Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335 (2026)

Notice; content; public comment; temporary rule adoption, amendment or suspension; substantial compliance required

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      183.335 Notice; content; public comment; temporary rule adoption, amendment or suspension; substantial compliance required. (1) Prior to the adoption, amendment or repeal of any rule, the agency shall give notice of its intended action:

      (a) In the manner established by rule adopted by the agency under ORS 183.341 (4), which provides a reasonable opportunity for interested persons to be notified of the agency’s proposed action;

      (b) In the bulletin referred to in ORS 183.360 at least 21 days prior to the effective date;

      (c) At least 28 days before the effective date, to persons who have requested notice pursuant to subsection (8) of this section; and

      (d) Delivered only by electronic mail, at least 49 days before the effective date, to the persons specified in subsection (15) of this section.

      (2)(a) The notice required by subsection (1) of this section must include:

      (A) A caption of not more than 15 words that reasonably identifies the subject matter of the agency’s intended action. The agency shall include the caption on each separate notice, statement, certificate or other similar document related to the intended action.

      (B) An objective, simple and understandable statement summarizing the subject matter and purpose of the intended action in sufficient detail to inform a person that the person’s interests may be affected, and the time, place and manner in which interested persons may present their views on the intended action.

      (b) The agency shall include with the notice of intended action given under subsection (1) of this section:

      (A) A citation of the statutory or other legal authority relied upon and bearing upon the promulgation of the rule;

      (B) A citation of the statute or other law the rule is intended to implement;

      (C) A statement of the need for the rule and a statement of how the rule is intended to meet the need;

      (D) A list of the principal documents, reports or studies, if any, prepared by or relied upon by the agency in considering the need for and in preparing the rule, and a statement of the location at which those documents are available for public inspection. The list may be abbreviated if necessary, and if so abbreviated there shall be identified the location of a complete list;

      (E) A statement of fiscal impact identifying state agencies, units of local government and the public that may be economically affected by the adoption, amendment or repeal of the rule and an estimate of that economic impact on state agencies, units of local government and the public. In considering the economic effect of the proposed action on the public, the agency shall utilize available information to project any significant economic effect of that action on businesses which shall include a cost of compliance effect on small businesses affected. For an agency specified in ORS 183.530, the statement of fiscal impact shall also include a housing cost impact statement as described in ORS 183.534;

      (F) A statement identifying how adoption of the rule will affect racial equity in this state;

      (G) If an advisory committee is not appointed under the provisions of ORS 183.333, an explanation as to why no advisory committee was used to assist the agency in drafting the rule; and

      (H) A request for public comment on whether other options should be considered for achieving the rule’s substantive goals while reducing the negative economic impact of the rule on business.

      (c) The Secretary of State may omit the information submitted under paragraph (b) of this subsection from publication in the bulletin referred to in ORS 183.360.

      (d) When providing notice of an intended action under subsection (1)(c) of this section, the agency shall provide a copy of the rule that the agency proposes to adopt, amend or repeal, or an explanation of how the person may acquire a copy of the rule. The copy of an amended rule shall show all changes to the rule by striking through material to be deleted and underlining all new material, or by any other method that clearly shows all new and deleted material.

      (3)(a) When an agency proposes to adopt, amend or repeal a rule, it shall give interested persons reasonable opportunity to submit data or views. Opportunity for oral hearing shall be granted upon request received from 10 persons or from an association having not less than 10 members before the earliest date that the rule could become effective after the giving of notice pursuant to subsection (1) of this section. An agency holding a hearing upon a request made under this subsection shall give notice of the hearing at least 21 days before the hearing to the person who has requested the hearing, to persons who have requested notice pursuant to subsection (8) of this section and to the persons specified in subsection (15) of this section. The agency shall publish notice of the hearing in the bulletin referred to in ORS 183.360 at least 14 days before the hearing. The agency shall consider fully any written or oral submission.

      (b) If an agency is required to conduct an oral hearing under paragraph (a) of this subsection, and the rule for which the hearing is to be conducted applies only to a limited geographical area within this state, or affects only a limited geographical area within this state, the hearing shall be conducted within the geographical area at the place most convenient for the majority of the residents within the geographical area. At least 14 days before a hearing conducted under this paragraph, the agency shall publish notice of the hearing in the bulletin referred to in ORS 183.360 and in a newspaper of general circulation published within the geographical area that is affected by the rule or to which the rule applies. If a newspaper of general circulation is not published within the geographical area that is affected by the rule or to which the rule applies, the publication shall be made in the newspaper of general circulation published closest to the geographical area.

      (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, the Department of Corrections and the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision may adopt rules limiting participation by adults in custody in the proposed adoption, amendment or repeal of any rule to written submissions.

      (d) If requested by at least five persons before the earliest date that the rule could become effective after the agency gives notice pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the agency shall provide a statement that identifies the objective of the rule and a statement of how the agency will subsequently determine whether the rule is in fact accomplishing that objective.

      (e) An agency that receives data or views concerning proposed rules from interested persons shall maintain a record of the data or views submitted. The record shall contain:

      (A) All written materials submitted to an agency in response to a notice of intent to adopt, amend or repeal a rule.

      (B) A recording or summary of oral submissions received at hearings held for the purpose of receiving those submissions.

      (C) Any public comment received in response to the request made under subsection (2)(b)(H) of this section and the agency’s response to that comment.

      (D) Any statements provided by the agency under paragraph (d) of this subsection.

      (4) Upon request of an interested person received before the earliest date that the rule could become effective after the giving of notice pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the agency shall postpone the date of its intended action no less than 21 nor more than 90 days in order to allow the requesting person an opportunity to submit data, views or arguments concerning the proposed action. Nothing in this subsection shall preclude an agency from adopting a temporary rule pursuant to subsection (5) of this section.

      (5) Notwithstanding subsections (1) to (4) of this section, an agency may adopt, amend or suspend a rule without prior notice or hearing or upon any abbreviated notice and hearing that it finds practicable, if the agency prepares:

      (a) A statement of its findings that its failure to act promptly will result in serious prejudice to the public interest or the interest of the parties concerned and the specific reasons for its findings of prejudice;

      (b) A citation of the statutory or other legal authority relied upon and bearing upon the promulgation of the rule;

      (c) A statement of the need for the rule and a statement of how the rule is intended to meet the need;

      (d) A list of the principal documents, reports or studies, if any, prepared by or relied upon by the agency in considering the need for and in preparing the rule, and a statement of the location at which those documents are available for public inspection; and

      (e) For an agency specified in ORS 183.530, a housing cost impact statement as defined in ORS 183.534.

      (6)(a) A rule adopted, amended or suspended under subsection (5) of this section is temporary and may be effective for a period of not longer than 180 days. The adoption of a rule under this subsection does not preclude the subsequent adoption of an identical rule under subsections (1) to (4) of this section.

      (b) A rule temporarily suspended shall regain effectiveness upon expiration of the temporary period of suspension unless the rule is repealed under subsections (1) to (4) of this section.

      (7) Notwithstanding subsections (1) to (4) of this section, an agency may amend a rule without prior notice or hearing if the amendment is solely for the purpose of:

      (a) Changing the name of an agency by reason of a name change prescribed by law;

      (b) Changing the name of a program, office or division within an agency as long as the change in name does not have a substantive effect on the functions of the program, office or division;

      (c) Correcting spelling;

      (d) Correcting grammatical mistakes in a manner that does not alter the scope, application or meaning of the rule;

      (e) Correcting statutory or rule references;

      (f) Correcting addresses or telephone numbers referred to in the rules; or

      (g) Changing a term or phrase in order to conform with a change prescribed by law.

      (8)(a) Any person may request in writing that an agency send to the person copies of the agency’s notices of intended action issued under subsection (1) of this section. The person must provide an address where the person elects to receive notices. The address provided may be a postal mailing address or, if the agency provides notice by electronic mail, may be an electronic mailing address.

      (b) A request under this subsection must indicate that the person requests one of the following:

      (A) The person may request that the agency mail paper copies of the proposed rule and other information required by subsection (2) of this section to the postal mailing address.

      (B) If the agency posts notices of intended action on a website, the person may request that the agency mail the information required by subsection (2)(a) of this section to the postal mailing address with a reference to the website where electronic copies of the proposed rule and other information required by subsection (2) of this section are posted.

      (C) The person may request that the agency electronically mail the information required by subsection (2)(a) of this section to the electronic mailing address, and either provide electronic copies of the proposed rule and other information required by subsection (2) of this section or provide a reference to a website where electronic copies of the proposed rule and other information required by subsection (2) of this section are posted.

      (c) Upon receipt of any request under this subsection, the agency shall acknowledge the request, establish a mailing list and maintain a record of all mailings made pursuant to the request. Agencies may establish procedures for establishing the mailing lists and keeping the mailing lists current. Agencies by rule may establish fees necessary to defray the costs of mailings and maintenance of the lists.

      (d) Members of the Legislative Assembly who receive notices under subsection (15) of this section may request that an agency furnish paper copies of the notices.

      (9) This section does not apply to rules establishing an effective date for a previously effective rule or establishing a period during which a provision of a previously effective rule will apply.

      (10) This section does not apply to ORS 279.835 to 279.855, 279A.140 to 279A.161, 279A.250 to 279A.290, 279A.990, 279B.050 to 279B.085, 279B.200 to 279B.240, 279B.270, 279B.275, 279B.280, 279C.360, 279C.365, 279C.370, 279C.375, 279C.380, 279C.385, 279C.500 to 279C.530, 279C.540, 279C.545, 279C.550 to 279C.570, 279C.580, 279C.585, 279C.590, 279C.600 to 279C.625, 279C.650 to 279C.670 and 279C.800 to 279C.870 relating to public contracts and purchasing.

      (11)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this subsection, a rule is not valid unless adopted in substantial compliance with the provisions of this section in effect on the date that the notice required under subsection (1) of this section is delivered to the Secretary of State for the purpose of publication in the bulletin referred to in ORS 183.360.

      (b) In addition to all other requirements with which rule adoptions must comply, a rule other than a rule amended for a purpose described in subsection (7) of this section is not valid if the rule has not been submitted to the Legislative Counsel in the manner required by ORS 183.355 and 183.715.

      (c) A rule is not subject to judicial review or other challenge by reason of failing to comply with subsection (2)(a)(A) of this section.

      (12)(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (11) of this section, but subject to paragraph (b) of this subsection, an agency may correct its failure to substantially comply with the requirements of subsections (2) and (5) of this section in adoption of a rule by an amended filing, as long as the noncompliance did not substantially prejudice the interests of persons to be affected by the rule.

      (b) An agency may use an amended filing to correct a failure to include a fiscal impact statement in a notice of intended action, as required by subsection (2)(b)(E) of this section, or to correct an inaccurate fiscal impact statement, only if the agency developed the fiscal impact statement with the assistance of an advisory committee or fiscal impact advisory committee appointed under ORS 183.333.

      (13) Unless otherwise provided by statute, the adoption, amendment or repeal of a rule by an agency need not be based upon or supported by an evidentiary record.

      (14) When an agency has established a deadline for comment on a proposed rule under the provisions of subsection (3)(a) of this section, the agency may not extend that deadline for another agency or person unless the extension applies equally to all interested agencies and persons. An agency shall not consider any submission made by another agency after the final deadline has passed.

      (15) The notices required under subsections (1) and (3) of this section must be given by the agency to the following persons:

      (a) If the proposed adoption, amendment or repeal results from legislation that was passed within two years before notice is given under subsection (1) of this section, notice shall be given to the legislator who introduced the bill that subsequently was enacted into law, and to the chair or cochairs of all committees that reported the bill out, except for those committees whose sole action on the bill was referral to another committee.

      (b) If the proposed adoption, amendment or repeal does not result from legislation that was passed within two years before notice is given under subsection (1) of this section, notice shall be given to the chair or cochairs of any interim or session committee with authority over the subject matter of the rule.

      (c) If notice cannot be given under paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection, notice shall be given to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President of the Senate who are in office on the date the notice is given.

      (16)(a) Upon the request of a member of the Legislative Assembly or of a person who would be affected by a proposed adoption, amendment or repeal, the committees receiving notice under subsection (15) of this section shall review the proposed adoption, amendment or repeal for compliance with the legislation from which the proposed adoption, amendment or repeal results.

      (b) The committees shall submit their comments on the proposed adoption, amendment or repeal to the agency proposing the adoption, amendment or repeal. [1971 c.734 §3; 1973 c.612 §1; 1975 c.136 §11; 1975 c.759 §4; 1977 c.161 §1; 1977 c.344 §6; 1977 c.394 §1a; 1977 c.798 §2; 1979 c.593 §11; 1981 c.755 §2; 1987 c.861 §2; 1993 c.729 §3; 1995 c.652 §5; 1997 c.602 §3; 1999 c.123 §1; 1999 c.334 §1; 2001 c.220 §1; 2001 c.563 §1; 2003 c.749 §5; 2003 c.794 §206; 2005 c.17 §1; 2005 c.18 §1; 2005 c.382 §1; 2005 c.807 §5; 2007 c.115 §1; 2007 c.768 §58; 2011 c.380 §2; 2017 c.518 §2; 2019 c.213 §126; 2021 c.463 §2; 2022 c.97 §6]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 100 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Don't Waste Oregon Comm. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 881 P.2d 119 (Or. 1994).
Don't Waste Oregon Comm. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 881 P.2d 119 (Or. 1994). · cites it 24× “) Petitioners first assert that the statement of fiscal impact that EFSC included, pursuant to ORS 183.335-(2)(b)(E), in its notice of intended rulemaking for the 1994 amendment is deficient and that the defect requires invalidation of the rule under which this application for a…”
Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 446 P.3d 53 (Or. 2019). · cites it 35× “First, petitioners argue that the council violated ORS 183.335 (3)(e)(C) by failing to respond to petitioners' comments recommending other options for achieving the substantive goals of the rulemaking.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Energy Fac. Siting Coun., 477 P.3d 1191 (Or. 2020). · cites it 26× “Because, in adopting the rules, the council had failed to substantially comply with a procedural requirement in ORS 183.335, the court held that all the rules were invalid.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Energy Fac. Siting Coun., 456 P.3d 635 (Or. 2020). · cites it 27× “The court, however, agreed with petitioners’ third ground, concluding that the council had not substantially complied with ORS 183.335 (3)(d) when it failed to state how it would determine whether the 2018 rules accomplished the council’s rulemaking objec- tives.”
Oregon Cable Telecomm. Ass'n v. Dep't of Revenue, 240 P.3d 1122 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 13× “4 Before an agency adopts a rule, it must give notice of its intended action pursuant to ORS 183.335(1), which, among other things, requires the agency to provide “[a] statement of fiscal impact identifying state agencies, units of local government and the public which may be…”
Application of Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 561 P.2d 154 (Or. 1977). · cites it 6× “ORS 183.335, 183.400(3). Whether or not a hearing is held, interested persons may present data or views bearing on the proposed policy without having to "prove" either their interest or their assertions; there are no "parties" to rulemaking.”
Fremont Lumber Co. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 936 P.2d 968 (Or. 1997). · cites it 22× “335(2)(b)fO, directs that a notice of an agency’s intent to adopt, amend, or repeal a rule include “a statement of the need for the rule and a statement of how the rule is intended to meet that need.”
Columbia Riverkeeper v. ODFW, 345 Or. App. 213 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 35× “In one assignment of error, petitioners argue that the amendments to those rules were adopted without compliance with applicable rulemaking procedures, in violation of ORS 183.335. We conclude that the commis- sion did not substantially comply with the notice require- ments for…”
Oregon-Columbia Chapter AGC v. ODOT (S071452), 373 Or. 405 (Or. 2025). · cites it 25× “Nor does ODOT contend that its adoption of the CWA fits within any of the exceptions to the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures that are set out in ORS 183.335. Finally, ODOT does not con- tend that the community benefit statute, ORS 279C.”
Purdue Pharma, L.P. v. Oregon Dep't of Human Servs. Ex Rel. Off. of Med. Assistance Programs, 110 P.3d 657 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 11× “According to petitioners, the facts that the Kitzhaber letter preceded the notice of proposed rulemaking — and that the letter predicted precisely which long-acting opioid analgesics would be included in the PDL — show that DHS violated ORS 183.335, which, among other things,…”
Bassett v. State Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, 556 P.2d 1382 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 8× “707(1) is made a prerequisite to rule making by ORS 183.335 (10). [3] ORS 496.162(1)(a) provides: "(1) After investigation of the supply and condition of wildlife, the commission, at appropriate times each year, shall by rule: "(a) Prescribe the times, places and manner in which…”
Dika v. Dep't of Ins. & Fin., 817 P.2d 287 (Or. 1991). · cites it 7× “ORS 183.335 in part provides: “(1) Prior to the adoption, amendment or repeal of any rule, the agency shall give notice of its intended action: $ * * * * “(2)(b) The agency shall include with the notice of intended action * * *: * * # * % “(D) A statement of fiscal impact…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(1) — 13 cases
Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 446 P.3d 53 (Or. 2019). “First, petitioners argue that the council violated ORS 183.335 (3)(e)(C) by failing to respond to petitioners' comments recommending other options for achieving the substantive goals of the rulemaking.”
Application of Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 561 P.2d 154 (Or. 1977). “ORS 183.335, 183.400(3). Whether or not a hearing is held, interested persons may present data or views bearing on the proposed policy without having to "prove" either their interest or their assertions; there are no "parties" to rulemaking.”
Oregon Cable Telecomm. Ass'n v. Dep't of Revenue, 240 P.3d 1122 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “4 Before an agency adopts a rule, it must give notice of its intended action pursuant to ORS 183.335(1), which, among other things, requires the agency to provide “[a] statement of fiscal impact identifying state agencies, units of local government and the public which may be…”
Purdue Pharma, L.P. v. Oregon Dep't of Human Servs. Ex Rel. Off. of Med. Assistance Programs, 110 P.3d 657 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “According to petitioners, the facts that the Kitzhaber letter preceded the notice of proposed rulemaking — and that the letter predicted precisely which long-acting opioid analgesics would be included in the PDL — show that DHS violated ORS 183.335, which, among other things,…”
Oregon-Columbia Chapter AGC v. ODOT (S071452), 373 Or. 405 (Or. 2025). “Nor does ODOT contend that its adoption of the CWA fits within any of the exceptions to the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures that are set out in ORS 183.335. Finally, ODOT does not con- tend that the community benefit statute, ORS 279C.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(1)(b) — 1 case
Bassett v. State Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, 556 P.2d 1382 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “707(1) is made a prerequisite to rule making by ORS 183.335 (10). [3] ORS 496.162(1)(a) provides: "(1) After investigation of the supply and condition of wildlife, the commission, at appropriate times each year, shall by rule: "(a) Prescribe the times, places and manner in which…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(1)(c) — 1 case
Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 446 P.3d 53 (Or. 2019). “First, petitioners argue that the council violated ORS 183.335 (3)(e)(C) by failing to respond to petitioners' comments recommending other options for achieving the substantive goals of the rulemaking.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(10) — 8 cases
Oregon-Columbia Chapter AGC v. ODOT (S071452), 373 Or. 405 (Or. 2025). “Nor does ODOT contend that its adoption of the CWA fits within any of the exceptions to the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures that are set out in ORS 183.335. Finally, ODOT does not con- tend that the community benefit statute, ORS 279C.”
Bassett v. State Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, 556 P.2d 1382 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “707(1) is made a prerequisite to rule making by ORS 183.335 (10). [3] ORS 496.162(1)(a) provides: "(1) After investigation of the supply and condition of wildlife, the commission, at appropriate times each year, shall by rule: "(a) Prescribe the times, places and manner in which…”
Fitzgerald v. Oregon Bd. of Optometry, 706 P.2d 586 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(10)(a) — 7 cases
Don't Waste Oregon Comm. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 881 P.2d 119 (Or. 1994). “) Petitioners first assert that the statement of fiscal impact that EFSC included, pursuant to ORS 183.335-(2)(b)(E), in its notice of intended rulemaking for the 1994 amendment is deficient and that the defect requires invalidation of the rule under which this application for a…”
Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 446 P.3d 53 (Or. 2019). “First, petitioners argue that the council violated ORS 183.335 (3)(e)(C) by failing to respond to petitioners' comments recommending other options for achieving the substantive goals of the rulemaking.”
Watson v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 750 P.2d 1188 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
Clark v. Schumacher, 795 P.2d 1093 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(11) — 4 cases
Fremont Lumber Co. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 936 P.2d 968 (Or. 1997). “335(2)(b)fO, directs that a notice of an agency’s intent to adopt, amend, or repeal a rule include “a statement of the need for the rule and a statement of how the rule is intended to meet that need.”
Clark v. Schumacher, 795 P.2d 1093 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
Columbia Riverkeeper v. ODFW, 345 Or. App. 213 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “In one assignment of error, petitioners argue that the amendments to those rules were adopted without compliance with applicable rulemaking procedures, in violation of ORS 183.335. We conclude that the commis- sion did not substantially comply with the notice require- ments for…”
NewSun Energy, LLC v. PUC, 346 Or. App. 545 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(11)(a) — 6 cases
Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 446 P.3d 53 (Or. 2019). “First, petitioners argue that the council violated ORS 183.335 (3)(e)(C) by failing to respond to petitioners' comments recommending other options for achieving the substantive goals of the rulemaking.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Energy Fac. Siting Coun., 456 P.3d 635 (Or. 2020). “The court, however, agreed with petitioners’ third ground, concluding that the council had not substantially complied with ORS 183.335 (3)(d) when it failed to state how it would determine whether the 2018 rules accomplished the council’s rulemaking objec- tives.”
Columbia Riverkeeper v. ODFW, 345 Or. App. 213 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “In one assignment of error, petitioners argue that the amendments to those rules were adopted without compliance with applicable rulemaking procedures, in violation of ORS 183.335. We conclude that the commis- sion did not substantially comply with the notice require- ments for…”
Columbia Riverkeeper v. ODFW, 345 Or. App. 213 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(11)(c) — 1 case
NewSun Energy, LLC v. PUC, 346 Or. App. 545 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(12) — 3 cases
Don't Waste Oregon Comm. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 881 P.2d 119 (Or. 1994). “) Petitioners first assert that the statement of fiscal impact that EFSC included, pursuant to ORS 183.335-(2)(b)(E), in its notice of intended rulemaking for the 1994 amendment is deficient and that the defect requires invalidation of the rule under which this application for a…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(13) — 4 cases
Smith v. Dep't of Corr., 182 P.3d 250 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
Wolf v. Oregon Lottery Comm'n, 149 P.3d 303 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
Studor, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Dcbs, 197 P.3d 554 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
DeArmitt v. Dep't of Corr. ex rel. Peters, 312 P.3d 616 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(2) — 7 cases
Bassett v. State Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, 556 P.2d 1382 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “707(1) is made a prerequisite to rule making by ORS 183.335 (10). [3] ORS 496.162(1)(a) provides: "(1) After investigation of the supply and condition of wildlife, the commission, at appropriate times each year, shall by rule: "(a) Prescribe the times, places and manner in which…”
Burke v. Child.'s Servs. Div., 607 P.2d 141 (Or. 1980).
Watson v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 750 P.2d 1188 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
Purdue Pharma, L.P. v. Oregon Dep't of Human Servs. Ex Rel. Off. of Med. Assistance Programs, 110 P.3d 657 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “According to petitioners, the facts that the Kitzhaber letter preceded the notice of proposed rulemaking — and that the letter predicted precisely which long-acting opioid analgesics would be included in the PDL — show that DHS violated ORS 183.335, which, among other things,…”
Oregonians in Action v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 809 P.2d 718 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(2)(a) — 6 cases
Ass'n of Oregon Loggers, Inc. v. Dep't of Ins. & Fin., 883 P.2d 859 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
Columbia Riverkeeper v. ODFW, 345 Or. App. 213 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “In one assignment of error, petitioners argue that the amendments to those rules were adopted without compliance with applicable rulemaking procedures, in violation of ORS 183.335. We conclude that the commis- sion did not substantially comply with the notice require- ments for…”
Whaley v. Dep't of Corr., 852 P.2d 200 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(2)(a)(A) — 1 case
NewSun Energy, LLC v. PUC, 346 Or. App. 545 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(2)(a)(B) — 5 cases
Columbia Riverkeeper v. ODFW, 345 Or. App. 213 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “In one assignment of error, petitioners argue that the amendments to those rules were adopted without compliance with applicable rulemaking procedures, in violation of ORS 183.335. We conclude that the commis- sion did not substantially comply with the notice require- ments for…”
Columbia Riverkeeper v. ODFW, 345 Or. App. 213 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
NewSun Energy, LLC v. PUC, 346 Or. App. 545 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(2)(a)(D) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(2)(b) — 7 cases
Fremont Lumber Co. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 936 P.2d 968 (Or. 1997). “335(2)(b)fO, directs that a notice of an agency’s intent to adopt, amend, or repeal a rule include “a statement of the need for the rule and a statement of how the rule is intended to meet that need.”
Columbia Riverkeeper v. ODFW, 345 Or. App. 213 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “In one assignment of error, petitioners argue that the amendments to those rules were adopted without compliance with applicable rulemaking procedures, in violation of ORS 183.335. We conclude that the commis- sion did not substantially comply with the notice require- ments for…”
Schlip v. Oregon Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, 707 P.2d 606 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
Kasch's Garden Centers & Nurseries v. Dep't of Agric., 736 P.2d 609 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(2)(b)(0) — 1 case
Fremont Lumber Co. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 936 P.2d 968 (Or. 1997). “335(2)(b)fO, directs that a notice of an agency’s intent to adopt, amend, or repeal a rule include “a statement of the need for the rule and a statement of how the rule is intended to meet that need.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(2)(b)(A) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(2)(b)(B) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(2)(b)(C) — 6 cases
Fremont Lumber Co. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 936 P.2d 968 (Or. 1997). “335(2)(b)fO, directs that a notice of an agency’s intent to adopt, amend, or repeal a rule include “a statement of the need for the rule and a statement of how the rule is intended to meet that need.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Energy Fac. Siting Coun., 456 P.3d 635 (Or. 2020). “The court, however, agreed with petitioners’ third ground, concluding that the council had not substantially complied with ORS 183.335 (3)(d) when it failed to state how it would determine whether the 2018 rules accomplished the council’s rulemaking objec- tives.”
Columbia Riverkeeper v. ODFW, 345 Or. App. 213 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “In one assignment of error, petitioners argue that the amendments to those rules were adopted without compliance with applicable rulemaking procedures, in violation of ORS 183.335. We conclude that the commis- sion did not substantially comply with the notice require- ments for…”
Columbia Riverkeeper v. ODFW, 345 Or. App. 213 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(2)(b)(D) — 12 cases
Dika v. Dep't of Ins. & Fin., 817 P.2d 287 (Or. 1991). “ORS 183.335 in part provides: “(1) Prior to the adoption, amendment or repeal of any rule, the agency shall give notice of its intended action: $ * * * * “(2)(b) The agency shall include with the notice of intended action * * *: * * # * % “(D) A statement of fiscal impact…”
Clark v. Schumacher, 795 P.2d 1093 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
Oregon Cable Telecomm. Ass'n v. Dep't of Revenue, 240 P.3d 1122 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “4 Before an agency adopts a rule, it must give notice of its intended action pursuant to ORS 183.335(1), which, among other things, requires the agency to provide “[a] statement of fiscal impact identifying state agencies, units of local government and the public which may be…”
Troutlodge, Inc. v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 830 P.2d 622 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
Schlip v. Oregon Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, 707 P.2d 606 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(2)(b)(E) — 12 cases
Don't Waste Oregon Comm. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 881 P.2d 119 (Or. 1994). “) Petitioners first assert that the statement of fiscal impact that EFSC included, pursuant to ORS 183.335-(2)(b)(E), in its notice of intended rulemaking for the 1994 amendment is deficient and that the defect requires invalidation of the rule under which this application for a…”
Oregon Cable Telecomm. Ass'n v. Dep't of Revenue, 240 P.3d 1122 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “4 Before an agency adopts a rule, it must give notice of its intended action pursuant to ORS 183.335(1), which, among other things, requires the agency to provide “[a] statement of fiscal impact identifying state agencies, units of local government and the public which may be…”
Fremont Lumber Co. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 936 P.2d 968 (Or. 1997). “335(2)(b)fO, directs that a notice of an agency’s intent to adopt, amend, or repeal a rule include “a statement of the need for the rule and a statement of how the rule is intended to meet that need.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Energy Fac. Siting Coun., 456 P.3d 635 (Or. 2020). “The court, however, agreed with petitioners’ third ground, concluding that the council had not substantially complied with ORS 183.335 (3)(d) when it failed to state how it would determine whether the 2018 rules accomplished the council’s rulemaking objec- tives.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(2)(b)(F) — 1 case
Don't Waste Oregon Comm. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 881 P.2d 119 (Or. 1994). “) Petitioners first assert that the statement of fiscal impact that EFSC included, pursuant to ORS 183.335-(2)(b)(E), in its notice of intended rulemaking for the 1994 amendment is deficient and that the defect requires invalidation of the rule under which this application for a…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(2)(d) — 1 case
Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 446 P.3d 53 (Or. 2019). “First, petitioners argue that the council violated ORS 183.335 (3)(e)(C) by failing to respond to petitioners' comments recommending other options for achieving the substantive goals of the rulemaking.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(3) — 6 cases
Application of Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 561 P.2d 154 (Or. 1977). “ORS 183.335, 183.400(3). Whether or not a hearing is held, interested persons may present data or views bearing on the proposed policy without having to "prove" either their interest or their assertions; there are no "parties" to rulemaking.”
Kemp v. Workers' Comp. Dep't, 672 P.2d 1343 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
Purdue Pharma, L.P. v. Oregon Dep't of Human Servs. Ex Rel. Off. of Med. Assistance Programs, 110 P.3d 657 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “According to petitioners, the facts that the Kitzhaber letter preceded the notice of proposed rulemaking — and that the letter predicted precisely which long-acting opioid analgesics would be included in the PDL — show that DHS violated ORS 183.335, which, among other things,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(3)(a) — 3 cases
Don't Waste Oregon Comm. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 881 P.2d 119 (Or. 1994). “) Petitioners first assert that the statement of fiscal impact that EFSC included, pursuant to ORS 183.335-(2)(b)(E), in its notice of intended rulemaking for the 1994 amendment is deficient and that the defect requires invalidation of the rule under which this application for a…”
Purdue Pharma, L.P. v. Oregon Dep't of Human Servs. Ex Rel. Off. of Med. Assistance Programs, 110 P.3d 657 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “According to petitioners, the facts that the Kitzhaber letter preceded the notice of proposed rulemaking — and that the letter predicted precisely which long-acting opioid analgesics would be included in the PDL — show that DHS violated ORS 183.335, which, among other things,…”
Beaver Creek Coop. Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 986 P.2d 592 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(3)(d) — 2 cases
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Energy Fac. Siting Coun., 477 P.3d 1191 (Or. 2020). “Because, in adopting the rules, the council had failed to substantially comply with a procedural requirement in ORS 183.335, the court held that all the rules were invalid.”
Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 446 P.3d 53 (Or. 2019). “First, petitioners argue that the council violated ORS 183.335 (3)(e)(C) by failing to respond to petitioners' comments recommending other options for achieving the substantive goals of the rulemaking.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(3)(e) — 1 case
Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 446 P.3d 53 (Or. 2019). “First, petitioners argue that the council violated ORS 183.335 (3)(e)(C) by failing to respond to petitioners' comments recommending other options for achieving the substantive goals of the rulemaking.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(3)(e)(C) — 1 case
Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 446 P.3d 53 (Or. 2019). “First, petitioners argue that the council violated ORS 183.335 (3)(e)(C) by failing to respond to petitioners' comments recommending other options for achieving the substantive goals of the rulemaking.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(3)(e)(D) — 2 cases
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Energy Fac. Siting Coun., 477 P.3d 1191 (Or. 2020). “Because, in adopting the rules, the council had failed to substantially comply with a procedural requirement in ORS 183.335, the court held that all the rules were invalid.”
Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 446 P.3d 53 (Or. 2019). “First, petitioners argue that the council violated ORS 183.335 (3)(e)(C) by failing to respond to petitioners' comments recommending other options for achieving the substantive goals of the rulemaking.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(5) — 19 cases
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Energy Fac. Siting Coun., 456 P.3d 635 (Or. 2020). “The court, however, agreed with petitioners’ third ground, concluding that the council had not substantially complied with ORS 183.335 (3)(d) when it failed to state how it would determine whether the 2018 rules accomplished the council’s rulemaking objec- tives.”
Harsh Inv. Corp. v. State Ex Rel. State Hous. Div., 744 P.2d 588 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
Gooderham v. Adult & Fam. Servs. Div., 667 P.2d 551 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
Burke v. Child.'s Servs. Div., 552 P.2d 592 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(5)(a) — 10 cases
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Energy Fac. Siting Coun., 456 P.3d 635 (Or. 2020). “The court, however, agreed with petitioners’ third ground, concluding that the council had not substantially complied with ORS 183.335 (3)(d) when it failed to state how it would determine whether the 2018 rules accomplished the council’s rulemaking objec- tives.”
Siletz Anglers Assn. v. ODFW, 336 Or. App. 272 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
Siletz Anglers Assn. v. ODFW, 336 Or. App. 272 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
Edmunson v. Dep't of Ins. & Fin., 838 P.2d 589 (Or. 1992).
Cent. Pastime, LLC v. OLCC, 342 Or. App. 391 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(5)(b) — 2 cases
Cent. Pastime, LLC v. OLCC, 342 Or. App. 391 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
Cent. Pastime, LLC v. OLCC, 342 Or. App. 391 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(5)(c) — 3 cases
Cent. Pastime, LLC v. OLCC, 342 Or. App. 391 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
Cent. Pastime, LLC v. OLCC, 342 Or. App. 391 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(5)(d) — 2 cases
Cent. Pastime, LLC v. OLCC, 342 Or. App. 391 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
Cent. Pastime, LLC v. OLCC, 342 Or. App. 391 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(6)(a) — 8 cases
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Energy Fac. Siting Coun., 456 P.3d 635 (Or. 2020). “The court, however, agreed with petitioners’ third ground, concluding that the council had not substantially complied with ORS 183.335 (3)(d) when it failed to state how it would determine whether the 2018 rules accomplished the council’s rulemaking objec- tives.”
Edmunson v. Dep't of Ins. & Fin., 838 P.2d 589 (Or. 1992).
Ferguson v. U.S. Epperson Underwriting, 873 P.2d 393 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
Strain v. Dep't of Revenue, 11 Or. Tax 121 (Or. T.C. 1988).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(7) — 3 cases
Clark v. Schumacher, 795 P.2d 1093 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
McClure v. Prison Indus. Bd., 941 P.2d 1023 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(8) — 3 cases
Oregon-Columbia Chapter AGC v. ODOT (S071452), 373 Or. 405 (Or. 2025). “Nor does ODOT contend that its adoption of the CWA fits within any of the exceptions to the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures that are set out in ORS 183.335. Finally, ODOT does not con- tend that the community benefit statute, ORS 279C.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(8)(a) — 1 case
Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 446 P.3d 53 (Or. 2019). “First, petitioners argue that the council violated ORS 183.335 (3)(e)(C) by failing to respond to petitioners' comments recommending other options for achieving the substantive goals of the rulemaking.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(9) — 3 cases
Oregon-Columbia Chapter AGC v. ODOT (S071452), 373 Or. 405 (Or. 2025). “Nor does ODOT contend that its adoption of the CWA fits within any of the exceptions to the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures that are set out in ORS 183.335. Finally, ODOT does not con- tend that the community benefit statute, ORS 279C.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(l)(a) — 3 cases
Purdue Pharma, L.P. v. Oregon Dep't of Human Servs. Ex Rel. Off. of Med. Assistance Programs, 110 P.3d 657 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “According to petitioners, the facts that the Kitzhaber letter preceded the notice of proposed rulemaking — and that the letter predicted precisely which long-acting opioid analgesics would be included in the PDL — show that DHS violated ORS 183.335, which, among other things,…”
McClure v. Prison Indus. Bd., 941 P.2d 1023 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(l)(b) — 3 cases
Bassett v. State Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, 556 P.2d 1382 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “707(1) is made a prerequisite to rule making by ORS 183.335 (10). [3] ORS 496.162(1)(a) provides: "(1) After investigation of the supply and condition of wildlife, the commission, at appropriate times each year, shall by rule: "(a) Prescribe the times, places and manner in which…”
Purdue Pharma, L.P. v. Oregon Dep't of Human Servs. Ex Rel. Off. of Med. Assistance Programs, 110 P.3d 657 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “According to petitioners, the facts that the Kitzhaber letter preceded the notice of proposed rulemaking — and that the letter predicted precisely which long-acting opioid analgesics would be included in the PDL — show that DHS violated ORS 183.335, which, among other things,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.335(l)(c) — 1 case
Purdue Pharma, L.P. v. Oregon Dep't of Human Servs. Ex Rel. Off. of Med. Assistance Programs, 110 P.3d 657 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “According to petitioners, the facts that the Kitzhaber letter preceded the notice of proposed rulemaking — and that the letter predicted precisely which long-acting opioid analgesics would be included in the PDL — show that DHS violated ORS 183.335, which, among other things,…”
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.