Rulemaking
Part II
Procedural Rules


Procedural rules are exempt from notice and comment
 The form of an application for benefits is procedural
 The facts that the claimant has to establish to get the
benefits are substantive
A procedural rule can become substantive if the change
in procedure has a substantial impact on the regulated
parties.
 Procedural change for submitting bills by home health
providers imposed a huge logistic and financial cost.
2
OSHA Guidance for Targeting and
Carrying out Inspections


Being inspected does have a substantial impact
on the employer
Does this guidance document require notice and
comment?
 Does it change the legal rights of the
employers?
3
What is Formal Rulemaking?


A rulemaking conducted as a trial type hearing
 The agency support for the rule must be presented at
the hearing
 Interested parties may present and cross-examine
evidence
History - grew out of rate making
 Rate making affects a small number of parties
 The courts thought they should get due process
4
Why avoid formal rulemaking?



The peanut hearings (FDA must do formal
rulemaking in some situations)
 Should peanut butter have 87 or 90% peanuts?
 10 years and 7,736 pages of transcript
What was the concern in Shell Oil v. FPC?
 Formal rulemaking was impossibly time
consuming to use for regulating something
changeable such as natural gas rates.
Why does just getting the right to be heard at a
formal hearing benefit parties that oppose a rule?
5
When is Formal Rulemaking Required?



Disfavored by the modern courts
Must have magic statutory language or be required by the
agency's on rules
 Only when rules are required by statute to be "made
on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing"
Lawyering tip
 When would you want to argue that formal rulemaking
is required?
 What do you have to do to support you request?
6
The Procedures of Notice-and-Comment
Rulemaking
Putting the Notice in Notice and Comment




553(b) . . . The notice shall include —
(1) a statement of the time, place, and nature of
public rulemaking proceedings;
(2) reference to the legal authority under which
the rule is proposed; and
(3) either the terms or substance of the proposed
rule or a description of the subjects and issues
involved. . . .
8
Notice of the Proposed Rule: Chocolate
Manufacturers Ass’n v. Block




What did Congress tell the agency to do that
resulted in these regs?
 WIC
What did the proposed rule address?
 Cereal
What about fruit juice?
How was the final rule different from the proposed
rule?
9
The Notice Problem





What was the CMA's claim?
What was the agency defense?
Does the rule have to be the same?
 Why have notice and comment then?
 What is the logical outgrowth test?
 How would you use it in this case?
What did the court order in this case?
What will the CMA do?
10
Limits on Logical Outgrowth - Arizona
Public Service Co. v. E.P.A.





What did the EPA propose that Indian Tribes be
allowed to do that states were doing?
State plans are subject to judicial review - Why did
the tribes object to this in comments?
How was the rule changed?
What was the claim by plaintiffs?
How did the court analyze the problem?
 Why shouldn't have been a surprise?
11
What about Technical Information
Underlying the Rule? (not in book)




Portland Cement v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F2d 375 (1973)
 The agency must disclose the factual basis for the
proposed rule, if it relied on scientific studies or other
collections of information
Connecticut Light and Power v. NRC, 673 F2d 525 (1982)?
 The agency cannot hide technical information.
Why is this a big deal in environmental regs?
What are the potential downsides of this policy?
12
Shelby Amendments to the Freedom of
Information Act (not in book)



As we will learn later, the FOIA traditionally applied only
to information in possession of government agencies
 Senator Shelby, at the urging of several business
lobbies, successfully extended FOIA to information
produced by federally funded research and in the
hands of universities
Why would business lobbies want access to this
information, esp. in environmental rulemakings?
Why might such access be a problem for professors?
13
Additions to the Published Record (not in
book)


Rybachek v EPA
 EPA added 6000 pages of supporting info when
responding to comments
 Court said the agency may supplement the rulemaking
record in response to comments asking for
explanation
Idaho Farm
 Agency added a report to the record, then relied on it
in the final rule.
 The agency may not add new material and then rely on
it without given an opportunity to comment on it.
14
Negotiated Rulemaking




What is this?
Why is often used in environmental rulemaking?
What are the advantages?
What are the public participation issues?
15
Ex Parte Communications
Rulemaking


How does the notice provision in rulemaking
change the issues in ex parte communications?
 How does the notice requirement eliminate the
ex parte communications issues for
communications before the promulgation of the
rule?
When are ex parte communications an issue?
 How can you cure this?
17
Bias and Prejudice



Remember the cases on bias of decisionmakers in
adjudications?
Should these also apply to rulemaking?
How does notice and comment change the
situation?
18
Association of National Advertisers , Inc.
v. FTC



FTC is adopting rules on TV advertising directed at
children
 Chairman has written and spoken at length on the
evils of TV ads aimed at children
 Plaintiffs seek to disqualify him because of bias
Court held that plaintiffs must show clear and convincing
evidence that he has an unalterably closed mind on
matters critical to the rulemaking
No rulemaking has ever been overturned on the basis
that a decisionmaker was unlawfully prejudiced.
19
DC Federation of Civic Associations v.
Volpe, 459 F.2d 1231 (D.C. Cir. 1971)



The Volpe test for whether a rulemaking may be overturned solely
on evidence of Congressional pressure
 1) was there specific pressure on the agency to consider
improper factors?
 2) did the agency in fact change its mind because of these
considerations?
How can the agency defend itself from a Volpe attack?
What did the Court Rule when it applied Volpe to this Case?
 Why is it proper for congressmen to comment on proposed
rules?
20
Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298 (D.C.
Cir. 1981)




Rule making on coal fired power plants
 Why is this controversial then and more so now?
Sierra Club claimed that the president influenced the
agency
 Is that wrong? What is the cure?
Senator Bird also weighed in
What do plaintiffs need to show to establish undue
influence?
 Why is an outcome test, combined with the record, a
good solution?
21
What is the president's role in
rulemaking?



Controls and supervises executive branch
decisionmaking
How is the role different in adjudications?
When should the president's contacts be
documented?
 When the statute requires that they be
docketed
 If the rule is based on factual information that
comes from such a meeting.
22
Should State Rules Differ from Federal
Rules on Notice and Comment?



Limited staff
 Greater reliance on the expertise of board members,
rather than staff
 Board may hear lots of testimony and review a lot of
info - they cannot afford the time and effort to put
together volumes of supporting info for regs
Should state agencies have a reduced publication
requirement?
Should they be able to publish rules without explanation
and only have to explain if asked?
23
Congressional Mandates (Hybrid
Rulemaking) at the FTC





issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, which describes
the area of inquiry under consideration and invites comments from
interested parties;
send the advance notice and, 30 days before its publication, the
notice of proposed rulemaking to certain House and Senate
committees;
hold a hearing presided over by a hearing officer at which persons
may make oral presentations and in certain circumstances to
conduct cross-examination of persons;
include a statement of basis and purpose to address certain
specified concerns;
and conduct a regulatory analysis of both the proposed and final
rules that describes the proposal and alternatives that would
achieve the same goal and analyzes the costs and benefits of the
24
proposal and the alternatives.