Difference between revisions of "Administrative Procedure Act"

From acus wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 25: Line 25:
  
 
Excluded  from  the  coverage  of  the  Act  are  rulemakings  involving  military  or  foreign  affairs  functions  and  matters  relating  to  agency  management  or  personnel,  public  property,  loans,  grants,  benefits,  or  contracts.  These  exceptions  to  the  Act’s  general  policy  of  providing  an  opportunity  for  public  participation  in  rulemaking,  to  foster  the  fair  and  informed  exercise  of  agency  authority,  are  “narrowly  construed  and  only  reluctantly  countenanced.”<ref>Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps., AFL-CIO v. Block, 655 F.2d 1153, 1156 (D.C. Cir. 1981).</ref>  They  are  neither  mandatory  nor  intended  to  discourage  agencies  from  using  public  participation  procedures.  On  the  contrary,  when  Congress  enacted  the  APA,  it  encouraged  agencies  to  use  the notice-and-comment  procedure  in  some  excepted  cases,  and  many  agencies  routinely  do  so  in  making  certain  kinds  of  exempted  rules.  The  Administrative  Conference  encouraged  this  trend  and  called  on  Congress  to  eliminate  or  narrow  several  of  these  exemptions.<ref>See Administrative Conference Recommendations 69-8, 73-5, 79-2, and 82-2, at 1 C.F.R. pt. 305 (1992). See generally the discussion in A GUIDETO FEDERAL AGENCY RULEMAKING.</ref> “Regulatory  reform”  legislative  proposals  considered  over  the  years  have  contained  provisions  to  alter  or  eliminate  several  of  these  exemptions.
 
Excluded  from  the  coverage  of  the  Act  are  rulemakings  involving  military  or  foreign  affairs  functions  and  matters  relating  to  agency  management  or  personnel,  public  property,  loans,  grants,  benefits,  or  contracts.  These  exceptions  to  the  Act’s  general  policy  of  providing  an  opportunity  for  public  participation  in  rulemaking,  to  foster  the  fair  and  informed  exercise  of  agency  authority,  are  “narrowly  construed  and  only  reluctantly  countenanced.”<ref>Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps., AFL-CIO v. Block, 655 F.2d 1153, 1156 (D.C. Cir. 1981).</ref>  They  are  neither  mandatory  nor  intended  to  discourage  agencies  from  using  public  participation  procedures.  On  the  contrary,  when  Congress  enacted  the  APA,  it  encouraged  agencies  to  use  the notice-and-comment  procedure  in  some  excepted  cases,  and  many  agencies  routinely  do  so  in  making  certain  kinds  of  exempted  rules.  The  Administrative  Conference  encouraged  this  trend  and  called  on  Congress  to  eliminate  or  narrow  several  of  these  exemptions.<ref>See Administrative Conference Recommendations 69-8, 73-5, 79-2, and 82-2, at 1 C.F.R. pt. 305 (1992). See generally the discussion in A GUIDETO FEDERAL AGENCY RULEMAKING.</ref> “Regulatory  reform”  legislative  proposals  considered  over  the  years  have  contained  provisions  to  alter  or  eliminate  several  of  these  exemptions.
 +
 +
Most  rulemaking  proceedings  involve  informal  rulemaking,  where  all  that  the  APA  requires  for  public  participation  is  an  opportunity  to  submit  written  data,  views,  or  arguments;  oral  presentations  may  also  be  permitted.  The  published  rule  must  incorporate  a  concise  general  statement  of  its  basis  and  purpose.  Despite  the  brevity  of  these  requirements,  it  is  important  to  note  that  Congress  has  routinely,  through  other  statutes,  added  procedural  requirements  that  affect  various  agency  programs.  These  additional  statutory  requirements  may  apply  to  specific  agencies  or  programs  or  may  be  governmentwide  (such  as  the  Regulatory  Flexibility  Act;  see  Chapter  21).  Recent  presidents  have  also  imposed  additional  requirements  for  rulemaking.  (See  Chapter  4,  White  House  Orders  and  Memoranda  on  Rulemaking.)  Though  courts  have  sometimes  sought  to  add  procedural  requirements,  the  Supreme  Court’s  decision  in  Vermont  Yankee  Nuclear  Power  Corp.  v.  Natural  Resources  Defense  Council,  Inc.,435  U.S.  519  (1978),  has,  to  a  great  extent,  limited  this  kind  of  judicial  activity.  In  Vermont  Yankee,  the  Supreme  Court  held  that  where  rulemaking  is  governed  by  the  (informal)  requirements  of  section  553,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Nuclear  Regulatory  Commission’s  regulation  of  nuclear  power  plants,  the  courts  may  not  require  additional  procedures.
 +
 +
The  APA  also  provides  for  formal  rulemaking—aprocedure  employed  when  rules  are  required  by  statute  to  be  made  on  the  record  after  an  opportunity  for  an  agency  hearing.  Essentially,  this  procedure  requires  that  the  agency  issue  its  rule  after  the  kind  of  trial-type  hearing  procedures  (§§  556,  557)  normally  reserved  for  adjudicatory  orders  (discussed  below).  The  Supreme  Court,  in  United  States  v.  Florida  East  Coast  Railway  Co.,  410  U.S.  224  (1973),  held  that  such  a  procedure  was  required  only  where  the  statute  involved  specifically  requires  an  “on  the  record”  hearing.  Because  few  statutes  do  so,  formal  rulemaking  is  used  infrequently.<ref>See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. §§ 371(e)(3) (issuance of standards under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act). In United States v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., 410 U.S. 224 (1973), a statutory requirement of a decision “after hearing” was held insufficient to make sections 556 and 557 applicable (setting of rates under the Interstate Commerce Act).</ref>  However,  numerous  agency  statutes  (often  called  “hybrid  rulemaking”  statutes)  do  require  some  specific  procedures  beyond  the  basic  notice-and-comment  elements  of  informal  rulemaking.

Revision as of 20:55, 28 June 2018

Citations

5 U.S.C. §§ 551–559, 701–706, 1305, 3105, 3344, 5372, 7521 (2012); originally enacted June 11, 1946, by Pub. L. No. 404, 60 Stat. 237, Ch. 324, §§ 1–12. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), as originally enacted, was repealed by Pub. L. No. 89-554, 80 Stat. 381 (September 6, 1966), as part of the general revision of title 5 of the United States Code. Its provisions were incorporated into the sections of title 5 listed above. Although the original section numbers are used sometimes, it is actually an error to use the original section numbers unless one is referring to the APA prior to its codification in 1966. In this volume all references to the Act are to sections of title 5. Section 552 has been revised significantly since 1946 and is commonly known as the Freedom of Information Act. Section 552a (the Privacy Act) was added to the APA in 1974 and has been amended several times since. Section 552b (the Government in the Sunshine Act) was added in 1976 and amended once. These sections and sections 701–706 pertaining to judicial review are discussed and set forth separately in this book. Two significant laws relating to rulemaking and adjudication were enacted in 1990—the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 571-584) and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 561–570), which are discussed separately below, as well as in separate chapters in this book.

Overview

Attempts to regularize federal administrative procedures go back at least to the 1930s. Early in 1939, at the suggestion of the attorney general, President Roosevelt asked the attorney general to appoint a distinguished committee to study existing administrative procedures and to formulate recommendations. The Attorney General’s Committee on Administrative Procedure, chaired by Dean Acheson, produced a series of monographs on agency functions and submitted its Final Report to the President and the Congress in 1941. These materials, plus extensive hearings held before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in 1941, are primary historical sources for the Administrative Procedure Act. The Administrative Procedure Act was signed into law by President Truman on June 11, 1946. In the months that followed, the Department of Justice compiled a manual of advice and interpretation of its various provisions. The Attorney General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act,published in 1947 (and reprinted in the Appendix), remains the principal guide to the structure and intent of the APA. The Manual (page 9) states the purposes of the Act as follows:

  • (1) To require agencies to keep the public currently informed of theirorganization, procedures, and rules.
  • (2)To provide for public participation in the rulemaking process.
  • (3)To prescribe uniform standards for the conduct of formal rulemakingand adjudicatory proceedings (i.e., proceedings required by statute to be made on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing).
  • (4)To restate the law of judicial review.

The Act imposes upon agencies certain procedural requirements for two modes of agency decision making: rulemaking and adjudication. In general, the term “agency” refers to any authority of the government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency— but excluding the Congress, the courts, and the governments of territories, possessions, or the District of Columbia.[1] Definitions of other terms may be found in section 551.

Structure of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Administrative Procedure Act has two major subdivisions: sections 551 through 559, dealing in general with agency procedures; and sections 701 through 706, dealing in general with judicial review. In addition, several sections dealing with administrative law judges (§§ 1305, 3105, 3344, 5372, and 7521) are scattered through title 5 of the United States Code. The sections pertaining to judicial review are discussed in Chapter 2 of this volume. As noted, sections 552, 552a, and 552b are also discussed in separate chapters, as are the new sections added by the Administrative Dispute Resolution and Negotiated Rulemaking Acts.

The structure of the APA is shaped around the distinction between rulemaking and adjudication, with different sets of procedural requirements prescribed for each. Rulemakingisagency action that regulates the future conduct of persons through formulation and issuance of an agency statement designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy. It is essentially legislative in nature because of its future general applicability and its concern for policy considerations. By contrast, adjudication isconcerned with determination of past and present rights and liabilities. The result of an adjudicative proceeding is the issuance of an “order.” (Licensing decisions are considered to be adjudication.)

The line separating these two modes of agency action is not always clear, because agencies engage in a great variety of actions. Most agencies use rulemaking to formulate future policy, though there is no bar to announcing policy statements in adjudicatory orders. Agencies normally use a combination of rulemaking and adjudication to effectuate their programs. The APA definition of a “rule,” somewhat confusingly, speaks of an “agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect . . . .” The words “or particular” were apparently included in the definition to encompass such actions as the setting of rates or the approval of corporate reorganizations, to be carried out under the relatively flexible procedures governing rulemaking.[2]

Beyond the distinction between rulemaking and adjudication, the APA subdivides each of these categories of agency action into formal and informal proceedings. Whether a particular rulemaking or adjudication proceeding is considered to be “formal” depends on whether the proceeding is required by statute to be “on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing” (5 U.S.C. §§ 553(c), 554(a)). The Act prescribes elaborate procedures for both formal rulemaking and formal adjudication, and relatively minimal procedures for informal rulemaking. Virtually no procedures are prescribed by the APA for the remaining category of informal adjudication, which is by far the most prevalent form of governmental action.[3]

Rulemaking. Section 553 sets forth the basic requirements for rulemaking:notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register, followed by an opportunity for some level of participation by interested persons, and finally publication of the rule, in most instances at least 30 days before it becomes effective. For a detailed discussion of rulemaking procedures, see Jeffrey Lubbers’s A Guide to Federal Agency Rulemaking, published by the American Bar Association (5th ed. 2012).

Excluded from the coverage of the Act are rulemakings involving military or foreign affairs functions and matters relating to agency management or personnel, public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. These exceptions to the Act’s general policy of providing an opportunity for public participation in rulemaking, to foster the fair and informed exercise of agency authority, are “narrowly construed and only reluctantly countenanced.”[4] They are neither mandatory nor intended to discourage agencies from using public participation procedures. On the contrary, when Congress enacted the APA, it encouraged agencies to use the notice-and-comment procedure in some excepted cases, and many agencies routinely do so in making certain kinds of exempted rules. The Administrative Conference encouraged this trend and called on Congress to eliminate or narrow several of these exemptions.[5] “Regulatory reform” legislative proposals considered over the years have contained provisions to alter or eliminate several of these exemptions.

Most rulemaking proceedings involve informal rulemaking, where all that the APA requires for public participation is an opportunity to submit written data, views, or arguments; oral presentations may also be permitted. The published rule must incorporate a concise general statement of its basis and purpose. Despite the brevity of these requirements, it is important to note that Congress has routinely, through other statutes, added procedural requirements that affect various agency programs. These additional statutory requirements may apply to specific agencies or programs or may be governmentwide (such as the Regulatory Flexibility Act; see Chapter 21). Recent presidents have also imposed additional requirements for rulemaking. (See Chapter 4, White House Orders and Memoranda on Rulemaking.) Though courts have sometimes sought to add procedural requirements, the Supreme Court’s decision in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,435 U.S. 519 (1978), has, to a great extent, limited this kind of judicial activity. In Vermont Yankee, the Supreme Court held that where rulemaking is governed by the (informal) requirements of section 553, as in the case of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s regulation of nuclear power plants, the courts may not require additional procedures.

The APA also provides for formal rulemaking—aprocedure employed when rules are required by statute to be made on the record after an opportunity for an agency hearing. Essentially, this procedure requires that the agency issue its rule after the kind of trial-type hearing procedures (§§ 556, 557) normally reserved for adjudicatory orders (discussed below). The Supreme Court, in United States v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., 410 U.S. 224 (1973), held that such a procedure was required only where the statute involved specifically requires an “on the record” hearing. Because few statutes do so, formal rulemaking is used infrequently.[6] However, numerous agency statutes (often called “hybrid rulemaking” statutes) do require some specific procedures beyond the basic notice-and-comment elements of informal rulemaking.

  1. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 551(1), 701(b)(1) for other specific exemptions.
  2. For discussion of the inclusion of “or particular” in the definition, seeKENNETH C. DAVIS & RICHARD PIERCE, 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TREATISE §§ 6.1 (3d ed. 1994).
  3. See Paul Verkuil, A Study of Informal Adjudication Procedures, 43 U. CHI. L. REV. 739 (1976), for a discussion of informal adjudication.
  4. Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps., AFL-CIO v. Block, 655 F.2d 1153, 1156 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
  5. See Administrative Conference Recommendations 69-8, 73-5, 79-2, and 82-2, at 1 C.F.R. pt. 305 (1992). See generally the discussion in A GUIDETO FEDERAL AGENCY RULEMAKING.
  6. See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. §§ 371(e)(3) (issuance of standards under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act). In United States v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., 410 U.S. 224 (1973), a statutory requirement of a decision “after hearing” was held insufficient to make sections 556 and 557 applicable (setting of rates under the Interstate Commerce Act).