Whether packaging EPR reaches you turns on three questions, whether the packaging is covered, whether you are the producer, and whether you are above the small-producer threshold. This page covers the second. The producer cascade varies by state, California has no importer tier, and private label sits near the top rather than the bottom.
This page is free to read and updated weekly, and the fee calculator needs a free EPR Atlas account.
Last updated October 25, 2026.
Working out whether U.S. packaging EPR reaches you breaks into three separate tests, run in order.
The first test is whether the packaging is a covered material at all, which is decided before anyone asks who files. The B2B and transport exclusions are part of this test, along with the categorical carve-outs for medical, pharmaceutical, and hazardous packaging, and the states disagree with each other more here than anywhere else. This test has its own page: B2B packaging and EPR.
The second test, if the packaging is covered, is whether you are the producer for that item in that state, which depends on a statutory cascade that differs in each state.
The third test, if you are the producer, is whether you are above the small-producer threshold, a separate question with its own numbers, covered on the de minimis thresholds page.
This page is the second test. A company can be the producer of packaging that turns out to be out of scope, can be the producer and still be exempt on volume, and can be under a threshold in one state and over it in another. Run them in order and per state.
The Scope Screener asks seven questions and returns a per-state read, with the rule behind each answer and its evidence label.
The obligation follows the brand on the package rather than the factory. That is a fair description of where the cascades land, and a poor description of how they are written, which matters because the differences decide the answer for co-packed, unbranded, and licensed lines.
Only four of the seven states run the familiar five-tier shape. Washington, Maryland, Minnesota, and Maine put the manufacturer first, drafted narrowly enough to catch only goods sold under the manufacturer's own brand and goods in packaging with no brand at all, then a licensee, then the brand owner, then the U.S. importer, then the first distributor. In those four an ordinary branded product falls past tier 1 and lands on the brand owner at tier 3.
Colorado's and Oregon's statutes run three tiers. C.R.S. 25-17-703(30)(a) and ORS 459A.866(1)(a) run own-brand or unbranded manufacturer, then the brand or trademark licensee where someone other than the brand owner manufactures, then the U.S. importer only where neither of the first two exists in the United States. Reading the five-tier shape into either statute produces the wrong answer for a co-packed branded good; in both states the brand owner is reached by rule instead, as the next paragraph sets out.
Both states close that gap by rule. In Oregon, OAR 340-090-0860(1)(a) provides that a person who manufactures a packaged item "includes a person that directs the manufacturing of the item, including setting specifications for an item's packaging", while merely "purchasing or ordering an item for retail sale in the normal course of business is not directing manufacturing". Paired with (1)(b), which treats any trademark the manufacturer wholly owns or co-owns as its own brand, a brand owner that specifies its own packaging is reached at tier 1 in Oregon rather than at a brand-owner tier. Colorado's rule does it expressly. CDPHE's rule sets the order of obligation in four steps (6 CCR 1007-2 Part 1, s18.2.2(A)): the brand owner directing or performing the manufacturing of the packaging, then the brand or trademark licensee directing it, then the manufacturer where no brand is identified, then the importer. Its definition of brand owner (s18.1.6) "includes the person directing the manufacturing, including setting specifications for a paper product or a product's packaging", so a brand owner that specifies its own packaging comes first in Colorado's order of obligation.
California puts a licensee-manufacturer in tier 1. PRC 42041(w)(1) reaches a person who manufactures a product using covered material and who "owns or is the licensee of" the brand. The disjunctive matters: a contract manufacturer in the state that holds the exclusive right to use the brand in manufacturing the goods, in the state or a subregion of it, and sells under it satisfies California tier 1 (PRC 42041(w)(2); 14 CCR 18980.1.1(c)(1)), and the (w)(2) brand-owner fallback is never reached. The narrow own-brand-or-unbranded qualifier that is right in the other six states is wrong here.
Across all seven, your packaging manufacturer is generally not the obligated producer, though wherever producers already report, suppliers carry the data work in practice, because a brand owner cannot file without component data it does not hold.
Beyond that shared principle the states diverge, and the differences are large enough to change who files.
Colorado (C.R.S. 25-17-703(30)(a)) and Oregon (ORS 459A.866(1)(a)) use structurally identical cascades for packaging. Each stops at the first tier that applies. Neither statute has a brand-owner tier, so the five-tier shape used in Washington, Maryland, Minnesota, and Maine does not apply here. Both states then reach the brand owner by rule, set out below the list.
Oregon reaches a brand owner without a brand-owner tier. OAR 340-090-0860(1)(a) defines the tier 1 manufacturer to include "a person that directs the manufacturing of the item, including setting specifications for an item's packaging", and expressly excludes merely "purchasing or ordering an item for retail sale in the normal course of business". OAR 340-090-0860(1)(b) then treats any brand or trademark the manufacturer wholly owns or co-owns per the USPTO as the manufacturer's own brand. A brand owner that specifies its own packaging and has a co-packer fill it is reached at tier 1 in Oregon, and the source is the rule, so cite OAR 340-090-0860 for it.
In Colorado, CDPHE's rule, 6 CCR 1007-2 Part 1, s18.2.2(A), "Order of Obligation", lists who is first obligated: (1) the brand owner of the product directing or performing the manufacturing of the packaging material used for the product; (2) if (1) does not apply, the brand or trademark licensee of the product directing the manufacturing of that packaging material; (3) if there is no identified brand on the packaging and neither (1) nor (2) applies, the manufacturer of the product; and (4) if none of those applies, the importer into the United States. Section 18.1.6 defines brand owner to include the person directing the manufacturing, including setting specifications for a product's packaging. So a brand owner that specifies its own packaging and has a co-packer fill it is first obligated under Colorado's rule. The statute's three tiers and the rule's four steps are both in force; cite each for what it says.
The importer tier keys on import into the United States, not import into that state, and it only engages when the first two tiers are empty domestically. A U.S. brand owner that directs the manufacturing, including setting the packaging specifications, does not push the obligation down to its importer (OAR 340-090-0860(1)(a); 6 CCR 1007-2 Part 1, s18.1.6 and s18.2.2(A)(1)).
California runs a different cascade under Public Resources Code 42041(w), with no importer tier and an in-state test.
California has no importer tier at all. The words importer and imports do not appear in the hierarchy. The backstop is a seller and distributor tier, which catches more parties than an importer test would, because it reaches anyone placing the product into the state rather than only the party that brought it into the country.
Where the sale happens is defined, and it is defined chapter-wide. PRC 42041(w)(5) reads: “For purposes of this chapter, the sale of covered materials shall be deemed to occur in the state if the covered materials are delivered to the purchaser in the state.” It is not confined to the producer definition, so it governs the cascade and may also bear on the small-producer threshold at PRC 42060, although that threshold counts gross sales in the state rather than sales of covered materials.
That matters most for anyone selling through distributors. If you deliver to a distributor outside California and the distributor ships the goods in, the sale was not delivered to your purchaser in California, and PRC 42041(w)(5) does not settle whether it is your California sale, because it says “if” and not “only if.” The producer rules do not turn on that, because 14 CCR 18980.1.1(c)(1) names the in-state manufacturer that owns or exclusively licenses the designated brand as the producer, and the seller and distributor backstop applies only where no producer can be identified under subdivisions (c) to (e) (14 CCR 18980.1.1(f)). Where the brand owner or licensee is in the state, a distributor that ships the goods in is the producer only of packaging it adds (14 CCR 18980.1.1(f)(1)). Where neither is in the state, the first person to sell or distribute the good in the state is the producer of all of its covered material (14 CCR 18980.1.1(f)(2)).
The obligation also does not depend on who makes the California sale. It applies if the covered material for which a person is the producer is sold, offered for sale, imported, or distributed in the state by any person (14 CCR 18980.5(b)).
California asks whether you are in the state, not in the United States, and under 14 CCR 18980.1.1 that is a personal jurisdiction test rather than a physical presence one. A person is in the state if subject to the jurisdiction of California courts under Code of Civil Procedure 410.10 and either service of summons can be completed in the state without a court order or the person consents and registers as a producer (14 CCR 18980.1.1(a)). A foreign company that meets that test stays high in the cascade instead of dropping to the backstop tier.
Maryland (COMAR 26.04.14.02B(25)(b)) and Washington (RCW 70A.208.020(29)(a)(i)) run the same five-tier cascade as Minnesota (Minn. Stat. 115A.1441 subd. 26(a)(1)) and Maine (38 MRSA 2146(1)(O)(1)), with the tiers in the same order. For items sold in or with packaging at a physical retail location in the state, each stops at the first tier that applies.
The brand owner sits at tier 3, and the manufacturer is the opening tier. And because tier 1 is scoped to a physical retail location, packaging for remote sales runs on Washington's (a)(ii) and Maryland's 26.04.14.02B(25)(c), and packaging outside both runs on the separate rule at Washington's (a)(iii) and Maryland's 26.04.14.02B(25)(d), which lands on whoever first distributes the item in or into the state.
Franchises move the obligation to the franchisor. Under COMAR 26.04.14.02B(25)(g), where the producer would otherwise be a business operated wholly or in part as a franchise, the producer is the franchisor, provided the franchisor has franchisees with a commercial presence in the State. Washington, Minnesota, and Maine have the same rule, Colorado's rule makes the franchisor the producer where it has franchisees that operate in Colorado (6 CCR 1007-2 Part 1 s18.2.2), and California reaches the in-state franchisor through its franchise and sublicense provision (14 CCR 18980.1.1). If you supply a franchised restaurant or retail system, check this before assuming the obligation is yours.
Beyond the cascade, Maryland's chapter carves entities out of the producer definition entirely. A person is not a producer if they are a State or federal agency, a political subdivision or other governmental unit, a registered 501(c)(3) charitable organization or 501(c)(4) social welfare organization, a mill using any virgin wood fiber in the products it produces, a paper mill producing containerboard from 100 percent recycled content, a restaurant, food cart, or similar establishment headquartered in the State that primarily sells ready-to-eat food and is not a producer of food serviceware, a single retail sales establishment with no online sales that is not part of a franchise or chain, or an entity licensed under the Alcoholic Beverages and Cannabis Article with less than $10,000,000 in gross revenue in the preceding calendar year.
A de minimis producer is also outside the definition rather than merely relieved of a duty. The operative duty for everyone else sits at 26.04.14.06C: a producer may not sell or distribute products using covered materials in the State unless it is registered with an approved producer responsibility organization or holds an approved Individual Producer Responsibility Plan.
In Colorado and Oregon a private-label retailer that directs the manufacturing of its packaging is reached at the top by rule, first in Colorado's order of obligation (6 CCR 1007-2 Part 1, s18.2.2(A)(1)) and at tier 1 in Oregon (OAR 340-090-0860(1)(a)), and otherwise the statutes' second tier names a licensee rather than an owner, with the importer below. In California a store-brand retailer is the in-state brand owner. California puts an in-state manufacturer that owns the brand or is licensed to manufacture the goods ahead of the brand owner (14 CCR 18980.1.1(c)(1)), and Oregon reaches a retailer at tier 1 only where it directs the manufacturing, including setting packaging specifications, because ordering finished goods for resale is not directing manufacturing (OAR 340-090-0860(1)(a)). Where the rules reach the retailer, it sits above the fallback tiers.
The Colorado and Oregon packaging tiers both say licensee of a brand or trademark, not owner, while a private-label retailer is normally the brand owner rather than a licensee. Colorado's own paper-product tier says owner or licensee, and California's statute says owns or is the licensee, so the omission in the packaging tiers reads as a drafting gap rather than a deliberate exclusion. In Colorado the rule narrows the gap, because its order of obligation starts with the brand owner directing or performing the manufacturing of the packaging (6 CCR 1007-2 Part 1, s18.2.2(A)(1)). In practice producer responsibility organizations treat private-label retailers as producers. If your obligation turns on this point, take advice rather than reading the tier list literally.
If you fill or assemble product that goes to market under a customer's brand, the obligation generally sits with that brand owner and not with you. That follows directly from the general principle: the cascade keys on the brand on the package. In Colorado and Oregon you fail the first tier, because the goods do not carry your brand, and the brand owner or its licensee sits above you. In California the in-state brand owner or licensee is the producer. A retailer's store brand usually lands on the retailer, subject to the California and Oregon tests above.
Three situations pull the obligation back onto the company that did the packing, and each has to be checked separately.
Foodservice and bulk deserve their own check rather than an assumption. Packaging that goes to restaurants and distributors rather than onto a retail shelf often falls outside scope because it does not reach a household consumer, but do not treat that as automatic. Service packaging and food serviceware run on their own rules in all three detailed-reporting states, landing on the first seller in or into the state in Oregon (ORS 459A.866(3); OAR 340-090-0860(4)), starting with the brand owner directing or performing the manufacturing in Colorado (6 CCR 1007-2 Part 1, s18.2.2(D)), and following a separate food service ware cascade in California (14 CCR 18980.1.1(d)), and California has no general business-to-business exemption: SB 54 reaches tertiary and transport packaging regardless of whether the sale is to a business.
Four states have an express transfer mechanism. Washington, Minnesota, Maine, and Maryland each let a properly executed assignment move the statutory duty, and none of them does it with a bare clause. Washington, at RCW 70A.208.020(29)(a)(vi)(A), requires a mutually signed agreement contractually assigning responsibility, the assignee joining a registered producer responsibility organization as the responsible producer, and written certification of the agreement to that organization; a person producing an agricultural commodity under another manufacturer's brand and a distributor of a beverage sold in a beverage container are both barred from being the assignee. Minnesota, at Minn. Stat. 115A.1441 subd. 26(a)(6)(i), repeats the Washington mechanism almost word for word but has no barred-assignee list. Maine, at 38 MRSA 2146, uses the same three-part structure, though its stewardship organization RFP drew no bids so there is currently nobody to register with or certify to. Maryland is the outlier, and a supply contract drafted against the Washington template will not fit it: COMAR 26.04.14.02B(25)(p) asks only for an executed agreement and the other entity assuming responsibility by written certification under a producer responsibility program, with no requirement that the assignee register as the responsible producer, and it works by excluding the first entity from the definition of producer rather than naming the assignee as one. California, Colorado, and Oregon contain no assignment provision, so there the statute and rules decide who the producer is, whatever the supply agreement says. The one exception is the California rule letting the owners of brands on a multi-brand good agree which brand is designated (14 CCR 18980.1.1(e)(5)). Oregon does relieve a producer of membership fees for any covered product that another person has registered with a producer responsibility organization as the producer responsible for, and of membership itself where that covers all of its covered product (ORS 459A.869(3), (4)). An informal indemnity between two companies moves nothing in any of the seven. Full detail on the B2B packaging page.
Even where you owe nothing, expect to be asked for data. Every obligated brand customer needs component-level material, weight, and recyclability figures for the packaging you apply, because they cannot file without it, and you are the party that buys the film, the trays, and the cartons and knows the real weights. A co-packer with no filing duty of its own can still field the same request from dozens of customers in dozens of formats. The data requests arrive on the same timeline as the customers' filings.
Colorado, Oregon, and California each run separate producer rules for particular packaging types, and the rules differ by state, as the list below shows. A company can get one answer for its retail packaging and a different answer for part of its portfolio.
Minnesota producers were required to appoint a producer responsibility organization by January 1, 2025 under Minn. Stat. 115A.1443. That is the producer-facing duty, and it is distinct from the organization's own duty to register with the commissioner by July 1, 2026 and each January 1 after that. Fees and detailed reporting arrive later.
Washington requires producers to be a member of a registered producer responsibility organization after July 1, 2026, or to register as one implementing an individual plan, under E2SSB 5284 section 104(1)(a). The organization registers with Ecology by March 1, 2026 and annually after. The statute sets a later enforcement point: from March 1, 2029 a producer that is not a member in good standing and has not submitted an individual plan may not introduce covered materials into the state.
Maryland runs on the definition and registration structure described above, with Individual Producer Responsibility Plans due to the Department by July 1, 2028 or a later date the Department identifies, and a market restriction from October 29, 2028 or a later date the Department identifies (COMAR 26.04.14.10B, C).
Maine is pre-program, and moved further away from operating in August 2026. Its stewardship organization selection RFP closed on August 18 with zero proposals and the Circular Action Alliance says it decided not to bid, so there is no administrator, no registration mechanism, and no producer registration, reporting, or fee obligation to meet.
Packaging manufacturers, converters, and component suppliers are generally not the obligated producer, because the obligation follows the brand. They do carry the data work in practice, and it is substantial: brand owners cannot complete a filing without component material, weight, resin, and recyclability data that only the supplier holds. If you supply packaging, expect structured annual data requests rather than a filing obligation. The exception to check is whether you also make or fill an item sold in packaging with no brand, or sell anything under your own brand, which can place you in the producer tier for those items.
Governments and 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) nonprofits are excluded or exempt in Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington, though Colorado’s government exemption covers only the state and local governments, Oregon exempts nonprofits and public bodies (state, local, and special government bodies, ORS 174.109) as small producers, Maine excludes 501(c)(3) nonprofits only, and California has neither exclusion. Small producers may be excluded by threshold, which is the third test and is covered separately on the de minimis page.
Run the cascade per state, because the answer differs by state, and per packaging type where a material-specific rule applies, because retail packaging and shipping boxes can land on different parties. Document the reasoning at the time, because a position that is obvious now is the one a successor will have to reconstruct.
The Scope Screener runs all of this in seven questions and returns a per-state read with the rule and evidence label behind each answer. Where the rules do not settle the question, it says so, because licensing, co-packing, franchise, and corporate-group structures regularly produce answers a form cannot reach. For those, get in touch.
Every state guide has the fee schedule where one has been published, registration deadlines, program plan status, eco-modulation detail, the statute and any implementing rule, and exemptions.