Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-305 (2026)

Requisites For Validity -- Authority And Statement Of Reasons

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

TITLE 2. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER 4. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT

Part 3. Adoption and Publication of Rules

Requisites For Validity -- Authority And Statement Of Reasons

2-4-305. Requisites for validity -- authority and statement of reasons. (1) (a) The agency shall fully consider written and oral submissions respecting the proposed rule.

(b) (i) Upon adoption of a rule, an agency shall fairly summarize and respond to the substance of comments received by the means set forth in the proposal notice and shall state the reasons for overruling the considerations urged against the rule's adoption. If substantial differences exist between the rule as proposed and as adopted and the differences have not been described or set forth in the adopted rule as that rule is published in the register, the differences must be described in the statement of reasons for and against agency action. When written or oral submissions have not been received, an agency may omit the statement of reasons.

(ii) If an adopted rule that initially implements legislation does not reflect the comments submitted by the primary sponsor by the means set forth in the proposal notice, the agency shall publish the sponsor's unredacted comments in the adoption notice and provide a statement explaining why the sponsor's comments were not incorporated into the adopted rule.

(2) Rules may not unnecessarily repeat statutory language. Whenever it is necessary to refer to statutory language in order to convey the meaning of a rule interpreting the language, the reference must clearly indicate the portion of the language that is statutory and the portion that is an amplification of the language.

(3) Each proposed and adopted rule must include a citation to the specific grant of rulemaking authority pursuant to which the rule or any part of the rule is adopted. In addition, each proposed and adopted rule must include a citation to the specific section or sections in the Montana Code Annotated that the rule purports to implement. A substantive rule may not be proposed or adopted unless:

(a) a statute granting the agency authority to adopt rules clearly and specifically lists the subject matter of the rule as a subject upon which the agency shall or may adopt rules; or

(b) the rule implements and relates to a subject matter or an agency function that is clearly and specifically included in a statute to which the grant of rulemaking authority extends.

(4) Each rule that is proposed and adopted by an agency and that implements a policy of a governing board or commission must include a citation to and description of the policy implemented. Each agency rule implementing a policy and the policy itself must be based on legal authority and otherwise comply with the requisites for validity of rules established by this chapter.

(5) To be effective, each substantive rule adopted must be within the scope of authority conferred and in accordance with standards prescribed by other provisions of law.

(6) Whenever by the express or implied terms of any statute a state agency has authority to adopt rules to implement, interpret, make specific, or otherwise carry out the provisions of the statute, an adoption, amendment, or repeal of a rule is not valid or effective unless it is:

(a) consistent and not in conflict with the statute; and

(b) reasonably necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute. A statute mandating that the agency adopt rules establishes the necessity for rules but does not, standing alone, constitute reasonable necessity for a rule. The agency shall also address the reasonableness component of the reasonable necessity requirement by, as indicated in 2-4-302(1) and subsection (1) of this section, stating the principal reasons and the rationale for its intended action and for the particular approach that it takes in complying with the mandate to adopt rules. Subject to the provisions of subsection (8), reasonable necessity must be clearly and thoroughly demonstrated for each adoption, amendment, or repeal of a rule in the agency's notice of proposed rulemaking and in the written and oral data, views, comments, or testimony submitted by the public or the agency and considered by the agency. A statement that merely explains what the rule provides is not a statement of the reasonable necessity for the rule.

(7) A rule is not valid unless notice of it is given and it is adopted in substantial compliance with 2-4-302, 2-4-303, or 2-4-306 and this section, unless notice of adoption of the rule is published within 6 months of the publishing of notice of the proposed rule, and unless the adoption is in compliance with the prohibitions of subsection (11). The measure of whether an agency has adopted a rule in substantial compliance with 2-4-302, 2-4-303, or 2-4-306 and this section is not whether the agency has provided notice of the proposed rule, standing alone, but rather must be based on an analysis of the agency's substantial compliance with 2-4-302, 2-4-303, or 2-4-306 and this section. If an amended or supplemental notice of either proposed or final rulemaking, or both, is published concerning the same rule, the 6-month limit must be determined with reference to the latest notice in all cases.

(8) (a) An agency may use an amended proposal notice or the adoption notice to correct deficiencies in citations of authority for rules and in citations of sections implemented by rules.

(b) An agency may use an amended proposal notice but, except for clerical corrections, may not use the adoption notice to correct deficiencies in a statement of reasonable necessity.

(c) If an agency uses an amended proposal notice to amend a proposal for reasons other than for corrections in citations of authority, in citations of sections being implemented, or of a clerical nature, the agency shall allow additional time for oral or written comments from the same interested persons who were notified of the original proposal notice, including from a primary sponsor, if primary sponsor notification was required under 2-4-310, and from any other person who offered comments or appeared at a hearing already held on the proposed rule.

(9) This section applies to the department of labor and industry adopting a rule relating to a commercial drug formulary as provided in 39-71-704. This section does not apply to the automatic updating of department of labor and industry rules relating to commercial drug formularies as provided in 39-71-704.

(10) (a) This section applies to the department of public health and human services' adoption of rules relating to medicare fee schedules issued by the centers for medicare and medicaid services of the United States department of health and human services as provided in 53-6-113.

(b) This section does not apply to the automatic updating of department of public health and human services rules relating to medicare fee schedules issued by the centers for medicare and medicaid services of the United States department of health and human services.

(11) (a) In the year preceding the year in which the legislature meets in regular session, an agency may not adopt a rule between October 1 through the end of the year.

(b) This subsection (11) does not apply to:

(i) an emergency rule adopted under 2-4-303;

(ii) subject to subsection (11)(c)(i), a rule adopted for implementation of a program or policy if the unavailability of information, guidance, or notice precluded adoption of the rule before October 1; or

(iii) subject to subsection (11)(c)(ii), a rule adopted by providing the proposal notice and statement of reasoning with an opportunity to object to the appropriate administrative rule review committee.

(c) (i) A rule may only be exempted under subsection (11)(b)(ii) if the notice required under 2-4-302(1) provides a statement explaining why the unavailability of information, guidance, or notice precluded adoption of the rule before October 1.

(ii) A rule may be exempted under subsection (11)(b)(iii) only if the agency provides a copy of the proposal notice and an explanation of the reason why the rule must be adopted before the end of the year by electronic mail to each member of the committee and the committee staff. If the committee does not object to the proposal within 10 business days after the electronic mail of the proposal and explanation has been sent to the committee, the agency may proceed with adoption of the proposed rule. If, during the 10-day review period, a majority of the members notify the committee presiding officer that those members object to the proposed rulemaking, the presiding officer shall notify the agency by electronic mail that the committee objects. Following notice of the objection, a rule may not be adopted before the end of the year.

History: Ap.p. Sec. 4, Ch. 2, Ex. L. 1971; amd. Sec. 5, Ch. 410, L. 1975; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 482, L. 1975; amd. Sec. 8, Ch. 285, L. 1977; Sec. 82-4204, R.C.M. 1947; Ap.p. 82-4204.1 by Sec. 9, Ch. 285, L. 1977; Sec. 82-4204.1, R.C.M. 1947; R.C.M. 1947, 82-4204(part), 82-4204.1(part); amd. Sec. 6, Ch. 243, L. 1979; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 381, L. 1981; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 78, L. 1983; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 466, L. 1983; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 420, L. 1989; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 3, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 152, L. 1997; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 335, L. 1997; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 489, L. 1997; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 19, L. 1999; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 210, L. 2001; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 21, L. 2009; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 152, L. 2009; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 270, L. 2009; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 303, L. 2009; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 433, L. 2017; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 100, L. 2019; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 102, L. 2021; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 519, L. 2021; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 282, L. 2023; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 301, L. 2025; amd. Sec. 12, Ch. 695, L. 2025.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 43 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Montana Petroleum Tank Release Comp. Bd. v. Crumleys, Inc., 2008 MT 2 (Mont. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Montana Petroleum Tank Release Comp. Bd. v. Crumleys, Inc., 2008 MT 2 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 26× “Section 2-4-305, MCA, provides that "[w]henever by .”

Clark Fork Coalition v. Montana Wel, 2016 MT 229 (Mont. 2016). · cites it 14× “The DNRC similarly did not provide a statement as to why the change from the 1987 rule was necessary as the DNRC was required to do pursuant to § 2-4-305, MCA. The DNRC responded to an inquiry by the Administrative Rules Committee that the 1987 definition of “combined…”

Kuhr v. City of Billings, 2007 MT 201 (Mont. 2007). · cites it 15× “Section 2-4-305, MCA, addresses agencies’ rulemaking authority and provides: (6) Whenever by the express or implied terms of any statute a state agency has authority to adopt rules to implement, interpret, make specific, or 1 The parties argued and the District Court decided…”

Montana Trout Unlimited v. Montana Dep't of Nat. Resources & Conservation, 2006 MT 72 (Mont. 2006). · cites it 12× “¶ 36 Whenever a state agency has authority to adopt rules to implement the provisions of a statute, the agency's rule "is not valid or effective unless it is .”

Espinoza v. Mont. Dep't of Revenue, 435 P.3d 603 (Mont. 2018). · cites it 13× “¶ 42 An agency's authority to adopt rules is limited: Whenever by the express or implied terms of any statute a state agency has authority to adopt rules to implement, interpret, make specific, or otherwise carry out the provisions of the statute, an ***469 adoption, amendment,…”

Bd. of Barbers of the Dep't of Prof'l & Occupational Licensing v. Big Sky Coll. of Barberstyling, Inc., 626 P.2d 1269 (Mont. 1981). · cites it 10× “The Board urges us to apply the MAPA standard of “reasonable necessity to effectuate the purpose of the statute” in determining the validity of its rule, citing sections 2-4-305(4), (5) and 2-4-506(1) and (2), MCA.”

Clark Fork Coalition v. Tubbs, 2017 MT 184 (Mont. 2017). · cites it 6× “See Clark Fork I, ¶ 25 (stating that “[r]ules adopted by administrative agencies which conflict with statutory requirements or exceed authority provided by statute[ ] are invalid” (citation and internal quotations omitted)). Agency rules must be “consistent and not in conflict…”

Gold Creek Cellular of Montana Ltd. P'ship v. State, 2013 MT 273 (Mont. 2013). · cites it 10× “¶11 WTten examining regulations from a state agency implementing purely state law, we have applied the standard of deference set forth in the Montana Administrative Procedures Act (MAPA), § 2-4-305, MCA. See Musselshell Co. v. Yellowstone Co.”

Christenot v. State, Dept. of Com., 901 P.2d 545 (Mont. 1995). · cites it 6× “Under Board of Barbers, and § 2-4-305(5), MCA, an administrative regulation may also be overruled upon a clear showing that the regulation adds requirements which are contrary to the statutory language.”

Sage v. Gamble, 929 P.2d 822 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 6× “Section 2-4-305(6), MCA; Taylor v. Taylor (1995), 272 Mont.”

Norfolk Holdings, Inc. v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 813 P.2d 460 (Mont. 1991). · cites it 6× “The regulation reflects the Department's conviction that any extensions of time received for filing the return are excluded from the computation of the running of the statute of limitations.”

Williamson v. Montana Pub. Serv. Comm'n & Nw. Energy, 2012 MT 32 (Mont. 2012). · cites it 2× “¶17 Turning, then, to an analysis under §69-3-321(1), MCA, the PSC first noted that Northwestern directly bills the members of the street and area lighting class, and that these entities in turn pay the street lighting bills to Northwestern. ‘Clearly,” the PSC observed,…”

Show all 43 citing cases →

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-305(1) — 1 case

State Ex Rel. Dept. of Pub. Serv. Reg. v. Montana Irrigators, Inc., 680 P.2d 963 (Mont. 1984).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-305(2) — 1 case

Gold Creek Cellular of Montana Ltd. P'ship v. State, 2013 MT 273 (Mont. 2013). “¶11 WTten examining regulations from a state agency implementing purely state law, we have applied the standard of deference set forth in the Montana Administrative Procedures Act (MAPA), § 2-4-305, MCA. See Musselshell Co. v. Yellowstone Co.”

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-305(3) — 1 case

Fallon Cnty. Ex Rel. Bd. of Commissioners v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 2009 MT 454 (Mont. 2009).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-305(3)(a) — 1 case

Fallon Cnty. Ex Rel. Bd. of Commissioners v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 2009 MT 454 (Mont. 2009).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-305(3)(b) — 1 case

Fallon Cnty. Ex Rel. Bd. of Commissioners v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 2009 MT 454 (Mont. 2009).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-305(4) — 1 case

Bd. of Barbers of the Dep't of Prof'l & Occupational Licensing v. Big Sky Coll. of Barberstyling, Inc., 626 P.2d 1269 (Mont. 1981). “The Board urges us to apply the MAPA standard of “reasonable necessity to effectuate the purpose of the statute” in determining the validity of its rule, citing sections 2-4-305(4), (5) and 2-4-506(1) and (2), MCA.”

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-305(5) — 3 cases

Kuhr v. City of Billings, 2007 MT 201 (Mont. 2007). “Section 2-4-305, MCA, addresses agencies’ rulemaking authority and provides: (6) Whenever by the express or implied terms of any statute a state agency has authority to adopt rules to implement, interpret, make specific, or 1 The parties argued and the District Court decided…”

Christenot v. State, Dept. of Com., 901 P.2d 545 (Mont. 1995). “Under Board of Barbers, and § 2-4-305(5), MCA, an administrative regulation may also be overruled upon a clear showing that the regulation adds requirements which are contrary to the statutory language.”

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-305(6) — 23 cases

Montana Petroleum Tank Release Comp. Bd. v. Crumleys, Inc., 2008 MT 2 (Mont. 2008). “Section 2-4-305, MCA, provides that "[w]henever by .”

Montana Trout Unlimited v. Montana Dep't of Nat. Resources & Conservation, 2006 MT 72 (Mont. 2006). “¶ 36 Whenever a state agency has authority to adopt rules to implement the provisions of a statute, the agency's rule "is not valid or effective unless it is .”

Clark Fork Coalition v. Montana Wel, 2016 MT 229 (Mont. 2016). “The DNRC similarly did not provide a statement as to why the change from the 1987 rule was necessary as the DNRC was required to do pursuant to § 2-4-305, MCA. The DNRC responded to an inquiry by the Administrative Rules Committee that the 1987 definition of “combined…”

Espinoza v. Mont. Dep't of Revenue, 435 P.3d 603 (Mont. 2018). “¶ 42 An agency's authority to adopt rules is limited: Whenever by the express or implied terms of any statute a state agency has authority to adopt rules to implement, interpret, make specific, or otherwise carry out the provisions of the statute, an ***469 adoption, amendment,…”

Clark Fork Coalition v. Tubbs, 2017 MT 184 (Mont. 2017). “See Clark Fork I, ¶ 25 (stating that “[r]ules adopted by administrative agencies which conflict with statutory requirements or exceed authority provided by statute[ ] are invalid” (citation and internal quotations omitted)). Agency rules must be “consistent and not in conflict…”

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-305(6)(a) — 10 cases

Williamson v. Montana Pub. Serv. Comm'n & Nw. Energy, 2012 MT 32 (Mont. 2012). “¶17 Turning, then, to an analysis under §69-3-321(1), MCA, the PSC first noted that Northwestern directly bills the members of the street and area lighting class, and that these entities in turn pay the street lighting bills to Northwestern. ‘Clearly,” the PSC observed,…”

Est. of Parini v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 926 P.2d 741 (Mont. 1996).

Town of Columbus v. Harrington, 2001 MT 258 (Mont. 2001).

Safeway, Inc. v. Montana Petroleum Release Comp. Bd., 931 P.2d 1327 (Mont. 1997).

Knowles v. State Ex Rel. Lindeen, 2009 MT 415 (Mont. 2009).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-305(6)(b) — 6 cases

Montana Soc'y of Anesthesiologists v. Montana Bd. of Nursing, 2007 MT 290 (Mont. 2007).

Rosebud Cnty. v. Dep't of Revenue, 849 P.2d 177 (Mont. 1993).

Anesthesiologists v. Bd. of Nursi, 2007 MT 290 (Mont. 2007).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-305(7) — 5 cases

State v. Vainio, 2001 MT 220 (Mont. 2001).

Fenwick v. State, Dep't of Military Affairs, Disaster & Emergency Servs. Div., 2016 MT 80 (Mont. 2016).

Montana Soc'y of Anesthesiologists v. Montana Bd. of Nursing, 2007 MT 290 (Mont. 2007).

Anesthesiologists v. Bd. of Nursi, 2007 MT 290 (Mont. 2007).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-305(l)(b)(i) — 1 case

Core-Mark Int'l Inc. v. Montana Bd. of Livestock, 2014 MT 197 (Mont. 2014).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.