S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-10

Section 1-23-10(4) excludes licensing matters from the definition of a regulation, so permit conditions imposed as part of a licensing process are exempt from the Administrative Procedures Act.

Edisto Aquaculture Corp. v. South Carolina Wildlife & Marine Resources Department · filed 1993-01-11(4)

Regulation is defined in S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-10(4) (1986), as an: ... decisions or orders in rate making, price fixing or licensing matters____ ... The trial judge answered Edisto’s allegation by equating the permit process to the licensing process, which is exempted from the APA. ... We agree and would note that this is even more significant where the administrative agency has discretion in issuing regulations.

Section 1-23-10(4) treats an agency’s statement adopting a statutory interpretation as guidance rather than a regulation when it does not establish a binding norm.

Sloan v. South Carolina Board of Physical Therapy Examiners · filed 2006-09-25(4)

The Board’s formal endorsement of the Attorney General’s interpretation of the statute was nothing more than a policy or guidance statement which does not have the force or effect of law in any individual case. The Board’s statement regarding its interpretation of Section 40-45-110(A)(l) is not a regulation or the equivalent of a regulation.

Section 1-23-10(4) treats a binding agency policy as a regulation, but federally approved Medicaid waiver caps can take effect without a state regulation.

Stogsdill v. South Carolina Department of Health & Human Services · filed 2014-09-10(4)

We agree with Stogsdill that DDSN has established a binding norm by reducing the types and amount of services offered under the Waiver. The record presents no explanation for the reduction in services to Stogsdill other than the cap put in place by the 2010 Waiver renewal. However, based on the relevant statutory scheme and federal/state nature of Medicaid and the Waiver, DDSN was not required to pass a regulation to enact the cap as an enforceable provision.

Section 1-23-10(4) defines a regulation as an agency statement of general public applicability that implements or prescribes law or policy, while policy or guidance issued outside a regulation has no force or effect of law.

Joseph v. South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing & Regulation · filed 2016-09-14(4)

Under the APA, a regulation is defined as an "agency statement of general public applicability that implements or prescribes law or policy or practice requirements of any agency. Policy or guidance issued by an agency other than in a regulation does not have the force or effect of law." S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-10(4) (2005). Whether a particular agency creates a regulation or simply announces a general policy statement depends on whether the agency action establishes a "binding norm." ... Based on the 2011 Position Statement, the Board is not free to exercise its discretion as to whether to follow the position set forth in the 2011 Position Statement in an individual case. In other words, the 2011 Position Statement constitutes a "binding norm," and has the effect of a regulation under the APA.

Section 1-23-10(4) defines a regulation as an agency statement of general public applicability that implements or prescribes law, policy, or practice requirements, while nonregulatory agency policy or guidance has no force of law.

Myers v. South Carolina Department of Health & Human Services · filed 2016-12-21(4)

However, we went on to hold that, “based on the relevant statutory scheme and federal/state nature of Medicaid and the [wjaiver, DDSN was not required to pass a regulation to enact the cap as an enforceable provision.”

Section 1-23-10(4)’s rule on the legal effect of agency policy does not invalidate a coastal management plan enacted under the separate procedure prescribed by statute.

Spectre, LLC v. South Carolina Department of Health · filed 2010-02-01(4)

In essence, the ALC holds that S.C.Code Ann. § 1-23-10(4), which provides that “[pjolicy or guidance issued by an agency other than in a regulation does not have the force and effect of law,” repealed the enactment procedure set forth in S.C.Code Ann. § 48-39-90. Consequently, because the CMP did not comply with the APA, the CMP is not enforceable. We disagree. The General Assembly created a separate and more rigorous procedure for promulgation of the CMP and, because DHEC acted in accordance with the specified procedure, the plan is valid.

Section 1-23-10(4) provides that agency policy or guidance issued outside a regulation has no force or effect of law.

Doe v. South Carolina Department of Health & Human Services · filed 2011-12-28(4)

Our law provides that " ‘[r]egulation' means each agency statement of general public applicability that implements or prescribes law or policy or practice requirements of any agency. Policy or guidance issued by an agency other than in a regulation does not have the force or effect of law." S.C.Code Ann. § 1-23-10(4) (2005) (emphasis added). Thus, because the age-eighteen-onset requirement found in DDSN’s policy guidelines has not been formally adopted as a regulation, it does not have the force and effect of law and is entitled to no deference.

Section 1-23-10(1) defines an agency to include a qualifying body authorized to make regulations, even if it does not determine contested cases.

Garris v. GOV. BD. OF SC REINSURANCE · filed 1998-12-29(1)

An agency "means each state board, commission, department, executive department or officer, other than the legislature or the courts, authorized by law to make regulations or to determine contested cases." ... We affirm the circuit court's ruling and hold that Facility is an administrative agency because it meets the rule-making component of the APA definition.

Section 1-23-10(1) includes an entity with rule-making authority in its definition of an administrative agency, even if it does not decide contested cases.

Garris v. Governing Board of the South Carolina Reinsurance Facility · filed 1998-12-29(1)

We affirm the circuit court’s ruling and hold that Facility is an administrative agency because it meets the rule-making component of the APA definition.

Section 1-23-10(1) includes a commission authorized by law to determine contested cases within the definition of an agency.

Bursey v. DEPT. OF HEALTH AND ENV. · filed 2004-06-01(1)

Because the Mining Council is a commission authorized by law to determine contested cases concerning mine operating permits, it is an agency under the APA's definition.

Section 1-23-10(1) includes a commission authorized by law to determine contested cases within the APA’s definition of an agency.

Bursey v. South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control · filed 2004-06-01(1)

Because the Mining Council is a commission authorized by law to determine contested cases concerning mine operating permits, it is an agency under the APA’s definition.

Section 1-23-10(4) exempts the Department of Corrections’ internal regulations on inmate care and custody from legislative review and approval.

Al-Shabazz v. State · filed 2000-02-14(4)

Further support for not applying these APA provisions to Department’s internal disciplinary or decision-making processes is evident in the Legislature's decision to exempt Department from submitting its internal regulations on the care and custody of inmates for legislative review and approval. S.C.Code Ann. § 1-23-10(4) (Supp.1999). That exemption indicates the Legislature intended to give Department ample latitude to control its internal affairs.