Formal Rulemaking in Public Administration
Formal rulemaking is one of three forms of administrative rulemaking in the United States: informal (notice and comment), hybrid, and formal (hearing). Formal rulemaking involves agencies holding hearings – on the record and presided over by an administrative law judge – to adjudicate a rule when that rule unduly affects the life or livelihood of a small group of individuals or organizations. Formal rulemaking does not require “notice and comment” as the hearing serves this purpose. Formal rulemaking does require most of the mechanisms of civil law procedure including cross-examination and the judgment of an administrative law judge.
Formal rulemaking is prompted when the authorizing legislation stipulates agencies are required to promulgate rules “on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing.”
When most citizens or scholars think of rulemaking, they think of the website regulations.gov and...
- Anthony RA (1992) Interpretive rules, policy statements, guidances, manuals and the like – should federal agencies use them to bind the public? Duke Law J 41:1311–1384Google Scholar
- Hamilton RW (1972) Procedures for the adoption of rules of general applicability: the need for procedural innovation in administrative rulemaking. Calif Law Rev 60:1276–1337Google Scholar
- Jordan WS III (2000) Ossification revisited: does arbitrary and capricious review significantly interfere with agency ability to achieve regulatory goals through informal rulemaking? Northwest Law Rev 94(2):393–450Google Scholar
- Pierce RJ Jr (1997) The APA and regulatory reform. Adm Law J 81(83):95–190Google Scholar
- Rubin E (2003) It’s time to make the administrative procedure act administrative. Cornell Law Rev 95(107)Google Scholar
- Siegel JR (1998) Textualism and contextualism in administrative law. Baylor Univ Law Rev 1023(1068)Google Scholar
- Yackee JW, Yackee SW (2012) Testing the ossification thesis: an empirical examination of federal regulatory volume and speed, 1950–1990. George Wash Law Rev 80(5):1414–1492Google Scholar