Definitions for chapter
Source:
Section 183.310 — Definitions for chapter, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors183.html.
Notes of Decisions
The placing of specific names on a ballot by the Secretary of State is not the promulgation of a rule in that the placement does not implement, interpret or prescribe law or policy. Porter v. Myers, 9 Or App 151, 496 P2d 227 (1972), Sup Ct review denied
Administrative act regulating rents in a housing project was a “rule” and not an “order” formulated in a “contested case.” Amazon Coop. Tenants v. State Bd. of Higher Educ., 15 Or App 418, 516 P2d 89 (1973), Sup Ct review denied
A “cease and desist order” by the Board of Optometry requiring an optometrist to discontinue certain advertising, followed by a communication stating that failure to comply would result in proceedings to suspend or revoke his license, was an order subject to petition for review. Aplanalp v. State ex rel Ore. Bd. of Optometry, 21 Or App 501, 535 P2d 573 (1975)
Because the decision to discontinue child care payments was a rule requiring notice and hearing prior to adoption rather than an “internal management directive” which is exempt from the rule-making provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, it was error to dismiss the suit. Burke v. Children’s Services Div., 26 Or App 145, 552 P2d 592 (1976)
The commission’s consent, pursuant to [former] ORS 483.542, to the City of Portland’s designation of a truck route is not a rule within this section. United Parcel Serv. Inc. v. Ore. Trans. Comm., 27 Or App 147, 555 P2d 778 (1976)
The provision concerning medical expenses in the Public Welfare Division Manual did not fall within the “internal management directive” exception to the rulemaking procedures. Clark v. Public Welfare Div., 27 Or App 473, 556 P2d 722 (1976)
Agency action was a “rule” rather than an “internal management directive” and required compliance with the rulemaking procedures of ORS chapter 183. Gray Panthers v. Pub. Welfare Div., 28 Or App 841, 561 P2d 674 (1977)
Food Stamp Manual provision, which treated tribal land payments to native Americans as “income,” was rule within meaning of this section, and was thus invalid where promulgated without public participation. Burke v. Public Welfare Division, 31 Or App 161, 570 P2d 87 (1977)
Grandparents of prospective adoptive children do not, because of status as grandparents or former custodians of these children, have constitutionally protected liberty interest entitling them to contested case hearing under this section before agency refuses consent to adoption. Graham v. Children’s Services Division, 39 Or App 27, 591 P2d 375 (1979), Sup Ct review denied
Internal management directives and similar actions under this section directed by governmental agency to other agencies or units of government cannot at the same time be orders under this section. Portland Inn v. OTC, 39 Or App 749, 593 P2d 1233 (1979)
Local government boundary commissions are state agencies within meaning of this section. Fosses v. Portland Area LGBC, 43 Or App 647, 603 P2d 1235 (1979)
Children’s Services Division’s original “directive” or “statement” adopting day care payment program constituted implementation of agency policy within meaning of this section, despite informality attending its promulgation. Burke v. Children’s Services Division, 288 Or 533, 607 P2d 141 (1980)
Agency statement is rule of statutory interpretation and policy for implementation. Morgan v. Stimson Lumber Co., 288 Or 595, 607 P2d 150 (1980)
Actions by Health Division and Environmental Quality Commission under ORS 222.880 are not combined administrative proceedings, but rather separate agency actions each resulting in “final order.” West Side Sanitary Dist. v. Health Div., 289 Or 417, 614 P2d 1151 (1980)
Since provisions of ORS 197.251 do not require that rights of either local government whose comprehensive plan has been submitted for acknowledgment or persons who object to acknowledgment are to be “determined only after an agency hearing at which specific parties are entitled to be heard,” acknowledgment proceedings are not “contested cases” under this section. Oregon Business Planning Council v. LCDC, 290 Or 741, 626 P2d 350 (1981)
LCDC orders “acknowledging” local comprehensive plans are not rules within meaning of this section. Oregon Business Planning Council v. LCDC, 290 Or 741, 626 P2d 350 (1981)
Where school district employees were determined to be in bargaining unit at time of its recognition by school district and no new negotiations were required as to them, Employment Relations Board clarification order was not “tentative or preliminary” declaration and was final order. Reynolds School Dist. v. OSEA, 58 Or App 609, 650 P2d 119 (1982)
Order denying extension of time for filing request for hearing pursuant to ORS 657.875 is “contested case” under this section. Sayers v. Employment Division, 59 Or App 270, 650 P2d 1024 (1982)
“Internal management directives” exempted from definition of rule have two main characteristics: (1) they affect individuals solely in their capacities as members of agency involved rather than as members of general public who may have occasion to deal with agency; and (2) they are not self-executing. Rogue Flyfishers v. Water Policy Review Bd., 62 Or App 412, 660 P2d 1089 (1983)
Order by Environmental Quality Commission denying application for solid waste pollution control facility tax credit certificate is not reviewable in Court of Appeals because EQC proceeding does not satisfy statutory requirements of contested case. Linnton Plywood Assoc. v. DEQ, 68 Or App 412, 681 P2d 1180 (1984), Sup Ct review denied
Attorney general’s letter is not “final order” within meaning of this section. Mongelli v. Oregon Life and Health Guaranty, 85 Or App 518, 737 P2d 633 (1987)
Rejection of contract bid constituted order in other than contested case. Clarke Electric, Inc. v. State Highway Division, 93 Or App 693 763 P2d 1199 (1988)
State Health Planning and Development Agency decision that medical center proposal to convert acute care beds to skilled nursing facility beds was subject to certificate of need review was preliminary agency decision and not reviewable final order. Merle West Medical Center v. SHPDA, 94 Or App 148, 764 P2d 613 (1988)
Petitioner, who held one-year teaching contract with state college was employee of Higher Education and not college, such that decision not to renew contract was not “order” under this section. Gruszczynski v. Bd. of Higher Ed, 106 Or App 260, 806 P2d 1168 (1991)
Oregon State Apprenticeship Council’s dissolution of Oregon Operating Engineers Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee cannot lead to contested case, because committee’s specific functions are not rights or privileges within meaning of ORS 183.310 (2)(a)(B). Oregon Operating Eng. v. Oregon State Apprent., 108 Or App 24, 813 P2d 76 (1991), Sup Ct review denied
Notice of rule change issued under ORS 183.355 is not “order” under this section, and judicial review is not available under ORS 183.484. Calif. Table Grape Comm’n v. Dept. of Human Res., 109 Or App 222, 818 P2d 983 (1991)
Directive announcing priorities for inmate access to law library was not “rule” under this section because failure to follow it could not result in disciplinary action. Smith v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 113 Or App 386, 832 P2d 1270 (1992)
Secretary of State qualifies as state agency entitled to conduct contested case hearings. Strombeck v. Secretary of State, 128 Or App 142, 874 P2d 1366 (1994), Sup Ct review denied
“Final order” includes written findings of fact, conclusions of law, reasoning and result constituting final written expression of agency action regardless of how material is labeled. Brian v. Oregon Government Ethics Commission, 319 Or 151, 874 P2d 1294 (1994)
Agency approval of private sector standard without subjecting standard itself to rulemaking process is insufficient to qualify standard as “rule.” Lemma Wine Co. v. National Council on Compensation Insurance, 194 Or App 371, 95 P3d 238 (2004)
Where person has established initial general qualification for, or entitlement to, benefit, proceeding to determine extent of benefit must be conducted as contested case. Corey v. Department of Land Conservation and Development, 210 Or App 542, 152 P3d 933 (2007), on reconsideration 212 Or App 536, 159 P3d 327 (2007)
Agency decision rests solely on result of “test” if best way to verify passage or failure is to have person repeat testing process. Rooklidge v. DMV, 217 Or App 172, 174 P3d 1120 (2007), Sup Ct review denied
Portland Community College, which is organized under ORS chapter 341, is not “agency” within meaning of this section. Deyette v. Portland Community College, 299 Or App 305, 450 P3d 1037 (2019), Sup Ct review denied
Department of Environmental Quality’s reinterpretation of statutory exemption to solid waste permitting requirement for automobile dismantlers, as evidenced by internal agency memorandum and unequivocal staff statements, constituted “rule” because new interpretation was generally applicable and not necessarily required by statute. PNW Metal Recycling, Inc. v. DEQ, 317 Or App 207, 505 P3d 462 (2022)
Attorney General Opinions
Construing the term “agency,” (1976) Vol 37, p 1487; construing the term “rule,” (1976) Vol 37, p 1487; “Guidelines for Implementation of Enrolled House Bill 2145” not subject to rule-making requirements, (1976) Vol 38, p 34;
Establishment and application of standards by Commission for Child Care in awarding grants to contractors of newly established child care information and referral services, (1989) Vol 46, p 133
Law Review Citations
53 OLR 478 (1974); 54 OLR 387-389 (1975); 15 EL 223 (1985); 94 OLR 565 (2016)
Up to date