2015 ORS 183.720¹
Procedure for review of agency rule
  • reports on rules claimed to be duplicative or conflicting

(1) The Legislative Counsel may review, or shall review at the direction of the Legislative Counsel Committee, a proposed rule or an adopted rule of a state agency.

(2) The Legislative Counsel may review an adopted rule of a state agency upon the written request of any person affected by the rule. The Legislative Counsel shall review a proposed or adopted rule of a state agency upon the written request of any member of the Legislative Assembly. The written request for review must identify the specific objection or problem with the rule.

(3) When reviewing a rule of a state agency pursuant to subsection (1) or (2) of this section, the Legislative Counsel shall:

(a) Determine whether the rule appears to be within the intent and scope of the enabling legislation purporting to authorize its adoption; and

(b) Determine whether the rule raises any constitutional issue other than described in paragraph (a) of this subsection, and if so, the nature of the issue.

(4) In making a determination under subsection (3)(a) of this section, the Legislative Counsel shall, wherever possible, follow generally accepted principles of statutory construction.

(5) The Legislative Counsel shall prepare written findings on a rule reviewed, setting forth the determinations made under subsection (3) of this section.

(6) When a review of a rule is made by the Legislative Counsel, the Legislative Counsel shall send a copy of the determinations made under subsection (3) of this section to the appropriate interim committee or, if the review was requested by a member of the Legislative Assembly or by a person affected by the rule, to the person requesting the review. If the Legislative Counsel determines that a rule is not within the intent and scope of the enabling legislation purporting to authorize the state agency’s adoption of the rule, or that the rule raises a constitutional issue, the Legislative Counsel shall also send a copy of the determination to the agency. The Legislative Counsel may request that the state agency respond in writing to the determinations or appear at the meeting of the interim committee at which the committee will consider the determinations. The interim committee may direct the Legislative Counsel to send a copy of the determinations to the presiding officer of a house of the Legislative Assembly, who may refer the determinations to any legislative committee concerned.

(7)(a) A member of the Legislative Assembly may request that Legislative Counsel prepare a report on a rule adopted by a state agency that the member asserts is duplicative of or conflicts with another rule. A person affected by a rule adopted by a state agency may request that Legislative Counsel prepare a report on the rule if the person asserts that the rule is duplicative of or conflicts with another rule. A request for a report must be in writing and contain copies of the two rules that are claimed to be duplicative or conflicting. The second rule may be either a rule adopted by a state agency or a rule or regulation adopted by a federal agency.

(b)(A) Upon receipt of a written request by a member of the Legislative Assembly, the Legislative Counsel shall prepare a report to the interim committee that contains:

(i) A copy of the request, including copies of the two rules that the member asserts are conflicting or duplicative; and

(ii) Legislative Counsel’s analysis of the requirements of the two rules.

(B) Upon receipt of a written request by a person affected by a rule adopted by a state agency, the Legislative Counsel may prepare a written report to the person and each state agency concerned that contains the Legislative Counsel’s analysis of the requirements of the two rules.

(8) Upon receipt of a report under subsection (7)(b)(A) of this section, the interim committee may issue a determination that a rule is duplicative of or conflicts with the other cited rule.

(9) When a report on a rule is made by the Legislative Counsel under subsection (7)(b)(A) of this section, the Legislative Counsel shall send a copy of the report and any determinations made under subsection (8) of this section to each state agency concerned. The interim committee may direct the Legislative Counsel to send a copy of the determinations to the presiding officer of a house of the Legislative Assembly, who may refer the determinations to any legislative committee concerned. [Formerly 171.709; 1993 c.729 §7; 1997 c.602 §4; 2001 c.156 §1; 2009 c.81 §4]

Note: See note under 183.710 (Definitions for ORS 183.710 to 183.725).

Law Review Cita­tions

14 WLJ 14 (1977)

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)


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.