Legislative rules are promulgated pursuant to specific statutory authority provided by the legislature and have the force and effect of law and a presumption of validity attached to them. Interpretive rules are not specifically authorized by legislative enactment but are promulgated by an administrative agency for the purposes of guidance and definition, and enjoy no presumption of validity, and a court considering enforcement of interpretive rules may substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency. Interpretive rules are, basically, those that interpret and apply the provisions of the statute under which the agency operates. No sanction attaches to the violation of an interpretive rule as such, the sanction attaches to the violation of the statute, which the rule merely interprets. They state the interpretation of ambiguous or doubtful statutory language which will be followed by the agency unless and until the statute is otherwise authoritatively interpreted by the courts.
Legislative rules have the force of law.
Interpretive rules state an agency's interpretation of a statute. Legislative rules are enforceable in and of themselves, but an agency must rely on the underlying statute to support its reading of a statute set forth in an interpretive rule. By adopting the hearing loss determination chart as a guideline rather than invoking delegated legislative power to make law through rules, the Industrial Commission chose to adopt the chart as an interpretive rule without binding force of law, and subject to less deference and weight on review than a legislative rule. The North Dakota Supreme Court has not recognized, and the North Dakota Administrative Agencies Practice Act does not address, the distinction between legislative and interpretive rules. With respect to agencies subject to the Administrative Agencies Practice Act, the Supreme Court on numerous occasions has found rules to be invalid if not adopted in accordance with the Administrative Agencies Practice Act.