Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Procedures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel debates HB 4,073 to align Oregon judicial review standards with federal arbitrary‑and‑capricious tests
Summary
Supporters said the bill would improve transparency and require fiscal impact analyses and advisory committees for costly rules; labor and worker advocates warned the bill could add bureaucracy, duplicate economic review, and expand judicial standards to contested proceedings without clarity.
House Bill 4,073 would revise the Administrative Procedures Act to change agency rulemaking procedures and adopt an arbitrary‑and‑capricious standard for judicial review of contested cases and other agency orders.
Representative Anna Scharf, sponsor of the bill, told the committee the measure picks up work from a prior session and follows a February 2025 governor’s directive to standardize how agencies communicate about rulemaking. "This will improve access and transparency in the process," she said, asking the committee to continue the conversation.
Duke Shepherd of Oregon Business & Industry said HB 4,073 modernizes the administrative rulemaking system and would require advisory committees before proposing rules that impose new or increased costs, call for detailed fiscal impact analyses, require agencies to publish summaries of public comments and responses, and delay default effective dates by 30 days for some permanent rules.
Representatives and witnesses questioned the bill’s likely fiscal effects and whether the proposed requirements could create additional bureaucracy. Katie Tyson of the Oregon AFL‑CIO and Kate Sussman of the Northwest Workers Justice Project said they support greater transparency but expressed concern the bill could duplicate legislative economic review, impose new reporting steps (such as referrals to Ways and Means), and leave unclear whether the arbitrary‑and‑capricious standard would apply beyond rulemaking to other agency actions like contested cases.
Legislative counsel and witnesses acknowledged parts of the bill are already being implemented by agencies, while other sections will affect agency processes and potentially require additional resources. The committee closed the public hearing with committee members signaling further questions and no immediate vote.
