Exemptions under APA §553(b)(A
APA § 553(b)(A): Exemptions
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires agencies to follow notice-and-comment rulemaking for legislative (substantive) rules.
But § 553(b)(A) provides exemptions for:
Interpretative rules
General statements of policy
Rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice
➡️ These are considered non-legislative rules, and thus agencies can issue them without notice-and-comment.
Detailed Explanation of Each Exemption
Interpretative Rules
Clarify or explain existing statutes/regulations.
They don’t create new legal obligations, only interpret existing ones.
General Statements of Policy
Announce an agency’s tentative intentions for future enforcement.
They guide discretion but don’t bind the agency or public as law.
Rules of Agency Procedure or Practice
Internal agency operations (like filing deadlines, hearing formats).
They don’t affect substantive rights of parties.
Case Law Explanations (More than 5 Cases)
1. Interpretative Rules – Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital, 514 U.S. 87 (1995)
Facts: Medicare provider challenged an HHS manual that set reimbursement rules.
Issue: Was the manual an interpretative rule (no notice required) or legislative rule (notice required)?
Held: The Court ruled it was interpretative because it merely clarified existing regulations without creating new obligations.
Significance: Shows agencies can issue interpretative rules without notice-and-comment under §553(b)(A).
2. Interpretative vs. Legislative – American Mining Congress v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 995 F.2d 1106 (D.C. Cir. 1993)
Facts: Mining companies challenged MSHA’s policy requiring certain health testing, claiming it was a legislative rule.
Held: The D.C. Circuit developed a four-factor test to determine if a rule is interpretative.
Key Test: If the rule (1) imposes new rights/duties, (2) amends existing law, (3) is binding, or (4) is published as legislative intent—then it is legislative, not interpretative.
Significance: Clear guidance on when §553(b)(A) applies.
3. Policy Statements – Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 506 F.2d 33 (D.C. Cir. 1974)
Facts: FPC issued a statement of enforcement priorities. Companies argued it was a binding rule requiring notice.
Held: Court said it was a general statement of policy because it did not bind the agency or private parties.
Significance: Policies giving guidance or priorities are exempt under §553(b)(A).
4. Policy Statements – Community Nutrition Institute v. Young, 818 F.2d 943 (D.C. Cir. 1987)
Facts: FDA set “action levels” for contaminants in food. Industry argued these were binding rules.
Held: The “action levels” were general policy statements since FDA retained discretion to enforce differently.
Significance: Clarifies when policy statements are non-binding guidance exempt from notice.
5. Procedural Rules – Pickus v. United States Board of Parole, 507 F.2d 1107 (D.C. Cir. 1974)
Facts: Federal prisoners challenged parole guidelines, saying they were substantive rules requiring notice.
Held: The court held parole guidelines were procedural rules, exempt from notice-and-comment.
Significance: Shows distinction between procedure (exempt) vs. substantive law (not exempt).
6. Procedural Rules – JEM Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 320 (D.C. Cir. 1994)
Facts: FCC adopted new filing procedures for broadcast applications without notice.
Held: These were procedural rules since they only affected the method of processing applications, not substantive rights.
Significance: Confirms internal filing procedures fall under §553(b)(A).
7. Policy vs. Legislative – Chamber of Commerce v. U.S. Department of Labor, 174 F.3d 206 (D.C. Cir. 1999)
Facts: DOL issued a “policy” that actually required new employer actions.
Held: Court said it was a legislative rule, not a mere policy, because it effectively imposed binding obligations.
Significance: Clarifies limits of §553(b)(A)—agencies can’t disguise legislative rules as “policies.”
Summary Table
| Exemption | Key Case | Rule Established |
|---|---|---|
| Interpretative Rule | Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial | Interpretations of existing law = exempt |
| Interpretative Rule | American Mining Congress v. MSHA | Four-factor test: new duties = legislative |
| Policy Statement | Pacific Gas v. FPC | Enforcement priorities = exempt |
| Policy Statement | Community Nutrition v. Young | Action levels = policy, not binding |
| Procedural Rule | Pickus v. U.S. Board of Parole | Parole guidelines = procedural |
| Procedural Rule | JEM Broadcasting v. FCC | Filing procedures = procedural |
| Policy disguised as legislative | Chamber of Commerce v. DOL | Binding “policies” = legislative, not exempt |
✅ So, under APA §553(b)(A), agencies are exempt from notice-and-comment for interpretative rules, policy statements, and procedural rules, but courts carefully check whether a rule is genuinely non-legislative.
RELATED Blog
0 comments