O‘zbekiston respublikasida ma’muriy protseduralarni takomillashtirish

§ 557 (c)(A). Even when the agency is engaged in informal rulemaking under the 
APA, it is required to «incorporate in the rules adopted a concise general statement of 
their basis and purpose». 5 U.S.C.A § 553 (c). A statement of reasons may be 
important not only to the perceived fairness of the process, but also to the quality of 
the decision. The need to prepare a written explanation may impose some discipline 
on the agency, by pressuring decision-makers to consider the evidence more carefully 
and to examine the legal and policy justification for the action more closely. When 
the grounds for the decision are committed to writing, it is easier for a higher level 
administrator to review it, and thereby provide a check on the discretion of the lower-

---

148 
level officials. Finally, reasonably detailed statement of reasons makes it possible for 
a reviewing court to examine the actual basis of the agency’s decision,rather than 
rationalizations it has produced after the fact» (Ernest Gellhorn, Ronald M.Levin 
«Administrative Law and Process in a Nutshell» fifth edition. Thomson/West, 2006. 
240-241 p). 
 
4.19-ilova 
«Formal adjudications. The procedures used by administrative agencies to 
adjudicate individual claims or cases are extremely diverse. Hearing procedures are 
shaped by the subject matter of the controversy, the agency’s traditions and policies, 
the applicable statutes and regulations, and the requirements imposed by reviwing 
courts. Thus, any general description of administrative adjudications must be subject 
to numerious exceptions and qualifications. Within the federal system, sections 554, 
556, and 557 of the APA establish some minimum procedures for administrative 
adjudications. Proceedings held according to this set of standards are generally 
known as «formal adjudications». Formal adjudications are also called «evidentiary 
hearings,» «full hearings,» «on-the-record hearings,» or «trial-type hearings». The 
last of these tems is probably the most accurate and descriptive. Typically, such cases 
involve proceedings conducted by an administrative law judge (ALJ) in a manner that 
resembles the trial phase of civil litigation, followed by an appeal to the agency head 
or another reviewing authority. At the same time, as will be seen below, there are also 
significant differences between agency trial-type hearings and court trials. However, 
it is important to remember that the APA’s procedural requirements apply to only a 
small proportion of agency adjudications – only those which are «required by statute 
to be determined on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing». 5 U.S.C.A § 
554 (a)…This means that the APA’s adjudication procedures are implicated only 
when some statute outside the APA itself – usually the agency’s authorizing statute – 
directs the agency to hold an evidentiary hearing and decide the case on the basis of 
the record that results from that hearing. Often, regulatory legislation is unclear as to 

---

149 
whether it means to call for APAadjudication. In that situation, early cases sometimes 
presumed that any statute that prescribes a «hearing» prior to issuance of an 
adjudicative order is intended to trigger the APA formal adjudication procedures… 
Agency adjudications that are conducted outside the APA framework are commonly 
called «informal». They may be governed by special statutory procedures or the 
agency’s own regulations, and of course must always comply with the requirements 
of procedural due process… Within those boundaries, however, the procedures used 
in informal agency adjudicatin are essentially discretionary and not subject to second-
guessing by a court… While their procedures tend to be similar to those followed in 
formal adjudications, they generally are conducted by presiding officers or 
«administrative judges» (i.e., not independent ALJs). Although still important as a 
procedural standard, the relative significance of formal adjudication in administrative 
law has declined in recent decades. At one time, agencies usually made their most 
important policy decisions in formally adjudicated cases. Today, they tend to use 
rulemaking for this purpose instead. Furthemore, an increasing number of agencies 
have obtained statutory authority to decide individual cases through informal 
adjudication systems that resemble but do not fully conform to the APA model. 
Despite these trends, however, formal adjudication remains the preeminent model by 
which agencies make their most momentous decisions on an individualized level. It 
also provides a benchmark by whch simpler adjudication systems are often 
evaluated» (Ernest Gellhorn, Ronald M.Levin «Administrative Law and Process in a 
Nutshell» fifth edition. Thomson/West, 2006. 246-249 p). 
4.20-ilova 
Federal Administrative Procedure Act of USTITLE 5, U.S. CODE Chapter 5 – 
Administrative Procedure
1
1
See,
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2014/05/01/act-pl79-404.pdf, 
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/administrative-procedure/ (acsessed on December 17, 2014).

---

150 
4.21-ilova
1