Two questions get called the B2B question and they have different answers. This page separates them, gives each enacted state’s position on B2B and transport packaging, and answers the one nobody publishes: whether a company that sells empty packaging to a filler is a producer.
Free. Updated weekly. No login required.
Facts on this page were last verified against primary sources on September 9, 2026. The EPR Atlas is re-checked weekly; this stamp moves only when a verification pass actually runs, not when the site rebuilds.
Almost every argument about B2B packaging is a scope argument being conducted as a producer argument. Separating them fixes most of the confusion on its own.
Test one, is this packaging a covered material at all. B2B and transport exclusions live here, along with the categorical carve-outs for medical, pharmaceutical and hazardous packaging. If the packaging is out of scope, nothing else matters.
Test two, who is the producer. A statutory cascade that stops at the first tier that exists. The familiar five-tier shape, manufacturer then licensee then brand owner then importer then first distributor, is only the Washington, Maryland, Minnesota and Maine shape. Colorado and Oregon run three tiers with no brand-owner tier at all, and California puts a manufacturer that owns or is the licensee of the brand in tier 1. This is worked through state by state on Am I an Obligated Producer?
Test three, are you above the threshold. Separate numbers, separate logic, separate page: de minimis thresholds by state.
Run them in that order and per state. A company can be plainly the producer of packaging that is out of scope, and out of scope in one state for the same item it must report in another.
They have different answers and they are decided by different provisions, so it is worth knowing which one you are asking.
Question one, I sell empty packaging to another company that fills it and sells it on. This is a converter, a bottle maker, a carton supplier, and the question is whether empty packaging is a covered material in your hands at all, and the answer is generally no, for reasons that have nothing to do with your customer being a business.
Question two, my finished packaged product only ever goes to business customers. This is where the state rules actually operate, and they are more varied than "B2B is excluded". Two states reach it by definition, packaging being only what reaches a consumer for personal, noncommercial use. One turns on the word solely. One counts business customers on municipal collection as consumers. One has only a narrow industrial-input exemption. One does not exclude transport packaging at all and prices some of it. One has no general exclusion of any kind.
Two authorities answer this expressly, and they come from opposite ends of the strictness scale.
Maryland says it in the regulation. COMAR 26.04.14.02B(21)(c):
"Packaging" does not include packaging that is sold as a product that is empty at the time of sale.
California says it in the PRO's guidance, and California is the state with no general B2B exemption at all. CAA's producer-definitions guidance:
Empty packaging materials not yet used by a good are not "single-use packaging" or otherwise "covered material" under the Act, such that a person is not a producer merely because they manufacture, sell, offer for sale, or distribute such materials.
Circular Action Alliance, Covered Materials and Producer Definitions: California, revised May 2026, page 13. PRO guidance rather than statute, and the interpretation the entity administering the program has published. Maine reaches the same place by definition: 38 MRSA 2146(1)(I) defines packaging material by what leaves a point of sale with, or is received by, the consumer of the product.
If the empty-packaging supplier is outside scope in California, the position holds in the other six. The obligation attaches when the packaging is used by a good that is sold, and it attaches to the party the cascade names, which for an ordinary branded product is the brand owner.
Three things pull it back onto the supplier, and they are the cases worth checking.
Food serviceware is covered even when sold empty. This is the express counter-example and it catches a lot of converters. Oregon's rule at OAR 340-090-0840 says food serviceware "is sold empty or unused to a retailer, a dine-in food establishment or a take-out food establishment, regardless of whether the item is used to prepackage food for resale, is filled on site for food ordered by a customer or is resold as is." A company selling empty cups, clamshells or trays is in a different position from one selling empty cosmetic jars, and the difference is not a matter of degree.
Packaging with no brand on it reaches the manufacturer at tier one. Every state that puts the manufacturer first drafts that tier narrowly enough to catch two things: goods sold under the manufacturer's own brand, and packaging that carries no brand identification at all. Unbranded and generic lines follow the factory whatever the supply agreement says.
Anything you sell under your own brand makes you the brand owner for that slice. A converter with a private-label or own-brand line is the producer for that line and a supplier for the rest.
Being out of scope does not make you free of the work. Every state gives suppliers data duties in practice, because a brand owner cannot file without component material, weight and recyclability data it does not hold. Expect obligated customers to ask, and expect the ask to get more specific each cycle.
The short version of each state's position, with what it means for a company selling empty packaging into that state. The full wording for each is in the sections below.
| State | B2B and transport packaging | If you sell empty packaging |
|---|---|---|
| Oregon | Not excludedverified September 9, 2026 | Supplier is not the producer. Oregon has no brand-owner tier; ORS 459A.866(1)(a) runs own-brand manufacturer, licensee, importer, and OAR 340-090-0860(1)(a) reaches a brand owner that specifies its packaging at tier 1. |
| Colorado | Excluded, but only where used SOLELY B2Bverified September 9, 2026 | Supplier is not the producer. Three-tier cascade with the importer last and no brand-owner tier, C.R.S. 25-17-703(30)(a). |
| California | No general B2B exemptionverified September 9, 2026 | Expressly not the producer per CAA guidance. Note tier 1 here reaches a manufacturer that owns OR is the licensee of the brand, PRC 42041(w)(1), which is broader than the other six. |
| Maine | Narrower than a B2B exclusion: business customers on municipal collection count as consumersverified September 9, 2026 | Supplier is not the producer. 38 MRSA 2146(1)(I) defines packaging material by what leaves a point of sale with or is received by the consumer, so empties sold as product are not packaging material in the seller's hands. Full five-tier cascade; one of four states where a written assignment can move the duty. |
| Minnesota | Only a narrow industrial-input exemption, three conditions, all requiredverified September 9, 2026 | Supplier is not the producer. Full five-tier cascade under Minn. Stat. 115A.1441 subd. 26, and one of four states where a written assignment can move the obligation, subd. 26(a)(6)(i). |
| Maryland | Out by definition: packaging means what reaches a consumer for personal, noncommercial useverified September 9, 2026 | Expressly not the producer. COMAR 26.04.14.02B(21)(c): packaging does not include packaging that is sold as a product that is empty at the time of sale. Also one of four states where a written certification can move the obligation, (25)(p). |
| Washington | Out by definition: packaging means what reaches a consumer for personal, noncommercial useverified September 9, 2026 | Supplier is not the producer. RCW 70A.208.020(29)(a)(i) puts the manufacturer first but reaches it only for own-brand and unbranded goods; brand owner is tier 3. One of four states where a written assignment can move the duty, (29)(a)(vi)(A). |
The sentence "B2B transport packaging is excluded" is repeated across the industry and it is wrong in Oregon in a way that costs money.
Oregon does not exclude transport packaging. The CAA Oregon 2026 fee schedule carries a line for "Corrugated Cardboard (Tertiary/transport) non-consumer" at 0.0 cents per pound, listed on the uniform statewide collection list. In scope, reportable, zero rated. It also carries "HDPE (#2)/LDPE (#4) (Pallet Wrap) non-consumer" at 34.0 cents per pound, against 43.0 for general flexible film. That is a discounted line, not an exclusion, and a producer who treats Oregon transport packaging as out will understate a real fee.
Zero rated still has to be reported. DEQ runs a passive claims approach for these two materials: to claim the ORS 459A.863(6)(b)(J) not-discarded-in-Oregon exemption you file no form, but gross volumes must reach CAA by the May 31 deadline. A company that hears "no fee" and stops collecting the data has no way to answer the same question in a state that does charge.
Who applies the wrap decides the answer. DEQ FAQ Q9 says distributor-applied pallet wrap is exempt only where that distributor is not itself the obligated producer under ORS 459A.866(1)(a) to (c). The same roll of film is 34.0 cents or nothing depending on which party in the chain puts it on the pallet.
C.R.S. 25-17-703(25)(b) excludes packaging used solely in transportation or distribution to nonconsumers, and solely in business-to-business transactions where the covered material is not intended to be distributed to the end consumer. Most summaries of Colorado's exclusion drop that word, and dropping it changes the answer.
Take a corrugated shipper used for retail distribution and also for direct-to-consumer e-commerce. It is not used solely for either, so the exclusion fails for that SKU. Any mixed channel, which describes most producers now, cannot claim the exclusion wholesale. The question in Colorado is not whether the packaging is tertiary. It is whether any unit of that packaging reaches a household.
Colorado also excludes material used exclusively in industrial or manufacturing processes at (13)(b)(VI), which is a narrower gate than it reads at first and turns on the same word.
The standard practitioner line is that a contract moves the cost of an EPR obligation but never the statutory duty. That is right in California, Colorado and Oregon, whose producer definitions contain no assignment provision at all. It is wrong in Washington, Minnesota, Maine and Maryland, and it is wrong in the direction that matters, because a co-packer, private-label supplier or brand licensee that assumes it cannot take on the duty will not put the formalities in place that would let it.
Washington. RCW 70A.208.020(29)(a)(vi)(A) makes another person the producer where that person "has mutually signed an agreement with a producer ... that contractually assigns responsibility to the person as the producer, and the person has joined a registered producer responsibility organization as the responsible producer". The original producer "must provide written certification of that contractual agreement to the producer responsibility organization". Two categories cannot be the assignee: a person producing an agricultural commodity under another manufacturer's brand, and a distributor of a beverage sold in a beverage container.
Minnesota. Minn. Stat. 115A.1441 subd. 26(a)(6)(i) is the Washington provision almost word for word: another person is the producer "where another person has mutually signed an agreement with a producer ... that contractually assigns responsibility to the person as the producer, and the person has joined a registered producer responsibility organization as the responsible producer", with the original producer required to "provide written certification of that contractual agreement to the producer responsibility organization". Read against the Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes text of 115A.1441, which is where this subdivision lives; CAA's Minnesota producer-definitions guidance quotes the same words but labels the section 115A.144.
Maine. 38 MRSA 2146 carries the same structure. A signed agreement assigning the responsibility to act as producer works where the assignee "registers with the stewardship organization to participate in the program on behalf of the person and written certification of the assignment of responsibility is provided to the stewardship organization". Note the practical catch: Maine's stewardship organization RFP drew no bids, so there is currently no organization to register with or certify to.
Maryland. COMAR 26.04.14.02B(25)(p) recognizes a written certification transferring producer responsibility.
Three formalities in three states, two in Maryland, and never a bare clause. In Washington, Minnesota and Maine the mechanism needs a mutually signed agreement, the assignee actually registering with the PRO or stewardship organization as the responsible producer, and written certification going to that organization. Maryland asks for two of the three: the executed agreement and the written certification, with nothing on its face requiring the assignee to register as the responsible producer. Maryland is also the one that removes rather than transfers, since (25)(p) is drafted as an exclusion from the definition of producer, so it takes the first entity out instead of putting the assignee in. A bare indemnity in a supply agreement does none of this and moves nothing anywhere. Co-packing and private-label contracts written before these provisions existed rarely address any of it.
In California, Colorado and Oregon a commercial allocation is still worth having, because it decides who bears the cost and who supplies the data. It just does not decide who is on the hook to the state.
Position: Not excluded
CAREFUL: Oregon does NOT simply exclude tertiary. Four separate subsections do the work and each is narrow: (D) rigid pallets used as a structural foundation for forklift transport, (E) specialty items used exclusively in industrial or manufacturing processes, (H) pallet wrap added by a person that is not the producer of the palletized goods, and (J) any item not ultimately discarded inside the state. Non-consumer tertiary corrugated is on the USCL at 0.0 c/lb and non-consumer pallet wrap is PRICED at 34.0 c/lb against 43.0 for general flexible film. Both are in scope and both must be reported. DEQ runs a passive claims approach for those two: to claim the (J) not-discarded-in-Oregon exemption you file no form, but you must report gross volumes to CAA by the May 31 deadline. And who applies the wrap decides: DEQ FAQ Q9 says distributor-applied pallet wrap is exempt only if that distributor is not the obligated producer under ORS 459A.866(1)(a)-(c).
Where it comes from: ORS 459A.863(6)(b)(D) exempts rigid pallets; (6)(b)(H) reaches pallet wrap added by a non-producer; (6)(b)(J) covers items not ultimately discarded in Oregon. There is no general B2B exclusion.
If you sell empty packaging here: Supplier is not the producer. Oregon has no brand-owner tier; ORS 459A.866(1)(a) runs own-brand manufacturer, licensee, importer, and OAR 340-090-0860(1)(a) reaches a brand owner that specifies its packaging at tier 1.
Position: Excluded, but only where used SOLELY B2B
The word SOLELY is load-bearing and almost nobody writes it down. (25)(b)(I) excludes packaging used SOLELY in transportation or distribution to nonconsumers, and (II) SOLELY in business-to-business transactions where the covered material is not intended to reach the end consumer; (13)(b)(VI) excludes material used EXCLUSIVELY in industrial or manufacturing processes. A corrugated shipper used for retail distribution AND for direct-to-consumer e-commerce is not used solely for either, so the exclusion fails for that SKU. Any mixed channel, which is most producers, cannot claim it wholesale. The question in Colorado is not is this tertiary, it is does any unit of this packaging reach a household.
Where it comes from: C.R.S. 25-17-703(25)(b)(I) and (II) exclude packaging used solely in transportation or distribution to nonconsumers and solely in business-to-business transactions where the covered material is not intended to reach the end consumer. (13)(b)(VI) excludes material used exclusively in industrial or manufacturing processes.
If you sell empty packaging here: Supplier is not the producer. Three-tier cascade with the importer last and no brand-owner tier, C.R.S. 25-17-703(30)(a).
Position: No general B2B exemption
California does not provide a general B2B exemption, and it is the only one of the seven states with none at all. SB 54 covers primary, secondary and tertiary packaging placed on the CA market regardless of whether the sale is B2C or B2B. Producers selling exclusively to business customers are still subject to registration, reporting and fee obligations. The one adjacent relief is definitional rather than an exclusion: CAA's California guidance states that empty packaging materials not yet used by a good are not covered material, so a converter selling empties is not a producer.
Where it comes from: PRC 42041(w) defines the producer with no importer tier and an in-state test. Only narrow categorical exclusions apply, such as beverage containers under the CRV program.
If you sell empty packaging here: Expressly not the producer per CAA guidance. Note tier 1 here reaches a manufacturer that owns OR is the licensee of the brand, PRC 42041(w)(1), which is broader than the other six.
Position: Narrower than a B2B exclusion: business customers on municipal collection count as consumers
Narrower than the usual summary, and it changed in 2025. A “consumer” now includes a commercial business that uses or partners with a municipal or state waste management service, so packaging reaching such a business IS in scope. The carve-out is for packaging on a manufacturer's own products where the manufacturer or a producer pays to manage it and it is “used solely for transportation of the products to persons that are not consumers” or generated in the manufacturing process. Note the word solely. There is no general B2B exclusion.
Where it comes from: 38 MRSA 2146(1)(C-1), added by PL 2025 c. 383: a consumer includes a commercial business that uses or partners with a municipal or state waste management service. The only carve-out is packaging on a manufacturer's own products, where the manufacturer or a producer pays to manage it and it is used solely for transportation to persons that are not consumers, or is generated in the manufacturing process.
If you sell empty packaging here: Supplier is not the producer. 38 MRSA 2146(1)(I) defines packaging material by what leaves a point of sale with or is received by the consumer, so empties sold as product are not packaging material in the seller's hands. Full five-tier cascade; one of four states where a written assignment can move the duty.
Position: Only a narrow industrial-input exemption, three conditions, all required
Much narrower than 'B2B excluded'. The exemption reaches covered materials that (i) a producer distributes to another producer, (ii) are then used to contain a product distributed to a commercial or business entity for the production of another product, and (iii) are not introduced to anyone other than that entity. All three conditions must hold, so this is an industrial-input exemption. A corrugated shipper carrying finished goods to a retailer meets none of them and is not exempt. Read from CAA's Minnesota producer-definitions guidance, which quotes the statute.
Where it comes from: Minn. Stat. 115A.1441 subd. 16(14) exempts covered materials that a producer distributes to another producer, that are then used to contain a product distributed to a business for the production of another product, and that reach no one else. A shipper carrying finished goods to a retailer meets none of the three. Read from CAA's Minnesota producer-definitions guidance, which quotes the statute; the Revisor text has not been read directly.
If you sell empty packaging here: Supplier is not the producer. Full five-tier cascade under Minn. Stat. 115A.1441 subd. 26, and one of four states where a written assignment can move the obligation, subd. 26(a)(6)(i).
Position: Out by definition: packaging means what reaches a consumer for personal, noncommercial use
The main test is definitional rather than an exclusion, and it carries an express empty-packaging carve-out. .02B(21)(a): packaging is material that facilitates delivery of a product 'sold or supplied with the product to the consumer for personal, noncommercial use'; (21)(b)(i) includes 'primary, secondary, and tertiary packaging intended for the consumer market'; and (21)(c): 'Packaging does not include packaging that is sold as a product that is empty at the time of sale.' So B2B transport packaging is out because it is not packaging, and a converter selling empties is out by express text. A separate three-part industrial-input exemption at .02B(16)(m) mirrors Minnesota and Washington, and unlike most of the Maryland list it is NOT limited to primary packaging.
Where it comes from: COMAR 26.04.14.02B(21)(a) defines packaging as material that facilitates delivery of a product sold or supplied with the product to the consumer for personal, noncommercial use, and (21)(b)(i) includes primary, secondary and tertiary packaging intended for the consumer market. Transport packaging that never reaches a consumer is not packaging at all. The CMC list is not published until July 1, 2027.
If you sell empty packaging here: Expressly not the producer. COMAR 26.04.14.02B(21)(c): packaging does not include packaging that is sold as a product that is empty at the time of sale. Also one of four states where a written certification can move the obligation, (25)(p).
Position: Out by definition: packaging means what reaches a consumer for personal, noncommercial use
The main test is definitional, not an exclusion. Packaging is material that 'is sold or supplied with the product to the consumer for personal, noncommercial use'. Transport and B2B packaging that never reaches a consumer for personal use is simply not packaging under the Act. Exclusivity is not the test; the question is whether any of it is supplied to a consumer for personal, noncommercial use. A separate three-part industrial-input exemption sits at sec. 102(19)(o) and mirrors Minnesota subd. 16(14): distributed producer to producer, then used to contain a product going to a commercial or business entity for the production of another product, and never introduced to anyone else. All three conditions required.
Where it comes from: RCW 70A.208.020(25)(a): packaging is material that is sold or supplied with the product to the consumer for personal, noncommercial use. There is no B2B exclusion because B2B transport packaging is not packaging under the definition, and exclusivity is not the test.
If you sell empty packaging here: Supplier is not the producer. RCW 70A.208.020(29)(a)(i) puts the manufacturer first but reaches it only for own-brand and unbranded goods; brand owner is tier 3. One of four states where a written assignment can move the duty, (29)(a)(vi)(A).
Run the three tests in order and per state. The scope screener walks all three and returns a per-state read with the rule behind each answer. If the blocker is that you cannot see your volumes by state, that is a separate problem with its own page: reporting volumes you cannot directly measure. For the producer cascade written out state by state see Am I an Obligated Producer?, for the thresholds see de minimis by state, and for what transport packaging actually costs where it is priced see fees by state.
Every state guide carries the full fee schedule, registration deadlines, program plan status, eco-modulation detail, statute and rule text, and exemptions.