Maryland Administrative Procedure Act

Maryland Administrative Procedure Act
Name	Maryland Administrative Procedure Act
Enacted by	Maryland General Assembly
Long title	Administrative procedures for state agencies in Maryland
Enacted	1968
Status	in force

Contents

Maryland Administrative Procedure Act The Maryland Administrative Procedure Act establishes procedures for Maryland Department of Labor, Maryland Department of the Environment, Maryland Department of Health, Maryland State Department of Education, Maryland Department of Transportation, Maryland Department of Commerce, and other State of Maryland agencies to adopt regulations, conduct adjudications, and provide public notice. It interacts with federal statutes like the Administrative Procedure Act (United States) and influences litigation in forums such as the United States District Court for the District of Maryland and the Maryland Court of Appeals. The Act shapes administrative practice for entities including the Maryland Public Service Commission, the Maryland Insurance Administration, the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration, the Maryland State Lottery Agency, and the Maryland Health Care Commission.

History

The Act was enacted by the Maryland General Assembly amid a broader wave of administrative reform following landmark federal developments such as the Administrative Procedure Act (United States), the New Deal, and post-war regulatory expansion. Influences included comparative models from the Model State Administrative Procedure Act drafted by the American Bar Association and guidance from the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Debates in the Maryland Senate and Maryland House of Delegates reflected tensions between advocates from the Maryland Trial Lawyers Association, the Maryland Chamber of Commerce, and advocates associated with the ACLU and National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. Key legislative sessions occurred during periods shaped by governors like Spiro Agnew, Marvin Mandel, and later William Donald Schaefer.

The Act frames how agencies such as the Maryland Department of Human Resources and the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services promulgate rules affecting institutions like the University System of Maryland and the Morgan State University. It prescribes notice requirements interacting with publications like the Maryland Register and institutions such as the Maryland State Archives. The statute addresses substantive domains overseen by the Maryland State Board of Physicians, the Maryland Board of Nursing, the Maryland State Board of Pharmacy, the Maryland Higher Education Commission, the Maryland Department of Agriculture, and regulatory regimes impacting actors like the Baltimore City Council, Anne Arundel County Council, and the Montgomery County Council.

Rulemaking under the Act requires publication in the Maryland Register and procedures comparable to those used by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Communications Commission at the federal level. Agencies including the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the Maryland Public Service Commission, and the Maryland State Board of Contractors must provide notice, opportunity for comment, and public hearings similar to processes used by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Trade Commission. Stakeholders such as the Maryland REALTORS and the Maryland Food Council participate alongside entities like the National Federation of Independent Business and the Maryland Retailers Association. Emergency rule provisions echo mechanisms used by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in crisis situations exemplified by events like the Hurricane Katrina response and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Act sets standards for contested cases before agency hearing officers and panels, resembling procedures in the Social Security Administration and the Immigration Courts. Agencies such as the Maryland Insurance Administration, the Maryland Department of Labor, and the Maryland Racing Commission conduct hearings with rights akin to those litigated in the Supreme Court of the United States and the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. Participants include licensed professionals regulated by the Maryland State Board of Architects, the Maryland Board of Social Work Examiners, and the Maryland State Board of Examiners of Psychologists. Evidentiary and procedural rules intersect with doctrines from cases adjudicated in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and principles advanced by the American Arbitration Association.

Decisions under the Act are subject to review in the Maryland Court of Appeals and may implicate federal review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court. Enforcement actions involve agencies like the Maryland Attorney General and administrative enforcement units within the Maryland Department of the Environment and the Maryland Department of Health. Litigation frequently features parties such as the Environmental Defense Fund, the Sierra Club, the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, and the Maryland Association of REALTORS, with procedural doctrine shaped by precedent from cases like Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and Mathews v. Eldridge.

Proponents credit the Act with increasing transparency for bodies like the Maryland Public Service Commission, the Board of Public Works (Maryland), and the Maryland Health Care Commission, and with improving accountability for agencies including the Maryland Department of Transportation and the Maryland State Police. Critics, including the National Association of Attorneys General and advocacy groups such as the Center for Progressive Reform, argue the Act can enable bureaucratic delay and favor regulated industries represented by groups like the Maryland Chamber of Commerce and the Maryland Farm Bureau. Academic analysis from scholars at Johns Hopkins University, the University of Maryland, College Park, and Towson University compares the Act to reforms in states influenced by the National Conference of State Legislatures and highlights debates similar to those raised by reforms in California and New York.

Category:Maryland law