Difference between revisions of "Administrative Procedure Act"

From acus wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Selected Articles and Other Documents)
 
(16 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 9: Line 9:
 
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, as well as extensive hearings held before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in 1941, are primary historical sources for the APA.
 
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, as well as extensive hearings held before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in 1941, are primary historical sources for the APA.
  
The APA 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. [http://fall.law.fsu.edu/admin/AttorneyGeneralsManual.pdf The Attorney General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act], published in 1947, remains the principal guide to the structure and intent of the APA. The Manual states the purposes of the APA as follows:
+
The APA 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. [http://library.law.fsu.edu/Digital-Collections/ABA-AdminProcedureArchive/AttorneyGeneralsManual.pdf The Attorney General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act], published in 1947, remains the principal guide to the structure and intent of the APA. The Manual states the purposes of the APA as follows:
  
 
#To require agencies to keep the public currently informed of their organization, procedures, and rules,
 
#To require agencies to keep the public currently informed of their organization, procedures, and rules,
Line 28: Line 28:
  
 
===Rulemaking===  
 
===Rulemaking===  
[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section553&num=0&edition=prelim 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''.
+
[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section553&num=0&edition=prelim 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’ ''A Guide to Federal Agency Rulemaking'' (6th ed. 2018).
  
 
Excluded from the coverage of the APA are rulemakings involving military or foreign affairs functions and matters relating to agency management or personnel, public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. The APA’s general policy is to provide an opportunity for public participation in rulemaking, to foster the fair and informed exercise of agency authority; these exceptions are “narrowly construed and only reluctantly countenanced.” ''Am. Fed’n'' ''of Gov't Emps., AFL-CIO v. Block'', 655 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1981). 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. ACUS encouraged this trend and called on Congress to eliminate or narrow several of these exemptions. “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 APA are rulemakings involving military or foreign affairs functions and matters relating to agency management or personnel, public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. The APA’s general policy is to provide an opportunity for public participation in rulemaking, to foster the fair and informed exercise of agency authority; these exceptions are “narrowly construed and only reluctantly countenanced.” ''Am. Fed’n'' ''of Gov't Emps., AFL-CIO v. Block'', 655 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1981). 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. ACUS encouraged this trend and called on Congress to eliminate or narrow several of these exemptions. “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, 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 government-wide (such as the [[Regulatory Flexibility Act]]). Recent presidents have also imposed additional requirements for rulemaking. ''See'' [[White House Orders, Bulletins, and Memoranda]]. Though courts have sometimes sought to add procedural requirements, the Supreme Court’s decision in [https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep435/usrep435519/usrep435519.pdf 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.
+
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, 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 government-wide (such as the [[Regulatory Flexibility Act]]). Recent presidents have also imposed additional requirements for rulemaking. ''See'' [[Rulemaking Requirements from the Executive Office of the President]]. Though courts have sometimes sought to add procedural requirements, the Supreme Court’s decision in [https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep435/usrep435519/usrep435519.pdf 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—a procedure 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 (§§ [http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section556&num=0&edition=prelim 556], [http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section557&num=0&edition=prelim 557]) normally reserved for adjudicatory orders. The Supreme Court, in [https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep410/usrep410224/usrep410224.pdf 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 include this requirement, formal rulemaking is used infrequently.  However, numerous agency statutes (often called “hybrid rulemaking” statutes) do require some specific procedures beyond the basic notice-and-comment elements of informal rulemaking.
 
The APA also provides for formal rulemaking—a procedure 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 (§§ [http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section556&num=0&edition=prelim 556], [http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section557&num=0&edition=prelim 557]) normally reserved for adjudicatory orders. The Supreme Court, in [https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep410/usrep410224/usrep410224.pdf 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 include this requirement, formal rulemaking is used infrequently.  However, numerous agency statutes (often called “hybrid rulemaking” statutes) do require some specific procedures beyond the basic notice-and-comment elements of informal rulemaking.
Line 55: Line 55:
 
Section 554(b) specifies notice requirements. Section 554(c) provides for an opportunity for submission and consideration of facts, arguments, and informal settlements where practicable. Section 554(d) forbids presiding officers from engaging in ex parte (off-the-record) consultations on facts at issue in the case. The subsection also addresses “separation of functions” by restricting agency employees engaged in investigation or prosecution of a case from supervising the presiding officer or participating or advising in the decision in that or a factually related case (with certain exceptions). Section 554(e) authorizes agencies, in their discretion, to issue declaratory orders that would terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty with respect to matters required by statute to be determined on the record after opportunity for a hearing.
 
Section 554(b) specifies notice requirements. Section 554(c) provides for an opportunity for submission and consideration of facts, arguments, and informal settlements where practicable. Section 554(d) forbids presiding officers from engaging in ex parte (off-the-record) consultations on facts at issue in the case. The subsection also addresses “separation of functions” by restricting agency employees engaged in investigation or prosecution of a case from supervising the presiding officer or participating or advising in the decision in that or a factually related case (with certain exceptions). Section 554(e) authorizes agencies, in their discretion, to issue declaratory orders that would terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty with respect to matters required by statute to be determined on the record after opportunity for a hearing.
  
Sections 556 and 557 prescribe the specific procedures to be used in formal adjudication.  In brief, a trial-type hearing must be held, conducted either by some or all of the members of the agency or by an administrative law judge (ALJ) (appointed under 5 U.S.C. [http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section3105&num=0&edition=prelim § 3105]). An ALJ is normally the presiding officer in formal adjudication. The APA ([http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section556&num=0&edition=prelim § 556(c)]) spells out the powers and duties of ALJs, formerly called hearing examiners. It also provides for the independence of ALJs by protecting their tenure (5 U.S.C. [http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section7521&num=0&edition=prelim § 7521]) and pay (5 U.S.C. [http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section5372&num=0&edition=prelim § 5372]) and prohibiting inconsistent duties (5 U.S.C. [http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section3105&num=0&edition=prelim § 3105]). In addition, under 5 U.S.C. [http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section1305&num=0&edition=prelim § 1305], the [https://www.opm.gov/services-for-agencies/administrative-law-judges Office of Personnel Management] has prescribed a special selection procedure for the appointment of ALJs. Currently, there are over 1,900 ALJs in the federal government, the vast majority of which are located in the Social Security Administration. In 2018, the Supreme Court held that ALJs are inferior officers under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and must be appointed by the President or a head of a department. [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-130_4f14.pdf Lucia v. SEC], 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018). Subsequently, President Trump issued Executive Order 13,843, [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-07-13/pdf/2018-15202.pdf Excepting Administrative Law Judges From the Competitive Service], which placed ALJs in the excepted service and afforded agency heads more flexibility in hiring decisions.
+
Sections 556 and 557 prescribe the specific procedures to be used in formal adjudication.  In brief, a trial-type hearing must be held, conducted either by some or all of the members of the agency or by an administrative law judge (ALJ) (appointed under 5 U.S.C. [http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section3105&num=0&edition=prelim § 3105]). An ALJ is normally the presiding officer in formal adjudication. The APA ([http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section556&num=0&edition=prelim § 556(c)]) spells out the powers and duties of ALJs, formerly called hearing examiners. It also provides for the independence of ALJs by protecting their tenure (5 U.S.C. [http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section7521&num=0&edition=prelim § 7521]) and pay (5 U.S.C. [http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section5372&num=0&edition=prelim § 5372]) and prohibiting inconsistent duties (5 U.S.C. [http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section3105&num=0&edition=prelim § 3105]). In addition, under 5 U.S.C. [http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section1305&num=0&edition=prelim § 1305], the [https://www.opm.gov/services-for-agencies/administrative-law-judges Office of Personnel Management] has prescribed a special selection procedure for the appointment of ALJs. Currently, there are over 1,900 ALJs in the federal government, the vast majority of which are located in the Social Security Administration. In 2018, the Supreme Court held that ALJs are inferior officers under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and must be appointed by the President or a head of a department. [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-130_4f14.pdf Lucia v. SEC], 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018). Subsequently, President Trump issued Executive Order 13843, [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-07-13/pdf/2018-15202.pdf Excepting Administrative Law Judges From the Competitive Service], which placed ALJs in the excepted service and afforded agency heads more flexibility in hiring decisions.
  
 
[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section556&num=0&edition=prelim Section 556] also covers disqualification of presiding officers, burden of proof, and parties’ rights to cross-examination. It provides that the transcript of testimony and exhibits, together with all documents filed in the proceeding, constitutes the exclusive record for decision.
 
[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section556&num=0&edition=prelim Section 556] also covers disqualification of presiding officers, burden of proof, and parties’ rights to cross-examination. It provides that the transcript of testimony and exhibits, together with all documents filed in the proceeding, constitutes the exclusive record for decision.
Line 73: Line 73:
 
The legislative history of the APA begins with the ''Final Report of the Attorney General’s Committee on Administrative Procedure'' (1941). This report led to the introduction in Congress of the so-called majority and minority bills, respectively designated as S. 675 and S. 674, 77th Cong., 1st Sess. These bills, together with S. 918, formed the basis for extensive hearings held in 1941 before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. In 1945, the House Committee on the Judiciary held [https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2014/05/23/hear-19-1945.pdf brief hearings on various administrative procedure bills], of which H.R. 1203, 79th Cong., was the precursor of the APA as passed. Also in June 1945, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary issued a comparative print with comments, which is an essential part of the legislative history. The committee reports on the APA are [https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2014/03/20/senaterept-752-1945.pdf S. Rep. No. 752] (1945) and [https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2014/06/09/houserept-1980-1946.pdf H.R. Rep. No. 1980] (1946). In October 1945, at the request of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the Attorney General submitted a letter and attached memorandum that set forth the understanding of the Department of Justice as to the purpose and meaning of the various provisions of the bill (S.7). This letter and memorandum constitute Appendix B of the Senate Committee Report. They also appear as an appendix in the ''Attorney General’s Manual''.
 
The legislative history of the APA begins with the ''Final Report of the Attorney General’s Committee on Administrative Procedure'' (1941). This report led to the introduction in Congress of the so-called majority and minority bills, respectively designated as S. 675 and S. 674, 77th Cong., 1st Sess. These bills, together with S. 918, formed the basis for extensive hearings held in 1941 before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. In 1945, the House Committee on the Judiciary held [https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2014/05/23/hear-19-1945.pdf brief hearings on various administrative procedure bills], of which H.R. 1203, 79th Cong., was the precursor of the APA as passed. Also in June 1945, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary issued a comparative print with comments, which is an essential part of the legislative history. The committee reports on the APA are [https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2014/03/20/senaterept-752-1945.pdf S. Rep. No. 752] (1945) and [https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2014/06/09/houserept-1980-1946.pdf H.R. Rep. No. 1980] (1946). In October 1945, at the request of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the Attorney General submitted a letter and attached memorandum that set forth the understanding of the Department of Justice as to the purpose and meaning of the various provisions of the bill (S.7). This letter and memorandum constitute Appendix B of the Senate Committee Report. They also appear as an appendix in the ''Attorney General’s Manual''.
  
The Senate and House debates and the documents mentioned in the preceding paragraph, other than the ''Final Report of the Attorney General’s Committee'', are compiled in S. Doc. No. 248, [https://coast.noaa.gov/data/Documents/OceanLawSearch/Senate%20Document%20No.%2079-248.pdf Administrative Procedure Act—Legislative History 1944-46] (1946). The Final Report was published as ''S. Doc. No. 8'' (1941). The [http://fall.law.fsu.edu/admin/AttorneyGeneralsManual.pdf Attorney General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act] (1947) is a contemporaneous interpretive guide to the original language of the APA.
+
The Senate and House debates and the documents mentioned in the preceding paragraph, other than the ''Final Report of the Attorney General’s Committee'', are compiled in S. Doc. No. 248, [https://coast.noaa.gov/data/Documents/OceanLawSearch/Senate%20Document%20No.%2079-248.pdf Administrative Procedure Act—Legislative History 1944-46] (1946). The Final Report was published as ''S. Doc. No. 8'' (1941). The [http://library.law.fsu.edu/Digital-Collections/ABA-AdminProcedureArchive/AttorneyGeneralsManual.pdf Attorney General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act] (1947) is a contemporaneous interpretive guide to the original language of the APA.
  
 
Individual agencies have adopted procedural rules within the framework of the APA for the conduct of rulemaking and adjudication.
 
Individual agencies have adopted procedural rules within the framework of the APA for the conduct of rulemaking and adjudication.
Line 109: Line 109:
 
*73-6 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/73-6-ss.pdf Procedures for Resolution of Environmental Issues in Licensing Proceedings]
 
*73-6 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/73-6-ss.pdf Procedures for Resolution of Environmental Issues in Licensing Proceedings]
 
*74-1 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/74-11.pdf Subpoena Power in Formal Rulemaking and Formal Adjudication]
 
*74-1 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/74-11.pdf Subpoena Power in Formal Rulemaking and Formal Adjudication]
*76-2 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/76-2.pdf Strengthening the Informational and Notice-Giving Functions of the “Federal Register”]
+
*76-2 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/76-2.pdf Strengthening the Informational and Notice-Giving Functions of the Federal Register]
 
*76-3 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/76-3.pdf Procedures in Addition to Notice and the Opportunity for Comment in Informal Rulemaking]
 
*76-3 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/76-3.pdf Procedures in Addition to Notice and the Opportunity for Comment in Informal Rulemaking]
 
*76-5 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/76-5.pdf Interpretive Rules of General Applicability and Statements of General Policy]
 
*76-5 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/76-5.pdf Interpretive Rules of General Applicability and Statements of General Policy]
*77-3 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/77-3.pdf Ex parte Communications in Informal Rulemaking Proceedings]
+
*77-3 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/77-3.pdf Ex Parte Communications in Informal Rulemaking Proceedings]
 
*78-3 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/78-3.pdf Time Limits on Agency Actions]
 
*78-3 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/78-3.pdf Time Limits on Agency Actions]
 
*79-l [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/79-1-with-table.pdf Hybrid Rulemaking Procedures of the Federal Trade Commission]
 
*79-l [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/79-1-with-table.pdf Hybrid Rulemaking Procedures of the Federal Trade Commission]
Line 139: Line 139:
 
*2012-2 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/Final-Recommendation-2012-2-Midnight-Rules.pdf Midnight Rules]
 
*2012-2 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/Final-Recommendation-2012-2-Midnight-Rules.pdf Midnight Rules]
 
*2013-2 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Recommendation%202013-2%20%28Benefit-Cost%20Analysis%29_0.pdf Benefit-Cost Analysis at Independent Regulatory Agencies]
 
*2013-2 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Recommendation%202013-2%20%28Benefit-Cost%20Analysis%29_0.pdf Benefit-Cost Analysis at Independent Regulatory Agencies]
*2013-4 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Administrative%20Record%20_%20Final%20Recommendation%20_%20Approved_0.pdf Administrative Record in Informal Rulemaking]
+
*2013-4 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Administrative%20Record%20_%20Final%20Recommendation%20_%20Approved_0.pdf The Administrative Record in Informal Rulemaking]
 
*2013-5 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Social%20Media%20Rec_Final_12_9_13.pdf Social Media in Rulemaking]
 
*2013-5 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Social%20Media%20Rec_Final_12_9_13.pdf Social Media in Rulemaking]
 
*2014-3 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Recommendation%202014-3%20%28Guidance%20in%20Rulemaking%20Process%29_0.pdf Guidance in the Rulemaking Process]
 
*2014-3 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Recommendation%202014-3%20%28Guidance%20in%20Rulemaking%20Process%29_0.pdf Guidance in the Rulemaking Process]
Line 148: Line 148:
 
*2017-3 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Recommendation%202017-3%20%28Plain%20Language%20in%20Regulatory%20Drafting%29.pdf Plain Language in Regulatory Drafting]
 
*2017-3 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Recommendation%202017-3%20%28Plain%20Language%20in%20Regulatory%20Drafting%29.pdf Plain Language in Regulatory Drafting]
 
*2017-5 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Recommendation%202017-5%20%28Agency%20Guidance%20Through%20Policy%20Statements%29_2.pdf Agency Guidance Through Policy Statements]
 
*2017-5 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Recommendation%202017-5%20%28Agency%20Guidance%20Through%20Policy%20Statements%29_2.pdf Agency Guidance Through Policy Statements]
*2017-6 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Recommendation%202017-6%20%28Learning%20from%20Regulatory%20Experience%29_0.pdf Learning Through Regulatory Experience]
+
*2017-6 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Recommendation%202017-6%20%28Learning%20from%20Regulatory%20Experience%29_0.pdf Learning from Regulatory Experience]
 
*2017-7 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Recommendation%202017-7%20%28Regulatory%20Waivers%20and%20Exemptions%29_0.pdf Regulatory Waivers and Exemptions]
 
*2017-7 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Recommendation%202017-7%20%28Regulatory%20Waivers%20and%20Exemptions%29_0.pdf Regulatory Waivers and Exemptions]
 
*2018-2 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/recommendation-2018-2-severability%20in%20agency%20rulemaking.pdf Severability in Agency Rulemaking]
 
*2018-2 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/recommendation-2018-2-severability%20in%20agency%20rulemaking.pdf Severability in Agency Rulemaking]
 
*2018-7 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Recommendation%202018-7%20%28Public%20Engagement%20in%20Rulemaking%29.pdf Public Engagement in Rulemaking]
 
*2018-7 [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Recommendation%202018-7%20%28Public%20Engagement%20in%20Rulemaking%29.pdf Public Engagement in Rulemaking]
 +
*2019-1 [https://www.acus.gov/recommendation/agency-guidance-through-interpretive-rules Agency Guidance Through Interpretive Rules]
 +
*2019-2 [https://www.acus.gov/recommendation/agency-recruitment-and-selection-administrative-law-judges Agency Recruitment and Selection of Administrative Law Judges]
 +
*2020-1 [https://www.acus.gov/recommendation/rules-rulemakings Rules on Rulemakings]
 +
*2021-1 [https://www.acus.gov/recommendation/managing-mass-computer-generated-and-falsely-attributed-comments Managing Mass, Computer-Generated, and Falsely Attributed Comments]
 +
*2021-5 [https://www.acus.gov/recommendation/clarifying-statutory-access-judicial-review-agency-action Clarifying Statutory Access to Judicial Review of Agency Action]
 +
*2022-1 [https://www.acus.gov/recommendation/contractors-rulemaking Contractors in Rulemaking]
 +
*2022-2 [https://www.acus.gov/recommendation/improving-notice-regulatory-changes Improving Notice of Regulatory Changes]
 +
*2022-4 [https://www.acus.gov/recommendation/precedential-decision-making-agency-adjudication Precedential Decision Making in Agency Adjudication]
 
</div>
 
</div>
  
 
===Other Government Documents===
 
===Other Government Documents===
  
*Dep’t of Justice, [http://fall.law.fsu.edu/admin/AttorneyGeneralsManual.pdf Attorney General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act] (1947).
+
*Dep’t of Justice, [http://library.law.fsu.edu/Digital-Collections/ABA-AdminProcedureArchive/AttorneyGeneralsManual.pdf Attorney General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act] (1947).
 
*Office of the Fed. Register, [https://www.archives.gov/files/federal-register/write/handbook/ddh.pdf Document Drafting Handbook].
 
*Office of the Fed. Register, [https://www.archives.gov/files/federal-register/write/handbook/ddh.pdf Document Drafting Handbook].
 
*Cong. Research Serv., [https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF10003.pdf An Overview of Federal Regulations and the Rulemaking Process] (2019).
 
*Cong. Research Serv., [https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF10003.pdf An Overview of Federal Regulations and the Rulemaking Process] (2019).
 +
*Office of the Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Dept. of Justice, [https://www.justice.gov/archives/dag/file/1302321/download Modernizing the Administrative Proecedure Act] (2020).
  
 
===Other Resources===
 
===Other Resources===
Line 164: Line 173:
 
====Books====
 
====Books====
 
<div style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;-webkit-column-count:2">
 
<div style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;-webkit-column-count:2">
*Alfred C. Aman & William T. Mayton, ''Hornbook on Administrative Law'' (West Acad. Publ’g, 3d ed. 2014).
+
*Alfred C. Aman, Landyn Wm. Rookard, & William T. Mayton, ''Administrative Law'' (West Acad. Publ’g, 4th ed. 2023).
 
*Michael Herz, Richard Murphy & Kathryn Watts eds''.'', ''A Guide to Judicial and Political Review of Federal Agencies'' (ABA, 2d ed. 2015).
 
*Michael Herz, Richard Murphy & Kathryn Watts eds''.'', ''A Guide to Judicial and Political Review of Federal Agencies'' (ABA, 2d ed. 2015).
 
*William F. Fox, ''Understanding Administrative Law'' (LexisNexis, 6th ed. 2012).
 
*William F. Fox, ''Understanding Administrative Law'' (LexisNexis, 6th ed. 2012).
 
*William Funk & Richard Seamon, ''Administrative Law: Examples & Explanations'' (Aspen Publishers, 5th ed. 2015).
 
*William Funk & Richard Seamon, ''Administrative Law: Examples & Explanations'' (Aspen Publishers, 5th ed. 2015).
*Ernest Gellhorn & Ronald Levin, ''Administrative Law and Process in a Nutshell'' (West Nutshell Series, 5th ed. 2006).
+
*Ronald Levin & Jeffrey S. Lubbers, ''Administrative Law and Process in a Nutshell'' (West Nutshell Series, 6th ed. 2017).
 
*Jeffrey Litwak ed., ''A Guide to Federal Agency Adjudication'' (ABA, 2d ed. 2014).
 
*Jeffrey Litwak ed., ''A Guide to Federal Agency Adjudication'' (ABA, 2d ed. 2014).
*Jeffrey S. Lubbers, ''A Guide to Federal Agency Rulemaking'' (ABA, 5th ed. 2012).
+
*Jeffrey S. Lubbers, ''A Guide to Federal Agency Rulemaking'' (ABA, 6th ed. 2018).
*Richard J. Pierce, ''Administrative Law Treatise'' (Aspen Publishers, 5th ed. 2009).
+
*Richard J. Pierce & Kristin E. Hickman, ''Administrative Law Treatise'' (Wolters Kluwer, 6th ed. 2020).
*Richard J. Pierce, Sidney A. Shapiro & Paul R. Verkuil, ''Administrative Law and Process'' (Found. Press, 5th ed. 2009).
+
*Richard J. Pierce, Sidney A. Shapiro & Paul R. Verkuil, ''Administrative Law and Process'' (Found. Press, 6th ed. 2014).
 
*Thomas O. Sargentich ed., ''Administrative Law Anthology'' (Anderson Publ’g Co. [now Lexis-Nexis], 1994).
 
*Thomas O. Sargentich ed., ''Administrative Law Anthology'' (Anderson Publ’g Co. [now Lexis-Nexis], 1994).
 
*Peter H. Schuck, ''Foundations of Administrative Law'' (LexisNexis, 3d ed. 2012).
 
*Peter H. Schuck, ''Foundations of Administrative Law'' (LexisNexis, 3d ed. 2012).
 
*Peter Strauss ed., ''Administrative Law Stories'' (Found. Press, 2006).
 
*Peter Strauss ed., ''Administrative Law Stories'' (Found. Press, 2006).
*Peter L. Strauss, ''An Introduction to Administrative Justice in the United States'' (Carolina Acad. Press, 2d revision, 2002).
+
*Peter L. Strauss, ''An Introduction to Administrative Justice in the United States'' (Carolina Acad. Press, 3d ed 2016).
 
*ABA Section of Admin. Law & Regulatory Practice, ''A Blackletter Statement of Federal Administrative Law'' (ABA, 2d ed. 2013) (1st ed. published at 54 Admin. L. Rev. 1 (2002)).
 
*ABA Section of Admin. Law & Regulatory Practice, ''A Blackletter Statement of Federal Administrative Law'' (ABA, 2d ed. 2013) (1st ed. published at 54 Admin. L. Rev. 1 (2002)).
 
</div>
 
</div>
Line 194: Line 203:
 
*Michael Asimow, ''Interim-Final Rules: Making Haste Slowly'', 51 Admin. L. Rev. 703 (1999).
 
*Michael Asimow, ''Interim-Final Rules: Making Haste Slowly'', 51 Admin. L. Rev. 703 (1999).
  
*Kent Barnett, [https://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/89/2013/04/Barnett_66_Vand_L_Rev_797.pdf Resolving the ALJ Quandary], 66 Vand. L. Rev. 797 (2013).
+
*Kent Barnett, [https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=vlr Resolving the ALJ Quandary], 66 Vand. L. Rev. 797 (2013).
  
 
*Leland E. Beck, [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Agency%20Practices%20and%20Judicial%20Review%20of%20Administrative%20Records%20in%20Informal%20Rulemaking.pdf Agency Practices and Judicial Review of Administrative Records in Informal Rulemaking] (May 14, 2013) (report to ACUS).
 
*Leland E. Beck, [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Agency%20Practices%20and%20Judicial%20Review%20of%20Administrative%20Records%20in%20Informal%20Rulemaking.pdf Agency Practices and Judicial Review of Administrative Records in Informal Rulemaking] (May 14, 2013) (report to ACUS).
 +
*Jack M. Beermann & Jennifer L. Mascott, [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Submitted%20final%20draft%20JB.pdf Research Report on Federal Agency ALJ Hiring after Lucia and Executive Order 13843] (May 29, 2019) (report to ACUS).
  
 
*Eric Biber & J. B. Ruhl, [https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3780&context=dlj The Permit Power Revisited: The Theory and Practice of Regulatory Permits in the Administrative State], 54 Duke L.J. 133 (2014).
 
*Eric Biber & J. B. Ruhl, [https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3780&context=dlj The Permit Power Revisited: The Theory and Practice of Regulatory Permits in the Administrative State], 54 Duke L.J. 133 (2014).
 
*Barbara Brandon & Robert Carlitz, [https://sites.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/Conferences/rpp_rulemaking/Brandon-Carlitz_Online_Rulemaking.pdf Online Rulemaking and Other Tools for Strengthening Our Civil Infrastructure], 54 Admin. L. Rev. 1421 (2002).
 
  
 
*Emily S. Bremer, [https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/85770/OSLJ_V78N5_1169.pdf The Agency Declaratory Judgment], 78 Ohio St. L.J. 1169 (2017).
 
*Emily S. Bremer, [https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/85770/OSLJ_V78N5_1169.pdf The Agency Declaratory Judgment], 78 Ohio St. L.J. 1169 (2017).
 
*Cary Coglianese & David Lehr, [https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2736&context=faculty_scholarship Regulating by Robot: Administrative Decision Making in the Machine-Learning Era], 105 Geo. L.J. 1147 (2017).
 
*Cary Coglianese & David Lehr, [https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2736&context=faculty_scholarship Regulating by Robot: Administrative Decision Making in the Machine-Learning Era], 105 Geo. L.J. 1147 (2017).
  
*Roni A. Elias, [https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1732&context=elr The Legislative History of the Administrative Procedure Act], 27 Fordham Envtl. L. Rev. 207 (2016)
+
*Roni A. Elias, [https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1732&context=elr The Legislative History of the Administrative Procedure Act], 27 Fordham Envtl. L. Rev. 207 (2016).
 +
*Blake Emerson & Ronald M. Levin, [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ACUS%20IR%20final%20report.5.28.2019.pdf Agency Guidance Through Interpretive Rules: Research and Analysis] (May 28, 2019) (report to ACUS).
  
*Daniel A. Farber & Anne Joseph O’Connell, [https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3273&context=facpubs The Lost World of Administrative Law], 92 Tex. L. Rev. 1137 (2014).
+
*Daniel A. Farber & Anne Joseph O’Connell, [https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1126325?ln=en The Lost World of Administrative Law], 92 Tex. L. Rev. 1137 (2014).
  
*Cynthia R. Farina, Mary Newhart, Josiah Heidt & CeRI, [https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=ceri Rulemaking vs. Democracy: Judging and Nudging Public Participation That Counts], 2 Mich. J. Envtl. & Admin. L. 123 (2012).
+
*Cynthia R. Farina, Mary J. Newhart, & Josiah Heidt, [https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=ceri Rulemaking vs. Democracy: Judging and Nudging Public Participation That Counts], 2 Mich. J. Envtl. & Admin. L. 123 (2012).
  
 
*David L. Franklin, [https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=5233&context=ylj Legislative Rules, Nonlegislative Rules, and the Perils of the Short Cut], 120 Yale L.J. 276 (2010).
 
*David L. Franklin, [https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=5233&context=ylj Legislative Rules, Nonlegislative Rules, and the Perils of the Short Cut], 120 Yale L.J. 276 (2010).
Line 217: Line 226:
 
*William Funk, ''When Is a “Rule” a Regulation? Marking a Clear Line Between Nonlegislative Rules and Legislative Rules'', 54 Admin. L. Rev. 659 (2002).
 
*William Funk, ''When Is a “Rule” a Regulation? Marking a Clear Line Between Nonlegislative Rules and Legislative Rules'', 54 Admin. L. Rev. 659 (2002).
  
*Elena Kagan, [http://cdn.harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol114_kagan.pdf Presidential Administration], 114 Harv. L. Rev. 2245 (2001).
+
*Elena Kagan, [https://harvardlawreview.org/print/no-volume/presidential-administration/ Presidential Administration], 114 Harv. L. Rev. 2245 (2001).
 +
*Ronald Levin, [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1995-04%20Pt.2%20Procedures%20for%20Noncontroversial%20and%20Expedited%20Rulemaking.pdf Direct Final Rulemaking], 64 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1 (1995) (report to ACUS).  
  
 
*Jeffrey S. Lubbers, ''APA Adjudication: Is the Quest for Uniformity Faltering?'', 10 Admin. L. J. Am. U. 65 (1996).
 
*Jeffrey S. Lubbers, ''APA Adjudication: Is the Quest for Uniformity Faltering?'', 10 Admin. L. J. Am. U. 65 (1996).
Line 252: Line 262:
 
*Kevin Stack, [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Guidance%20in%20the%20Rulemaking%20Process%20Revised%20Draft%20Report%205_16_14%20ks%20final.pdf Guidance in the Rulemaking Process: Evaluating Preambles, Regulatory Text, and Freestanding Documents as Vehicles for Regulatory Guidance] (Jun. 10, 2014) (report to ACUS).
 
*Kevin Stack, [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Guidance%20in%20the%20Rulemaking%20Process%20Revised%20Draft%20Report%205_16_14%20ks%20final.pdf Guidance in the Rulemaking Process: Evaluating Preambles, Regulatory Text, and Freestanding Documents as Vehicles for Regulatory Guidance] (Jun. 10, 2014) (report to ACUS).
  
*Wendy Wagner, [http://wisconsinlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/13-Wagner.pdf The Participation-Centered Model Meets Administrative Process], 2013 Wis. L. Rev. 671.
+
*Wendy Wagner, [https://wlr.law.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1263/2013/05/13-Wagner.pdf The Participation-Centered Model Meets Administrative Process], 2013 Wis. L. Rev. 671.
  
 
*Wendy Wagner et al., [https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NYULawReview-92-1-Wagner-et-al.pdf Dynamic Rulemaking], 92 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 183 (2017).
 
*Wendy Wagner et al., [https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NYULawReview-92-1-Wagner-et-al.pdf Dynamic Rulemaking], 92 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 183 (2017).
Line 263: Line 273:
 
*Law Librarians’ Society of Washington, DC, [http://www.llsdc.org/federal-administrative-law-a-brief-overview Federal Administrative Law: A Brief Overview]
 
*Law Librarians’ Society of Washington, DC, [http://www.llsdc.org/federal-administrative-law-a-brief-overview Federal Administrative Law: A Brief Overview]
  
*[http://fall.law.fsu.edu/admin/ ABA Administrative Procedure Database]. Developed and maintained with the cooperation and support of the ABA Section of Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice and the Florida State University College of Law. Contains links to federal agency home pages, state resources, historical materials, and other useful resources.
+
*[http://library.law.fsu.edu/Digital-Collections/ABA-AdminProcedureArchive/index.html ABA Administrative Procedure Database]. Developed and maintained with the cooperation and support of the ABA Section of Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice and the Florida State University College of Law. Contains links to federal agency home pages, state resources, historical materials, and other useful resources.
  
 
*[https://www.acus.gov/ ACUS]
 
*[https://www.acus.gov/ ACUS]
Line 297: Line 307:
 
*[https://www.oge.gov/ U.S. Office of Government Ethics]
 
*[https://www.oge.gov/ U.S. Office of Government Ethics]
  
*[https://www.supremecourt.gov/index.html U.S. Supreme Court].
+
*[https://www.supremecourt.gov/ U.S. Supreme Court].
  
 
*[https://guides.lib.virginia.edu/administrative_decisions University of Virginia School of Law Federal Administrative Decisions and Actions Page] (containing links to the various administrative actions that fall outside the scope of the Code of Federal Regulations or ''Federal Register'').
 
*[https://guides.lib.virginia.edu/administrative_decisions University of Virginia School of Law Federal Administrative Decisions and Actions Page] (containing links to the various administrative actions that fall outside the scope of the Code of Federal Regulations or ''Federal Register'').
Line 309: Line 319:
 
**Rulemaking and other notice procedures ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=c4e1f8d17625129ba2c700031775fe41&mc=true&node=se7.1.1_127&rgn=div8 7 C.F.R. § 1.27])
 
**Rulemaking and other notice procedures ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=c4e1f8d17625129ba2c700031775fe41&mc=true&node=se7.1.1_127&rgn=div8 7 C.F.R. § 1.27])
 
**Petitions ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=c4e1f8d17625129ba2c700031775fe41&mc=true&node=se7.1.1_128&rgn=div8 7 C.F.R. § 1.28])
 
**Petitions ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=c4e1f8d17625129ba2c700031775fe41&mc=true&node=se7.1.1_128&rgn=div8 7 C.F.R. § 1.28])
**Administrative Regulations ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=c4e1f8d17625129ba2c700031775fe41&mc=true&node=sp7.1.1.h&rgn=div6 7 C.F.R. Part 1, Subpt. H])
+
**Rules of Practice Governing Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings Instituted by the Secretary Under Various Statutes ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=c4e1f8d17625129ba2c700031775fe41&mc=true&node=sp7.1.1.h&rgn=div6 7 C.F.R. Part 1, Subpt. H])
**Rules of Practice under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=c4e1f8d17625129ba2c700031775fe41&mc=true&node=pt7.2.47&rgn=div5 7 C.F.R. Part 47])
+
**Administrative Procedures under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=c4e1f8d17625129ba2c700031775fe41&mc=true&node=pt7.2.47&rgn=div5 7 C.F.R. Part 47])
 
**Rules of Practice Governing Withdrawal of Inspection and Grading Services ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=c4e1f8d17625129ba2c700031775fe41&mc=true&node=pt7.2.50&rgn=div5 7 C.F.R. Part 50])
 
**Rules of Practice Governing Withdrawal of Inspection and Grading Services ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=c4e1f8d17625129ba2c700031775fe41&mc=true&node=pt7.2.50&rgn=div5 7 C.F.R. Part 50])
 
**Federal Seed Act Rules of Practice ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=da54524c8bd0938f07a3293308ace342&mc=true&node=pt7.3.202&rgn=div5 7 C.F.R. Part 202])
 
**Federal Seed Act Rules of Practice ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=da54524c8bd0938f07a3293308ace342&mc=true&node=pt7.3.202&rgn=div5 7 C.F.R. Part 202])
Line 318: Line 328:
 
*'''Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection''':  
 
*'''Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection''':  
 
**Special Rules of Practice (Regulation L) ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=bae0be64373cae37b503d4afc3f570a1&mc=true&node=pt12.8.1012&rgn=div5 12 C.F.R. Part 1012])
 
**Special Rules of Practice (Regulation L) ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=bae0be64373cae37b503d4afc3f570a1&mc=true&node=pt12.8.1012&rgn=div5 12 C.F.R. Part 1012])
**Procedure Related to Rulemaking ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=bae0be64373cae37b503d4afc3f570a1&mc=true&node=pt12.9.1074&rgn=div5 12 C.F.R. Part 1074])
+
**Rulemaking and Guidance ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=bae0be64373cae37b503d4afc3f570a1&mc=true&node=pt12.9.1074&rgn=div5 12 C.F.R. Part 1074])
 
*'''Coast Guard (Homeland Security)''':  
 
*'''Coast Guard (Homeland Security)''':  
 
**Rules of Practice, Procedure, and Evidence for Formal Administrative Proceedings of the Coast Guard ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d9ccdb0113d92efd69c371638403cc26&mc=true&node=pt33.1.20&rgn=div5 33 C.F.R. Part 20])
 
**Rules of Practice, Procedure, and Evidence for Formal Administrative Proceedings of the Coast Guard ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d9ccdb0113d92efd69c371638403cc26&mc=true&node=pt33.1.20&rgn=div5 33 C.F.R. Part 20])
**Marine Investigation Regulations ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=32b03586d8fd3ae911e0d96ae11341d6&mc=true&node=pt46.1.5&rgn=div5 46 C.F.R. Part 5])
+
**Marine Investigation Regulations – Personnel Action ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=32b03586d8fd3ae911e0d96ae11341d6&mc=true&node=pt46.1.5&rgn=div5 46 C.F.R. Part 5])
 
***Hearings ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=01ac5838225a00b79711130bce996b16&mc=true&node=sp46.1.5.h&rgn=div6 Subpt. H])
 
***Hearings ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=01ac5838225a00b79711130bce996b16&mc=true&node=sp46.1.5.h&rgn=div6 Subpt. H])
 
***Appeals ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=01ac5838225a00b79711130bce996b16&mc=true&node=sp46.1.5.j&rgn=div6 Subpt. J])
 
***Appeals ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=01ac5838225a00b79711130bce996b16&mc=true&node=sp46.1.5.j&rgn=div6 Subpt. J])
Line 328: Line 338:
 
**Rules of Practice ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ae8720924b8368bbc413d20436205d3c&mc=true&node=pt17.1.10&rgn=div5 17 C.F.R. Part 10])
 
**Rules of Practice ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ae8720924b8368bbc413d20436205d3c&mc=true&node=pt17.1.10&rgn=div5 17 C.F.R. Part 10])
 
**Rules Relating to Reparations ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ae8720924b8368bbc413d20436205d3c&mc=true&node=pt17.1.12&rgn=div5 17 C.F.R. Part 12])
 
**Rules Relating to Reparations ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ae8720924b8368bbc413d20436205d3c&mc=true&node=pt17.1.12&rgn=div5 17 C.F.R. Part 12])
**Public Rulemaking Procedures ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ae8720924b8368bbc413d20436205d3c&mc=true&node=pt17.1.13&rgn=div5 17 C.F.R. Part 13])
+
**Procedures for Petitions for Rulemaking ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ae8720924b8368bbc413d20436205d3c&mc=true&node=pt17.1.13&rgn=div5 17 C.F.R. Part 13])
 
*'''Consumer Product Safety Commission''':  
 
*'''Consumer Product Safety Commission''':  
 
**Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=814bea1a37089e09f7a88c9917061af7&mc=true&node=pt16.2.1025&rgn=div5 16 C.F.R. Part 1025])
 
**Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=814bea1a37089e09f7a88c9917061af7&mc=true&node=pt16.2.1025&rgn=div5 16 C.F.R. Part 1025])
Line 377: Line 387:
 
**Hearing Procedures ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f5932a8cbd45047604eb41e81595ffce&mc=true&node=pt24.1.26&rgn=div5 24 C.F.R. Part 26])
 
**Hearing Procedures ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f5932a8cbd45047604eb41e81595ffce&mc=true&node=pt24.1.26&rgn=div5 24 C.F.R. Part 26])
 
**Procedures to present views and evidence ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f5932a8cbd45047604eb41e81595ffce&mc=true&node=se24.5.3282_1152&rgn=div8 24 C.F.R. § 3282.152])
 
**Procedures to present views and evidence ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f5932a8cbd45047604eb41e81595ffce&mc=true&node=se24.5.3282_1152&rgn=div8 24 C.F.R. § 3282.152])
 +
**Rulemaking: Policy and Procedures ([https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-24/subtitle-A/part-10 24 C.F.R. Part 10])
 
*'''Interior''':  
 
*'''Interior''':  
 
**Department Hearings and Appeals Procedures ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f5932a8cbd45047604eb41e81595ffce&mc=true&node=pt43.1.4&rgn=div5 43 C.F.R. Part 4])
 
**Department Hearings and Appeals Procedures ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f5932a8cbd45047604eb41e81595ffce&mc=true&node=pt43.1.4&rgn=div5 43 C.F.R. Part 4])
Line 383: Line 394:
 
*'''Justice''':
 
*'''Justice''':
 
**'''Drug Enforcement Administration''':  
 
**'''Drug Enforcement Administration''':  
***Registration of Manufacturers, Distributors, and Dispensers of Controlled Substances: Hearings ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f5932a8cbd45047604eb41e81595ffce&mc=true&node=sg21.9.1301_137.sg4&rgn=div7 21 C.F.R. §§ 1301.41-.46])
+
***Registration of Manufacturers, Distributors, and Dispensers of Controlled Substances: Hearings ([https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-II/part-1301/subject-group-ECFR7b6ed3ce0c45a35 21 C.F.R. §§ 1301.41-.46])
***Registration of Manufacturers, Distributors, and Dispensers of Controlled Substances: Action on Application for Registration: Revocation or Suspension of Registration ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f5932a8cbd45047604eb41e81595ffce&mc=true&node=sg21.9.1301_129.sg3&rgn=div7 21 C.F.R. §§ 1303.31-.37])
+
***Registration of Manufacturers, Distributors, and Dispensers of Controlled Substances: Action on Application for Registration: Revocation or Suspension of Registration ([https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-II/part-1301/subject-group-ECFR3b1489fb21ea6df 21 C.F.R. §§ 1303.31-.37])
***Schedules of Controlled Substances: Hearings ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=dc277a3b4ca2afc319396c9e1f89cfc1&mc=true&node=sg21.9.1308_135.sg8&rgn=div7 21 C.F.R. §§ 1308.41-.45])
+
***Schedules of Controlled Substances: Hearings ([https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-II/part-1308/subject-group-ECFRe0e4b35bab03722 21 C.F.R. §§ 1308.41-.45])
***Registration of Manufacturers, Distributors, Importers, and Exporters of List I Chemicals: Hearings ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=dc277a3b4ca2afc319396c9e1f89cfc1&mc=true&node=sg21.9.1309_146.sg5&rgn=div7 21 C.F.R. §§ 1309.51-.55])
+
***Registration of Manufacturers, Distributors, Importers, and Exporters of List I Chemicals: Hearings ([https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-II/part-1309/subject-group-ECFR19670ed91ea2133 21 C.F.R. §§ 1309.51-.55])
***Importation and Exportation of Controlled Substances: Hearings ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=dc277a3b4ca2afc319396c9e1f89cfc1&mc=true&node=sg21.9.1312_132.sg3&rgn=div7 21 C.F.R. §§ 1312.41-.47])
+
***Importation and Exportation of Controlled Substances: Hearings ([https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-II/part-1312/subject-group-ECFR013e686977859aa/section-1312.41 21 C.F.R. §§ 1312.41-.47])
***Importation and Exportation of List I and List II Chemicals: Hearings ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f5932a8cbd45047604eb41e81595ffce&mc=true&node=sg21.9.1313_142.sg3&rgn=div7 21 C.F.R. §§ 1313.51-.57])
+
***Importation and Exportation of List I and List II Chemicals: Hearings ([https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-II/part-1313/subject-group-ECFR6f8d1c43275b960 21 C.F.R. §§ 1313.51-.57])
 
***Administrative Functions, Practices, and Procedures: Administrative Hearings ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f5932a8cbd45047604eb41e81595ffce&mc=true&node=sp21.9.1316.d&rgn=div6 21 C.F.R. §§ 1316.41-.68])
 
***Administrative Functions, Practices, and Procedures: Administrative Hearings ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f5932a8cbd45047604eb41e81595ffce&mc=true&node=sp21.9.1316.d&rgn=div6 21 C.F.R. §§ 1316.41-.68])
 
**Newspaper Preservation Act ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f5932a8cbd45047604eb41e81595ffce&mc=true&node=se28.2.48_110&rgn=div8 28 C.F.R. §§ 48.10])
 
**Newspaper Preservation Act ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f5932a8cbd45047604eb41e81595ffce&mc=true&node=se28.2.48_110&rgn=div8 28 C.F.R. §§ 48.10])
Line 410: Line 421:
 
**Procedures for Review of Rules and Regulations of the Office of Personnel Management ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f5932a8cbd45047604eb41e81595ffce&mc=true&node=pt5.3.1203&rgn=div5 5 C.F.R. Part 1203])
 
**Procedures for Review of Rules and Regulations of the Office of Personnel Management ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f5932a8cbd45047604eb41e81595ffce&mc=true&node=pt5.3.1203&rgn=div5 5 C.F.R. Part 1203])
 
**Practices and Procedures for Appeals and Stay Requests of Personnel Actions Allegedly Based on Whistleblowing or Other Protected Activity ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f5932a8cbd45047604eb41e81595ffce&mc=true&node=pt5.3.1209&rgn=div5 5 C.F.R. Part 1209])
 
**Practices and Procedures for Appeals and Stay Requests of Personnel Actions Allegedly Based on Whistleblowing or Other Protected Activity ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f5932a8cbd45047604eb41e81595ffce&mc=true&node=pt5.3.1209&rgn=div5 5 C.F.R. Part 1209])
*'''National Credit Union Administration''' ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f5932a8cbd45047604eb41e81595ffce&mc=true&node=pt12.7.747&rgn=div5 12 C.F.R. Part 747])
+
*'''National Credit Union Administration Board''' ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f5932a8cbd45047604eb41e81595ffce&mc=true&node=pt12.7.747&rgn=div5 12 C.F.R. Part 747])
 
*'''National Labor Relations Board''':  
 
*'''National Labor Relations Board''':  
 
**Statements of Procedures ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f5932a8cbd45047604eb41e81595ffce&mc=true&node=pt29.2.101&rgn=div5 29 C.F.R. Part 101])
 
**Statements of Procedures ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f5932a8cbd45047604eb41e81595ffce&mc=true&node=pt29.2.101&rgn=div5 29 C.F.R. Part 101])
Line 425: Line 436:
 
*'''Social Security Administration''':  
 
*'''Social Security Administration''':  
 
**Determinations, Administrative Review Process, and Reopening of Determinations and Decisions ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f5932a8cbd45047604eb41e81595ffce&mc=true&node=sp20.2.404.j&rgn=div6 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. J])
 
**Determinations, Administrative Review Process, and Reopening of Determinations and Decisions ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f5932a8cbd45047604eb41e81595ffce&mc=true&node=sp20.2.404.j&rgn=div6 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. J])
**Determinations, Administrative Review Process, and Reopening of Determinations and Decisions ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f5932a8cbd4https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f5932a8cbd45047604eb41e81595ffce&mc=true&node=sp20.2.416.n&rgn=div65047604eb41e81595ffce&mc=true&node=sp20.2.404.j&rgn=div6 20 C.F.R. Part 416, Subpt. N.])
+
**Determinations, Administrative Review Process, and Reopening of Determinations and Decisions ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f5932a8cbd4https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f5932a8cbd45047604eb41e81595ffce&mc=true&node=sp20.2.416.n&rgn=div65047604eb41e81595ffce&mc=true&node=sp20.2.404.j&rgn=div6 20 C.F.R. Part 416, Subpt. N])
 
*'''State''' ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=32b03586d8fd3ae911e0d96ae11341d6&mc=true&node=pt22.1.128&rgn=div5 22 C.F.R. Part 128])
 
*'''State''' ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=32b03586d8fd3ae911e0d96ae11341d6&mc=true&node=pt22.1.128&rgn=div5 22 C.F.R. Part 128])
 
*'''Surface Transportation Board''':  
 
*'''Surface Transportation Board''':  
Line 445: Line 456:
 
***Rulemaking Procedures - Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=32b03586d8fd3ae911e0d96ae11341d6&mc=true&node=pt49.5.389&rgn=div5 49 C.F.R. Part 389])
 
***Rulemaking Procedures - Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=32b03586d8fd3ae911e0d96ae11341d6&mc=true&node=pt49.5.389&rgn=div5 49 C.F.R. Part 389])
 
**'''Federal Maritime Commission''' ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=32b03586d8fd3ae911e0d96ae11341d6&mc=true&node=pt46.9.502&rgn=div5 46 C.F.R. Part 502])
 
**'''Federal Maritime Commission''' ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=32b03586d8fd3ae911e0d96ae11341d6&mc=true&node=pt46.9.502&rgn=div5 46 C.F.R. Part 502])
**'''Maritime Administration''' ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=32b03586d8fd3ae911e0d96ae11341d6&mc=true&node=pt46.8.201&rgn=div5 46 C.F.R. Part 201])
+
**'''Maritime Administration and Maritime Subsidy Board''' ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=32b03586d8fd3ae911e0d96ae11341d6&mc=true&node=pt46.8.201&rgn=div5 46 C.F.R. Part 201])
 
**'''National Highway Traffic Safety Administration''':  
 
**'''National Highway Traffic Safety Administration''':  
 
***Adjudicative Procedures ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=32b03586d8fd3ae911e0d96ae11341d6&mc=true&node=pt49.6.511&rgn=div5 49 C.F.R. Part 511])
 
***Adjudicative Procedures ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=32b03586d8fd3ae911e0d96ae11341d6&mc=true&node=pt49.6.511&rgn=div5 49 C.F.R. Part 511])
Line 452: Line 463:
 
**'''Office of the Secretary''':  
 
**'''Office of the Secretary''':  
 
***Rules of Practice in Proceedings ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=32b03586d8fd3ae911e0d96ae11341d6&mc=true&node=pt14.4.302&rgn=div5 14 C.F.R. Part 302])
 
***Rules of Practice in Proceedings ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=32b03586d8fd3ae911e0d96ae11341d6&mc=true&node=pt14.4.302&rgn=div5 14 C.F.R. Part 302])
***Rulemaking Procedures ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=32b03586d8fd3ae911e0d96ae11341d6&mc=true&node=pt49.1.5&rgn=div5 49 C.F.R. Part 5])
+
***Administrative Procedures ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=32b03586d8fd3ae911e0d96ae11341d6&mc=true&node=pt49.1.5&rgn=div5 49 C.F.R. Part 5])
 
**'''Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration''':  
 
**'''Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration''':  
 
***Rulemaking Procedures ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=32b03586d8fd3ae911e0d96ae11341d6&mc=true&node=pt49.2.106&rgn=div5 49 C.F.R. Part 106])
 
***Rulemaking Procedures ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=32b03586d8fd3ae911e0d96ae11341d6&mc=true&node=pt49.2.106&rgn=div5 49 C.F.R. Part 106])
Line 474: Line 485:
 
**[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section551&num=0&edition=prelim § 551. Definitions]
 
**[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section551&num=0&edition=prelim § 551. Definitions]
 
**[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section552&num=0&edition=prelim § 552. Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings]
 
**[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section552&num=0&edition=prelim § 552. Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings]
**[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section552a&num=0&edition=prelim § 552a. Records about individuals]
+
**[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section552a&num=0&edition=prelim § 552a. Records maintained on individuals]
 
**[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section552b&num=0&edition=prelim § 552b. Open meetings]
 
**[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section552b&num=0&edition=prelim § 552b. Open meetings]
 
**[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section553&num=0&edition=prelim § 553. Rule making]
 
**[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section553&num=0&edition=prelim § 553. Rule making]

Latest revision as of 21:25, 7 August 2023

5 U.S.C. §§ 551–559, 701–706, 1305, 3105, 3344, 5372, 7521 (2012); originally enacted by Pub. L. No. 79-404, 60 Stat. 237, Ch. 324, §§ 1–12, June 11, 1946.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as originally enacted was repealed by Pub. L. No. 89-554, 80 Stat. 381, Sept. 6, 1966, as part of the general revision of title 5 of the United States Code. Its provisions were incorporated into title 5 of the United States Code. 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. Sections 701–706 pertaining to judicial review are discussed and set forth separately in Judicial Review of Agency Action. 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.

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, as well as extensive hearings held before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in 1941, are primary historical sources for the APA.

The APA 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, remains the principal guide to the structure and intent of the APA. The Manual states the purposes of the APA as follows:

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

The APA 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. Definitions of other terms may be found in section 551.

Structure of the Administrative Procedure Act

The APA 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 structure of the APA is shaped around the distinction between rulemaking and adjudication, with different sets of procedural requirements prescribed for each. Rulemaking is agency action that regulates the future conduct of persons through the 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 is concerned 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.

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 APA prescribes elaborate procedures for both formal rulemaking and formal adjudication, and relatively minimal procedures for informal rulemaking. The APA prescribes virtually no procedures for the remaining category of informal adjudication, which is by far the most prevalent form of governmental action.

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’ A Guide to Federal Agency Rulemaking (6th ed. 2018).

Excluded from the coverage of the APA are rulemakings involving military or foreign affairs functions and matters relating to agency management or personnel, public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. The APA’s general policy is to provide an opportunity for public participation in rulemaking, to foster the fair and informed exercise of agency authority; these exceptions are “narrowly construed and only reluctantly countenanced.” Am. Fed’n of Gov't Emps., AFL-CIO v. Block, 655 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1981). 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. ACUS encouraged this trend and called on Congress to eliminate or narrow several of these exemptions. “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, 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 government-wide (such as the Regulatory Flexibility Act). Recent presidents have also imposed additional requirements for rulemaking. See Rulemaking Requirements from the Executive Office of the President. 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—a procedure 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. 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 include this requirement, formal rulemaking is used infrequently.  However, numerous agency statutes (often called “hybrid rulemaking” statutes) do require some specific procedures beyond the basic notice-and-comment elements of informal rulemaking.

Negotiated Rulemaking

The Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 establishes a statutory framework for the conduct of negotiated rulemaking, a procedure developed in large part through ACUS–sponsored research. As with other alternative means of dispute resolution (ADR), negotiated rulemaking uses consensual techniques to produce results, rather than an agency decision based upon its data and conclusions, hopefully aided by public input. Numerous agencies have successfully completed negotiated rules over the years, but it remains an exceptional technique for adopting rules.

The Negotiated Rulemaking Act clearly establishes regulatory agencies’ authority to use such consensual techniques as negotiated rulemaking without limiting agency innovation. It identifies criteria for the discretionary determination by agency heads of whether and when to use negotiated rulemaking and sets forth basic requirements for public notice and the conduct of meetings under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

Adjudication

Sections 554, 556, and 557 apply to formal adjudication (i.e., to cases for which an adjudicatory proceeding is required by statute to be determined on the record after the opportunity for an agency hearing).  These sections apply, for example, to proceedings by certain agencies seeking to impose civil money penalties as part of a regulatory enforcement program.

Section 554(a) specifically exempts six types of proceedings from the requirements of these sections:

  • matters subject to a subsequent de novo trial in court;
  • certain personnel matters other than for administrative law judges;
  • decisions based solely on inspections, tests, or elections;
  • military or foreign affairs functions;
  • cases in which an agency acts as agent for a court; and
  • certification of worker representatives.

Section 554(b) specifies notice requirements. Section 554(c) provides for an opportunity for submission and consideration of facts, arguments, and informal settlements where practicable. Section 554(d) forbids presiding officers from engaging in ex parte (off-the-record) consultations on facts at issue in the case. The subsection also addresses “separation of functions” by restricting agency employees engaged in investigation or prosecution of a case from supervising the presiding officer or participating or advising in the decision in that or a factually related case (with certain exceptions). Section 554(e) authorizes agencies, in their discretion, to issue declaratory orders that would terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty with respect to matters required by statute to be determined on the record after opportunity for a hearing.

Sections 556 and 557 prescribe the specific procedures to be used in formal adjudication.  In brief, a trial-type hearing must be held, conducted either by some or all of the members of the agency or by an administrative law judge (ALJ) (appointed under 5 U.S.C. § 3105). An ALJ is normally the presiding officer in formal adjudication. The APA (§ 556(c)) spells out the powers and duties of ALJs, formerly called hearing examiners. It also provides for the independence of ALJs by protecting their tenure (5 U.S.C. § 7521) and pay (5 U.S.C. § 5372) and prohibiting inconsistent duties (5 U.S.C. § 3105). In addition, under 5 U.S.C. § 1305, the Office of Personnel Management has prescribed a special selection procedure for the appointment of ALJs. Currently, there are over 1,900 ALJs in the federal government, the vast majority of which are located in the Social Security Administration. In 2018, the Supreme Court held that ALJs are inferior officers under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and must be appointed by the President or a head of a department. Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018). Subsequently, President Trump issued Executive Order 13843, Excepting Administrative Law Judges From the Competitive Service, which placed ALJs in the excepted service and afforded agency heads more flexibility in hiring decisions.

Section 556 also covers disqualification of presiding officers, burden of proof, and parties’ rights to cross-examination. It provides that the transcript of testimony and exhibits, together with all documents filed in the proceeding, constitutes the exclusive record for decision.

Section 557 provides that when, as is usually the case, a hearing is not conducted by the agency itself, the presiding officer (normally an ALJ) must issue an initial decision—unless the agency requires that the entire record be certified to the agency for decision. An initial decision automatically becomes the agency’s decision unless appealed or reviewed on motion of the agency. Section 557 provides, in general, an opportunity for parties to submit for consideration their own proposed findings and conclusions, or exceptions to decisions. The record must show the ruling on each finding, conclusion, or exception presented. Section 557(d) was added to the APA by the Government in the Sunshine Act in 1976 to prohibit ex parte communications relevant to the merits of a pending formal agency proceeding. However, where ex parte communications do take place, their content must be placed on the public record, and, if the communication was knowingly made by a party, the presiding officer may require the party to show cause why a decision should not be made adversely affecting the party’s interest. Most agencies have adopted procedures applicable to their formal hearings. The Manual for Administrative Law Judges contains a detailed discussion of procedures for the conduct of hearings and a collection of model forms.

Alternative Means of Dispute Resolution

The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (ADRA) specifically provides agencies with the authority to employ mediation, arbitration, and other consensual methods of dispute resolution in resolving cases under the APA and in other kinds of agency disputes. The ADRA specifically establishes a federal policy encouraging ADR in place of more costly, time-consuming adjudication. While no agency is forced to use ADR techniques, the ADRA requires each agency head to undertake a review of typical agency litigation and administrative disputes to assess where ADR techniques will be useful.

Miscellaneous Provisions

Section 555 states various procedural rights of private parties, which may be incidental to rulemaking, adjudication, or the exercise of any other agency authority. Section 555(b) addresses appearances in agency proceedings by parties, counsel, and other interested persons. Section 555(c) provides that a person compelled to submit data or evidence is entitled to a copy or transcript, except that in nonpublic investigations this may be limited to a right to inspect the official transcript. Additional provisions of section 555 relate to subpoenas and to the requirement of prompt notice of denials of applications, petitions, or other requests made to agencies.

Section 558 is a rarely invoked section of the APA. Section 558(b) makes clear the requirement that agency rules, orders, and sanctions be within the jurisdiction delegated to the agency and otherwise authorized by law. Section 558(c) contains some special notice provisions and other procedural requirements for handling applications, suspensions, revocations, or license renewals.

Legislative History

The legislative history of the APA begins with the Final Report of the Attorney General’s Committee on Administrative Procedure (1941). This report led to the introduction in Congress of the so-called majority and minority bills, respectively designated as S. 675 and S. 674, 77th Cong., 1st Sess. These bills, together with S. 918, formed the basis for extensive hearings held in 1941 before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. In 1945, the House Committee on the Judiciary held brief hearings on various administrative procedure bills, of which H.R. 1203, 79th Cong., was the precursor of the APA as passed. Also in June 1945, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary issued a comparative print with comments, which is an essential part of the legislative history. The committee reports on the APA are S. Rep. No. 752 (1945) and H.R. Rep. No. 1980 (1946). In October 1945, at the request of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the Attorney General submitted a letter and attached memorandum that set forth the understanding of the Department of Justice as to the purpose and meaning of the various provisions of the bill (S.7). This letter and memorandum constitute Appendix B of the Senate Committee Report. They also appear as an appendix in the Attorney General’s Manual.

The Senate and House debates and the documents mentioned in the preceding paragraph, other than the Final Report of the Attorney General’s Committee, are compiled in S. Doc. No. 248, Administrative Procedure Act—Legislative History 1944-46 (1946). The Final Report was published as S. Doc. No. 8 (1941). The Attorney General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act (1947) is a contemporaneous interpretive guide to the original language of the APA.

Individual agencies have adopted procedural rules within the framework of the APA for the conduct of rulemaking and adjudication.

The comprehensive A Guide to Federal Agency Rulemaking (5th ed. 2012) discusses the entire rulemaking process. It was published initially by ACUS and is now published by the ABA. ACUS also published a Manual for Administrative Law Judges (3d ed. 1993), which is a handbook of practice in the conduct of hearings.

ACUS has sponsored numerous studies of rulemaking and adjudication procedures and recommended a variety of improvements in agency practice. Its recommendations appeared in the Federal Register and may be found on its website.

Bibliography

Legislative History and Congressional Documents

  • Administrative Procedure in Government Agencies, S. Doc. No. 8 (1941) (Final Report of the Attorney General’s Committee on Administrative Procedure).
  • Report on S. 7, H.R. Rep. No. 1980 (1946).

ACUS Recommendations

Other Government Documents

Other Resources

Books

  • Alfred C. Aman, Landyn Wm. Rookard, & William T. Mayton, Administrative Law (West Acad. Publ’g, 4th ed. 2023).
  • Michael Herz, Richard Murphy & Kathryn Watts eds., A Guide to Judicial and Political Review of Federal Agencies (ABA, 2d ed. 2015).
  • William F. Fox, Understanding Administrative Law (LexisNexis, 6th ed. 2012).
  • William Funk & Richard Seamon, Administrative Law: Examples & Explanations (Aspen Publishers, 5th ed. 2015).
  • Ronald Levin & Jeffrey S. Lubbers, Administrative Law and Process in a Nutshell (West Nutshell Series, 6th ed. 2017).
  • Jeffrey Litwak ed., A Guide to Federal Agency Adjudication (ABA, 2d ed. 2014).
  • Jeffrey S. Lubbers, A Guide to Federal Agency Rulemaking (ABA, 6th ed. 2018).
  • Richard J. Pierce & Kristin E. Hickman, Administrative Law Treatise (Wolters Kluwer, 6th ed. 2020).
  • Richard J. Pierce, Sidney A. Shapiro & Paul R. Verkuil, Administrative Law and Process (Found. Press, 6th ed. 2014).
  • Thomas O. Sargentich ed., Administrative Law Anthology (Anderson Publ’g Co. [now Lexis-Nexis], 1994).
  • Peter H. Schuck, Foundations of Administrative Law (LexisNexis, 3d ed. 2012).
  • Peter Strauss ed., Administrative Law Stories (Found. Press, 2006).
  • Peter L. Strauss, An Introduction to Administrative Justice in the United States (Carolina Acad. Press, 3d ed 2016).
  • ABA Section of Admin. Law & Regulatory Practice, A Blackletter Statement of Federal Administrative Law (ABA, 2d ed. 2013) (1st ed. published at 54 Admin. L. Rev. 1 (2002)).

Periodicals (aside from law reviews generally)

  • Administrative Law Review (published by American University Washington College of Law and the ABA Section of Admin. Law & Regulatory Practice)
  • Developments in Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice (Annual series beginning 1998-99 and continuing to 2014) (Jeffrey Lubbers ed., ABA Section of Admin. Law & Regulatory Practice).
  • Bloomberg BNA, Administrative Law, Third Series: A multivolume loose-leaf service, updated monthly. The Desk Book includes coverage of key statutes, legislative history, implementation memoranda, and agency rules; the Digest system organizes administrative law into 14 major topics (e.g., Costs and Fees, Judicial Review, Rulemaking), with multiple subtopics for each; and the Decisions volumes report significant federal court and agency decisions on administrative procedure and judicial review. Digests of salient points of law are placed under the appropriate subtopics for easy retrieval. A 12-page newsletter, the AdLaw Bulletin, containing case highlights and stories on agency and legislative developments, accompanies each monthly release and is kept in separate binder. The Bulletin also contains practice-oriented articles by outside experts on hot topics.

Selected Articles and Other Documents

  • Michael Asimow, Interim-Final Rules: Making Haste Slowly, 51 Admin. L. Rev. 703 (1999).
  • William Funk, When Is a “Rule” a Regulation? Marking a Clear Line Between Nonlegislative Rules and Legislative Rules, 54 Admin. L. Rev. 659 (2002).
  • Jeffrey S. Lubbers, APA Adjudication: Is the Quest for Uniformity Faltering?, 10 Admin. L. J. Am. U. 65 (1996).
  • Jeffrey Lubbers, The Transformation of the U.S. Rulemaking Process—For Better or Worse, 34 Ohio N. Univ. L. Rev. 469 (2008).
  • Jeffrey Lubbers & Blake Morant, A Reexamination of Federal Agency Use of Declaratory Orders, 56 Admin. L. Rev. 1097 (2004).
  • John Manning, Nonlegislative Rules, 72 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 893 (2004).
  • Thomas Merrill & Kathryn Watts, Agency Rules with the Force of Law: The Original Convention, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 467 (2002).
  • Elizabeth G. Porter & Kathryn A. Watts, Visual Rulemaking, 91 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1183 (2016).
  • George Shepherd, Fierce Compromise: The Administrative Procedure Act Emerges from New Deal Politics, 90 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1557 (1996).

Web Addresses of Note

  • ABA Administrative Procedure Database. Developed and maintained with the cooperation and support of the ABA Section of Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice and the Florida State University College of Law. Contains links to federal agency home pages, state resources, historical materials, and other useful resources.
  • Regulations.gov. The federal government’s “one-stop shop” for filing comments in rulemaking.

Agency Regulations

Statutory Provisions

Administrative Procedure Act

Title 5 U.S. Code