Am I too small to be covered? This page gives the threshold for every enacted packaging EPR state, whether the two tests are joined by AND or OR, and whether relief is automatic or has to be applied for. Two states break the pattern, and both breaks are expensive to get wrong.
Free. Updated weekly. No login required.
Facts on this page were last verified against primary sources on August 10, 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 producer asks the same question first: am I too small to be covered? Two things decide it, and they are easy to conflate. One is the number. The other is what the number is measured on, and whether relief is automatic. Every enacted state joins its tests with OR, so meeting any one of them is enough. What actually varies is the unit (Oregon counts a metric ton, Colorado a short ton, and Maryland, Minnesota and Washington say "one ton" without specifying), whether revenue is global or in-state, and whether you get the exemption automatically or have to apply for it, as California requires.
| State | Threshold | Test logic | How relief works |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oregon | <1 ton OR <$5M global revenueverified August 10, 2026 | OR logic. Either test qualifies. | Automatic where the test is met. A tiered flat fee is available above it. |
| Colorado | <1 ton OR <$5,632,843 global revenue (Jul 1 2025 figure; CPI-adjusted each Jul 1)verified August 10, 2026 | OR logic. Either test qualifies. | Automatic where the test is met. |
| California | <$1M CA gross sales, must applyverified August 10, 2026 | Revenue only | Application required. This is a formal exemption you must apply for, not an automatic switch. |
| Maine | <1 ton OR <~$2M revenueverified August 10, 2026 | OR logic. Either test qualifies. | Statutory. Mechanics follow once a Stewardship Organization is under contract. |
| Minnesota | <1 ton into MN OR <$2M global revenue (either qualifies; Minn. Stat. 115A.1441 subd. 13)verified August 10, 2026 | OR logic. Either test qualifies. | Automatic where either test is met. |
| Maryland | <1 ton OR <$2M global revenueverified August 10, 2026 | OR logic. Either test qualifies. | Automatic where the test is met; MDE publishes an exempt producer determination form. |
| Washington | <1 ton OR <$5M global revenue OR agricultural employer under $5M in WA own-brand ag sales (any one qualifies; RCW 70A.208.020(16))verified August 10, 2026 | OR logic. Three prongs, any one qualifies. | Automatic where a prong is met. Available now, not from 2031. |
This decides whether a multi-entity business clears de minimis at all, and the answer is not the same in every state. Six of the seven test a single legal person. Oregon does not.
Oregon aggregates. Under OAR 340-090-0860(6), the gross revenues and covered product volumes of associated producers must be added together before the small producer thresholds are applied. Oregon DEQ puts it plainly in its exemptions FAQ: the figures "must be added together across all associated producers before comparing with the small producer de minimis thresholds", and none of the producers in the group is exempt if the aggregate fails. Associated producers are defined broadly and cover same-family ownership in the same line of business, ownership or control of more than 50 percent of another producer directly or indirectly, Internal Revenue Code section 1563(a) controlled groups, certain trust arrangements, and common-control corporation, partnership and LLC combinations.
Note the reach of that rule. It governs the small producer test, the large producer test, and eligibility for the tiered flat fee under ORS 459A.884(6). A corporate group cannot split itself into qualifying entities in Oregon, and it cannot split its way into the flat fee either.
Washington, Maryland, Minnesota, Colorado, Maine and California contain no equivalent. Each defines the de minimis or small producer test against a single "person" or "producer" with no affiliate, parent, subsidiary or common-control aggregation language. Maryland aggregates in exactly one situation, franchises: under COMAR 26.04.14.02B(25)(g) the producer is the franchisor where the franchisor has franchisees with a commercial presence in the State. That single carve-out suggests the absence elsewhere is deliberate rather than an oversight.
Two cautions before anyone acts on this. Reading a threshold as entity-level is not the same as a restructuring being effective, because the producer cascades in Washington, Maryland, Colorado and Maine all reach the manufacturer of goods sold in packaging without brand identification, so unbranded lines follow the factory whatever the corporate chart says. And Oregon's rule shows that a state can choose to aggregate, so treat the six-state position as read-as-at today rather than settled policy.
One Oregon mechanic worth knowing in the other direction. Where a small producer is exempt, its products are orphaned: DEQ confirms that no other party in the chain becomes liable and no fees are paid on those products. An exemption upstream does not push the obligation downstream.
Maine carries relief no other state has, and it is easy to miss because it sits outside the de minimis test rather than inside it. Under 38 MRSA 2146(2), every producer is exempt from the requirements of the section "with respect to the first 15 tons of packaging material" used for products that were perishable food, whatever that producer's revenue.
The statute defines perishable food expressly, and the list is broad: bakery products, fresh and processed meats, poultry, seafood, dairy products, eggs in the shells, and fresh fruits and vegetables. For a food producer this can matter considerably more than the revenue test, because it applies on top of it rather than instead of it.
Do not confuse the two 15-ton figures in Maine's statute. The low-volume producer definition, more than one ton but less than 15 tons, governs simplified reporting and the $500 per ton flat fee. The perishable food exemption is a first-15-tons allowance against the packaging itself. They are different mechanisms that happen to share a number.
Assuming California relief is automatic. It is not. Sub-$1M producers must formally apply for the exemption. A producer that reads the $1M line as an applicability switch and files nothing stays obligated, and California carries the highest penalty in force of any state at $50,000 per day per violation, or $25,000 for small producers under PRC 42060(a)(5). This is the single most commonly repeated error in vendor-published guidance.
Assuming a ton is a ton. Oregon measures a METRIC ton, about 2,205 lb (ORS 459A.863(32)(d)). Colorado measures a SHORT ton, 2,000 lb (C.R.S. 25-17-713(1)(b)). Maryland, Minnesota and Washington each say "one ton" and define no unit. A volume that sits between the two exempts a producer in Oregon and obligates the same producer in Colorado, off the identical shipment.
A note on Minnesota. Minnesota is widely described, including previously on this page, as the one state requiring BOTH tests. That is wrong. Minn. Stat. 115A.1441, subd. 13 joins them with "or", so either alone qualifies. Corrected here on 2026-08-03 against the statute. What is distinctive about Minnesota is the mixed basis: the tonnage test is measured on material introduced INTO MINNESOTA while the revenue test is global.
One more worth reading carefully: Washington's test is three prongs joined by "or", so a producer under one ton, or under $5M in global gross revenue, or an agricultural employer under $5M in Washington own-brand agricultural sales, qualifies now (RCW 70A.208.020(16)). January 1, 2031 is the date the $5M figures begin CPI adjustment, not the date the exemption starts.
Threshold: <1 ton OR <$5M global revenue. Test logic: OR logic. Either test qualifies.. How relief works: Automatic where the test is met. A tiered flat fee is available above it.
Meeting either the tonnage test or the revenue test is enough, so a producer above one ton but under $5M global revenue still qualifies. Oregon is also the only state with a published flat-fee alternative for producers who sit just above the exemption. Under ORS 459A.884(6) and the CAA 2026 Oregon Producer Fee Schedule, producers with gross revenues under $10 million supplying more than five metric tons into Oregon, or the reverse, may elect a flat fee instead of per-pound reporting: $1,200 for 1 to 2.5 metric tons, $2,500 for 2.5 to 5, $4,100 for 5 to 7.5, and $5,800 for 7.5 to 10. The two lowest tiers are also open to producers above $10 million in gross revenue. Oregon is also the ONLY enacted state that aggregates across related companies. Under OAR 340-090-0860(6) the gross revenues and covered product volumes of associated producers must be added together before the small producer thresholds are applied, and the same aggregation governs eligibility for the flat fee above, so a group cannot split itself into qualifying entities. Associated producers include same-family ownership in the same line of business, more than 50 percent direct or indirect ownership or control, and Internal Revenue Code section 1563(a) controlled groups. Oregon DEQ also confirms that the products of an exempt small producer are orphaned, meaning no other party in the chain becomes liable for the fee.
Threshold: <1 ton OR <$5,632,843 global revenue (Jul 1 2025 figure; CPI-adjusted each Jul 1). Test logic: OR logic. Either test qualifies.. How relief works: Automatic where the test is met.
Colorado also has an open rulemaking on Section 1.8 covering producer responsibility authorization and the dollar limit exemption, so this threshold may move.
Threshold: <$1M CA gross sales, must apply. Test logic: Revenue only. How relief works: Application required. This is a formal exemption you must apply for, not an automatic switch.
California is the trap, and in several ways. First, the $1M is measured on TOTAL gross sales in the state under PRC 42060(a)(5)(A), not on California sales of covered materials, so a large producer with a modest covered-material footprint does not qualify however little packaging it places. Second, a producer under the line is not automatically out; it must apply, and under 42060(a)(5)(B) CalRecycle may still refuse where exempting that producer would hinder a covered material category from complying. Second, and more often missed, the relief is from REPORTING only. Under PRC 42060(a)(5) and 14 CCR 18980.5.2, exempted small producers do not report BUT MUST STILL REGISTER, and the exemption application is renewed with CalRecycle every two years rather than granted once. A producer that reads the threshold as a full exemption and never registers is not compliant, and California penalties reach $50,000 per day per violation. California also offers three compliance pathways: join CAA, form an independent PRO, or file individually through PEPRS. Source: CAA California Program Plan, Table 15.
Threshold: <1 ton OR <~$2M revenue. Test logic: OR logic. Either test qualifies.. How relief works: Statutory. Mechanics follow once a Stewardship Organization is under contract.
Maine has not selected a Stewardship Organization yet, so the registration mechanism that would apply the exemption does not exist yet. The revenue figure is exactly $2,000,000 in total gross revenue for the prior calendar year, not an approximation, and a transitional $5,000,000 threshold runs for three years starting one calendar year after the DEP and stewardship organization contract takes effect. Maine also carries an exemption no other state has: every producer is exempt on its FIRST 15 TONS of packaging used for perishable food, defined in statute to include bakery products, fresh and processed meats, poultry, seafood, dairy products, eggs in the shell and fresh fruit and vegetables. For a food producer that can matter more than the de minimis test itself. Source: 38 MRSA 2146(2), read in the statute 2026-08-04.
Threshold: <1 ton into MN OR <$2M global revenue (either qualifies; Minn. Stat. 115A.1441 subd. 13). Test logic: OR logic. Either test qualifies.. How relief works: Automatic where either test is met.
Minnesota is widely misreported as an AND state, including previously on this site. Minn. Stat. 115A.1441, subd. 13 joins the two tests with "or", so either alone qualifies. The tonnage test is measured on covered material introduced INTO MINNESOTA while the revenue test is global, and the statute says "one ton" without specifying metric or short. Corrected 2026-08-03 against the statute.
Threshold: <1 ton OR <$2M global revenue. Test logic: OR logic. Either test qualifies.. How relief works: Automatic where the test is met; MDE publishes an exempt producer determination form.
MDE posted a compliance guide and an exempt producer determination form in June 2026 under COMAR 26.04.14.
Threshold: <1 ton OR <$5M global revenue OR agricultural employer under $5M in WA own-brand ag sales (any one qualifies; RCW 70A.208.020(16)). Test logic: OR logic. Three prongs, any one qualifies.. How relief works: Automatic where a prong is met. Available now, not from 2031.
Washington is the most misread on timing. The three prongs are under one ton of covered materials, under $5M global gross revenue excluding on-premises alcohol sales, or an agricultural employer with under $5M in Washington revenue from own-brand agricultural commodities. January 1, 2031 is when the $5M figures begin CPI adjustment, not when the exemption starts. Washington also says "one ton" without specifying metric or short, the same ambiguity Maryland has. Source: RCW 70A.208.020(16).
Being covered is the start, not the end. Your fee depends on what you sell and how recoverable it is, and the levers are mostly design levers. Estimate your exposure in the EPR fee calculator, check the reporting deadlines for your states, then look at how rates differ by material before deciding what to change.
Every state guide carries the full fee schedule, registration deadlines, program plan status, eco-modulation detail, statute and rule text, and exemptions.