Untitled section

Section

91-1 Definitions

91-2 Public information

91-2.5 Fees for proposed and final rules

91-2.6 Proposed rulemaking actions and rules; posting on

the lieutenant governor’s internet website

91-3 Procedure for adoption, amendment, or repeal of

rules

91-4 Filing and taking effect of rules

91-4.1 Rulemaking actions; copies in Ramseyer format

91-4.2 Rule format; publication of index

91-4.3 Price

91-4.4 Form of publication

91-5 Publication of rules

91-6 Petition for adoption, amendment or repeal of rules

91-7 Declaratory judgment on validity of rules

91-8 Declaratory rulings by agencies

91-8.5 Mediation in contested cases

91-9 Contested cases; notice; hearing; records

91-9.5 Notification of hearing; service

91-10 Rules of evidence; official notice

91-11 Examination of evidence by agency

91-12 Decisions and orders

91-13 Consultation by officials of agency

91-13.1 Administrative review of denial or refusal to issue

license or certificate of registration

91-13.5 Maximum time period for business or

development-related permits, licenses, or

approvals; automatic approval; extensions

91-14 Judicial review of contested cases

91-15 Appeals

91-16 Severability

91-17 Federal aid

91-18 Short title

Note

Judiciary report to 2019 legislature on change in judicial proceedings made by L 2016, c 48. L 2016, c 48, §11.

Cross References

Small business regulatory flexibility act, see chapter 201M.

Uniform electronic legal material act, see chapter 98.

Attorney General Opinions

Because this chapter provides for a decision in a contested case to be rendered by an agency, a decision rendered by an official who is not within that agency would be the exception and not the rule. This chapter does not require a hearings officer from outside the department for administrative hearings. Att. Gen. Op. 98-6.

Law Journals and Reviews

Sandy Beach Defense Fund v. City and County of Honolulu: The Sufficiency of Legislative Hearings in an Administrative Setting. 12 UH L. Rev. 499.

The Lum Court, Land Use, and the Environment: A Survey of Hawai‘i Case Law 1983 to 1991. 14 UH L. Rev. 119.

Residential Use of Hawai‘i’s Conservation District. 14 UH L. Rev. 633.

Case Notes

Statutory authority is necessary for administrative body to reconsider prior quasi-judicial decisions on its own initiative. 54 H. 621, 513 P.2d 1001.

Under doctrine of necessity, official otherwise disqualified can act if jurisdiction is exclusive and substitution is not provided. 54 H. 621, 513 P.2d 1001.

University rules do not have force of law unless Hawaii administrative procedure act is complied with. 56 H. 680, 548 P.2d 253.

Rehearings before administrative bodies are addressed to their own discretion and only the clearest abuse of discretion could sustain an exception to rule. 60 H. 166, 590 P.2d 524.

Where health department did not have rules adopted under this chapter governing the standards of emissions of hydrogen sulfide into the air as required by §342B-32 (1991) at the time geothermal well developer was issued permit, department was required to refuse the issuance of the permit. 73 H. 56, 828 P.2d 801.

Department did not violate Hawaii administrative procedure act when it circulated a memorandum interpreting “sole source” provisions of Hawaii purchasing law to other state agencies. 76 H. 332, 876 P.2d 1300.

Giving precedential effect to prior commission decisions does not constitute rule-making. 81 H. 459, 918 P.2d 561.

Public utilities commission did not violate Hawaii administrative procedure act by not promulgating rules to establish when transmission lines will be placed underground. 81 H. 459, 918 P.2d 561.

Public utilities commission’s reliance on adjudication to develop underground transmission line policy not abuse of discretion where commission did not circumvent requirements of Hawaii administrative procedure act and appellants did not suffer undue hardship relying on past commission policy. 81 H. 459, 918 P.2d 561.

A water management area designation is not the product of a contested case hearing, under this chapter, from which a direct appeal to the supreme court may be brought under §174C-60. 83 H. 484, 927 P.2d 1367.

Where administrative rules failed to set forth the method by which department determined general assistance amounts, and the method used by department to determine amounts was adopted without compliance with this chapter, administrative rules contravened statutory mandate of §346-71(f) (1996) and were thus void and unenforceable. 88 H. 307, 966 P.2d 619.

Where a public hearing pertaining to the issuance of a liquor license was statutorily required under §§281-52 and 281-57, and petitioner’s legal rights, duties, and privileges were determined based on the public hearing regarding the decision to grant or deny a liquor license to petitioner, the public hearing was a “contested case” hearing governed by this chapter; thus, (1) petitioner was entitled to judicial review under §91-14, (2) §91-11 applied to proceedings on petitioner’s application for liquor license, and (3) the liquor commission did not comply with §91-11. 118 H. 320, 189 P.3d 432.

Planning and permitting department’s policy of refusing to publicly disclose developer’s engineering reports prior to their approval constituted a “rule”; as this policy was not “published or made available for public inspection” nor did plaintiff have actual knowledge of the policy prior to its initial request for the reports, department did not comply with this chapter and was proscribed from invoking this policy; thus, department violated this chapter by refusing to publicly disclose any unaccepted engineering reports and written comments, and all of department’s files, including developer’s file, were public records that could be examined upon request. 119 H. 90, 194 P.3d 531.

Right to appeal from administrative agency’s decision is limited by this chapter. 9 H. App. 298, 837 P.2d 311.