* Legislative Counsel/Deputy General Counsel to the Council of the District of Columbia; formerly Acting Administrator/Attorney Advisor of the District of Columbia Office of Documents and Administrative Issuances, B.A., Howard University, 1977; J.D., Georgetown University, 1981; member of the Florida and District of Columbia Bars. The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and are not intended to reflect the views of the Council of the District of Columbia or the Government of the District of Columbia. Return to text.
1. Unwanted regulations generally fall into one of four different categories: 1) outdated or obsolete, 2) unenforceable, 3) unnecessarily burdensome, or 4) duplicative. Unless the context indicates otherwise, the terms are used interchangeable throughout this paper. Although section. 3 of the District of Columbia Administrative Procedure Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-614, approved October 21, 1968 (82 Stat. 1204; D.C. Code sec. . 1-1502), defines the term "rule" to mean an administrative agency's statement of policy, and the term "regulation" to mean a statement of policy adopted by the pre-home rule Council, the terms are used interchangeably to refer to administrative statements of policy. Return to text.
2. See Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chada, 462 U.S. 919, 986 (White J., dissenting); see also McQuillen, Municipal Corporations, 16.03 where it is stated that the "... ordinance making power of a body to carry out a policy established by the legislature would seem at times to merge and be the same or at least to be difficult to distinguish from each other." Return to text.
3. The District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, established by sec. 101 of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-8, approved April 17, 1995 (109 Stat. 116; D.C. Code 47-391 et seq.). Sec. 203(a) of that act requires the Council to submit to the Authority each Act passed by the Council during a control year. Return to text.
4. Sec. 6 of the District of Columbia Administrative Procedure Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-614, effective October 21, 1968, D.C. Code sec. 1-1506 (1992 Repl. Vol.). There have been two technical amendments to this provision, D.C. Law 1-19, effective October 8, 1975 and D.C. Law 1-96, effective March 25, 1977. These amendments merely renumbered the original Act and changed the terms Commissioner and Council where appropriate. Return to text.
5. Sec.2 of An act to authorize the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to make police regulations for the government of said District, approved January 26, 1887, (24 Stat. 369; D.C. Code 1-318). This provision was repealed by D.C. Law 5-24, effective August 2, 1983, only to be reinstated by D.C. Law 5-159, effective March 14, 1985 with the clarifying language that it was applicable only to regulations adopted prior to the effective date of the District of Columbia Administrative Procedure Act. Return to text.
6. Sec.11701 of Pub. L. No. 105-217, approved August 5, 1997, as amended by the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1998, approved November 19, 1997 (Pub. L. No. 105-100; 111 Stat. 2160). Return to text.
7. The Business Regulatory Reform Commission was established in D.C. Law 10-212, D.C. Code 2-4101 et seq.Return to text.
8. Business Regulatory Reform Commission Report at 9 (August 1997). Return to text.
9. See section 602(c)(3) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 913; D.C. Code 1-233(c)(3)). Return to text.
10. The District of Columbia Administrative Procedure Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-614, effective October 21, 1968, D.C. Code sec. . 1-1501 et seq. (1992 Repl. Vol.).Return to text.
11. District of Columbia Documents Act of 1978, D.C. Law 2-153, effective March 6, 1979, D.C. Code sec. 1-1531 et seq. Return to text.
12. See Commissioner's Order No. 54-1630, dated July 30, 1954, which states that the Register is to contain "... (n)otice of all regulations having the effect of law." Return to text.
13. Administrative Procedure Act, approved June 11, 1946, Pub. L. No. 79-404, reproduced in the Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act (1947). Return to text.
14. See Bonfield, State Administrative Rulemaking, Appendix II (1993 Supp.). Return to text.
15. Id. at Appendix I. Return to text.
16. See for example D.C. Code 1-1185.1 (procurement regulations may waive bonds unless required by federal law), 2-2638 (Department may by rule or order waive examination requirements), 6-991.4 (Mayor, by rule may waive requirements for license and permit in case of emergency), 6-989 (exemption from environmental impact statement), 33-532 (Mayor may waive by rule requirement for registration of manufacturers)47-407 (Mayor may waive unpaid taxes and special assessments); see also D.C. Code 3-803(e)(1), 5-424, 6-706, 36-226, 36-1210, and 36-1211, and Jones v. District of Columbia, 323 F.2d 306 (D.C. Cir. 1963)( regulations promulgated under this section are not unconstitutional merely because they grant discretion to an administrative officer to grant variances in limited cases). Return to text.
17. See for example 18 DCMR 104.9 and 1321.1 (Director may waive road test and skills test under certain conditions); 27 DCMR 317 (Procedure for waiver or modification of standards for sidewalk cafes); 16 DCMR 2103.2 (Education Licensure Commission may waive regulatory requirements for licensure); 6A DCMR 106.8 (Chief of Police may waive application of rules not otherwise required by law); 20 DCMR 5503.1 (Director may waive or modify requirements for underground storage tanks); 29 DCMR 313.1 (Mayor may excuse compliance with chapter in whole or in part); See also 1 DCMR 500.3, 408.9, 904.9, 2000.6; 3 DCMR 302.5, 1308.2, 1403.4(d), 1505.4, 1608.5, 1705.7; 4 DCMR 309.2; 5 DCMR 3406.9; 6 DCMR 106.8; 7 DCMR 1303.6, 2502.1; 9 DCMR 506.1, 606.1, 2502, 4000.4, 4000.5; 10 DCMR 2010.7, 2102.3, 2500.4, 2601.1, 3006.2, 3100.2, 3202.3, 3312.1, 3400.8, 3605.6, 3902.8, 4000.4, 4100.4, 4300.5, 4500.8, 6900.5; 11 DCMR 202.9(I), 534.6, 774.2, 806.6, 1564.1, 2401.2, 3000.9, 3301.1; 14 DCMR 109, 1500.4, 1701.1, 2500.5, 2606.1, 2700.3, 2800.5, 2900.3, 3000.4, 3600.7, 3802.12, 3914.2, 4704.15, 6003; 15 DCMR 146, 1307, 16 DCMR 2103.2, 2202.3, 3120.6; 17 DCMR 1600.2, 1907.8, 2422.1, 2501.5, 2911, 4404.4, 4505.6, 4603.7, 4904.1, 5404.4, 5504.4, 6503.7, 6607.1; 18 DCMR 104.9, 411.7, 1321.1, 30004.7; 19 DCMR 306.36, 1120.6, 4306.32; 20 DCMR 103, 1111.1, 2310.1, 2705, 2706, 3110, 4602.1(k)(6)(D), 5503.1(b); 21 DCMR 511.1, 528.1, 718, 1904.1, 2036.1; 22 DCMR 2010, 2502.16; 24 DCMR 210.10, 317.1, 317.2, 517.2, 617.1, 2313.3; 26 DCMR 2004.3, 2722.1; 27 DCMR 108.4, 701.3, 1507.5, 3107.3; 28 DCMR 204.22; 29 DCMR 413.4, 702.3, 4408.4; 30 DCMR 307.5, 406.1, 2011.4, 2207.6; 31 DCMR 113.2, 214.2, 303.2. Return to text.
18. See Sec. 8 of An Act providing for the zoning of the District of Columbia and regulation of the location, height, bulk, and uses of buildings and other structures and of the uses of land in the District of Columbia, approved June 20, 1938 (52 Stat. 799; D.C. Code 5-424(g)(3)). Return to text.
19. See, e.g.: 16 DCMR 2103.2, 2202.3 (... may for good cause waive, in whole, or in part one or more of the requirements ...); 24 DCMR 317.1 (Public Space Committee may waive or modify any provision of chapter); 10 DCMR 3312.1 (Director may, for good cause shown, in writing, waive, any provision of this chapter...); 15 DCMR 1501.1, 1600.2, and 6A DCMR 106.8 (may waive any provision of this chapter). Return to text.
20. See, e.g., Cal. Health & Safety Code 25233 (West 1996) (hazardous waste control); Del. Code Ann. tit. 7, 6011 (1995) (environmental control). Other state statutes include provisions that the variance pose no adverse effects on the health, safety, or welfare of the public. See, e.g., Mo. Rev. Stat. 260.405 (1994) (environmental control); Wyo. Stat. Ann. 27-11-111 (1996) (OSHA). Certain statutes permit variances to be issued only when the petitioner can demonstrate a particular hardship in complying with the regulation. See, e.g., Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. 224.30.130 (Baldwin 1996) (public health); Mich. Comp. Laws 125.1515 (1996).Return to text.
21. See Fla. Stat. 120.542 (1996 Supp.); and Blanton and Rhodes, "The New Variance and Waiver Provision," Fla. Bar Journal (Vol. LXXI at 35)(March 1997). Return to text.
22. See, sec. 5203(d) of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, approved September 30, 1996 (Pub. L. No.104-208; D.C. Code 47-392.3(b)(5)), (amending sec.203(b) of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995, approved April 17, 1995. Return to text.
23. See D.C. Code 47-392.3(b)(2)(B); and paragraph 25 of Attachment A of Regulations Governing Submission by the District Government of Proposed Leases and Contracts for Authority Review and Approval, dated March 29, 1996. Return to text.
24. See Memorandum from Charlotte Brookins-Hudson, General Counsel to the Council of the District of Columbia, dated February 20, 1997. Return to text.
25. See for example sections 105 and 107 of the District of Columbia Traffic Adjudication Act of 1978, effective September 12, 1978 (D.C. Law 2-104; D.C. Code 40-605 & 607), of which both sections authorize the Mayor to issue rules. Only 2 of the remaining 8 provisions of the motor vehicle and traffic laws codified in Title 40 of the D.C. Code require Council review of rulemaking. These pertain to commercial bicycle couriers and abandoned and junk vehicles. Rules for motor vehicle inspections and registration, child restraints, automobile consumer protection, and mandatory use of seat belts are not subject to Council review. Return to text.
26. See Mayor's Memorandum 87-56, dated September 17, 1987 containing Memorandum from Margaret L. Hines, Deputy Corporation Counsel, D.C. which states that the following procedure should be used for all statutes that contain Council review periods: 1) the agency should submit the proposed rule to the Council at the same time the rule is published in the D.C. Register, 2) the Council review period should run concurrently with the public comment period, 3) at the end of the Council review period, the agency should publish a notice of final rulemaking unless the Council has adopted a resolution disapproving the rules or the rules are substantially different from the proposed rules, 4) if the Council has not reserved any period or review, the agency must wait for the Council to adopt a resolution of approval. Return to text.
27. See Council Act 7-37, the "Prohibition on Refusing to Accept New Applications for Public Housing Emergency Act of 1987," effective April 24, 1987, 34 DCR 2921; and Act 9-230, the "Minimum Wage Emergency Revision Act of 1992, effective November 24, 1992, 39 DCR 8389. Return to text.
28. 1985 Md. Laws 2, ch. 727, codified in Md. State Gov't Code Ann. 10-130 to 10-139 (1996 Supp.).Return to text.
29. Md. Code Ann. 10-112 (1997 Supp.).Return to text.
30. Va. Code Ann. 9-6.14:9.1 et seq.(1996 Supp.).Return to text.
31. See Executive Order No. 12,866 signed by President Clinton on September 30, 1993, 29 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1925; Davis, Admin. Law Treatise, 7.9 (3rd Ed. 1994).Return to text.
32. See for example Boyd, Legislative Checks on Rulemaking under Florida's New APA, 24 Fla. ST.U.L.Rev. 283 (1997); much of this discussion is similar to that addressed in Wilson v. Kelly, 615 A2d 229 (D.C. App. 1992) (Wilson), which concerned the types of proposed actions the Council could approve or disapprove by resolution following the Chadha amendments to the District Charter, 131(c) of Pub. L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 1837 (D.C. Code 1-229(a)). The court in Wilson essentially adopted a list of the types of executive actions the Council could approve by resolution. It is interesting to note that 12 of the 32 action on the list are rulemaking. Id. at 233 n.11. Return to text.
33. See Bonfield, State Administrative Rulemaking, 8.3.2(c)(1993 Supp.). Return to text.
34. See Bablitch, Legislative Veto of Administrative Rules: Where Is the Constitutional Line Drawn?, published by the Council of State Governments (Winter 1994). Return to text.
35. The power to make regulations is vested by Charter in the Council by section 404(a) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813; D.C. Code 1-227(a)), by virtue of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967. See also Mize, A Guide to Deciphering the Laws of a Unique City-State Legislature - The Council of the District of Columbia, 2 Potomac L. Rev.1, 16 (1979) (Council inherited municipal rulemaking authority of its predecessor city council). Return to text.
36. Of the charter independent agencies, only the Zoning Commission appears to have its rulemaking authority and procedures detailed in the Home Rule Act. See section 492(e) of the Home Rule Act (D.C. Code 5-417). Return to text.
37. See Bowers, Regulating the Regulators: An Introduction to the Legislative Oversight of Administrative Rulemaking (1990). See also Stngle and Rhea, Putting the Genie Back in the Bottle: The Legislative Struggle to Contain Rulemaking by Executive Agencies, 21 Fla. ST.U.L.Rev. 415 (1993). Return to text.
38. Business Regulatory Reform Commission Report at 9 (August 1997). Return to text.
39. See D.C. Hospital Association v. Barry, 498 A.2d 216 (D.C. App. 1985). Return to text.
40. See 1 DCMR 309.3(d) (1986). Return to text.
41. See Tenn. Code Ann. 4-5-22 (1996) (all rules expire on June 30 of the following year). Return to text.
42. See D.C. Code sec. 1-1538. This was also the approach recommended by the Business Regulatory Reform Commission with respect to the review of regulatory boards, commissions and registration programs. Business Regulatory Reform Commission Report at 36. Return to text.
43. See D.C. Law 3-75, the D.C. Documents Act Amendments Act of 1980, effective July 1, 1990, 27 DCR 2270; D.C. Law 4-41, the D.C. Documents Act Amendment of 1981, effective October 17, 1981, 28 DCR 3423; D.C. Law 5-10, D.C. Municipal Regulations Publication Temporary Act of 1983, effective May 20, 1983, 30 DCR 1793; D.C. Law 5-22, D.C. Municipal Regulations Publication Act of 1983, effective August 2, 1983, 30 DCR 3337. This series of laws extended the deadline for publication and continued effectiveness of uncodified regulations by approximately five years. Return to text.
44. Va. Code Ann. 9-6.14:25 (1996 Supp.). Return to text.
45. See Executive Order of the Governor (Feb. 5, 1986), codified in Md. State Gov't Code Ann. 10-133(Supp. 1987). Return to text.
46. See D.C. Code sec. 1-1532(c). Return to text.
47. The 1981 Uniform Law Commissioner's Model State APA permits the incorporation of "...all or any part of a code, standard, rule , or regulation that has been adopted by an agency of the United States or of this state, another state, or by a nationally recognized organization or association, if incorporation of its text in agency rules would be unduly cumbersome, expensive, or otherwise inexpedient." Model State Administrative Procedure Act (1997-98 ed.) published by the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Institute. Return to text.
48. Md. Code Ann.7-207 (1997 Supp.). Return to text.
49. See Va. Code Ann., 9-6.14:4.1. Return to text.
50. See 1 CFR (1997), generally permits incorporation by reference where the matter is "reasonably available to the class of persons affected thereby . . ." Return to text.
51. D.C. Code 1-1532(c)(1) - (2). Return to text.
52. Md. Code Ann. 7-207 (1997 Supp.). Return to text.
53. Va. Code Ann. 9-6.18. Return to text.
54. 1 CFR 51.7. Return to text.
55. See, for example, 1 DCMR 500-519 (Board of Appeals and Review), 7 DCMR 1304-19 (Employee Compensation Appeals Board), 28 DCMR 2308 (Crime Victims Compensation Program), 17 DCMR 2411-2421 (notaries), 2521-29 (accountants); see also 3 DCMR 400 -415;4 DCMR 110-116, 401-434;5 DCMR 1408, 2407;6 DCMR 305, 602; 7 DCMR 107, 220, 307, 1541, 2503-2527; 8 DCMR 1524, 1606; 8A DCMR 1602, 1706; 9 DCMR 2010-27(Board of Real Property Assessment and Appeals); 10 DCMR 2010-27,(RLA), 2500-23 (Historic Preservation Review Board), 2616-23, 3003-3011(Board of Condemnation), 3101-3119,(Condemnation Review Board); 11 DCMR 3014(Zoning Commission), 3306 (Board of Zoning Adjustment); 14 DCMR 4000-17(RACD), 3801-24 (Rental Housing Commission), 3903-14(RACD), 6301-18 (low rent housing grievance procedures); 15 DCMR 120-140, 135, 325, 605, 1504; 16 DCMR 1210, 1500-28, 2116-18, 3100-21 (Civil Infractions); 17 DCMR 101-112 (OPLA), 617, 1615, 2122, 2710-16 (Real Estate Commission), 2931-46, 3315-34 (funeral directors), 4102-21 (health occupations); 18 DCMR 309, 1000-43, 3008-20; 19 DCMR 2043; 20 DCMR 104, 2009; 21 DCMR 605-08; 22 DCMR 1101-110, 2012, 3010; 23 DCMR 1500, 1610; 24 DCMR 1307; 26 DCMR 101-102, 1807; 26A DCMR 404; 27 DCMR 200; 28 DCMR 103,511, 525, 2015 (Judicial Disabilities and Tenure); 29 DCMR 107, 307, 938 (Medicaid), 1105, 1208, 1313, 2622; 30 DCMR 400-10; and 31 DCMR 220-54, 321-54, 400-404, 802. Return to text.
56. See Bill 9-672, the Office of Administrative Appeals Establishment Act of 1992, introduced October 30, 1992; and Bill 10-25 of the same title, introduced March 12, 1993. Return to text.
57. See Hearings before the Subcommittee on the Judiciary of the Committee on the District of Columbia (2d Session on S. 1379 and H.R. 7417)(April 25, 1968) at page 1. Return to text.
58. Sec. 100.218 of the Jacksonville Administrative Code. Return to text.
59. D.C. Code 1-1503. Return to text.
60. D.C. Code 1-1189.4(6)(Board must publish all decisions which constitute a final adjudication on the merits). Return to text.
61. D.C. Code sec. 1-606.3(c). Return to text.
62. D.C. Code sec. 1-605.4. Return to text.
63. Sec. 2(a) of D.C. Law 10-193, 10 DCMR 100.3 (August 1995). Return to text.
64. McQuillen, Mun. Corp, 4.08 (3rd Ed.). Return to text.
65. Id., 16.08 (3rd Ed.). Return to text.
66. There is some difference of opinion among jurisdictions as to whether rulemaking is more a legislative or adjudicatory function. Although there are different types of rules, in the District of Columbia, rulemaking is generally regarded as "quasi-legislative." Hamer v. Department of Human Services, 492 A.2d 1253 (Ct. App. 1985)(DCAPA envisioned rulemaking as a quasi-legislative process) citing D.C. v. North Washington Neighbors, 367 A.2d at 147 (Ct. App. 1976); See also Dupont Circle Citizens Ass'n. v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm'n., 343 A.2d 297, 306 (1975)(Gallagher, J., concurring) (legislative-type Zoning Commission proceedings)Reichley v. Department of Employment Services, 531 A.2d 244 (D.C. App. 1987)(administrative agency has "the ability to make new law prospectively through the exercise of its rulemaking powers)(quoting Securities & Exchange Comm'n. v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 202, 91 L. Ed. 1995, 67 S. Ct. 1575 (1947). Return to text.
67. See D.C. Hospital Association v. Barry, 498 A.2d 216 (D.C. App. 1985). Return to text.
68. See Hearings before the United States Senate Subcommittee on the Judiciary of the Committee on the District of Columbia on S.1379 and H.R. 7417 at 86. (2d Sess. April 25, 1968). Return to text.
69. See Bonfield, State Administrative Rulemaking, 2.2.2 (1993 Supp.). Return to text.
70. Id. at 90. Return to text.
71. See Financial Authority, "Toward a More Equitable Relationship: Structuring the District of Columbia's State Functions," dated April 15, 1997; See also Rhyne, The Law of Local Government Operations, 6.2 (1980). Return to text.
72. The Financial Authority stated that its selection of the cities was "based upon census information, principally demographic data: population size, degree of urbanization, ratio of employment to population, and other factors." Return to text.
73. All regulations must be submitted to the Joint Committee on Administrative, Executive and Legislative Review 15 days before publication in Md. Register. Committee not required to act. Committee has 45 days after publication, but may extend deadline additional 45 days. Agency must notify Committee of intent to adopt within 75 days. Public has 30 days to comment. NPRM must have fiscal impact statement. Rulemaking must provide for public hearing or opportunity for public to telephone to call in comments. Md. Code Ann. 10-112 (1997). Return to text.
74. Agency publishes Notice of Intended Regulatory Action for 30 days. Hearing is optional, unless Governor directs agency to hold hearing, or 25 or more persons request hearing. Must send notice to Dept. of Planning and Budget to determine public benefit and economic impact analysis. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in Va. Register for 60 days comment. NPRM must contain basis, purpose, substance and issues related to the regulation. Process is subject to review by the Governor and the appropriate standing committee of each branch of the General Assembly. Va. Code Ann. 9-6.14:7.1(1997). Return to text.
75. Department heads are authorized by Charter to adopt rules and regulations. No formal notice required. Rules are effective when signed by agency head. Baltimore City Charter, 1996 Ed. Article VII, Sec. 1(b). Return to text.
76. City adopted modified state rulemaking procedures in Mass. Gen. Laws, chapter 30A. Must hold public hearing if proposed regulation punishable by fine or imprisonment. Requires fiscal effect statement. Mass. Gen. Laws, Chapter 30A. Return to text.
77. Agency must give 30 days notice after filing with Clerk of Council. The Code provides that the City-County Council may stay the taking effect of administrative rules and regulations for 90 days pending review and legislative action by the Council.. Code of City of Indianapolis, Chapter 2, 2-4 (1995, Supp. No. 75). Return to text.
78. Agency must give 20 days notice. Rules filed with Council Secretary. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking must contain a "short and plain explanation of the purpose and effect of the proposed rule ..." Agencies are also required to prepare "findings of fact and a statement of reasons in support or explanation of the final rule." Affected persons may request a hearing on proposed rules. Abbreviated rulemaking process in effect. Ordinance Code City of Jacksonville, Title V, 100.2.3(a)(1996). Return to text.
79. The City of Phoenix has a Council-Manager form of government. The Council adopts regulations by ordinance. City Manager and Department Heads may propose regulations to Council. Return to text.
80. An agency must give 30 days notice in 3 newspapers. Every department, board and commission is empowered to make reasonable regulations. Affected persons may request a hearing on proposed rules which then cannot become effective without a hearing being held. Before the final rulemaking a "report of hearing" reaffirming or modifying regulations (with approval of the Law Department) shall be filed with a central depository. Philadelphia Home Rule Charter Sec. 8-407. Return to text.
81. Charter provides that the Mayor may introduce ordinances and resolutions from the executive branch for consideration by the Board of Supervisors. Sec. 4.104(1) states that a public hearing is required, and that all rules and regulations must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Board of Supervisors must adopt or review zoning regulations. Sec. 3.100 of the City and County of San Francisco 1996 Charter. Return to text.
82. Rulemaking authority is vested in the Council, which in turn by ordinance has vested the City Administrator and various department heads with rulemaking authority. In most instances, the Council adopts rules by ordinance and has retained the right to review or approve rules promulgated by the executive branch. San Jose Municipal Code (1996). Return to text.
83. See for example, D.C. Law 5-179, the Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Act; D.C. Law 5-189, the Human Body Parts Act; D.C. Law 8-226, the Low Level Radioactive Waste Act, D.C. Law 7-197; the Commercial Bicycle Operators Licensing Act of 1987. In a number of other instances, the Mayor has delegated the responsibility to agencies which have not done the rules. Return to text.
84. See sec. 22 of the Business Improvement Districts Act of 1996, D.C. Law 11-134, effective May 29, 1996. Return to text.
85. See, e.g.: Sec. 206 of D.C. Law 2-22, "Mayor shall establish, by rules ... procedures to permit a person identified in the Child Protection Register to challenge information which he or she alleges is incorrect"; D.C. Code sec. 1-1506(b), (Mayor shall prescribe form for petitions).Return to text.
86. See Agency Efforts to Make Nonlegislative Documents Bind the Public, 77 Admin.L.Rev. 31 (1992). Return to text.
87. Va. Code Ann. 9-6.17:7.2 (1997). Return to text.
88. See Chamber of Commerce v. OSHA, 636 F.2d 464, 470 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Return to text.