Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.336 (2026)

Cost of compliance effect on small businesses

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

      183.336 Cost of compliance effect on small businesses. (1) The statement of cost of compliance effect on small businesses required by ORS 183.335 (2)(b)(E) must include:

      (a) An estimate of the number of small businesses subject to the proposed rule and identification of the types of businesses and industries with small businesses subject to the proposed rule;

      (b) A brief description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other administrative activities required for compliance with the proposed rule, including costs of professional services;

      (c) An identification of equipment, supplies, labor and increased administration required for compliance with the proposed rule; and

      (d) A description of the manner in which the agency proposing the rule involved small businesses in the development of the rule.

      (2) An agency shall utilize available information in complying with the requirements of this section. [2005 c.807 §2]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2010–2024 · leading case: Oregon Cable Telecomm. Ass'n v. Dep't of Revenue, 240 P.3d 1122 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Oregon Cable Telecomm. Ass'n v. Dep't of Revenue, 240 P.3d 1122 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 27× “335(2)(b)(E) and ORS 183.336. We agree with OCTA in that regard and, accordingly, invalidate the rule.”
W. States Petroleum Ass'n v. Envtl. Quality Comm'n, 439 P.3d 459 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “335, ORS 183.336, and ORS 183.355. Thus, in respondents' view, we cannot examine a record of what documents EQC considered in enacting the Phase II rules unless those documents are necessary to determine EQC's compliance with APA rulemaking procedures under ORS chapter 183.”
City of Cornelius v. Dept. of Land Conservation (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “In addition, ORS 183.336 provides: “(1) The statement of cost of compliance effect on small businesses required by ORS 183.”
Fick v. Oregon Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 346 P.3d 604 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “” 6 ORS 183.336, in turn, provides: “(1) The statement of cost of compliance effect on small businesses required by ORS 183.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.336(1): 1 case
Oregon Cable Telecomm. Ass'n v. Dep't of Revenue, 240 P.3d 1122 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “335(2)(b)(E) and ORS 183.336. We agree with OCTA in that regard and, accordingly, invalidate the rule.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.336(1)(a): 1 case
Oregon Cable Telecomm. Ass'n v. Dep't of Revenue, 240 P.3d 1122 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “335(2)(b)(E) and ORS 183.336. We agree with OCTA in that regard and, accordingly, invalidate the rule.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.336(1)(d): 1 case
City of Cornelius v. Dept. of Land Conservation (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “In addition, ORS 183.336 provides: “(1) The statement of cost of compliance effect on small businesses required by ORS 183.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.336(2): 1 case
Oregon Cable Telecomm. Ass'n v. Dep't of Revenue, 240 P.3d 1122 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “335(2)(b)(E) and ORS 183.336. We agree with OCTA in that regard and, accordingly, invalidate the rule.”
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.