Can formal rulemaking include limited cross-examination?

Formal rulemaking is characterized by the need to adhere to specific procedural requirements stipulated by the Administrative Procedure Act. The process is intended to resemble traditional legal proceedings and involves the development of rules through a type of quasi-judicial process. While formal rulemaking includes some features similar to a trial, such as public participation in the form of witness testimonies, it does not allow for the same level of cross-examination that is typically found in courtroom settings.

In this context, the correct answer indicates that formal rulemaking is conducted under a procedural framework that does not permit limited cross-examination. Instead, it emphasizes a structured process where the agency listens to testimonies and evidence presented but lacks the interactive features of a trial, such as cross-examination.

This limitation is critical because it underscores the intent of formal rulemaking to provide a more streamlined and less adversarial process compared to court trials. It allows agencies to gather information and create rules without entering into extensive procedural battles. Thus, the essence of formal rulemaking is that it follows a specified framework, focusing more on the presentation of evidence and less on adversarial questioning, solidifying the notion that limited cross-examination is not a feature of this process.