- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Civil Procedure
- Date Filed: 04-17-2017
- Case #: A156902
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Tookey, J. for the Court; Hadlock, C.J.; & Sercombe, P.J., concurring.
- Full Text Opinion
Plaintiff challenged the validity of OAR 137-020-0150 regarding the posting of a service stations gas prices on signs that are visible from the street and dispensing devices. Plaintiff challenged the Administrative Rule’s definition of ‘condition’ and parts of the rule that rely or incorporate ‘condition’ as invalid because the Attorney General exceeded authority. ORS 646.930 provides that the Attorney General’s rulemaking authority is “limited to the adoption of rules that are consistent with the legislative policy expressed in the statute.” The State argued the Attorney General has the authority under ORS 646.608(1)(u) to adopt rules to protect consumers and “effectively implement ORS 646.930”.The text, context, and legislative history of ORS 646.930 shows that the main purpose of OAR 137-020-0150 is to protect consumers from deceptive fuel pricing by creating a minimum requirements for service stations when posting the price of fuel. Given the broad rule making authority of the Attorney General under ORS 646.608(1)(u), and ORS 646.930’s consumer protection purposes in adopting the definition of “condition” under OAR 137-020-0150(1)(b), the Attorney General acted within the statutory authority. Therefore, OAR 137-020-0150(1)(b) is valid.