Procedural and Interpretive Rules under Administrative Law
Procedural and Interpretive Rules in Administrative Law
Administrative agencies create rules to carry out their functions. These rules fall broadly into two categories:
1. Procedural Rules
Govern how an agency operates internally or conducts its processes.
Establish the steps for rulemaking, adjudication, licensing, investigations, hearings, or appeals.
Example: Rules on how to file a complaint, how hearings are conducted, timelines for agency decisions.
2. Interpretive Rules
Explain or clarify existing statutes or regulations.
They do not create new rights or duties but help people understand how the agency interprets the law.
Example: An agency’s explanation of what a statute means or how a regulation applies in certain situations.
Differences Between Procedural and Interpretive Rules
| Aspect | Procedural Rules | Interpretive Rules |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Set internal processes and agency procedures | Clarify meaning of existing laws or regulations |
| Effect on Public | Indirect impact through agency processes | Direct impact by explaining legal requirements |
| Legal Status | Binding on agency; often enforceable | Generally not binding; advisory or explanatory |
| Need for Formal Rulemaking | Usually require notice and comment | Usually exempt from formal rulemaking |
Legal Framework and Requirements
Procedural Rules
Agencies must generally follow Administrative Procedure Acts (APA) provisions for procedural rulemaking.
Under the APA (both federal and many states, including Tennessee), procedural rules usually require:
Notice of proposed rulemaking (published in official registers).
Opportunity for public comment.
Publication of the final rule.
Procedural rules are binding and enforceable on the agency and the public.
Interpretive Rules
Typically exempt from the APA’s formal rulemaking requirements.
Intended to provide agency guidance.
Courts usually give them less deference than substantive rules but may still respect them as agency interpretations (depending on the context).
Case Law Principles on Procedural and Interpretive Rules
1. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (Federal Case)
Established the Chevron deference doctrine.
Courts defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutes.
While Chevron primarily applies to substantive rules, courts sometimes extend some deference to interpretive rules if they clarify ambiguous statutes.
2. United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001)
Clarified when Chevron deference applies.
Interpretive rules typically do not qualify for full Chevron deference but may receive some respect under Skidmore deference based on their persuasiveness.
3. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 435 U.S. 519 (1978)
Courts cannot impose additional procedural requirements on agencies beyond what the APA requires.
Agencies have flexibility in how they conduct procedural rulemaking as long as APA minimums are met.
4. FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009)
An agency’s interpretation of its own regulations (sometimes called Auer deference) receives deference unless plainly erroneous.
This principle can apply to interpretive rules explaining procedural regulations.
5. Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979)
Clarified that interpretive rules do not have the force of law and thus do not require formal notice-and-comment procedures.
Practical Applications
Procedural Rules
Ensure fairness in agency decision-making.
Provide transparency and public participation.
Example: An agency’s rule on how license hearings are conducted must be followed strictly to avoid due process violations.
Interpretive Rules
Help regulated parties understand how the agency views ambiguous statutory provisions.
Often published as guidance documents, policy statements, or opinion letters.
Example: A tax agency’s interpretation of “income” for tax purposes helps taxpayers comply.
Summary Table
| Rule Type | Purpose | Rulemaking Required | Legal Effect | Judicial Deference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural Rules | Govern agency processes | Yes (notice & comment) | Binding on agency and public | Strong (Chevron/Auer) |
| Interpretive Rules | Clarify existing laws | Generally no | Advisory, non-binding | Weaker (Skidmore) |
Conclusion
Procedural rules are essential for ensuring agencies act fairly and transparently and generally require formal rulemaking procedures.
Interpretive rules guide the public and agency staff on how laws will be applied but do not create binding legal obligations and typically avoid formal rulemaking.
Courts recognize these distinctions and apply different levels of deference accordingly.
RELATED Blog
0 comments