This matter is before us on a petition for judicial review of an order by which petitioner was adjudged guilty of assault after a disciplinary hearing. He assigns two errors, only one of which requires discussion. 1

Petitioner contends that the committee failed adequately to substantiate the credibility of confidential informants pursuant to OAR 291-105-041(e). 2 The rule provides that the identity of the informant or the informant’s statement be revealed to the hearings officer and that the hearings officer must have a basis for determining that the informant is reliable.

Although it is unclear whether the hearings officer knew the identity of the informants, the statements of the informants were disclosed and appear in the record. The reliability of the information was established by the fact that the informants were eyewitnesses, each description of the events was consistent with each of the other informants’ descriptions, and the statements were accurate with respect to events which were not in dispute. Therefore, the informants’ statements satisfied the rule. 3

Petitioner relies on Allen v. OSP, 33 Or App 427, 576 P2d 831 (1978), which interpreted an earlier rule which required the record to show that the informant was both credible and reliable. The new rule, under which this proceeding was held, is different. 4 Under it the information *422 supplied by the informants was properly considered. See Grisel v. OSP, 47 Or App 673, 614 P2d 1231, rev allowed (1980).

Affirmed.