2015 ORS 183.722¹
Required agency response to Legislative Counsel determination
  • consideration of determination by interim committee

(1)(a) If the Legislative Counsel determines under ORS 183.720 (Procedure for review of agency rule) (3) that a proposed or adopted rule is not within the intent and scope of the enabling legislation purporting to authorize the rule’s adoption, or that the rule is not constitutional, and the Legislative Counsel has provided a copy of that determination to the state agency pursuant to 183.720 (Procedure for review of agency rule) (6), the agency shall either make a written response to the determination or appear at the meeting of the interim committee at which the committee will consider the determinations. The response of the state agency shall indicate if the agency intends to repeal, amend or take other action with respect to the rule.

(b) The interim committee shall consider the Legislative Counsel determination described in paragraph (a) of this subsection and any state agency response to the determination. If the interim committee adopts the Legislative Counsel determination, the Legislative Counsel shall post the determination on the Legislative Counsel website. Adopted determinations that are posted on the website shall be organized by OAR number and shall remain on the website until the earlier of the date that:

(A) The rule is modified and the Legislative Counsel determines that the modified rule is within the intent and scope of the enabling legislation;

(B) A court makes a final determination that the rule is within the intent and scope of the enabling legislation and is otherwise constitutional, all appeals of the court’s determination are exhausted and the state agency notifies the Legislative Counsel of the determination; or

(C) The Legislative Assembly modifies the enabling legislation so as to bring the rule within the intent and scope of the enabling legislation, any other constitutional defect in the rule is cured and the state agency notifies the Legislative Counsel of the modification or cure.

(2) If the Legislative Counsel determines under ORS 183.720 (Procedure for review of agency rule) (3) that a proposed or adopted rule is not within the intent and scope of the enabling legislation purporting to authorize the rule’s adoption, or that the rule is not constitutional, and the interim committee is not satisfied with the response to those issues made by the state agency, the committee may request that one or more representatives of the agency appear at a subsequent meeting of the committee along with a representative of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services for the purpose of further explaining the position of the agency.

(3) If a state agency is requested under subsection (2) of this section to appear at a subsequent meeting of the interim committee along with a representative of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services, the agency shall promptly notify the department of the request. The notification to the department must be in writing, and must include a copy of the determinations made by the Legislative Counsel and a copy of any written response made by the state agency to the determinations. [1997 c.602 §7; 1999 c.31 §2; 2009 c.81 §5]

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.