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



 



Case Notes



 



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



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



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



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



  Where department of planning and permitting director's
declaratory ruling--that surfing instructor's use of hotel shop was a proper
change in nonconforming use so long as that use remained within certain
limits--was reasonably based on the evidence before the director, and
constituted a reasonable application of the applicable zoning ordinance and the
department's previous interpretation of that ordinance, director's ruling was
not an abuse of discretion.  119 H. 452 (App.), 198 P.3d 715.