More on Statutory Exemptions from the APA
More on Statutory Exemptions from the APA By Chris Micheli
I have written in the past about the
Legislature unfortunately creating statutory exemptions from California’s
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs the rulemaking activities of
California’s more than 200 executive branch agencies, departments, boards, and
commissions.
A fundamental purpose of both the
federal and California Administrative Procedure Acts is to allow public
participation in the federal and state rulemaking processes. This is where the
executive branch of government engages in quasi-legislative activities by
adopting rules and regulations to implement statutes passed by the legislative
branch of government. Key to allowing public participation is, first, providing
notice to the public of the proposed rulemaking and, second, an opportunity to
be heard during that rulemaking procedure.
However, with any statutory exemption
from the formal rulemaking process, that exemption precludes any meaningful
public participation because notice would be lacking and so too would be the
ability for interested parties to participate in and ultimately advocate for or
against proposed regulations or regulatory changes.
All regulations are subject to the APA,
unless expressly exempted by statute. Many observers believe a statutory
exemption from the APA is contrary to the spirit of the law and the regular
rulemaking process. Unfortunately, legislation that creates exemptions from the
APA is becoming more prevalent in the California Legislature.
These statutory exemptions also
represent an unwarranted delegation of authority being made by the Legislature
to the executive branch of government. Instead of ensuring that the Legislature
remains an equal branch of state government, by granting this authority to a
regulatory agency to bypass the APA, the Legislature weakens its position
toward the executive branch.
In other words, when state agencies and departments engage in quasi-legislative activities, those rulemaking activities should have an appropriate check-and-balance and ensure that the public, particularly the regulated community, has the ability to participate in the rulemaking process.
While the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), which oversees executive branch rulemaking and compliance with the APA, does not track which agencies are totally exempt from the APA (as there is no requirement to submit anything to OAL in that regard), there are several agencies and departments that are entirely exempt due to a statutory exemption.
For example, the California Lottery Commission has an exemption, and the Fair Political Practices Commission, as a result of appellate court litigation, is subject to the APA as it existed in 1974, when the FPPC was created by Prop. 9. In addition, California’s community colleges and universities have their own rulemaking processes that they follow. And, there is only partial application of the APA to the Public Utilities Commission and the Workers Compensation Appeals Board pursuant to Government Code Section 11351.
There are also a
number of executive branch entities whose rulemaking activities are not subject
to review by the OAL. For example, the regulations of the Commission on State
Mandates are not subject to OAL review. This means that OAL cannot ensure that
this Commissioner has complied with the APA’s requirements. While there is not
yet a comprehensive list of statutory exemptions, we are aware of over 210 partial
and program- or provision-specific APA exemptions currently in state law. That
simply is too many.
Comments
Post a Comment