Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.540 (2026)

Reduction of economic impact on small business

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

183.540 Reduction of economic impact on small business. If the statement of cost of compliance effect on small businesses required by ORS 183.335 (2)(b)(E) shows that a rule has a significant adverse effect upon small business, to the extent consistent with the public health and safety purpose of the rule, the agency shall reduce the economic impact of the rule on small business by:

(1) Establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or time tables for small business;

(2) Clarifying, consolidating or simplifying the compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for small business;

(3) Utilizing objective criteria for standards;

(4) Exempting small businesses from any or all requirements of the rule; or

(5) Otherwise establishing less intrusive or less costly alternatives applicable to small business. [1981 c.755 §4; 2003 c.749 §7; 2005 c.807 §6]

183.545 [1981 c.755 §5; repealed by 2003 c.749 §17]

183.550 [1981 c.755 §6; repealed by 2003 c.749 §17]

183.560 [2001 c.374 §1; 2003 c.740 §1; renumbered 183.700 in 2003]

183.562 [2001 c.374 §2; renumbered 183.702 in 2003]

183.600 [1999 c.849 §2; 2003 c.75 §1; repealed by 2009 c.866 §4]

(Office of Administrative Hearings)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1985–2015 · 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 5× “336 was to ensure that an agency recognize and evaluate *639 the potential economic effect of a proposed regulatory action on small business — at least as to the particular factors listed in that statute — at the time the rule is being developed and drafted — so that the agency…”

Schlip v. Oregon Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, 707 P.2d 606 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 6× “” ORS 183.540 is not expressly exempted from review by ORS 183.”

Fick v. Oregon Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 346 P.3d 604 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 18× “We write to address petitioners’ first ground for challenge, in which they assert that the rules should be declared invalid because they were adopted without compliance with ORS 183.540, and reject petitioners’ remaining contentions without discussion.”

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.