2015 ORS 183.333¹
Policy statement
  • public involvement in development of policy and drafting of rules
  • advisory committees

(1) The Legislative Assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that whenever possible the public be involved in the development of public policy by agencies and in the drafting of rules. The Legislative Assembly encourages agencies to seek public input to the maximum extent possible before giving notice of intent to adopt a rule. The agency may appoint an advisory committee that will represent the interests of persons likely to be affected by the rule, or use any other means of obtaining public views that will assist the agency in drafting the rule.

(2) Any agency in its discretion may develop a list of interested parties and inform those parties of any issue that may be the subject of rulemaking and invite the parties to make comments on the issue.

(3) If an agency appoints an advisory committee for consideration of a rule under subsection (1) of this section, the agency shall seek the committees recommendations on whether the rule will have a fiscal impact, what the extent of that impact will be and whether the rule will have a significant adverse impact on small businesses. If the committee indicates that the rule will have a significant adverse impact on small businesses, the agency shall seek the committees recommendations on compliance with ORS 183.540 (Reduction of economic impact on small business).

(4) An agency shall consider an advisory committees recommendations provided under subsection (3) of this section in preparing the statement of fiscal impact required by ORS 183.335 (Notice) (2)(b)(E).

(5) If an agency does not appoint an advisory committee for consideration of a permanent rule under subsection (1) of this section and 10 or more persons likely to be affected by the rule object to the agencys statement of fiscal impact as required by ORS 183.335 (Notice) (2)(b)(E) or an association with at least 10 members likely to be affected by the rule objects to the statement, the agency shall appoint a fiscal impact advisory committee to provide recommendations on whether the rule will have a fiscal impact and what the extent of that impact will be. An objection under this subsection must be made not later than 14 days after the notice required by ORS 183.335 (Notice) (1) is given. If the agency determines that the statement does not adequately reflect the rules fiscal impact, the agency shall extend the period for submission of data or views under ORS 183.335 (Notice) (3)(a) by at least 20 days. The agency shall include any recommendations from the committee in the record maintained by the agency for the rule.

(6) Subsection (5) of this section does not apply to any rule adopted by an agency to comply with a judgment or a settlement of a judicial proceeding.

(7) If an agency is required by law to appoint an advisory committee under this section, the agency may not appoint an officer, employee or other agent of the agency to serve as a member of the advisory committee. [2003 c.749 §4; 2005 c.807 §4; 2013 c.273 §1]

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.

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 employees 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. Childrens Services Division, 39 Or App 819, 593 P2d 1262 (1979), affd 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)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 183—Administrative Procedures Act; Legislative Review of Rules; Civil Penalties, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors183.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 183, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano183.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.