1 / 11

Agency policymaking

Agency policymaking. Agency Policy defined: General rules, principles or patterns that guide the agency’s staff as it carries out its daily functions.

wynn
Download Presentation

Agency policymaking

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Agency policymaking • Agency Policy defined: General rules, principles or patterns that guide the agency’s staff as it carries out its daily functions. • During the delegation battles, courts tried to figure out whether agencies could make policy. That battle is largely over. Agencies are allowed to make policy. • But there are still issues as to what constraints on policy-making exist. Things to think about: • What vehicles for agency policymaking exist? • What procedures apply to agency policymaking? • Why would an agency choose one policy-making vehicle over another? • Does the law constrain the choice of policymaking vehicles in some instances?

  2. Policy-making vehicles & related constraints • As the book notes, we tend to think of policy-making as coming in one of two forms: quasi-legislative (rules/rulemaking) or quasi-adjudicative (orders/adjudications). • The difference between these two policy-making forms is significant • different procedural requirements often attach to different forms of policy-making (rulemaking vs. adjudication). • There can even be different definitions of rulemaking & adjudication depending on whether the situation involves a constitutionalversus a statutorychallenge • This can raise very complicated areas where agency action can be a rulemaking with one set of procedural requirements in one context and an adjudication with different procedural requirementsin another context

  3. Londoner & Bi-Metallic: the definitions of rulemakings/adjudications & the requirements of procedural due process in constitutional challenges • Londoner (1908): BPW assessed tax on property along city street for purposes of paving a street. SCT said failure to provide oral hearing violated due process. • Bi-Metallic (1915): Tax Board increased taxes on all property in Denver pursuant to state law. SCT said failure to provide oral hearing did not violate due process. • Londoner raised due process concerns because it “involved a relatively small number of persons” who were “exceptionally affected, in each case, upon individual grounds.” • In other words, Londoner involved an adjudication, rather than a rulemaking, so due process requirements attached. Key distinctions: • Rulemakings: general/prospective in application • Adjudications:particular/retrospective in application

  4. APA definitions of rulemaking and adjudication, etc. – cases arising under federal statutory law • Rulemaking – the agency process for formulating, amending or repealing a rule (5 USC § 551(5)) • Rule -- any agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret or prescribe law or policy [or procedure], including making or approval of rates or corporate structures (5 USC § 551(4)) • Adjudication – the agency process for the formulation of an order (5 USC § 551(7)) • Order – the whole or part of a final agency disposition [that results from something] other than rule-making, but including licensing. (5 USC § 551(6)) • How does the APA definition of a rule differ Londoner & Bi-Metallic? And why might that difference be important?

  5. APA procedures required for rulemakings – a sample of the basics (more detail later) Formal – Sec. 553, 556 & 557 Informal – Sec. 553 • Notice of proposed rulemaking (§553(b)) • Right to submit evidence and to conduct cross-ex (§556(d)) • Initial decision by an ALJ, the agency or qualified agency employee (§556(b)/557(b)) • No ex parte contacts (§557(d)) • Decision based on findings of fact, supported by substantial evidence in the record and conclusions of law (§557(c)) • Decision is appealable to the agency head(s) (§557(b)) • Notice of Proposed Rule (“NPR”) – Sec. 553(b) • Opportunity for Comment – Sec. 553(c) • Concise Statement of Basis & Purpose for Final Rule – Sec. 553(c)

  6. APA procedures required for adjudications – a sample of the basics (more detail later) Formal – Sec. 554, 556, 557 Informal – Sec. 555(e) • Notice of hearing (§554(b)) • Separation of investigatory and adjudication functions (§554(d)) • Right to submit evidence and to conduct cross-ex (§556(d)) • Initial decision by an ALJ, the agency or qualified agency employee (§556(b)/557(b)) • No ex parte contacts (§557(d)) • Decision based on findings of fact, supported by substantial evidence in the record and conclusions of law (§557(c)) • Decision is appealable to the agency head(s) (§557(b)) • Prompt notice shall be given of denial in whole or part of a written application . . . of an interested person made in connection with any agency proceeding. • Unless the agency is affirming prior denial or it is self-explanatory, notice must contain brief statement of grounds for denial. Organic Act reqm’ts

  7. Choice of agency policy-making vehicles - MUST an agency use a certain policy-making vehicle? • Obviously, the vehicle used to make agency policy matters re the procedural constraints imposed: • Under the APA, formal adjudications/rulemakings require more procedural hoops than informal versions of same policy vehicles • If a constitutional challenge, adjudications must meet due process • But these are side effects of agency choice of policy-making vehicle. • They result from the agencies choice of vehicle, they do not dictate that an agency choose that particular vehicle to make policy • Tactical reasons re avoiding/using procedures might make an agency choose particular policy vehicles • Are there constraints on whether agencies can choose particular policy-making vehicles? • Other than lack of rulemaking/adjudicatory authority in the organic act

  8. Nat’l Pet. Refiners Ass’n v. FTC – the facts • FTC has the authority to regulate under the FTCA: • Sec. 12 - false & deceptive advertising of food, drugs . . . (15 USC § 52) • Sec. 5 – unfair methods of competition affecting commerce & unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce (15 USC § 45(a)) • Sec 5(b) of the FTCA: When FTC has reason to believe that a person “has been or is using any unfair method of competition or unfair or deceptive act or practice in commerce . . .” it shall hold a hearing and ultimately issue a “cease & desist” order if it believes that person is engaging in deceptive practices • Sec. 6(g) of the FTCA: FTC has the power to “make rules and regulations for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of sections 41-46 & 47-58 of this title.” (15 USC § 46(g)) • FTC enacted a rule pursuant to § 6(g) stating that failure to post octane levels at gas pumps was a deceptive practice

  9. Nat’l Pet. Refiners Ass’n v. FTC – the FTC’s regulation of octane postings • Does the FTC have the authority to regulate octane postings generally (regardless of the vehicle it chose to use)? • In what way is failure to post octane numbers potentially deceptive? • Could the FTC have regulated such postings without having rulemaking authority?

  10. Nat’l Pet. Refiners Ass’n v. FTC – the FTC’s choice of policymaking vehicles • Why might the FTC have wanted to use rulemaking as the policymaking vehicle? What advantages does it have? • Why would gas stations prefer to have this issue raised on a case-by-case in adjudications (enforcement proceedings)?

  11. Nat’l Pet. Refiners Ass’n v. FTC – the FTC’s authority to enact rules • Does the FTC have the power to enact rules pertaining to octane postings? • Sec. 5(b) could be interpreted as allowing decisions only through cease and desist proceedings. • But what does the language of Sec. 6(g) suggest as to the FTC’s powers? • How broadly should we read the FTC’s rulemaking authority? Do other relevant considerations argue against reading the text of Sec. 6(g) broadly? Should they matter? • Does the court’s decision signal a preference for rulemaking as a policy-making vehicle, even in the face of ambiguous language? Stay tuned for Thursday.

More Related