§91-8  Declaratory rulings by agencies. Any interested person may petition an agency for a declaratory order as to theapplicability of any statutory provision or of any rule or order of theagency.  Each agency shall adopt rules prescribing the form of the petitionsand the procedure for their submission, consideration, and prompt disposition. Orders disposing of petitions in such cases shall have the same status as otheragency orders. [L 1961, c 103, §8; Supp, §6C-8; HRS §91-8]

 

Case Notes

 

  Hawaii public employment relations board was empowered tomake declaratory ruling regarding whether violation of collective bargainingagreement is a prohibited practice.  60 H. 436, 591 P.2d 113.

  Where an agency employee's only interest in obtaining adeclaratory ruling from that agency stems from his or her work as an agencyemployee, that interest is insufficient to satisfy this section's standingrequirements; where executive director's interest in filing the petitionstemmed from the director's work as executive director, the Hawaii civil rightscommission did not have jurisdiction to issue a declaratory order on thepetition.  104 H. 158, 86 P.3d 449.

  Orders disposing of petitions for declaratory rulings underthis section are appealable to the circuit court pursuant to §91-14; thus,circuit court had proper jurisdiction to review Hawaii labor relations boardorder.  107 H. 178, 111 P.3d 587.

  As both the title and the pertinent text make clear, thedeclaratory ruling procedure of this section is meant to provide a means ofseeking a determination of whether and in what way some statute, agency rule,or order, applies to the factual situation raised by an interested person; itwas not intended to allow review of concrete agency decisions for which other meansof review are available.  114 H. 184, 159 P.3d 143.

  Where department of planning and permitting director'sdeclaratory ruling--that surfing instructor's use of hotel shop was a properchange in nonconforming use so long as that use remained within certainlimits--was reasonably based on the evidence before the director, andconstituted a reasonable application of the applicable zoning ordinance and thedepartment's previous interpretation of that ordinance, director's ruling wasnot an abuse of discretion.  119 H. 452 (App.), 198 P.3d 715.