Administrative Procedures Act

ORS 183.341
Model rules of procedure

  • establishment
  • compilation
  • publication
  • agencies required to adopt procedural rules


(1)

The Attorney General shall prepare model rules of procedure appropriate for use by as many agencies as possible. Except as provided in ORS 183.630 (Model rules of procedure), any agency may adopt all or part of the model rules by reference without complying with the rulemaking procedures under ORS 183.335 (Notice). Notice of such adoption shall be filed with the Secretary of State in the manner provided by ORS 183.355 (Filing and taking effect of rules) for the filing of rules. The model rules may be amended from time to time by an adopting agency or the Attorney General after notice and opportunity for hearing as required by rulemaking procedures under this chapter.

(2)

Except as provided in ORS 183.630 (Model rules of procedure), all agencies shall adopt rules of procedure to be utilized in the adoption of rules and conduct of proceedings in contested cases or, if exempt from the contested case provisions of this chapter, for the conduct of proceedings.

(3)

The Secretary of State shall publish in the Oregon Administrative Rules:

(a)

The Attorney General’s model rules adopted under subsection (1) of this section;

(b)

The procedural rules of all agencies that have not adopted the Attorney General’s model rules; and

(c)

The notice procedures required by ORS 183.335 (Notice) (1).

(4)

Agencies shall adopt rules of procedure which will provide a reasonable opportunity for interested persons to be notified of the agency’s intention to adopt, amend or repeal a rule.

(5)

No rule adopted after September 13, 1975, is valid unless adopted in substantial compliance with the rules adopted pursuant to subsection (4) of this section. [1975 c.759 §6 (enacted in lieu of 183.340); 1979 c.593 §12; 1997 c.837 §1; 1999 c.849 §§24,25; 2003 c.75 §28]
§§ 183.330 to 183.400

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)

§§ 183.310 to 183.550

See annotations under ORS chapter 183.

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)


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021