.25M
Maryland	$5,000–$20,000	$450K–$1.8M
Colorado	Civil + sales prohibition	Revenue at risk

⚠️

Penalties stack per SKU and per reporting period. A brand with 50 SKUs sold into California that is non-compliant faces potential exposure in the tens of millions per quarter.

🧾 Oregon Tiered Flat Fee - An Option If You Are Small In Oregon

Oregon lets a producer that is above the de minimis line but still low-volume elect a flat fee by tonnage band instead of calculating fees material by material. For a company placing a few tons into Oregon this can be both cheaper and dramatically less work, because it removes the component-level rate calculation entirely. No other active state currently offers this; Maine is reported to have a 1 to 15 ton flat-fee tier but it is unverified, and Maryland has none.

Who can elect it:

Worth modelling before you elect. The flat fee is a ceiling and a floor. If your Oregon tonnage sits near the bottom of a band, or your mix is light materials like aluminum and clear PET, the material-by-material calculation may come out lower. Electing the flat fee also means forgoing eco-modulation credits that reward design changes, including Oregon's LCA bonuses. Run both numbers.

Source:

📅 Fee Payment Calendar - When Does It Hit Your P&L?

State	First Fee Due	FY2026 Budget Impact	FY2027+	Scale
Oregon	July 2025 ACTIVE	Fees now owed	Annual cycle	Moderate
Colorado	Jan 2026 ACTIVE	Fees now owed	Annual cycle	Moderate
California	2027	Registration cost only	$500M/yr program - largest	Largest
Maine	Late 2026 (startup)	Minor startup fee	Full fees 2027–28	Small
Minnesota	2028–2029	None	Ramps to 90% cost coverage by 2031	Medium
Maryland	2028	None	50% Jul 2028 · 75% Jul 2029 · 90% Jul 2030	Medium
Washington	2029–2030	None	50% Feb 2030 · 75% Feb 2031 · 90% Feb 2032	Medium

💡 Actions to Reduce EPR Fees

Eco-modulation is the primary lever finance has to reduce EPR cost. These actions have calculable ROI and can be prioritized by fee exposure and payback period. Fee-reduction percentages reflect Oregon's published schedule and are indicative estimates for other states until their fee schedules are finalized.

Action	Sustainability Principle	Est. Fee Impact	Priority
Fund How2Recycle certification across branded packaging portfolio	Clear Recycling Instructions	−7% (OR confirmed; others est.)	High / Quick Win
Approve mono-material conversion for top-fee SKUs (e.g. laminates to mono-PE)	Design for Recyclability	Up to −40% per SKU	High / 12-24 mo.
Invest in PCR resin sourcing agreements targeting ≥30% post-consumer content	Increase Recycled Content	−5% to −10%	High / 12-18 mo.
Commission LCA studies for highest-fee Oregon SKUs (annual CAA submission window; the 2026 window closed May 31)	Measure & Reduce Impacts	Up to $20K/SKU (OR)	High / Annual
Set lightweighting targets with fee-reduction KPIs tied to EPR cost savings	Optimize Material Use	Direct weight savings	Medium / Ongoing
Budget packaging BOM database for EPR reporting automation and audit readiness	All principles	50-70% admin cost reduction	Medium / 3-6 mo.

EPR is a structural shift in how consumer goods companies are taxed on packaging - one that rewards sustainable design and penalizes legacy formats. Here is the strategic picture for executive decision-making and board-level framing.

🌍 Strategic Landscape

17 states, ~20% of U.S. population (about 1 in 5 Americans). This is no longer a niche regulatory issue. Every CPG brand with national distribution is affected now.
2The EU is 3–5 years ahead. European brands have already restructured packaging for EPR. U.S. companies that waited are now scrambling.
3Eco-modulation = packaging cost advantage. Companies that redesign toward mono-material, recyclable formats gain a structural cost edge over competitors who don't.
4CAA is industry-governed. Producers who engage with CAA's governance have a voice in fee schedules and eco-modulation criteria as programs mature.
5Federal EPR unlikely before 2030–2035, but state-by-state proliferation will eventually create pressure for federal harmonization.

🏆 What Leading Brands Are Doing

✓Forming cross-functional EPR working groups (Finance, Legal, R&D, Procurement, Supply Chain, Marketing).
✓Building packaging BOM databases that feed EPR reporting, GHG Scope 3, and ESG disclosures simultaneously.
✓Adopting How2Recycle labeling across their portfolio - earns eco-modulation credits in CO and OR while improving consumer communication.
✓Switching away from EPS and multi-layer film toward mono-material formats and molded pulp alternatives.
✓Engaging trade associations (AMERIPEN, Consumer Brands Association) to shape eco-modulation criteria as state programs mature.

⚡ Stakeholder Framing by Function

Function	Core Concern	EPR Framing That Resonates
Finance / CFO	Cost, budget, P&L	EPR is a recurring cost line; eco-modulation has calculable ROI; non-compliance creates catastrophic penalty exposure.
Marketing	Brand equity, consumer perception	How2Recycle labeling improves trust; recyclable packaging is a brand asset with measurable consumer demand.
R&D / Packaging Eng.	Performance, shelf life, cost	Mono-material is becoming the industry standard; LCA-verified redesigns earn Oregon Bonus A credits (up to $20K per SKU, capped at 10% of that SKU's Oregon base fees).
Supply Chain / Procurement	Sourcing, vendor relationships	PCR content needs to be built into supplier contracts; packaging suppliers must provide certified material data.
Legal / Regulatory	Compliance risk, enforcement	$50K/day penalties in CA, $25K/day in OR are existential. Registration is non-negotiable.

💡 Actions to Reduce EPR Fees

EPR fee reduction is a strategic advantage, not just a compliance task. These actions require executive sponsorship and cross-functional coordination to deliver measurable results. Fee-reduction percentages reflect Oregon's published schedule and are indicative estimates for other states until their fee schedules are finalized.

Action	Sustainability Principle	Est. Fee Impact	Who Leads
Launch cross-functional EPR working group (Finance, R&D, Legal, Procurement, Supply Chain)	All principles	Enables all other reductions	CEO / COO
Mandate How2Recycle labeling across all branded packaging as a non-negotiable standard	Clear Recycling Instructions	−7% (OR confirmed; others est.)	CMO / VP R&D
Set portfolio-wide lightweighting targets and track EPR fee reduction as a KPI	Optimize Material Use	Direct weight savings	VP Supply Chain
Approve capital for packaging redesign toward mono-material and recyclable formats	Design for Recyclability	20-40% per redesigned SKU	CEO / CFO
Require PCR content minimums in packaging procurement strategy and supplier contracts	Increase Recycled Content	−5% to −10%	CPO
Engage CAA governance to shape eco-modulation criteria in maturing state programs	All principles	Shapes future fee structure	VP Regulatory

Regulatory and legal teams own producer registration, annual reporting, PPA review, enforcement monitoring, and tracking new state enactments. The stakes for missing deadlines are severe - here is your complete checklist and risk landscape.

✅ Master Compliance Checklist

1Determine obligated status for all 7 active states. The cascade is not the same everywhere: Colorado and Oregon run manufacturer-of-own-brand, then brand licensee, then importer into the United States; California has no importer tier at all and uses an in-state jurisdiction test. A private-label retailer sits near the top, not the bottom. Check yours →
2Verify de minimis status annually - thresholds are based on global company revenue, not state-specific revenue. Check each year.
3Review and sign the CAA PPA with legal counsel - includes fee obligations, audit rights, and data use terms that require careful review.
4File Annual Supply Reports by May 31 (OR, CO, CA, MN, MD, WA) via CAA's harmonized portal. California also requires a Source Reduction Supply Report due May 31. CA producer registration: June 1, 2026.
5Washington producers: join CAA as PRO member by July 1, 2026 - this deadline is active and approaching. Maryland producer deadline was May 31 (now past).
6Monitor Maine SO selection (late 2026) and register upon finalization.
7Track NY and NJ legislative sessions - both could enact in 2026–27, triggering rapid registration timelines.
8Retain all compliance data 5–7 years - state auditors may request full methodology documentation.

⚖️ Key Legal Risk Areas

⚠️

Oregon NAW Injunction (Feb 2026): Protects NAW member companies only. All other producers remain fully subject. On April 1, 2026 the court denied AF&PA and retail-association bids to intervene as untimely, leaving the injunction NAW-members-only. Constitutional challenge trial held July 13-17, 2026; ruling expected by end of August 2026.

⚖️

17-State Challenge to California SB 54 (June 2026): On June 22, 2026 a coalition of 17 state attorneys general led by Nebraska, joined by NAW as the sole business plaintiff, filed a federal suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California alleging SB 54 violates the dormant Commerce Clause and the First Amendment. CalRecycle Director Zoe Heller and CAA are named defendants; plaintiffs seek to enjoin enforcement. SB 54 remains in effect; no injunction has issued.

📋

California SB 343 Labeling: Restricts "recyclable" claims to packaging collected in programs serving ≥60% of the CA population. Violating it is a separate CA consumer protection violation. Status: on July 14, 2026 a federal court granted a preliminary injunction (California League of Food Producers v. Bonta, Case 3:26-cv-01675, S.D. Cal.) barring the Attorney General from enforcing SB 343 until further order of the court, finding four provisions unconstitutionally vague and a First Amendment violation. The suit was brought by a coalition of 21 food, packaging, and retail trade associations (18 at filing on March 17, 2026, later amended to 21). Enforcement is paused, but the ruling is preliminary and an appeal is expected, so the October 4, 2026 compliance deadline could still be reinstated. Design for compliance and track the appeal.

⚖️

California AB 2253 (Mass Balance Bill): Cleared the Senate Environmental Quality Committee 4-2 on July 1, 2026 and was re-referred to Senate Appropriations (hearing set for Aug 3, 2026). Would prohibit credit-based mass balance accounting for recycled content claims, requiring documentation of actual physical recycled content. If enacted, could constrain how chemically recycled PCR is counted toward SB 54 compliance and eco-modulation. Watch closely.

🏛️

Federal Bills - Three to Watch: (1) PACK Act (H.R. 6832): Proposed federal labeling standards; preemption could override CA SB 343. (2) CIRCLE Act (H.R. 4466, Jul 2025): Comprehensive federal recycling infrastructure bill - distinct approach from PACK Act. (3) RMAA (H.R. 7502, Feb 2026): Recycled Materials Attribution Act - would standardize mass balance crediting federally. None enacted as of May 2026.

📦

Packaging Scope Complexity: Primary packaging always in scope. Tertiary (B2B transport only) typically excluded from fees but may need reporting. Multi-material composite = highest-risk classification.

⚗️

Toxics in Packaging (CONEG Model Laws): Most active EPR states (OR, WA, CA, MN, CO, ME, and others) have separate Toxics in Packaging laws restricting lead, cadmium, mercury, and hexavalent chromium in packaging at a combined concentration limit of 100 ppm. This is independent of EPR - a packaging format can be EPR-registered and fee-compliant while simultaneously violating Toxics in Packaging. Heavy metal pigments (cadmium-based colorants, lead chromate) are the most common trigger. These same materials are a likely future-cycle eco-mod malus risk (Oregon applies no maluses this cycle; Colorado's malus schedule is unverified), but the present, enforceable exposure is the Toxics in Packaging law itself, not an EPR malus.

📆 Critical Deadlines

Deadline	Action Required	States	Status
May 31, 2026	Annual Supply Reports + CA Source Reduction Supply Report (2025 data)	OR, CO, CA, MN, MD, WA	Passed
June 1, 2026	Producer registration / enrollment	California	Passed
July 1, 2026	PRO membership registration (CAA) Washington producers must be enrolled as PRO members with CAA by this date -- direct producer obligation. Separately, CAA must submit its producer/brand/material list to Maryland MDE by July 1 -- this is CAA's obligation; Maryland's producer deadline was May 31.	Washington (producers); Maryland (CAA)	Upcoming
Aug 1, 2026	Individual Source Reduction Plans due	California	Monitor
Aug 14, 2026	CA SB 54 draft program plan public comment period closes (submit comments)	California	Upcoming
Aug 2026	CAA invoices early pre-program fees (one installment, CY2025 data)	California	Monitor
Late 2026	Maine SO registration + startup fee	Maine	Monitor
Oct 2026	CA final fee rates published	California	Monitor
2027	CA fee collection begins	California	Plan
Mar 1, 2027	First California Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund payment due (~$500M/yr)	California	Plan
2028	MN & MD fees begin	MN, MD	Future

💡 Actions to Reduce EPR Fees

Regulatory teams control the eco-modulation filings that directly lower fee invoices. Accurate documentation and timely submissions are the difference between paying full rates and achieving maximum discounts. Fee-reduction percentages reflect Oregon's published schedule and are indicative estimates for other states until their fee schedules are finalized.

Action	Sustainability Principle	Est. Fee Impact	Deadline
File How2Recycle certifications with annual supply reports for all qualifying SKUs	Clear Recycling Instructions	−7% (OR confirmed; others est.)	May 31 annually
Submit LCA reports under Oregon Bonus A program for highest-fee SKUs	Measure & Reduce Impacts	Up to $20K/SKU (OR)	Annual CAA window (2026: May 31)
Document PCR content percentage per packaging component; confirm post-consumer (not PIR) sourcing	Increase Recycled Content	−5% to −10%	Pre-reporting
Record mono-material and no-carbon-black certifications for qualifying SKUs on file for auditors	Design for Recyclability / Eliminate Problematic Materials	Strengthens LCA bonus / future-cycle positioning	Annual audit prep
Document reusable packaging return systems with program records for qualifying SKUs	Optimize Material Use	−20% per qualifying SKU	Annual
Monitor CA, MN, MD, WA eco-mod rules as programs mature and apply new credits proactively	All principles	Future savings as rules expand	Ongoing

⚠️ California SB 343: The Recyclability Labeling Paradox

⚠️

Compliance conflict risk: A package can be EPR-compliant (registered with CAA, paying SB 54 fees) while simultaneously violating SB 343 if it carries a "recyclable" claim but the format does not meet California's separate 60% population coverage threshold.

What SB 343 Requires

A packaging format must be collected and processed in programs serving ≥60% of California's population to display any "recyclable" claim in CA. CalRecycle's CMC (Covered Materials Category) list defines which formats qualify.

The Practical Result

How2Recycle "Widely Recyclable" uses national U.S. household coverage data. CA's CMC list uses California-specific data. They diverge for some material categories. Verify each format independently against the CMC list - do not use H2R national ratings as proxy.

What to Check

Verify each packaging format against CalRecycle's CMC list before making any recyclability claim in California: calrecycle.ca.gov/packaging/packaging-epr/cmclist ↗. Current vintage: the January 2026 update (CalRecycle Pub. DRRR-2025-1762, published to the web December 31, 2025 and effective January 1, 2026), covering 95 covered material categories across 6 material classes and, for the first time, an estimated recycling rate for each category per PRC 42061(b). Pay particular attention to formats rated "Check Locally" or "Store Drop-Off" by H2R.

⚖️

Litigation watch (as of July 2026): 21 organizations challenged SB 343 (filed March 17, 2026, later amended to 21). On July 14, 2026 a federal court granted a preliminary injunction barring the Attorney General from enforcing SB 343 until further order of the court (California League of Food Producers v. Bonta, Case 3:26-cv-01675, S.D. Cal.), finding four provisions unconstitutionally vague and a First Amendment violation. Enforcement is paused, but the ruling is preliminary and a Ninth Circuit appeal is expected, so the October 4, 2026 deadline could be reinstated - keep designing for compliance while monitoring. Also watch the PACK Act (H.R. 6832) - if enacted, federal labeling standards would preempt SB 343.

✅ May 31, 2026 CAA Portal Submission Checklist

Annual Supply Reports are due May 31 for OR, CO, CA, MN, MD, and WA via the CAA harmonized portal. California also requires a CY2023 Baseline Source Reduction Report on this date. This checklist covers everything due on or triggered by this deadline.

Material Inventory Data - All States

☐ Weight per packaging component (kg) by material type
☐ Resin identification codes (1-7 or fiber) per component
☐ Volume placed on market in each state (not manufactured)
☐ Multi-material composites flagged and documented
☐ PCR content % confirmed post-consumer (not post-industrial)

Eco-Modulation Documents - OR + CO

☐ How2Recycle certificates for all "Widely Recyclable" SKUs
☐ Mono-material certifications (if applicable)
☐ Carbon-black-free pigment records (if applicable)
☐ PCR content supplier certifications
☐ CO: full-body H2R label confirmed (partial label = no credit)

California-Specific (Due May 31)

☐ Annual Supply Report (CY2025) via CAA portal
☐ CY2023 Baseline Source Reduction Report (separate filing)
☐ Formats verified against CalRecycle CMC list for SB 343
☐ Note: Individual Source Reduction Plans due Aug 1 (separate)
☐ CA producer registration (PEPRS/CAA) due June 1, not May 31

Simplified Reporting States

☐ Minnesota: Simplified Supply Report via CAA portal
☐ Maryland: Supply report per CAA portal guidance
☐ Washington: Supply report per CAA portal guidance
☐ WA PRO membership due July 1 (producer obligation); MD July 1 is CAA's filing to MDE, not a producer step
☐ Active CAA PPA confirmed current for all obligated states

ℹ️

Beyond the May 31 supply reports, key dates map as follows: CA Individual Source Reduction Plans (Aug 1, 2026). CA early fee invoice from CAA (Aug 2026). WA PRO membership was due July 1, 2026 (producer obligation); the MD July 1 filing was CAA's obligation, not the producer's. Maine SO registration (late 2026, contract-dependent). Minnesota first fee payments (Feb 1, 2029). Oregon Bonus A LCA reports for the 2026 cycle were due May 31, 2026 (the 2025 cycle was Aug 15, 2025); future cycle dates are set by CAA.

Packaging engineers and R&D teams have more direct influence over EPR fees than any other function. Every design decision you make - material choice, layer count, color, closure type - translates directly into a fee reduction or increase. Here is how to optimize.

🎯 Design Decisions That Reduce Fees

↓Evaluate mono-material construction as a redesign pathway. PET/PE laminate → mono-PE can yield 40–55% fee reduction per ton where manufacturing constraints allow. Not all formats will be feasible to convert - assess tooling, performance, and supply chain impact alongside EPR savings.
↓Evaluate eliminating carbon black pigments and heavy metal colorants. NIR sorting equipment at MRFs cannot detect carbon black, so it lowers recyclability and weakens an LCA outcome - and no U.S. state charges a carbon black malus today, though California's CAA program plan proposes one from the 2028 program year, values not yet set. Heavy metal-based pigments (cadmium yellows/reds, lead chromate) are a likely future-cycle eco-mod malus and are independently restricted today under state Toxics in Packaging laws at a 100 ppm combined threshold. Treat both as future-cycle malus risk plus a present design and Toxics issue, not a current Oregon surcharge.
↓Evaluate removing full-body PETG/PVC sleeves. These contaminate PET recyclate streams. Paper labels with APR-approved wash-off adhesives are a common alternative, subject to brand and performance requirements.
↓Evaluate lightweighting opportunities. EPR fees are weight-based - every gram removed reduces fee liability and material cost simultaneously. Assess structural integrity requirements and minimum viable weight for each format.
↓Evaluate adding Post-Consumer Recycled (PCR) content. Earns eco-modulation discounts and satisfies California's separate PCR mandates. Factor in PCR resin availability, cost premium, and performance validation. Document % per component once confirmed.
↓Evaluate How2Recycle ↗ certification for qualifying SKUs. Directly satisfies Colorado's on-package sorting bonus. Assess program costs vs. projected eco-mod fee savings for your portfolio before committing.

🔄 Material Fee Ranking - Best to Worst

Optimize your portfolio toward the top of this list.

💡 Oregon LCA Bonuses - A (disclose), B (improve), C (reuse)

Oregon's eco-modulation has three LCA-based credits, each requiring a third-party reviewed, ISO 14040/44-compliant LCA submitted to CAA. Bonus A (disclosure): conduct and submit an LCA, no improvement required. The credit is 10% of that SKU's Oregon base fees, capped at $20,000 per SKU, with a $200,000 per-producer ceiling (not a shared pool). The $20,000 is a ceiling, not a flat amount, so a SKU must generate $200,000+ in Oregon base fees to reach it and most small-to-mid volume SKUs earn well under $20,000. Bonus B (improvement): a comparative LCA showing a reduction in your packaging's environmental impact, tiered by how much you cut, capped at $50,000 per SKU, with a $500,000 per-producer ceiling. Bonus C (reuse shift): a comparative LCA showing a switch from single-use plastic to reusable or refillable formats, tiered, capped at $50,000 per SKU or batch per year; the reusable return-rate pathway runs up to three years (up to about $1.5M per producer over three years at the maximum). A given SKU can earn only one bonus type per year, so you cannot stack A with B or C on the same SKU, and there is a three-year wait before resubmitting that SKU. Bonus B and C credit against 2027 fees; confirm current submission windows with CAA. Weigh LCA study costs (typically $15,000–$40,000/study) against projected credits before committing.

🧭 7 Principles in Practice - R&D Action Checklist

Each principle maps directly to eco-modulation credits or base-rate reduction. Use this as your SKU redesign scorecard. Fee-reduction percentages reflect Oregon's published schedule and are indicative estimates for other states until their fee schedules are finalized.

Principle	R&D Action	EPR Benefit
Optimize Material Use	Lightweighting analysis on every SKU. Set per-unit gram targets. Eliminate redundant layers.	Weight-based savings
Measure & Reduce Impacts	Determine feasibility of 3rd-party verified LCAs for top Oregon SKUs by fee exposure. Weigh study costs vs. projected credits before committing. The 2026 submission window closed May 31; plan for the next CAA cycle.	Up to $20K/SKU (OR)
Design for Recyclability	Evaluate converting PET/PE laminates to mono-PE or mono-PET where feasible. Also evaluate total cost of molded pulp as an alternative to EPS, factoring EPR fees into the comparison. Review APR design guide for each format.	−12% mono-material
Recycled & Sustainable Fibers	Evaluate switching to FSC/SFI certified fiber for paper/board components. Confirm supplier certification availability and cost impact before specifying.	Low base rate
Eliminate Problematic Materials	Audit all SKUs for carbon black pigments, heavy metal colorants (cadmium, lead chromate), and PVC/PETG sleeves. None of these triggers an eco-mod malus in Oregon today (Oregon is bonus-only this cycle; Colorado's malus schedule is unverified), but all three are likely future-cycle malus targets and hurt recyclability/LCA outcomes now. Heavy metal pigments also violate state Toxics in Packaging laws (100 ppm combined Pb/Cd/Hg/hex-Cr limit) independently of EPR. Not all reformulations will be feasible - evaluate alternatives against functional requirements.	Future-cycle malus risk
Increase Recycled Content	Evaluate piloting PCR resin on top-volume rigid formats. Assess resin availability, cost premium, and performance validation requirements. Document % per component; confirm post-consumer (not PIR) sourcing.	−5% to −10%
Clear Recycling Instructions	Evaluate enrolling portfolio in How2Recycle program (SPC). Assess program fees vs. projected eco-mod savings across your active state mix before enrolling. Provide certification docs to compliance team for eco-mod filings.	−7% (OR confirmed; others est.)

🏷️ How2Recycle vs. EPR Eco-Modulation: What Actually Maps

How2Recycle (H2R) is an SPC-managed labeling program. EPR eco-modulation is a PRO fee calculation system. They share vocabulary but are not the same thing. H2R certification supports eco-mod credit applications - it does not replace EPR reporting data or auto-reduce fees.

H2R Label Rating	What It Means for Recyclability	EPR Eco-Mod Fee Implication	Action Required
Widely Recyclable	Accepted in programs serving ≥60% of U.S. households (national standard)	Bonus eligible - OR and CO confirmed; MN/MD/WA expected	File H2R certificate with annual supply report for eco-mod credit
Widely Recyclable (CO)	CO specifically: H2R certification qualifies for on-package sorting bonus	CO sorting bonus confirmed (~7%)	Confirm SKU is on Colorado SOP list; use full-body label; include cert in CO filing
Check Locally	Recyclable in some but not majority of programs	No eco-mod bonus; likely neutral	Do not claim eco-mod credit; monitor recycling access expansion
Store Drop-Off	Recyclable only via specific drop-off infrastructure, not curbside	No curbside bonus; SB 343 exposure in CA	Flag for CA SB 343 review; do not file for curbside eco-mod bonus
Not Yet Recyclable	No broad recycling pathway currently exists	Higher base fee now; malus likely in a future OR cycle / CO TBD	Prioritize redesign; document elimination plans for audit readiness

⚠️

Critical distinction: H2R data sheets confirm labeling program membership - they do NOT satisfy EPR material inventory reporting. Supply reports require separate weight-per-component data, resin codes, and PCR percentages. Provide both to your compliance team independently.

⚠️ California SB 343: The Recyclability Labeling Paradox

⚠️

Design decision risk: A package optimized for recyclability (mono-material, H2R certified) can still violate SB 343 if the specific format has not achieved 60% California population coverage. EPR fee optimization and CA labeling compliance are separate tracks.

What SB 343 Requires

Any "recyclable" claim on packaging sold in California requires the format to be collected in programs serving ≥60% of California's population. CalRecycle's CMC list is the authoritative reference - it does not mirror H2R national ratings.

R&D Implication

When evaluating a package redesign, check both the H2R national rating AND the CalRecycle CMC list independently. A format that achieves "Widely Recyclable" nationally may still need CMC validation before any CA on-pack recyclability claim. Loop in regulatory on all CA-sold SKUs.

⚖️

Litigation watch (as of July 2026): 21 organizations challenged SB 343 (filed March 17, 2026, later amended to 21). On July 14, 2026 a federal court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of SB 343 until further order of the court (California League of Food Producers v. Bonta, Case 3:26-cv-01675, S.D. Cal.), finding four provisions unconstitutionally vague and a First Amendment violation. Enforcement is paused, but the ruling is preliminary and a Ninth Circuit appeal is expected. Also watch the PACK Act (H.R. 6832) - if enacted, federal labeling standards would preempt SB 343. Keep designing for compliance; update if the injunction is reversed or preemption occurs. CMC list, current vintage the January 2026 update (95 categories across 6 material classes, published December 31, 2025): calrecycle.ca.gov/packaging/packaging-epr/cmclist ↗

If you sell packaging materials or finished packaging to brands, EPR is reshaping your customers' buying decisions right now. Understanding EPR positions you as a strategic partner - not a commodity vendor - and opens doors to conversations your competitors aren't equipped to have.

📦 How EPR Is Reshaping Your Customers' Decisions

1Material type drives fee rates. Customers switching from EPS to molded pulp, or multi-layer film to mono-PE, are doing it to cut EPR fees - not just for sustainability optics.
2Your customers need your material data. EPR reporting requires exact material type, resin code, and weight per component. Certified data sheets are becoming table stakes.
3PCR content is a competitive differentiator. Customers earn eco-modulation discounts for documented PCR content - being able to supply and certify PCR materials is a premium offering.
4How2Recycle compatibility wins business. Customers are shifting to formats that earn "Widely Recyclable" status. Design and material choices that support this certification will win RFPs.
5If your brand appears on packaging you sell, check whether you meet the "producer" definition in each active state - you may be the obligated party, not just your CPG customer.

🚀 Positioning for the EPR Era

✓Lead with EPR fee impact data. When pitching alternative materials, quantify the fee savings your solution delivers vs. the incumbent. Put a dollar figure on it.
✓Get How2Recycle compatibility documentation for your packaging formats. It's a sales asset that your customers' R&D teams will ask for.
✓Offer PCR-content tiers. Brands want to hit PCR targets for eco-modulation. Being their PCR supply partner creates stickiness and pricing power.
✓Provide certified material data proactively. Make it easy for customers to get the weight and composition data they need - it's a service differentiator at zero marginal cost to you.
✓Track new state enactments. NY, NJ, and MA are close. New enactments accelerate redesign decisions at your customers - be ready with compliant alternatives before they ask.

Unlock Ask Atlas

Ask Atlas answers packaging EPR questions in plain English, from the same verified research behind this hub. Add your details to start asking. This also unlocks the Unit EPR Fee Calculator.

Want a look around first? Take the 60-second guided tour ↗

Ask Atlas

Ask anything about U.S. packaging EPR

👋 Hi! I'm Atlas - trained on all U.S. packaging EPR programs, state regulations, fee structures, and compliance requirements.

Ask me anything: deadlines, fees, which states apply to you, how to reduce costs, or what specific terms mean.

Total EPR Fee Estimator

Enter packaging tonnage by material and compare Current exposure against Scenario A and Scenario B. This estimates base fees only; eco-modulation is SKU-specific and modeled in the Unit EPR Fee Calculator. Figures are indicative planning estimates, not for compliance reporting.

⚖️ State & Material Tonnage

Primary Market State

Material

MT / Year

Base Rate/MT

📊 Scenarios

Use Scenario A and B to model portfolio changes - material switches, tonnage reductions, PCR additions.

Editing: Current packaging baseline

🎛️ Eco-Modulation Options for the Selected State

Eco-modulation adjusts fees up or down based on a SKU's design attributes (recyclability, post-consumer recycled content, labeling, and similar). Because those attributes are specific to each SKU, they are not applied to this portfolio estimate. The options below are what the selected state offers; model them for a specific SKU in the Unit EPR Fee Calculator.

💰 Annual Fee Results

Current

Baseline

Scenario A

Not configured

Scenario B

Not configured

⚠️ Rates based on Oregon's 2025–26 schedule. California uses CAA's draft 2027 schedule midpoint (Table 5, plan filed June 15, 2026; final rates October 2026). Other non-active states show projected estimates. This estimate is base fees only; eco-modulation is modeled per SKU in the Unit EPR Fee Calculator. Always verify with your CAA portal for invoicing.

Seeing a number that needs a strategy? I help companies reduce EPR fees through design, material, and data decisions. Let's talk →

Need total annual or portfolio-level exposure instead of per-unit? Use the Total EPR Fee Estimator.

New to this calculator? Take a 60-second guided tour of how it works.

Take a guided tour →

🔓

See the full calculator

You are previewing the Unit EPR Fee Calculator. Add your details to unlock per-SKU fee modeling across all 7 enacted states, eco-modulation credits, and side-by-side redesign comparison.

Want a look around first? Take the 60-second guided tour ↗

Want a plan to lower a SKU's fee? I help teams prioritize the design changes that pay back. Let's talk →

Design for Recyclability

Under U.S. packaging EPR, "recyclable" is no longer an engineering opinion. It is a legal determination that sets your eco-modulation fee. This page maps how design decisions translate into recyclability determinations and fees across the materials you actually ship. It describes the rules. It does not prescribe a redesign. To see the fee impact of a design choice, use the Unit EPR Fee Calculator. To score a specific package against these rules, component by component, use the Design for Recyclability Rater.

confirmed read from the primary statute, rule, or agency list signaled official but not final, or a reputable source citing the rule speculative projection

Designed for recycling is not the same as recyclable.

Meeting the design rules on this page makes a package "designed for recycling." What you can legally put on-pack, and the fee you pay, depend on collection access and the state, not on design alone. See Claims (SB 343) below.

Jump to: Plastics Claims (SB 343) How2Recycle Glass Paper & fiber Metal Decoration California CMC

Which materials this covers, and why

U.S. EPR covers, and eco-modulation prices, every major packaging material, not just plastics. Each material is recycled through a different system, so each has a different governing design rule: plastics are sorted optically by resin and color, glass is sorted by light transmission, fiber is judged by coating and contamination, and metal is judged by how much stays mono-metal. Because the rule that decides "recyclable" is different for each, this page treats them separately. Plastics carry the most design levers and the most fee sensitivity, so that section runs deepest, but glass, fiber, and metal each have a distinct rule worth knowing.

Plastics

The APR Design Guide is the leading U.S. technical standard for plastics recyclability, but it is not the only input. How2Recycle and the SPC Guide to Recyclability define what counts as recyclable and add the collection-access test. RecyClass is APR's European counterpart, and the two have aligned their guidance. The U.S. Plastics Pact operationalizes APR into a national design handbook and a problematic-materials list that member brands commit to eliminating. APR sets the technical standard. The Pact's influence is commercial: its brand commitments flow down to suppliers, and it is voluntary. APR also covers plastics only. Glass, fiber, and metal have their own authorities, below. Meeting this design core is necessary but not sufficient. Whether you can call the result "recyclable" is a separate question, covered in Claims below.

Design rule	What it means
Design in one polymer family	Mono-material is rewarded. Mixed and multilayer constructions are penalized.
Prefer clear or light PET	Clear unpigmented PET, or transparent light blue or light green only. Carbon black and NIR-undetectable dark colorants render PET non-recyclable because most NIR sorters cannot see them.
Eliminate the problem resins	PVC and PVDC, PS and EPS, and rigid PETG are flagged by APR and targeted for elimination by the U.S. Plastics Pact.
Keep components compatible and separable	Closures, pumps, labels, sleeves, and liners are recyclability-determining, not accessories. Metal springs and full-body sleeves are flagged.
Clear the small-format test	Parts 2 inches or under in two dimensions must pass APR's size-sortation protocol or they fall through MRF screens.
Keep inks and coatings compatible	Heavy inks, dark pigments, and wash-resistant coatings can contaminate the recycled stream and interfere with optical sorting.
Put real recycling instructions on-pack	How2Recycle is the standard North American on-pack label, and APR Preferred designs are more likely to qualify as widely recyclable.

Features that push a plastic package into higher fees

Feature	U.S. recyclability	Fee consequence	Status
PVC / PVDC	Non-recyclable	No recyclability credit; elimination-list material	confirmed
Carbon black / NIR-undetectable dark	Non-recyclable (most NIR sorters cannot detect it)	Proposed California malus for the 2028 program year; values not set	signaled
PETG (rigid and full-body sleeves)	Contaminates the PET stream	Degrades the host container's recyclable determination	confirmed
PS / EPS	Very low recyclability	No recyclability credit; targeted by state bans	confirmed
Full-body non-perforated shrink	Detrimental; hides the host resin	Design-based malus risk in Colorado	signaled

What you can actually claim, and who decides

APR and the U.S. Plastics Pact do not determine recyclability. They set design criteria: whether a package is built so it can be recycled. Whether it is recyclable in practice, and whether you may label it "recyclable," depends on the recovery system rather than the design, meaning whether the format is actually collected, sorted, reprocessed, and sold into an end market. The SPC Guide to Recyclability, which How2Recycle uses, defines recyclability through those four criteria, and California SB 343 turns a version of that test, collection reaching at least 60% of residents plus real sorting and processing, into law for on-pack claims.

Layer	Question it answers	Set by
Design	Is it built so it can be recycled?	APR Design Guide (RecyClass in the EU)
Access to recovery	Is it actually collected, sorted, reprocessed, and sold into an end market?	How2Recycle / SPC four-criteria definition
Legal determination	May you label it recyclable, and what fee applies?	California SB 343 (60% collection access + CMC list); state EPR eco-modulation

Under SB 343, a plastic package may be labeled "recyclable" only if its material type and form is collected by programs serving at least 60% of Californians and is sorted for recycling by facilities serving at least 60% of the state's programs, consistent with CalRecycle's CMC recyclable determination. A material can alternatively qualify with a demonstrated recycling rate of at least 75%. The 60% test is about access, not the recycling rate. There is no simple weight cutoff, but a detractor that pushes an item out of a recyclable type and form, such as a full-body sleeve or carbon black, can disqualify it. A mono-material PE film pouch shows the gap: it is designed for recycling, but it is store-drop-off only, below the 60% collection threshold, so it cannot be called "recyclable" in California.

How2Recycle: the on-pack label that reflects access

How2Recycle is the leading North American on-pack recycling label, used in the United States and Canada and run by the Sustainable Packaging Coalition (GreenBlue). It covers all materials, plastic, glass, fiber, and metal, and it is the layer that tells a consumer what to actually do with a package. It is built on the same access-to-recovery logic as SB 343: to assign a label, How2Recycle applies the SPC Guide to Recyclability's four criteria, so the format must be collected from a meaningful share of households, sortable at a MRF, reprocessable, and sold into an end market. APR-Preferred design helps a package qualify, but real-world collection access is what sets the tier.

On-pack label	What it signals
Widely Recyclable	Curbside access for most of the population (PET bottles, HDPE bottles, aluminum cans). The outcome to design toward.
Check Locally	Collection is inconsistent and depends on the community (PP tubs, aseptic cartons).
Store Drop-Off	Not curbside; returned to retail collection (PE film, bags, air pillows).
Not Yet Recyclable	No broad recovery pathway exists today (multi-material laminates, foamed PS).

How2Recycle is voluntary and national; SB 343 is mandatory and California-specific. They usually point the same way, but they are assessed separately: SB 343 keys to CalRecycle's CMC list and the 60% collection test, while How2Recycle assigns a communication tier. Use How2Recycle to label the package, and confirm the SB 343 determination before selling in California.

Glass

Glass is optically sorted, and the sorter reads each piece as glass or as a ceramic/stone/porcelain contaminant based on how much light passes through it. For decorated cosmetic glass, opacity, not color, is what usually causes rejection. The governing rule is a light-transmission spec, not a yes-or-no on opacity. These rules come from the Glass Packaging Institute and a 2024 Estee Lauder/SMI cosmetic-glass study.

Glass design rule	What it means
Target light transmission at or above 5%	Below roughly 2%, a package is rejected as a ceramic/stone/porcelain contaminant. 3% is the observed minimum that passes; 5% is the design threshold. This one number covers lacquering, silk-screen, and dark or feeder color.
Opacity blocks sortation, not color	All colors can sort as glass; opacity is what makes the sorter read a piece as a contaminant. But color still affects whether it is actually recycled, see the note below.
Use soda-lime glass	The only container-glass chemistry with a North American curbside stream. Borosilicate, opal, and aluminosilicate glasses contaminate the cullet.
Treat metallization as chemistry, not just look	Metallic coatings contaminate the cullet at parts-per-million and must be blended down even when they sort. Use as an accent or remove.
Watch small formats	Containers and closures at or under about 2.5 inches (sample and perfume vials) drop out of recovery regardless of the glass.

Sorting as glass is not the same as being recycled into new glass. Mixed and tinted cullet has weaker end markets and often becomes landfill cover (ADC) or aggregate, while clear (flint) glass has the strongest bottle-to-bottle demand. Labels and sleeves separate during crushing and do not impede recovery; ceramic swing-top closures are a contaminant.

Paper and fiber

Clean fiber is among the most recyclable packaging in the U.S. What kills it is what is added to it: plastic coatings, lamination, and heavy metallization. The rule is to keep it fiber.

Fiber design rule	What it means
Keep it uncoated and clean	Uncoated paperboard is recyclable in California at about 30%; OCC corrugated at about 68%, the strongest recyclable secondary pack.
Avoid plastic coatings and lamination	California treats plastic-lined or poly-coated paperboard as non-recyclable (recycled at under 6%), and reclassifies double-sided poly-coated board as a multi-material laminate, which raises the fee.
Limit metallization and foil on board	Solid metal foil and heavy metallized decoration move fiber toward non-recyclable, the same coverage logic as plastics (see Decoration below).
Cartons are a separate stream	Aseptic and gable-top cartons are collected in some programs (for example, Oregon's statewide list) but are not on California's recyclable CMC list; check by state.

Metal (aluminum and steel)

Metal is the forgiving material. A mono-aluminum or mono-steel can, bottle, tube, or closure recycles at close to its full weight, and standard decoration (lacquers, inks, most coatings) is separable in reprocessing rather than disqualifying. In the U.S. the gating question for aerosols is collection access, not design.

Metal design rule	What it means
Keep it mono-metal	Only metallic aluminum counts as recyclable value. Laminates are defensible (the plastic burns off in reprocessing) but true mono-aluminum maximizes recovered weight.
Eliminate	PFAS coatings (targeted by state packaging bans) and vapor-deposited metallized layers, which count as loss rather than recyclable content. Carbon black is a plastics sorting problem, not a barrier to metal recycling.
Small size is not a barrier	State-of-the-art sorters recover even very small metal items; any minimum-metal-content sorting rule is economic, not a recyclability determinant.
Aerosols: solve access, not design	The U.S. issue is MRF acceptance. Cans must be empty. The CMI/HCPA Aerosol Recycling Initiative targets 85%+ recycling access by 2030. Non-aerosol aluminum is CMC-recyclable at under 39% in California.

The per-format design detail is European (Metal Packaging Europe, Sept 2025); the physics translate to the U.S., where the recyclability determination comes from the CalRecycle CMC list and aerosol collection access from CMI/HCPA.

Decoration and metallization

Decoration is where design most often quietly breaks recyclability, and the rules differ by material. Metallization in particular is governed by amount and type, not by presence.

On	Rule	Status
Plastic	Solid metal foil decoration generally renders a package non-recyclable. Non-solid metallic decoration (metallic ink, metallized transfer) is recyclable if its metal content is a spherical equivalent of 12 mm or less, or 16 mm for PET. A label or sleeve over 75% of the surface (55% for containers 550 ml or less) interferes with optical sortation.	signaled
Glass	Judged by resulting opacity. Any decoration that drops light transmission below the ~5% threshold rejects as a contaminant. Metallic coatings also contaminate the cullet chemically.	confirmed
Metal	Vapor-deposited metallized layers are counted as loss, not recyclable content; lacquers and printed inks are separable and acceptable in moderation.	signaled

The exact plastics metallization limit lives in APR resource RES-SORT-03b; the 12 mm / 16 mm figures are from APR program guidance (Nance, APR, 2025) and are tagged signaled pending the primary document.

California: recyclable is not the same as recycled

CalRecycle's January 2026 Covered Material Category (CMC) list is the authoritative California reference under SB 54. For the first time it publishes an estimated recycling rate for each category alongside the recyclable determination. The gap is the point: a format can be deemed recyclable and still be recycled at a single-digit rate. This is a working subset. View or download the full CMC list (January 2026) for all 95 categories.

Format	CA recyclable?	Recycling rate	Read
Clear PET bottle	Yes	16%	Best-in-class CA plastic rate, still low
Colored / pigmented PET	Yes	5%	Pigment cuts the real rate to a third of clear
HDPE bottle	Yes	19%	Highest CA plastic rate
PP jar and closure	Yes	2%	Recyclable, but 2% is the honest number
PE film / pouch	No	~5%	Store drop-off only, not curbside
Multi-material laminate	No	under 2%	Redesign or take-back
PS / EPS	No	under 1%	Eliminate
PVC / PVDC	No	n/a	Contaminant
Poly-lined paperboard	No	under 6%	Do not claim recyclable on a poly-lined carton
Uncoated paperboard	Yes	30%	The defensible recyclable carton
OCC corrugated	Yes	68%	Strongest recyclable secondary pack
Glass bottle or jar	Yes	65%	Opaque-coated glass loses the determination
Aluminum (non-aerosol)	Yes	under 39%	Strong mono-material option

The CMC determination is category-level and does not clear an on-pack "recyclable" claim; California SB 343's population-coverage test applies on top of it (compliance date around Oct 4, 2026, signaled).

Sources: APR Design Guide and label/metallization thresholds per Nance, APR (2025) and APR RES-SORT-03b; How2Recycle and the SPC Guide to Recyclability, and RecyClass; U.S. Plastics Pact Recyclable Packaging Design Handbook (3rd Ed., July 2026); CalRecycle SB 54 CMC list (January 2026 update, 95 categories across 6 material classes) and California SB 343; Oregon DEQ statewide collection list (Aug 2025); glass thresholds from the ELC/SMI cosmetic-glass study (2024) and GPI; aluminum from the Metal Packaging Europe DfR guideline (Sept 2025) and CMI/HCPA Aerosol Recycling Initiative. Figures current as of July 2026 and subject to change.

Working through a packaging redesign? I help teams assess portfolios against these rules and prioritize the changes that pay back. Let's talk →

What's New in U.S. Packaging EPR

Covers the last 30 days. Last checked: Thursday, July 30, 2026

30-Day Monitor

Latest

Regulatory & Policy

Litigation CO Week of July 27, 2026

Colorado EPR Challenge Still Pending; No Injunction Was Sought, So Fees Remain Due

Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association v. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (Denver District Court No. 2026CV30902, filed March 12, 2026) remains pending, and no ruling has been reported as of July 30, 2026. ILMA raises federal and state due process claims, a non-delegation argument, a First Amendment challenge to point-of-sale fee disclosure restrictions, and statutory claims about the five percent administrative expense cap and the cost-based fee requirement. Part of the objection targets CDPHE's approval of an individual program plan from the Lubricants Packaging Management Association, founded by five major petroleum companies, to manage oil-based product packaging. The practical point for producers: the complaint does not seek a preliminary injunction, so nothing is paused. Colorado's program remains in force and 2026 dues remain due while the case proceeds. An ILMA representative said in early July that an update was expected within a few weeks. Sources: Foley and Lardner; Packaging Dive (July 10, 2026).

Update ME Week of July 27, 2026

Maine DEP Publishes a Fixed Annual Compliance Calendar, Plus a $500 Per Ton Flat Fee for Low-Volume Producers

Maine DEP's EPR program page now carries a fixed annual schedule: producer reporting May 31, producer invoicing July 1, producer payment September 1, and municipal reimbursement October 1. DEP places the program at step four of nine, contracting a Stewardship Organization, and states that producers register within 90 days of the SO making a registration mechanism available. DEP anticipates registration and invoicing beginning at the end of 2026, with municipal reimbursements possibly starting at the end of 2027. Two further details worth noting: Chapter 428 was amended in March 2026 to add Appendix A, The Packaging Material Types List; and low-volume producers may use a simplified reporting process and pay a flat fee of $500 per ton of packaging material rather than reporting material by material. Maine remains pre-operational, so these are dates to plan against rather than obligations that have started. Source: Maine DEP.

Enforcement OR Week of July 20, 2026

Oregon DEQ Agrees to Pause Enforcement Against Non-NAW Producers Through August 31

On July 16, 2026 the parties in Lollicup USA v. Feldon filed a stipulation, which the court entered, under which Oregon DEQ's Materials Management Program will not issue pre-enforcement notices against Lollicup USA or any member of the putative class through at least August 31, 2026, extendable by written consent. DEQ retains authority to investigate, issue warning letters, and conduct other pre-enforcement activity. Read the limit carefully: the Circular Action Alliance is not a party to the stipulation and may continue assessing fees, pursuing compliance actions, and publishing non-compliance lists. Lollicup's litigation deadlines are suspended pending the decision in NAW v. Feldon, with a joint status report due September 10, 2026. The docket number is not yet publicly confirmed. Source: Arnold and Porter, Environmental Edge (July 22, 2026).

Comment Period MN Week of July 20, 2026

Minnesota Opens Packaging EPR Rulemaking; First Comment Window Closed July 24

MPCA's Request for Comments on rulemaking to implement the Packaging Waste and Cost Reduction Act (Minn. Stat. 115A.1455) closed on July 24, 2026 at 4:30 p.m., docket sw-rule3-06a. This was a first-stage request for comments rather than a proposed-rule comment period, so no draft rule text exists yet and further comment opportunities are expected before any rule is adopted. The Packaging EPR Advisory Board met on July 15, 2026 in St. Paul. Minnesota producer fees do not begin until 2029, but the rules that decide how those fees are calculated are being written now. Source: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Request for Comments, docket sw-rule3-06a; Policy Pickup (July 23, 2026).

Update ME Week of July 20, 2026

Maine Municipal Opt-In Runs Near 18 Percent as Stewardship Organization Selection Proceeds

Maine DEP survey data shows roughly 80 municipalities, about 18 percent of the state's total and including Portland and South Portland, have indicated they will participate in the packaging EPR program. Twenty declined and the majority did not respond. DEP's tracker places the program at step four of nine, contracting with a Stewardship Organization, with producer registration and invoicing anticipated by the end of 2026 and municipal reimbursements potentially beginning by the end of 2027. Because producer fees fund municipal reimbursement, participation levels are a direct signal on the size of the Maine cost base in year one. Proposals in response to DEP's Stewardship Organization RFP remain due August 3, 2026. Source: Bangor Daily News (July 20, 2026).

Deadline CAA Week of July 20, 2026

CAA Webinar Calendar: California Fee-Setting August 5, Oregon 2028-2032 Plan Series Begins August 12

Circular Action Alliance has scheduled four public webinars worth a producer's calendar. August 5, 2026: Understanding California Program Fees, covering CAA's fee-setting approach. It falls inside the SB 54 program plan comment period closing August 14 and speaks directly to the fee-transparency questions at the center of the Oregon litigation. August 12, 2026: Oregon Program Plan 2028 to 2032, eco-modulation and responsible end markets. August 19, 2026: Oregon education, outreach and equity. September 2, 2026: Oregon materials, the Uniform Statewide Collection List, and RecycleOn Centers. The Oregon series opens the second Oregon plan cycle, which is where the next round of eco-modulation gets decided. Register through the CAA events page. Source: Circular Action Alliance events calendar (July 2026).

Comment Period WA Week of July 20, 2026

Washington Releases Draft Statewide Collection Lists; Subcommittee Meets August 4 and 10 Ahead of August Public Comment

Washington's Recycling Reform Act advisory council has released a first draft of the statewide collection lists (Statewide Lists V1) for review under E2SSB 5284. The council's Statewide Lists Subcommittee meets virtually on August 4 and August 10, 2026, with a full advisory council meeting on August 13, and a public comment period on the draft lists opens in August, ahead of the standardized statewide collection lists that Ecology plans to publish by October 2026. These lists will define which materials are collected statewide, a key input to covered-product scope and eco-modulation. Source: Washington Department of Ecology (July 2026); RRA Advisory Council; Waste360, Marissa Heffernan (July 23, 2026).

Deadline CA Week of July 20, 2026

California Individual Source Reduction Plans Due August 1

Producers of plastic covered packaging must file an Individual Source Reduction Plan (ISRP) with the Circular Action Alliance through its Producer Portal no later than August 1, 2026 (CAA may adjust the date as rulemaking settles; confirm in the portal). The plan forecasts how the producer will reach SB 54's reduction targets, 10% by 2027, 20% by 2030, and 25% by 2032, measured against a 2023 baseline, with minimum reuse, refill, or elimination shares of 2%, 4%, and 10%. There is no public template; reporting fields sit behind portal registration. A step-by-step ISRP readiness checklist is on the source reduction plan page. Source: Circular Action Alliance, California producer guidance.

Litigation OR Week of July 20, 2026

Oregon NAW Trial Concludes; Judge to Rule on RMA by End of August

The five-day bench trial in NAW v. Feldon concluded on July 17, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Judge Michael Simon said from the bench that he had not yet decided how to rule and will issue his decision on the Recycling Modernization Act's constitutionality by the end of August 2026. Following trial, Judge Simon directed the parties to address six specific questions in post-trial briefs due July 31, 2026, and set August 3, 2026 as the deadline for any motion seeking additional oral argument. The briefing is not symmetric across the claims: the court indicated the dormant Commerce Clause issues are fully briefed and need no further submission, and the six questions are weighted to the procedural due process claim, covering whether a protected property interest exists, what process is constitutionally required, arbitration precedents, available remedies, the significance of delegating program administration to a private PRO, and whether confidentiality challenges require exhausting public records procedures first. The February 6, 2026 preliminary injunction continues to shield only NAW members pending the ruling; all other producers remain fully subject to registration, reporting, fees, and DEQ enforcement. Source: Oregon Capital Chronicle (July 17, 2026); Waste360, Marissa Heffernan (July 23, 2026); Foley and Lardner via National Law Review (July 23, 2026).

Update OR Week of July 20, 2026

CAA Oregon Releases First Annual Report: $167.9 Million Collected in Year One

On July 2, 2026 Circular Action Alliance published its first Oregon annual report covering the program's first year: more than 2,900 participating producers, $167.9 million in producer fee revenue, 409,000+ tons of covered products reported, and 144,000+ tons processed in six months, with 20 new RecycleOn Centers and 42,000+ recycling carts funded, against about $56.5 million in program expenditures. CAA also reported fewer eco-modulation bonus applications than it had anticipated in this first cycle, a signal that many producers have not yet pursued the available fee reductions. CAA describes 2025 as a build year, with full system implementation targeted by the end of 2027. Source: Circular Action Alliance (July 2, 2026); Packaging Dive (July 8, 2026); Waste360, Marissa Heffernan (July 23, 2026).

Litigation CA Week of July 20, 2026

SB 54 Litigation Update: Industry and Agriculture Seek to Intervene in Environmental Challenge

On July 1, 2026 the American Chemistry Council and the Alliance of California's Farmers and Ranchers filed motions to intervene in the environmental groups' challenge to the SB 54 regulations (Oceana, NRDC, and Californians Against Waste Foundation v. CalRecycle, San Francisco Superior Court). Separately, the 17-state attorneys general and NAW federal challenge to SB 54 (E.D. Cal.) has been publicly reported as case No. 2:26-at-01047. That is the Eastern District of California's temporary pre-assignment number, applied to newly received filings before a permanent civil action number issues, and it is not a sealing designation; the permanent docket number is not yet confirmed. NAW's own announcement gives the caption as State of Nebraska et al. v. Heller et al. The complaint also raises a First Amendment claim against SB 54's prohibition on disclosing EPR costs on customer receipts. Source: Packaging Dive (July 10, 2026).

Legislative FEDERAL Week of July 20, 2026

PACK Act and RMAA Get First Committee Hearing; No Markup Scheduled

The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade held its legislative hearing on July 22, 2026. The PACK Act (H.R. 6832), which would create FTC-administered federal labeling standards, and the Recycled Materials Attribution Act (H.R. 7502) were 2 of 12 bills on a broad consumer protection docket rather than the subjects of a dedicated packaging hearing. John Hewitt of the Consumer Brands Association and the Recycling Leadership Council testified in support of both; John Breyault of the National Consumers League opposed both, arguing the PACK Act would preempt state labeling standards without a strong federal baseline and that the RMAA would legitimize mass balance accounting. No markup, vote, or next step was announced, and both bills remain referred to committee with no action recorded. Producers should note the preemption design: as described by supporters, states would be barred from requirements that differ from the federal framework, which is field preemption rather than a federal floor. The California law the PACK Act would displace, SB 343, is itself currently enjoined. Source: House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing docket, EventID 119489; Packaging Dive (July 23, 2026).

Update ME Week of July 20, 2026

Maine Timeline Firms Up: SO Proposals Due August 3; Registration Expected to Begin at End of 2026

Proposals in response to Maine DEP's June 15 Stewardship Organization RFP are due August 3, 2026; CAA has said it intends to respond. DEP now anticipates producer registration and invoicing will begin at the end of 2026 and municipal reimbursements may begin at the end of 2027, with producer guidance expected in summer 2026. Once the selected SO opens its registration mechanism, producers will have 90 days to register. Source: Maine DEP (July 2026); Sustainable Packaging Coalition (June 22, 2026).

Litigation CA Week of July 13, 2026

Federal Court Blocks Enforcement of California SB 343 Recyclability Labeling Law

On July 14, 2026 Judge William Q. Hayes of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted a preliminary injunction in California League of Food Producers v. Bonta (Case No. 3:26-cv-01675), barring Attorney General Rob Bonta from enforcing SB 343, the state's "Truth in Recycling" law, until further order of the court. The court found four provisions unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment and held the law fails First Amendment scrutiny under the Central Hudson test, concluding the state did not show the restrictions would directly advance its interest in reducing consumer confusion. The four vague provisions were severed, so the law's core 60 percent collection-and-sorting threshold survives on paper, but enforcement is now paused less than three months before the October 4, 2026 compliance deadline. The suit was brought by a coalition of 21 food, packaging, and retail trade associations (18 at filing on March 17, 2026, later amended to 21). The ruling is preliminary, not a final judgment; litigation continues before Judge Hayes and an appeal to the Ninth Circuit is expected. Because SB 54 relies on SB 343's recyclability criteria to determine which materials qualify as recyclable in California, the decision carries implications for the broader packaging EPR program. Source: Resource Recycling (July 15, 2026); Packaging Dive (July 15, 2026).

Litigation OR Week of July 13, 2026

Second Lawsuit Challenges Oregon Packaging EPR Law; Class Action Targets Non-NAW Producers

On June 25, 2026 Lollicup USA, a subsidiary of publicly traded Karat Packaging, filed a putative class action against Oregon DEQ Director Leah Feldon in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, seeking to represent producers not covered by the February 6, 2026 NAW preliminary injunction. The complaint pleads only the dormant Commerce Clause and Fourteenth Amendment due process theories the court credited in NAW v. Feldon. The program remains in effect; non-NAW producers remain fully subject to Oregon DEQ enforcement unless and until a class is certified and relief is granted. This suit is separate from the NAW v. Feldon bench trial, which was held July 13-17, 2026; a ruling in that case is expected by the end of August 2026. Source: Packaging Dive (June 27, 2026); Plastics News; National Law Review; Arnold and Porter (June 2026).

Legislative CA Week of July 13, 2026

California AB 2253 (Recycled Content Claims) Clears Senate Environmental Quality 4-2, Advances to Appropriations

On July 1, 2026 the California Senate Environmental Quality Committee passed AB 2253 (Boerner) on a 4-2 vote and re-referred it to Senate Appropriations, where a hearing is set for August 3, 2026. The bill amends Public Resources Code 42357.6 to require recycled-content claims to reflect actual physical recycled content, prohibiting mass balance accounting and constraining chemical-recycling-based PCR compliance under SB 54. Source: California Legislature (leginfo, AB 2253 bill history, July 2026).

Legislative CA Week of July 13, 2026

California Agriculture Coalition Urges SB 54 Repeal and Replacement

On July 6, 2026 a coalition of California agricultural groups sent a letter to Governor Newsom and legislative leaders urging repeal and replacement of SB 54, citing an economic analysis projecting added household grocery costs as the first producer fees arrive. This is advocacy only; no repeal bill has been introduced, and full SB 54 implementation remains set for January 1, 2027. Source: Resource Recycling (July 7, 2026).

Comment Period CA Week of July 6, 2026

CAA Held July 8 Public Webinar on California SB 54 Program Plan

Circular Action Alliance held a public informational webinar on July 8, 2026 introducing its draft California SB 54 program plan, outlining key elements (funding, material management, reporting, system performance), and explaining how to participate in the public comment period that runs through August 14, 2026. Producers and other interest holders can still submit comments through the CAA California program plan public comment page. Source: Circular Action Alliance (July 2026).

Litigation CA Week of June 29, 2026

Environmental Groups Sue CalRecycle Over SB 54 Regulations, Alleging Unlawful Loopholes

On June 2, 2026 Oceana, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Californians Against Waste Foundation filed suit against CalRecycle in San Francisco Superior Court, captioned Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, challenging the SB 54 final regulations that took effect May 1, 2026. The petition is verified, which means CalRecycle must answer allegation by allegation rather than by general denial; the case number is not publicly confirmed. The petitioners allege the regulations create unauthorized carveouts that exclude large categories of plastic packaging, allow producers to claim indefinite exemptions, and let permitted technologies that generate hazardous waste count as recycling, undermining the law's source-reduction and recycling mandates. This is a challenge from the environmental side, distinct from the June 22, 2026 challenge brought by 17 state attorneys general and NAW; SB 54 now faces challenges from both directions. Source: Resource Recycling (June 5, 2026); Oceana; NRDC; National Law Review (June 2026).

Enforcement OR Week of June 29, 2026

Oregon DEQ Publishes First Quarterly Noncompliance List Under the Recycling Modernization Act

On April 9, 2026 Oregon DEQ released its inaugural quarterly producer status list under the Recycling Modernization Act, flagging roughly 250 companies for failing to register, report, and/or pay required fees. Each producer was first contacted by the Circular Action Alliance and given 90 days to respond; nonresponders then received a formal DEQ notice and an additional 30-day cure window before being listed. Penalties can reach $25,000 per day, and the Oregon Department of Justice may seek to bar the sale of noncompliant products in the state. The February 6, 2026 NAW preliminary injunction shields only NAW members as of that date; all other producers remain fully subject to enforcement. Source: Resource Recycling (April 21, 2026); Troutman Pepper Locke (April 2026); Oregon DEQ.

Litigation CA 17 STATES Week of June 22, 2026

17-State Coalition and NAW File Federal Challenge to California SB 54

On June 22, 2026 a coalition of 17 state attorneys general led by Nebraska, joined by the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors as the sole business plaintiff, filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California challenging SB 54, California's packaging EPR and source-reduction law. The complaint names CalRecycle Director Zoe Heller and the Circular Action Alliance as defendants and alleges violations of the dormant Commerce Clause and the First Amendment under the U.S. and California constitutions; plaintiffs seek to enjoin enforcement of SB 54 while the case proceeds. The joining states are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia. Source: Packaging Dive; Waste Dive; Recycling Today (June 2026).

Update ME Week of June 22, 2026

Maine DEP Issues Stewardship Organization RFP; Program Implementation Advances

Maine DEP issued its Request for Proposals to select a Stewardship Organization (Maine uses the term SO, not PRO) on June 15, 2026; the Circular Action Alliance has said it intends to respond. DEP also plans to publish producer guidance in summer 2026. Startup registration fees remain contingent on a signed SO contract and are due no more than 180 days after that contract's effective date. Source: Sustainable Packaging Coalition (June 22, 2026); Waste Dive; Packaging Dive (June 2026).

Litigation CO Week of June 22, 2026

Colorado CDPHE Moves to Dismiss ILMA Challenge to Packaging EPR Program

In ILMA v. CDPHE (Denver District Court No. 2026CV30902, filed March 12, 2026), the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has moved to dismiss the Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association's challenge to the state's packaging EPR program; the motion was pending as of early June 2026. CDPHE argues the statutory claims are untimely under the Administrative Procedure Act's 35-day judicial review window, that the due process, nondelegation, and First Amendment claims fail on the merits, and that the Circular Action Alliance and the Lubricants Packaging Management Association are necessary parties. ILMA did not seek a preliminary injunction, so the program remains in effect. Source: Arnold and Porter (June 1, 2026); Foley and Lardner (April 6, 2026).

Comment Period CA Week of June 15, 2026

CAA Files Draft SB 54 Program Plan; 60-Day Public Comment Period Opens

Circular Action Alliance submitted its draft five-year California Program Plan to the SB 54 Producer Responsibility Advisory Board on June 15, 2026. A 60-day public comment period is open from June 15 through August 14, 2026, after which CAA has 60 days to respond before filing a revised plan (expected October 2026) for CalRecycle approval ahead of the January 1, 2027 program start. The Advisory Board discussed the draft plan at a public meeting on June 26, 2026. CalRecycle published the statewide needs assessment synthesis report on February 18, 2026 (Publication DRRR-2026-1774); producers and environmental advocates have flagged the plan's compressed development timeline as limiting public input. Producers can review the plan and submit comments through the CAA California program plan public comment page. Source: Circular Action Alliance (July 2026); Resource Recycling (June 15, 2026).

Litigation OR Week of June 15, 2026

Court Denies AF&PA Bid to Join Oregon NAW Suit; Injunction Confirmed NAW-Members-Only

On April 1, 2026 the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon denied motions to intervene in NAW v. Feldon filed by the American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) and a group of retail associations (Oregon Business and Industry, the Northwest Grocery Association, and Food Northwest), finding the motions untimely and prejudicial to the expedited July 13, 2026 trial. The court reaffirmed that its February 6, 2026 preliminary injunction shields NAW member companies only; all other producers remain fully subject to Oregon DEQ enforcement. Source: Packaging Dive; Recycling Today; Resource Recycling (April 2026).

Platform

Site Updates

Site Update Week of July 20, 2026

New: Design for Recyclability Rater (beta)

The Design for Recyclability Rater is now live in beta. Build a package component by component and it scores the design against APR and How2Recycle recyclability logic, then maps the result to each active EPR state: California from the SB 54 CMC list, Oregon from its Uniform Statewide Collection List, and the other active states shown as pending. You get a DfR score, a recyclable-weight share, likely How2Recycle labels per component, an EPR fee-risk read, and re-scored design moves that raise the score. It is a planning estimate, not a compliance or on-pack-claim determination, and feedback on the tool shapes the next iteration. Source: EPRAtlas.com.

Site Update Week of July 13, 2026

New: Design for Recyclability Tab

A new Design for Recyclability tab explains how design decisions become recyclability determinations that set your eco-modulation fee, material by material: plastics, glass, paper and fiber, metal, decoration, on-pack claims under California SB 343, How2Recycle labeling, and the California CMC list. Because each material is recycled through a different system, each has its own governing design rule, so the tab treats them separately. To model the fee impact of a specific design change, it links to the Unit EPR Fee Calculator; the Design for Recyclability Rater scores a package against these rules. Source: EPRAtlas.com.

Site Update Week of July 13, 2026

New: Resources Tab

A new Resources tab gathers the primary sources and further reading behind EPR Atlas in one place: the program administrator (CAA) and state agencies, non-profits and industry groups (including How2Recycle), law-firm trackers, trade press, and EPR compliance software. Source: EPRAtlas.com.

Site Update Week of July 6, 2026

New: Combined "State Tracker" Tab

The State Map and State Deep Dive tabs are now one "State Tracker" tab. Pick a state on the map or in the all-states table and its full profile opens in place: fees, an anticipated fee-trajectory signal, eco-modulation, covered-products scope and exclusions, design-compliance pressure, responsible-producer and reporting guidance, and design levers (PCR, source reduction, and toxics). The seven enacted states also link to their standalone state pages. Oregon adds a producer compliance lookup to the state's public registry (ORS 459A.869(8)). Source: EPRAtlas.com.

Site Update Week of June 15, 2026

New This Week: California Draft Fee Schedule, Expanded Fee Estimator, and EPR Fees by State

Several features launched this week: (1) the fee calculators now use California's draft 2027 EPR base fee schedule, sourced from CAA's program plan (Table 5) filed June 15, 2026, with final rates expected October 2026. (2) The Total EPR Fee Estimator added more material categories (gable-top and aseptic cartons, molded fiber, PP and BOPP film, coated paperboard) and a per-state eco-modulation reference panel. (3) A new "EPR fees by state" summary was added to the fee calculator guide. The hub also moved to a cleaner, more consistent layout across all tabs. Source: EPRAtlas.com.

ℹ️ About This Tab

This tab shows developments from the last 30 days across U.S. packaging EPR programs, organized into two sections. Regulatory & Policy covers new enactments, fee schedule changes, enforcement actions, legislative updates, comment periods, and implementation delays. Site Updates covers new hub features and data additions.

The program administrator and state-agency sources we monitor each week, along with non-profits, legal analysis, and trade press, are collected on the Resources tab.

About the Resources

A curated directory of the primary sources and further reading behind EPR Atlas: the statutes, program plans, and reporting we synthesize on the hub. Entries are chosen for accuracy and usefulness to packaging producers.

Editorially curated by EPR Atlas. Links are provided for reference and do not imply endorsement by the linked organizations. Official statutes and program plans always control. Suggest a resource through the Contact form.

U.S. packaging EPR at a glance

Seven states have enacted packaging Extended Producer Responsibility laws covering roughly one in five Americans. If your brand appears on packaging sold into any of them, you are likely an obligated producer. The obligation is annual and it compounds: register once, report every year, pay a fee based on what you reported, and live with design decisions that set that fee for years. The expensive part is not the filing. It is that the packaging you specify this year determines what you pay on it every year after.

The date

Annual supply reports have landed at the end of May. That date is set by the Circular Action Alliance as the PRO, not by statute, and it has only been aligned across states since the 2026 cycle. Confirm each cycle. California's Individual Source Reduction Plan is due to CAA on August 1, 2026.

Who is in scope

Producer hierarchies differ by state. California has no importer tier and uses a personal jurisdiction test. Colorado and Oregon put the importer last. A private label retailer sits near the top in all three, not the bottom.

Live cost

Oregon fees since July 2025, Colorado dues since January 2026 on a two-year data lag. California early fees are estimated for August 2026 with full program fees from January 2027.

The common trap

Exemption tests are not uniform. Colorado and Oregon are OR tests, so meeting any one criterion exempts you, and both revenue thresholds are company-wide rather than in-state. Reading them as in-state revenue is the expensive mistake.

Four moves, in order

Confirm who is obligated, state by state. Three states, three different cascades, plus material-specific hierarchies that override the general one for e-commerce, service packaging and publications. The answer does not transfer between states. The Scope Screener does this in seven questions →
Build the component-level data spine once. Material, weight, resin, coatings, recycled content, recyclability evidence, by component, by SKU. The same dataset feeds annual reporting, fee modeling, eco-modulation claims and any life cycle work. Building it three times is the most common waste in this whole process.
Report, pay, then check the invoice against your own numbers. Reports go in first and fees are invoiced afterward, so the invoice is the first time you see what your data actually cost you. Reconcile it.
Feed the data back into design. Eco-modulation is the only lever that lowers a recurring cost. Everything else is administration.

Reporting and fee reduction are different projects. Most producers treat EPR as a filing exercise and stop once the report is in. The filing is a cost of doing business. The savings live in what the data tells you about your portfolio, and that work happens after the report, not before it.

Not sure this reaches you at all? Start with the Scope Screener. Otherwise expand any section below for detail. Deadlines by state are on the Reporting Deadlines page, thresholds on De Minimis, and fee schedules on Fees by State.

Does this apply to you, and in which states?

The core test: if your brand appears on packaging sold into an enacted state, you are probably the obligated producer there, wherever your company sits. The obligation follows the brand, not the factory. Packaging manufacturers are generally not the producer, though they carry data duties that make your filing possible.

Brand owner or filler

You sell products in packaging under your own brand, whether you fill it or a co-packer does. In most cases you are the producer.

Co-manufacturer or co-packer

You make or fill product under someone else’s brand. Usually the brand owner is the producer, not you. Watch three exceptions: unbranded product, a foreign brand customer with no U.S. entity, and anything you sell under your own brand.

Retailer with private label

Your store brand makes you the producer for those lines, and you sit near the top of the cascade, not at the bottom. This surprises people.

Importer or first seller

Colorado and Oregon reach you when no brand owner or licensee exists within the United States. California has no importer tier and instead catches whoever sells or distributes into the state.

Packaging maker or supplier

Usually not the obligated producer, but your customers cannot file without your component data. Expect structured data requests every year.

E-commerce seller or 3PL

All three states run a separate rule for shipping packaging that points at whoever packs and ships the order, overriding the general cascade.

Food service and hospitality

Service packaging and food serviceware follow their own hierarchy, generally landing on the first seller in or into the state.

Do not assume a small company is out. Colorado and Oregon exempt on any one of several criteria, so a small producer often is exempt, automatically. But both revenue thresholds are measured on company-wide revenue, so a large national business with modest sales in one state is generally not exempt there. California has no tonnage exemption at all, and its small producer exemption must be applied for and approved rather than simply claimed.

The annual cycle, step by step

Register. Confirm you are the obligated producer, then join CAA in each state where you have an obligation. California has three pathways rather than one, and its election deadline of June 1, 2026 has passed, so a producer who has not registered is now in a compliance gap rather than making a choice.

Build the data. Assemble a component-level bill of materials for every covered SKU, then fill the gaps from suppliers. This is where nearly all the effort goes, and it is the part that pays back if you scope it once for every downstream use.

Report. File the annual supply report through the CAA Producer Reporting Portal, covering the prior calendar year. Expect plausibility checks; if your tonnage looks unusual against industry norms you will get a query, so keep the methodology alongside the numbers.

Pay, then reconcile. CAA validates and invoices an eco-modulated fee. The invoice is the first hard signal of what your portfolio actually costs. Read it against your own model rather than filing it.

Two things suppliers routinely get wrong, and both inflate or corrupt your filing if they reach you unchallenged. Only post-consumer recycled content counts, not factory regrind or offcuts. And weight means the empty component, not the filled product. Say both explicitly in every request.

Reporting detail differs by state. California, Colorado and Oregon all require detailed reports, with California described more precisely as covered material category level with component splitting and plastic component counts. Minnesota, Maryland and Washington ran a simplified aggregate report for the 2026 cycle, and Maryland's registration itself carries a materials-by-weight requirement.

Where to put your effort, phase by phase

Now

Close the gaps that are already open

Next 90 days

Confirm registration status in every enacted state, and treat any gap as urgent.

Several registration and election deadlines have passed. Oregon has published producer compliance status by name, and failure to register there is a Class 1 violation carrying penalties of up to $25,000 per day.

Re-test your exemption position on the correct basis.

If anyone concluded you were exempt on in-state revenue, that conclusion is probably wrong. Colorado's threshold is CPI-adjusted annually, so a producer near the line can move in or out of scope year to year.

California producers: file the Individual Source Reduction Plan by August 1, 2026.

It sits outside the May reporting rhythm and is easy to miss. See the source reduction page for what it asks for.

Build the data spine properly, once

This cycle

Scope the component dataset for every downstream use, not just the annual report.

Reporting, fee modeling, eco-modulation claims and life cycle work all draw on the same fields. Collecting them separately, a year apart, is the most common avoidable cost in the whole program.

Capture packaging data at new product setup rather than at reporting time.

Once the data lives in spec creation, each year is a refresh rather than a rebuild. Train buyers to flag packaging changes to whoever owns reporting.

Model your exposure before the invoice arrives.

Reports go in before fees come out, so without your own model the invoice is the first number you see. Use the fee tools on this site to get ahead of it.

Forward

Turn the data into lower fees

12 to 36 months

Prioritize redesign by fee impact, not by intuition.

Eco-modulation is where reporting stops being a cost and starts being a lever. The rules differ sharply: Oregon runs LCA-based bonuses, Colorado runs benchmark credits with automatic material maluses, and California phases in passive modulation from 2027 and active feature-based maluses from 2028.

Do not import one state's mechanism into another.

There is no carbon black provision anywhere in Oregon's program, and no concentrated-liquid bonus in Colorado. Assumptions carried across borders, or in from European schemes, are the single most common source of wrong advice in this field.

Oregon large producers: plan the mandatory life cycle evaluations now.

First submissions are due December 31, 2026 on DEQ's own templates, with June 30, 2027 for producers who appeared only on the final list. An ISO 14040 and 14044 study with third-party critical review does not compress.

Mobilize your team and brief leadership

Get your organization moving

Name one owner. EPR sits across packaging, procurement, legal, finance and sustainability, and it stalls without a single accountable person.
Find your exposure before you argue about it. Run the portfolio through the fee tools on this site to put a number on it. A number moves budget conversations that a regulation summary never will.
Separate the filing from the savings. Staff the annual report as an operational task, and treat fee reduction as a distinct project with its own owner and its own return.

Brief your executives

It is recurring, not a one-off. Fees are annual and rise as eco-modulation phases in through 2027 to 2029.
The decisions that set the cost are design decisions. Packaging specified today carries its fee for the life of the format.
Non-compliance is visible. Oregon has published producer status by name, and penalties reach $25,000 per day.
Litigation is not relief. Three challenges are pending and none has produced relief reaching a general producer. Keep filing.

The 30 second version: seven states now charge us for the packaging we put on the market, the bill is annual and grows, and the size of it is set by design choices we are making right now. If we get our component data right once, we can cut the fee instead of just paying it.

Frequently asked questions

The questions companies ask first when packaging EPR lands on their desk. Planning context, not legal advice.

Am I the obligated producer, or is my packaging supplier?

Almost always you, not the supplier. The obligation follows the brand on the package. Your packaging manufacturer generally has data duties rather than a filing duty. The exception worth checking is where you sell unbranded packaging or components onward, which can put you in the producer tier for those items.

Is my small company exempt?

Possibly, and the tests are more generous than people assume, but they differ. Colorado and Oregon exempt a producer meeting any one of several criteria, and both operate automatically. California has no tonnage exemption and its small producer exemption must be applied for and approved. Critically, the Colorado and Oregon revenue thresholds are measured on company-wide revenue, not sales in that state.

Does business-to-business packaging count?

In California, yes. SB 54 reaches primary, secondary and tertiary packaging placed on the California market whether the sale is to a consumer or a business, so a company selling only to business customers is still an obligated producer there. Colorado and Oregon generally exclude business-to-business transport packaging. Do not assume transport packaging is out of scope everywhere.

What actually drives the fee?

Weight by material category, adjusted for recyclability. Well-sorted high-value materials such as aluminum, clear PET and corrugated sit at the low end. Flexible film, multi-material laminates and foam sit at the high end, sometimes by an order of magnitude. That spread is why component-level material data matters more than total tonnage.

Do I need a life cycle assessment?

In Oregon, sometimes yes, in two different ways. The voluntary eco-modulation bonuses all require an LCA conducted to ISO 14040 and 14044 with third-party critical review. Separately, Oregon requires its largest producers to submit mandatory life cycle evaluations on DEQ templates, first due December 31, 2026. Neither is a general requirement in California or Colorado today.

The programs are being sued. Can I wait?

No. Three challenges are live, including a seventeen-state action against California filed in June 2026 and a case tried in Oregon in July 2026 with a ruling expected. None has produced an injunction reaching producers generally, nothing is stayed, and deadlines and penalties remain in force. A program under challenge is still a program in force.

How much of this can I hand to the PRO?

Less than people hope. CAA runs the portal, validates submissions, files with the agencies and invoices you, but it cannot tell you which entity is obligated, cannot build your bill of materials, and has no view on whether your packaging should change. The judgment and the data stay with you.

What is the single most common mistake?

Importing a rule from somewhere else. European mechanisms applied to U.S. states, one state's bonus assumed to exist in another, or last year's threshold assumed to still hold. The programs look similar and differ in exactly the places that cost money.

Not sure whether any of this reaches you?

The Scope Screener asks seven questions and returns a per-state read on whether you are an obligated producer, with the rule behind each answer and an evidence label showing whether it was read in the primary text. It handles the parts people get wrong most often: that the Colorado, Oregon and Maryland exemptions are OR tests measured on company-wide revenue rather than in-state, that the three one-ton prongs are not the same ton, and that California has no tonnage exemption at all.

Run the Scope Screener →

How I can help

Everything above, and every tracker, fee table and deadline on this site, is free and stays free. What follows is advisory work, delivered under a scope of work. It is where the judgment lives rather than the facts.

Life cycle assessment and Oregon evaluations

ISO 14040 and 14044 studies with third-party critical review, for Oregon's eco-modulation bonuses or its mandatory large-producer evaluations. Around twenty years of LCA and packaging practice behind it.

Supplier data collection

Designing the request, scoping the fields once so they serve reporting, fees and LCA together, then running supplier engagement and holding data quality. The part most programs underestimate.

Fee reduction roadmap

Which design changes, in what order, against which state's scheme, with the fee impact and a business case attached. A calculator gives an estimate; this gives a prioritized plan.

Obligated party and scope determination

Working the cascade against your actual distribution chain, state by state, including the material-specific overrides. Rarely obvious for private label, licensing, co-packing or import structures.

EPR operating framework

Building the internal program so reporting becomes a refresh rather than a fire drill: capture at new product setup, ownership, governance, and the calendar across every state you sell into.

Process automation

Most producers got through the first cycle manually, in spreadsheets and email. The second is where that stops paying. Automating the data pull, the supplier request cycle and the roll-up cuts both the annual effort and the error rate.

Facing a deadline, or trying to lower the bill?

Whether it is an Oregon life cycle evaluation due in December, a scope question you cannot resolve internally, or a fee number that arrived larger than expected, a short conversation usually clarifies it quickly.

Get in touch

Orientation prepared by EPR Atlas, current as of July 2026. Deadlines, thresholds and fee rates change every cycle, and several are set by the PRO rather than by statute. Confirm current values with CAA and the state agencies before acting. This is operational guidance, not legal advice.

Unlock Ask Atlas

Ask Atlas

See the full calculator

Brand owner or filler

Co-manufacturer or co-packer

Retailer with private label

Importer or first seller

Packaging maker or supplier

E-commerce seller or 3PL

Food service and hospitality

Close the gaps that are already open

Build the data spine properly, once

Turn the data into lower fees

Get your organization moving

Brief your executives

Life cycle assessment and Oregon evaluations

Supplier data collection

Fee reduction roadmap

Obligated party and scope determination

EPR operating framework

Process automation

Facing a deadline, or trying to lower the bill?

Contact

Thanks for reaching out