Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 976 - OREGON TOURISM COMMISSION
What is Chapter 976 — Oregon Tourism Commission
Chapter 976 of the Oregon Administrative Rules establishes rules for the Oregon Tourism Commission (also known as Travel Oregon), particularly about:
Procedural rules for how the Commission does its rule‑making and notices. (Division 1)
Rules governing the Oregon Wine Country License Plates Matching Grant Program and Tourism Promotion Distribution. (Division 2)
The general purpose is to implement the statutory authority given to the Commission under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), especially ORS 284.111 and ORS 805.274, to distribute funds (e.g. from Wine Country license plates), provide grants, establish guidelines, and ensure that the process is transparent and fair.
Key Provisions of Chapter 976
Here are some of the important rules in Chapter 976:
| Rule | Content / Requirements |
|---|---|
| 976‑001‑0010 — Notice of Proposed Rule | Before adopting, amending, or repealing any permanent rule, the Commission must provide notice in several ways: publication in the Oregon Bulletin at least 21 days prior to effective date; mailing notices to those on the rules mailing list and those who have requested notice 28 days before; posting on the Commission website 28 days before; mailing to certain legislators at least 49 days before. |
| 976‑001‑0020 — Model Rules of Procedure | The Commission adopts the Attorney General’s Model Rules of Procedure (as of November 1, 2014) under the Administrative Procedures Act as its procedural rules, except where statute requires a different procedure. That means for any matter before the Commission, those Model Rules will apply unless a specific statute overrides. |
| 976‑002‑0010 — Matching Grant Guidelines | The Commission must prepare guidelines every biennium (every two years) for matching grants under ORS 805.274(1)(a). These guidelines must be publicly available (from the Commission) and published on its website. The guidelines must include the maximum grant amount available for each matching grant award. |
| 976‑002‑0020 — Tourism Promotion Guidelines | The Commission must prepare guidelines every biennium applicable to Tourism Promotion Distribution under ORS 805.274(1)(b). The rules require that tourism promotion agencies collaborate with the Oregon Wine Board and relevant regional winery associations when those agencies develop their expenditure plans. Also, the Commission designates a tourism promotion agency per region to receive the distributed funds. |
| 976‑002‑0030 — Tourism Promotion Distribution Eligibility | To be eligible for “Oregon Wine Country Plates Tourism Promotion Distribution,” an agency must meet certain conditions. Among these: must follow the guidelines from OAR 976‑002‑0020; must demonstrate experience in tourism promotion on behalf of the wine industry in two or more counties in the region; must establish an advisory committee including at least one wine industry representative and one culinary industry representative. |
Statutory Authority
The rules refer to statutory authority primarily from:
ORS 284.111(6) — relating to the Commission’s authority.
ORS 805.274 — especially subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b), which deal with grant programs and tourism promotion distribution monies derived from Wine Country license plates. These statutes mandate that the Commission set rules, guidelines, distribute funds, etc. The administrative rules implement those statutes.
Likely Legal and Practical Issues
Although I didn’t locate specific precedents interpreting these rules, one can anticipate several issues that might arise or have arisen, based on how administrative rules are typically challenged:
Procedural compliance: Because OAR 976‑001 mandates notice periods and publication/mailing etc., a party affected by a grant or rule might challenge a grant decision or guideline on the ground that notice or rule‑making procedures were not properly followed. If the Commission failed to publish or mail as required, that could render a rule or grant decision invalid.
Statutory authorization vs. rule content: If a particular rule exceeds what the statute allows (e.g., the statute says the Commission may do something, but the rule mandates something more burdensome), that might be challenged as ultra vires (beyond authority).
Eligibility criteria and fairness: The eligibility rules (e.g. must have experience in multiple counties; must establish advisory committees) could lead to disputes where an agency or organization believes it was wrongly denied a grant because its qualifications were judged under a rule that is unclear, or applied inconsistently.
Collaboration requirements: The rule requiring collaboration with wine board / winery associations might lead to debates―for example on whether those collaborations are meaningful or token, or whether they infringe on free speech or other rights if someone claims exclusion. (Though little case law likely in this specific niche.)
Transparency and maximum grant amounts: Since guidelines must specify the maximum grant amount, failure to do so could lead to challenges on vagueness or arbitrary exercise of discretion.
Delegations of authority: The rule where the Commission designates a tourism promotion agency per region could be challenged if someone believes the designation was done capriciously or without proper rule or guidelines.
Lack of Found Case Law
In my search, I did not find reported Oregon court decisions explicitly interpreting OAR Chapter 976. That may mean there are no published cases (or few) where this Chapter has been litigated in contested cases, or they are unpublished/unavailable in the sources I checked.
Sometimes administrative rule enforcement or grant disputes are resolved without reaching published appellate opinions.
Hypothetical Example to Illustrate How Case Law Might Develop
To help clarify how these rules might be applied in a legal context, here’s a hypothetical scenario and how a court might analyze it, using principles from Oregon administrative law (though not tied to a published case under Chapter 976).
Hypothetical
Suppose an organization called “Rural Vine Tourism” applies for a grant under the Wine Country License Plates program in Region X. They have done tourism promotion in only one county, though the region has 3 counties. They do not have a culinary industry representative on their advisory committee. The Oregon Tourism Commission denies their application based on OAR 976‑002‑0030’s eligibility criteria.
Rural Vine Tourism then challenges the denial, arguing:
The eligibility rule is vague or violates their rights;
The Commission failed to follow the required rulemaking or give notice;
The requirement of “two or more counties” is unreasonable or not statutorily authorized.
How a Court Might Analyze
Statutory Authorization: The court would look at ORS 805.274 to see whether the statute gives the Commission power to require what OAR 976‑002‑0030 imposes. If the statute says the Commission may distribute funds and requires guidelines, the eligibility criteria in the rule are likely valid, so long as they are consistent with the statute.
Rulemaking Procedure Compliance: The court would check whether the Commission followed the notice and publication requirements under OAR 976‑001‑0010 before adopting or amending that eligibility rule. If proper notice (mailing, publishing, website posting, etc.) was not done, the rule could be invalid.
Vagueness / Arbitrary or Capricious Standard: The court might assess whether the rule is so vague that applicants cannot know what is required, or whether the Commission applied the rules arbitrarily. E.g., if another applicant in a similar situation was granted, that could point to arbitrary application.
Due Process / Equal Protection: If Rural Vine Tourism alleges that the criteria unfairly discriminate against small counties, or violate constitutional protections, the court might consider whether the rule has a rational basis, etc. But typically, grant‑eligibility rules get rational basis review, which is deferential.
Remedy: If the court finds the rule valid, then the commission’s decision likely stands. If not valid (e.g. notice defective or rule exceeding statute), the court might remand and require reconsideration, or possibly order relief.
RELATED Blog
0 comments