wording rule in Oregon

2025Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132, 142 , 881 P3d 119 (1994) (explain- ing that, under ORS 183.482(8)(a), a reviewing court will defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own administra- tive rule if that interpretation is plausible); Godinez v. SAIF, 269 Or App 578, 582-83 , 346 P3d 530 (2015) (explaining that deference to an agency’s plausible interpretation of its own rules includes “an interpretation made in the course of applying the rule, if that interpretation is not inconsistent with the wording of the rule, its context, or any other source of law” and notin

2025Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132, 142 , 881 P3d 119 (1994) (explain- ing that, under ORS 183.482(8)(a), a reviewing court will defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own administra- tive rule if that interpretation is plausible); Godinez v. SAIF, 269 Or App 578, 582-83 , 346 P3d 530 (2015) (explaining that deference to an agency’s plausible interpretation of its own rules includes “an interpretation made in the course of applying the rule, if that interpretation is not inconsistent with the wording of the rule, its context, or any other source of law” and notin

2026“An agency’s interpretation of its own rule is entitled to judicial deference ‘if that interpretation is plausible given the wording of the rule, its context, and any other source of 456 Hessel v. Board of Parole law.’ ” Sohappy v. Board of Parole, 329 Or App 28 , 35, 540 P3d 568 (2023) (quoting OR-OSHA v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 312 Or App 424, 434 , 494 P3d 959 (2021)); see also 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Lane Co.), 305 Or 384, 390 , 752 P2d 271 (1988) (“[T]he legislative choice to entrust the agency both with setting standards and with applying them can imply that the agency’s vie

2026“An agency’s interpretation of its own rule is entitled to judicial deference ‘if that interpretation is plausible given the wording of the rule, its context, and any other source of 456 Hessel v. Board of Parole law.’ ” Sohappy v. Board of Parole, 329 Or App 28 , 35, 540 P3d 568 (2023) (quoting OR-OSHA v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 312 Or App 424, 434 , 494 P3d 959 (2021)); see also 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Lane Co.), 305 Or 384, 390 , 752 P2d 271 (1988) (“[T]he legislative choice to entrust the agency both with setting standards and with applying them can imply that the agency’s vie

2026In addressing a challenge to statutory authority, “[t]he record on review * * * consists of two things only: the wording of the rule itself (read in context) and the statutory provisions authorizing the rule.” Wolf v. Oregon Lottery Commission, 344 Or 345, 355 , 182 P3d 180 (2008) (citing ORS 183.400(3)).

2026In addressing a challenge to statutory authority, “[t]he record on review * * * consists of two things only: the wording of the rule itself (read in context) and the statutory provisions authorizing the rule.” Wolf v. Oregon Lottery Commission, 344 Or 345, 355 , 182 P3d 180 (2008) (citing ORS 183.400(3)).

2025When review- ing whether the agency acted within its statutory authority, our inquiry is limited to “the wording of the rule itself * * * and the statutory provisions authorizing the rule.” Wolf, 344 Or at 355 (citing ORS 183.400(3)(a), (b)); see also Oregon Newspaper Publishers, 329 Or at 118-19 (holding that if the rules “on their face comply with applicable constitutional and statutory requirements” then they must be challenged on an “as applied basis”).

2016See Wolf, 344 Or at 355 (court’s review of whether a rule exceeds the agency’s statutory authority “is limited to the wording of the rule itself (read in context) and the statutory provisions authorizing the rule.”) See also Oregon Newspaper Publishers v. Dept. of Corrections, 329 Or 115, 118-19 , 988 P2d 359 (1999) (if “rules on their face comply with applicable constitutional and statutory requirements *** any further challenge to them must be made on an ‘as applied’ basis”).

2024A county hearings officer agreed with intervenor, concluding that OAR 660-004-0040(7) did not require a Goal 14 exception for the upzoning, because both the FF-10 and the RA-2 zones, as stated in the CCCP Policy,5 had 4 Although LCDC is entitled to deference in the construction of its own administrative rule if that construction is not inconsistent with the wording of the rule, its context, or any other source of law, Barkers Five, LLC v. LCDC, 261 Or App 259, 302 , 323 P3d 368 (2014), DLCD’s understandings and interpretations of the goals and rules adopted by LCDC are entitled to no deference

2024A county hearings officer agreed with intervenor, concluding that OAR 660-004-0040(7) did not require a Goal 14 exception for the upzoning, because both the FF-10 and the RA-2 zones, as stated in the CCCP Policy,5 had 4 Although LCDC is entitled to deference in the construction of its own administrative rule if that construction is not inconsistent with the wording of the rule, its context, or any other source of law, Barkers Five, LLC v. LCDC, 261 Or App 259, 302 , 323 P3d 368 (2014), DLCD’s understandings and interpretations of the goals and rules adopted by LCDC are entitled to no deference

2023See Gafur v. Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital, 344 Or 525, 537 , 185 P3d 446 (2008) (concluding that an agency’s inter- pretation of its own rule is implausible where it “is inconsis- tent with the wording of the rule and its context” (emphasis omitted)).

2023See Gafur v. Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital, 344 Or 525, 537 , 185 P3d 446 (2008) (concluding that an agency’s inter- pretation of its own rule is implausible where it “is inconsis- tent with the wording of the rule and its context” (emphasis omitted)).

2023Wolf v. Oregon Lottery Commission, 344 Or 345, 355 , 182 P3d 180 (2008) (“The record on review * * * consists of two things only: the wording of the rule itself (read in context) and the statutory provisions authorizing the rule.”); see also Walter v. Oregon Board of Education, 301 Or App 516, 532 , 457 P3d 288 (2019) (“[I]n this rule challenge, there is no evi- dentiary record.” (Emphasis in original.)).

2023Wolf v. Oregon Lottery Commission, 344 Or 345, 355 , 182 P3d 180 (2008) (“The record on review * * * consists of two things only: the wording of the rule itself (read in context) and the statutory provisions authorizing the rule.”); see also Walter v. Oregon Board of Education, 301 Or App 516, 532 , 457 P3d 288 (2019) (“[I]n this rule challenge, there is no evi- dentiary record.” (Emphasis in original.)).

2013See Guitron, 351 Or at 478 -79 nil (detailing 1979 legislative amendments).

2013See Guitron, 351 Or at 478 -79 n 11 (detailing 1979 legislative amendments).

2010See In re Haws, 310 Or 741, 746-48 , 801 P2d 818 (1990) (using that methodology to interpret disciplinary rule, focusing on meaning of rule’s key words).

2010See In re Haws, 310 Or 741, 746-48 , 801 P2d 818 (1990) (using that methodology to interpret disciplinary rule, focusing on meaning of rule’s key words).

2026“An agency’s interpretation of its own rule is entitled to judicial deference ‘if that interpretation is plausible given the wording of the rule, its context, and any other source of 456 Hessel v. Board of Parole law.’ ” Sohappy v. Board of Parole, 329 Or App 28 , 35, 540 P3d 568 (2023) (quoting OR-OSHA v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 312 Or App 424, 434 , 494 P3d 959 (2021)); see also 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Lane Co.), 305 Or 384, 390 , 752 P2d 271 (1988) (“[T]he legislative choice to entrust the agency both with setting standards and with applying them can imply that the agency’s vie

2026“An agency’s interpretation of its own rule is entitled to judicial deference ‘if that interpretation is plausible given the wording of the rule, its context, and any other source of 456 Hessel v. Board of Parole law.’ ” Sohappy v. Board of Parole, 329 Or App 28 , 35, 540 P3d 568 (2023) (quoting OR-OSHA v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 312 Or App 424, 434 , 494 P3d 959 (2021)); see also 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Lane Co.), 305 Or 384, 390 , 752 P2d 271 (1988) (“[T]he legislative choice to entrust the agency both with setting standards and with applying them can imply that the agency’s vie

2025As with other questions of statutory construction, in determining the scope of an agency’s statu- tory authority, “we seek to discern the legislature’s intent by examining the text and context of the relevant statutes and, if useful to the analysis, pertinent legislative history.” Assn. of Acupuncture v. Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 260 Or App 676, 678 , 320 P3d 575 (2014) (citing State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-72 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009)).

2025As with other questions of statutory construction, in determining the scope of an agency’s statu- tory authority, “we seek to discern the legislature’s intent by examining the text and context of the relevant statutes and, if useful to the analysis, pertinent legislative history.” Assn. of Acupuncture v. Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 260 Or App 676, 678 , 320 P3d 575 (2014) (citing State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-72 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009)).

2025Accordingly, “we con- sider the text of the rule and its context, including other portions of the rule and related laws, and the rule’s adoption history.” County of Klamath v. Ricard, 317 Or App 608, 612 , 507 P3d 333 (2022) (internal quotation marks omitted).4 4 When interpreting agency rules, “[w]e defer to [an] agency’s plausible interpretation of its own rule, including an interpretation made in the course of applying the rule, if that interpretation is not inconsistent with the wording of the rule, its context, or any other source of law.” Harris v. Dept. of Public Safety Standards, 287 O

2025Accordingly, “we con- sider the text of the rule and its context, including other portions of the rule and related laws, and the rule’s adoption history.” County of Klamath v. Ricard, 317 Or App 608, 612 , 507 P3d 333 (2022) (internal quotation marks omitted).4 4 When interpreting agency rules, “[w]e defer to [an] agency’s plausible interpretation of its own rule, including an interpretation made in the course of applying the rule, if that interpretation is not inconsistent with the wording of the rule, its context, or any other source of law.” Harris v. Dept. of Public Safety Standards, 287 O

2013See Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132, 142 , 881 P2d 119 (1994) (deference to an agency’s interpretation of its own administrative rule is required if the interpretation is “plausible” and not “inconsistent with the wording of the rule itself, or with the rule’s context, or with any other source of law”); Johnson v. Employment Dept., 187 Or App 441, 447-48 , 67 P3d 984 , rev den, 336 Or 60 (2003) (“If the department had interpreted its [own] rule at the conclusion of a contested case proceeding, there would be no question that we would defer to that interpretation a

2013See Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132, 142 , 881 P2d 119 (1994) (deference to an agency’s interpretation of its own administrative rule is required if the interpretation is “plausible” and not “inconsistent with the wording of the rule itself, or with the rule’s context, or with any other source of law”); Johnson v. Employment Dept., 187 Or App 441, 447-48 , 67 P3d 984 , rev den, 336 Or 60 (2003) (“If the department had interpreted its [own] rule at the conclusion of a contested case proceeding, there would be no question that we would defer to that interpretation a

2023County of Klamath v. Ricard, 317 Or App 608, 612 , 507 P3d 333 (2022); see also Noble v. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, 355 Or 435, 459 , 326 P3d 589 (2014) (rejecting an agency’s implausible interpretation of its rule and remanding for the agency to apply the only plausible interpretation); Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility 36 Sohappy v. Board of Parole Siting, 320 Or 132, 142 , 881 P2d 119 (1994) (observing that an agency’s interpretation is “erroneous” for purposes of ORS 183.482(8)(a) if it is “inconsistent with the wording of the rule itself, or with the rule’s context, or with any

2023County of Klamath v. Ricard, 317 Or App 608, 612 , 507 P3d 333 (2022); see also Noble v. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, 355 Or 435, 459 , 326 P3d 589 (2014) (rejecting an agency’s implausible interpretation of its rule and remanding for the agency to apply the only plausible interpretation); Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility 36 Sohappy v. Board of Parole Siting, 320 Or 132, 142 , 881 P2d 119 (1994) (observing that an agency’s interpretation is “erroneous” for purposes of ORS 183.482(8)(a) if it is “inconsistent with the wording of the rule itself, or with the rule’s context, or with any

2022Gafur v. Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital, 344 Or 525, 537 , 185 P3d 446 (2008) (We “defer[ ] to [the] agency’s interpretation * * *, as long as that interpretation [is not] inconsistent with the wording of the rule itself, or with the rule’s context, or with any other source of law.”). 574 Frehoo, Inc. v. BOLI majority opinion, as noted, quotes BOLI as having “ratio- nally explained [that] ‘a reasonable young woman of that age would have found the performance of nude dancing for older men to be sufficiently severe to create a hostile, intim- idating and offensive working environment.’ ” 319 Or