Formal Rulemaking (APA)
1. Formal rulemaking has more power than its informal version. “Formal rulemaking is a rulemaking by a government agency that is on the record after an opportunity for an agency hearing in accordance with the formal procedures set forth in sections 556 and 557 of the Administrative Procedure Act” (“Formal Rulemaking”, n .d.). The process often includes procedures like record’s creating, witnesses’ calling or statement taking. The result of the formal rulemaking becomes a direct rule. It is used when APA is not enough. The formal rulemaking is a common choice for limited categories like food additives or the ratemaking. Informal rulemaking does not require court procedures. The minimum procedural requirements for this process described in the
…show more content…
Agency-centered and court-centered approaches to administrative decisions focus on agencies’ and courts’ decision-making process respectively. According to the Mashaw’s article, it is normal for agencies “to give significant deference to presidential directions concerning how they should interpret their statutes” (2007, p. 891). Courts can treat these directions as irrelevant. Sides also have different responsibilities. While agencies should interpret statutes for their programs, courts do not have such responsibility. Mashaw states in his article that “agencies are responsible for implementing statutes, [not for] judicial decisions, which… are directed to reviewing courts” (2007, p. 903). Institutions often use different interpretive methodologies that can lead to the paradox, when judging rejects administration’s interpretation. Agency-centered and court-centered approach means the system primary one source’s methods in he decision making process. APA can be treated as a compromise because it combines the work of two types of institutions in some of its sections. For example, courts and agencies intersect in the section 556 “Hearings…”. The existence of formal and informal rulemaking can also be a sign of the compromise role of the APA, as it gives an opportunity to use different procedures during the
Agency-centered and court-centered approaches to administrative decisions focus on agencies’ and courts’ decision-making process respectively. According to the Mashaw’s article, it is normal for agencies “to give significant deference to presidential directions concerning how they should interpret their statutes” (2007, p. 891). Courts can treat these directions as irrelevant. Sides also have different responsibilities. While agencies should interpret statutes for their programs, courts do not have such responsibility. Mashaw states in his article that “agencies are responsible for implementing statutes, [not for] judicial decisions, which… are directed to reviewing courts” (2007, p. 903). Institutions often use different interpretive methodologies that can lead to the paradox, when judging rejects administration’s interpretation. Agency-centered and court-centered approach means the system primary one source’s methods in he decision making process. APA can be treated as a compromise because it combines the work of two types of institutions in some of its sections. For example, courts and agencies intersect in the section 556 “Hearings…”. The existence of formal and informal rulemaking can also be a sign of the compromise role of the APA, as it gives an opportunity to use different procedures during the