Both OR and WA don’t put the qualifier words at the end of what it means to be a small producer. They don’t add “or”/“and” when they list what it means to classify as a small producer. Do I have to meet all the small producer criteria? Or just one or more?
Here’s what Claude says (below). Seems like a reasonable interpretation to me. As always, I think it is a good idea to draft an internal memo for your files, describing the logic of arriving at your decision. Here’s Claude’s reading:
Here’s what the actual statutory text says for both states:
Oregon — ORS 459A.863(32)
The statute defines “small producer” as a producer that meets any one of seven criteria (a) through (g):
-
(a) Is a nonprofit organization
-
(b) Is a public body
-
(c) Has gross revenue less than $5 million
-
(d) Sold less than 1 metric ton of covered products into Oregon
-
(e) Is a beverage manufacturer that sold less than 5 metric tons of covered products into Oregon
-
(f)(A)+(B) Is a restaurant/food cart/similar that primarily sells immediately-consumed food AND is not a producer of food serviceware
-
or (g) Operates a single retail sales establishment with no online sales and is not part of a franchise or chain
The “or” only appears explicitly before the last criterion (g), which is the standard legislative drafting convention meaning any one of those criteria qualifies you. Oregon’s own DEQ confirms this plainly, stating: “Small producer status, which can be qualified for in seven different ways.” So in Oregon, meeting just one criterion is enough.
Washington — RCW 70A.208(16) (called “de minimis producer,” not “small producer”)
The statute defines “de minimis producer” as a producer that:
-
(a) In their most recent fiscal year introduced less than one ton of covered materials
-
(b) Has a global gross revenue of less than $5,000,000 (with inflation adjustments after 2031)
-
or (c) Is an agricultural employer with less than $5,000,000 in gross revenue from Washington consumer sales
This is where Washington’s language is genuinely more ambiguous than Oregon’s. The “or” only appears before (c) — not before (b) — which creates two possible readings:
-
All disjunctive — any one of (a), (b), or (c) qualifies you, following the same convention as Oregon.
-
Mixed — (a) [volume threshold] AND either (b) or (c) [revenue threshold], meaning you have to meet both the tonnage limit AND the revenue limit.
Washington’s Ecology Department hasn’t published the same kind of plain-language FAQ that Oregon DEQ has, so this is less settled. That said, the standard rule of statutory construction is that when a connector (“or”/“and”) appears only before the last item in a list, it applies to all items — which would favor reading (a), (b), and (c) as alternatives. But a regulator or attorney could reasonably argue that (a) is a standalone threshold requirement since the “or” is placed only before (c), not before (b).
Bottom line: For Oregon, the DEQ itself has resolved any ambiguity — you need to meet just one criterion. For Washington, the safer practical approach (until Ecology clarifies) is to treat it as requiring both the tonnage threshold (a) AND either revenue criterion (b) or (c), since that’s the more conservative reading. If you’re near the line, it would be worth getting written guidance from Washington’s Department of Ecology directly.
Sources: