MANUAL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE  LAW  JUDGES iv              W. H. Allen, Twilight or Just an Overcast Afternoon, 1986
DUKE  L.J.  276, 278, n. 10. v F. Anderson, Negotiation and Informal Agency Action: The Case of Superfund, 1985 DUKE  L.J. 261,356, n.357; Breger, The
APA: An Administrative Conference Perspective, 72 VA.  L.  REV. 337,
n.4 (1986); Graham, Evidence and Procedure for the Future:
Application of the Rules of Evidence in Administrative Agency
Formal Adversarial Adjudications: A New Approach, 1991 U.  ILL.  L.
REV. 353, 370, n. 125; Kauper, Note: Protecting the Independence
of Administrative Law Judges: A Model Administrative Law Judge
Corps Statute, 18 U.  MICH.  J.L.  REF. 537, n. 1 (1985); Whiteside,
Comment: Administrative Adjudications: An Overview of the
Existing Models and Their Failure to Achieve Uniformity and a
Proposal for a Uniform Adjudicatory Framework, 46 OHIO  ST.  L.J.
355, 371, n.139 (1985).           ^viE.g., In the Matter of Benedict P. Cottone, 63 FCC 2d
596, 605 (1977) (citing 1974 edition of the Manual); D. Federico
Co., 3 OSHC (BNA) 1970, 1971, 1975-76 (1976) (Occupational Safety
& Health Review Commission: majority citing 1974 edition of the
Manual, describing it as "[a] highly respected guide for
Administrative Law Judges," at 1971, and dissent citing other
passages from the Manual, at 1975-76); Emery Richardson v.
Department of Justice, 11 MSPR 186, Docket No. SF07528110018
(1982);  Department of Veteran's Affairs, Veterans Administration
Medical Center, Boise, Idaho (Respondent) and AFGE, Local 1273
(Charging Party/Union), 40 FLRA 992,   Case No. 9-CA-90575 (1991) x Preface - 1993 Edition           Revising this Manual for Administrative Law Judges, which
was originally written by an Administrative Law Judge of Merritt
Ruhlen's stature, presented a unique challenge.  To begin with,
there was a natural reluctance to tamper with the voice of
experience.  Moreover, Judge Ruhlen's little book had become
something of a standard in its field.  An article in one law
journal described it as "an admirable handbook [which] reflects
his long experience . . . with the CAB."^iv  In fact, Judge
Ruhlen's Manual has been cited in several scholarly articles,^v
and in a number of agency and administrative law judge
decisions^vi.  Recognizing this, the present edition has tried to

MANUAL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE  LAW  JUDGES (ALJ decision). vii                     Palmer, The Evolving Role of Administrative Law Judges,
19 NEW  ENG.  L.  REV. 755, 784-85 (1984), citing and giving
appropriate credit to Lubbers, A Unified Corps of ALJs: a
Proposal to Test the Idea at the Federal Level, 65 JUDICATURE 266,
268-69 (Nov. 1981). xi leave intact as much of the original as possible.  Special
efforts have been made to preserve the spirit of Judge Ruhlen's
text, and sometimes the exact words, where they address the
actual process of judging and conducting administrative
proceedings.           However, important changes in administrative law have
occurred since 1982.  For instance, the Administrative Dispute
Resolution Act (Pub. L. No. 101-552, 104 Stat. 2736 (1990)
incorporated alternative dispute resolution (ADR) into federal
administrative law and amended the Administrative Procedure Act
to remove any doubt that ADR could be an integral part of agency
adjudications.           Even before that watershed, the administrative adjudication
landscape had changed significantly.  Legislation had reduced
several agencies' economic regulatory authority over such matters
as routes, rates, and licensing in industries such as trucking
(Motor Carrier Act, Pub. L. No. 96-296, 92 Stat. 793 (1980), the
railroads (Staggers Rail Act, Pub. L. No. 96-448, 94 Stat. 1895
(1980), and natural gas (Natural Gas Policy Act, Pub. L. No. 95-
621, 92 Stat. 335 (1978).  Under the Airline Deregulation Act,
Pub. L. No. 95-204, 92 Stat. 1705 (1978), route and price
regulation in the airlines industry met the same fate, and Judge
Ruhlen's old agency (the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) was phased
out.           These enactments hastened an ongoing evolution in
administrative law.  The number, and type, of cases decided by
administrative law judges had already changed drastically between
1946 and the 1980's.  In 1946, there were fewer than 200 federal
administrative law judges (then hearing examiners) and 60 per
cent of these were employed by agencies engaged primarily in the
regulation of routes, rates, and other economic aspects of
various industries^vii.  After 1982, there were almost 1200 federal
administrative law judges, but only about seven per cent of them
were in the old-line regulatory agencies.  More than ninety per
cent were employed in agencies where contested benefits claims

MANUAL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE  LAW  JUDGES viii Id., at 785. ix                Holmes, ALJ Update: A Review of the Current Role, Status,
and Demographics of the Corps of Administrative Law Judges, 38
FEDERAL  BAR  NEWS AND J. 202 (May, 1991). xii and law enforcement adjudications were the norm,^viii agencies such
as the Social Security Administration, the U. S. Department of
Labor, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Occupational
Safety and Health Review Commission.           Since 1982, the center of gravity for cases decided by
administrative law judges has continued to shift away from
economic regulatory agencies such as the old CAB, the ICC, and
the FCC.^ix           Revisions to Judge Ruhlen's 1982 edition of the Manual were
therefore needed.  In fact, these revisions became somewhat more
extensive than originally planned.  In many respects, it simply
was not enough to update citations and revise the 1982 text to
correlate with current practices.  Too many changes and too much
evolution had occurred since 1982.           Nevertheless, Judge Ruhlen's 1982 Manual was not necessarily
obsolete.  Although much of the 1982 edition refers to agencies
like the CAB, and much of it speaks in the immediate context of
economic regulation cases, the process of judging remains at the
center of the book.  Complex, multi-party cases are not limited
to litigation over rates, licenses, and routes.  Judge Ruhlen
still provided a sound point of departure and sound ideas
concerning how to manage complex, difficult cases.  That is where
the need for a Manual for Administrative Law Judges is most
acute.  And that is one reason why special efforts were made,
despite considerable revision and updating, to preserve much of
Judge Ruhlen's text.           Now for the customary acknowledgments and thank-you's.
(That these acknowledgments are traditional in no way reduces the
sincerity with which they are expressed.)  As always, the staff
of the Administrative Conference have gone out of their way to be
helpful and responsive to the needs of the revision process.
Special thanks, of course, are extended to Jeffrey Lubbers, ACUS
Research Director, and the Administrative Conference.  Several
Administrative Law Judges have been particularly helpful, and at
some risk of inadvertent omission, let me mention in particular
Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge Jose A. Anglada (SSA),
Judge Ivan Smith (NRC), Chief Administrative Law Judge Curtis
Wagner (FERC), and Deputy Chief Administrative Law Judge John
Vittone (USDOL).  Thanks also are in order for Peter Dowd,

MANUAL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE  LAW  JUDGES xiii Director, Division of Field Practices and Procedure (SSA), and
Judge Moody R. Tidwell, U.S. Claims Court.  This list would be
incomplete, of course, without appropriately recognizing Danny R.
Williams, a tireless research assistant (and third-year student
at UALR School of Law), Melba Myers for all of that "hurry-up-I-
need-it-now" secretarial support earlier in this project, and
Juaniece Ammons for her help in completing it. Morell E. Mullins September 14, 1992