Administrative Procedures Act
Notice
- content
- public comment
- temporary rule adoption, amendment or suspension
- substantial compliance required
Notes of Decisions
The adopted rules need not be identical to the proposed rules to satisfy the notice requirements of this section. Bassett v. State Fish and Wildlife Comm., 27 Or App 639, 556 P2d 1382 (1976)
Where Children's Services Division adopted two temporary rules terminating child care payment program but never adopted permanent rule to that effect, plaintiffs-former recipients were entitled to declaratory judgment that CSD's termination of program was ineffective because of failure to properly adopt rule. Burke v. Children's Services Division, 288 Or 533, 607 P2d 141 (1980)
Under this section, temporary emergency rules may be adopted only if agency finds failure to act promptly will result in serious prejudice to public interest or interest of parties; without such showing, temporary rules are invalid. Metro. Hospitals v. State Health Planning, 52 Or App 621, 628 P2d 783 (1981)
Where petitioner challenges Water Resources Commission's temporary rule amending OAR 690-80-060 (5)(c), commission's findings and statement of need do not provide adequate support for promulgation of temporary rule and rule was therefore, adopted without compliance with applicable rulemaking procedures and violates Scenic Waterways Act. Waterwatch of Oregon v. Oregon Water Res. Comm., 97 Or App 1, 774 P2d 1118 (1989)
Rule adopted by Department of Insurance and Finance is invalid where notice of proposed rulemaking did not contain adequate fiscal impact statement containing estimate of economic impact caused if rule adopted. Dika v. Department of Insurance and Finance, 312 Or 106, 817 P2d 287 (1991)
Purpose of this section, to provide protection against arbitrary and inadequately informed governmental conduct, has been met where notice informs license holders of potential financial impact, extent of which is unknown. Troutlodge, Inc. v. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, 113 Or App 123, 830 P2d 622 (1992), Sup Ct review denied
Error on statement of need does not render rulemaking invalid if statement serves purpose of giving notice to potentially affected parties. Assn. of Oregon Loggers v. Dept. of Insurance and Finance, 130 Or App 594, 883 P2d 859 (1994), Sup Ct review denied
Agency consideration of summary prepared by hearing officer who reviewed all submitted material complies with requirement of full consideration by agency of submitted material. Don't Waste Oregon Committee v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 320 Or 132, 881 P2d 119 (1994)
To challenge rule on procedural grounds, petitioners need not show that they were prejudiced by board's alleged failure to include adequate statement of financial impact in notice of rulemaking. Oregon Funeral Directors v. Mortuary and Cemetery Bd., 132 Or App 318, 888 P2d 104 (1995)
Fiscal impact statement is sufficient if statement informs public and businesses of economic impact of proposed rule with sufficient detail to allow public and businesses to determine likely fiscal impact on them. Oregon Funeral Directors v. Mortuary and Cemetery Bd., 132 Or App 318, 888 P2d 104 (1995)
Statement of need is intended to identify need perceived by agency, whether or not perception is factually correct. Fremont Lumber Co. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 325 Or 256, 936 P2d 968 (1997)
Adequacy of fiscal impact statement must be assessed in terms of actual impact, not impact perceived by agency. Fremont Lumber Co. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 325 Or 256, 936 P2d 968 (1997)
Fiscal impact statement stating that economic impact is unknown, without explanation why impact is unknown, is inadequate. The Building Department, LLC v. Department of Consumer and Business Services, 180 Or App 486, 43 P3d 1167 (2002)
Statement of fiscal impact must identify entities affected by adoption of rule and must give affected entities enough information to evaluate position and participate in adoption process or explain why information is unavailable. Independent Contractors Research Institute v. Department of Administrative Services, 207 Or App 78, 139 P3d 995 (2006), Sup Ct review denied
Atty. Gen. Opinions
Application of filing requirements and statement requirements to rule-making proceedings substantially completed before effective date, (1978) Vol 38, p 1939
Notes of Decisions
Where there were validly promulgated rules regarding situations analogous to requirement that petitioner, as condition of receiving further medical assistance, make monthly repayment of overpayments of public assistance funds, adjudication was desirable to establish rule to resolve instant case and subsequent similar situations. Larsen v. Adult and Family Services Division, 34 Or App 615, 579 P2d 866 (1978)
Law Review Citations
4 EL 215, 217 (1974)
See annotations under ORS chapter 183.
Notes of Decisions
A legislative delegation of power in terms as broad as those used in [former] ORS 471.295 (1) places upon the administrative agency a responsibility to establish standards by which the law is to be applied. Sun Ray Drive-in Dairy, Inc. v. Ore. Liquor Control Comm., 16 Or App 63, 517 P2d 289 (1973)
Administrative regulation providing that failure to perform responsibilities adequately was a ground for employee's dismissal. Palen v. State Bd. of Higher Educ., 18 Or App 442, 525 P2d 1047 (1974), Sup Ct review denied
Where it was determined that agency invalidly terminated substantive policy, trial court did not have authority to order agency to resume policy in absence of validly adopted agency rule. Burke v. Children's Services Division, 39 Or App 819, 593 P2d 1262 (1979), aff'd 288 Or 533, 607 P2d 141 (1980)
"Trending factors" published by the Department of Revenue and used to appraise property for purposes of property taxation are not "rules" within the meaning of this chapter. Borden Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 286 Or 567, 595 P2d 1372 (1979)
Appellate court may review proceeding meeting definition of contested case whether or not proceeding was formal administrative hearing. Patton v. State Bd. of Higher Ed., 293 Or 363, 647 P2d 931 (1982)
Circuit court could not entertain action for declaratory judgment directed at PERS, because PERS is subject to APA, which provides exclusive method for review of its actions. FOPPO v. County of Marion, 93 Or App 93, 760 P2d 1353 (1988), Sup Ct review denied
Board of Education approval of textbook for use in state public schools was not "rule," but was "order in other than contested case," and jurisdiction for judicial review is in circuit court. Oregon Env. Council v. Oregon State Bd. of Ed., 307 Or 30, 761 P2d 1322 (1988)
Preponderance of evidence standard applies where initial license application is denied based on willful fraud. Sobel v. Board of Pharmacy, 130 Or App 374, 882 P2d 606 (1994), Sup Ct review denied
Completed Citations
Wright v. Bateson, 5 Or App 628, 485 P2d 641 (1971), Sup Ct review denied, cert. denied, 405 US 930 (1972)
Atty. Gen. Opinions
State Speed Control Board subject to Administrative Procedures Act, (1974) Vol 36, p 1024; proxy voting at board meeting, (1974) Vol 36, p 1064; student conduct proceedings as "contested cases," (1976) Vol 37, p 1461; rulemaking authority of Statewide Health Coordinating Council and of Certificate of Need Appeals Board, (1977) Vol 38, p 1229; Oregon Medical Insurance Pool is fundamentally private-sector body, under virtually total private control, created by state to fulfill public purpose and is not state agency or public body subject to Administrative Procedures Act (APA), (1989) Vol 46, p 155
Law Review Citations
51 OLR 245 (1971); 53 OLR 364, 365 (1974); 10 WLJ 373, 420 (1974); 13 WLJ 499, 517, 525, 537 (1977); 57 OLR 334 (1978); 22 WLR 355 (1986); 36 WLR 219 (2000)