(2) The validity of any applicable rule may also be determined by a court, upon review of an order in any manner provided by law or pursuant to ORS 183.480 or upon enforcement of such rule or order in the manner provided by law.
(3) Judicial review of a rule shall be limited to an examination of:
(a) The rule under review;
(b) The statutory provisions authorizing the rule; and
(c) Copies of all documents necessary to demonstrate compliance with applicable rulemaking procedures.
(4) The court shall declare the rule invalid only if it finds that the rule:
(a) Violates constitutional provisions;
(b) Exceeds the statutory authority of the agency; or
(c) Was adopted without compliance with applicable rulemaking procedures.
(5) In the case of disputed allegations of irregularities in procedure which, if proved, would warrant reversal or remand, the Court of Appeals may refer the allegations to a master appointed by the court to take evidence and make findings of fact. The court’s review of the master’s findings of fact shall be de novo on the evidence.
(6) The court shall not declare a rule invalid solely because it was adopted without compliance with applicable rulemaking procedures after a period of two years after the date the rule was filed in the office of the Secretary of State, if the agency attempted to comply with those procedures and its failure to do so did not substantially prejudice the interests of the parties. [1957 c.717 §6; 1971 c.734 §9; 1975 c.759 §9; 1979 c.593 §17; 1987 c.861 §3]