Opinion ID: 1759557
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Table Wine Markup Procedure

Text: Stiff also argues that the ABC Board has failed to publish its markup procedure for table wine in the Alabama Administrative Monthly, as required by § 41-22-5, Ala.Code 1975, a part of the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act. [11] Stiff argues that the ABC Board's failure to publish a rule for its markup procedure has denied him and other interested persons the opportunity to submit their proposals to the ABC Board. See § 41-22-5, Ala.Code 1975. Section 41-22-3(9), Ala.Code 1975, in pertinent part, defines a rule as a regulation that implements ... or prescribes law or policy. Although we are not suggesting that a particular price is a rule, the procedure by which the price of table wine is marked up and set is a rule as defined by § 41-22-3(9), Ala.Code 1975, because it implements or prescribes a pricing policy. [12] The ABC Board argues that it is empowered to regulate the sale of alcohol. See Ex parte Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd., 683 So.2d 952, 954; § 28-3-43(a)(1), Ala.Code 1975. The trial court found that [u]nder Alabama law, the ABC Board has the intrinsic power to buy, manufacture, sell and price alcoholic beverages. We agree. The ABC Board has broad power to regulate the sale and manufacture of alcoholic beverages and to price such beverages for sale in its stores at whatever price it may set. See Bartlett v. Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd., 654 So.2d 1139 (Ala.1993)( `regulation of liquor traffic is subject to the intrinsic police power of the state, a broad and plenary power')(quoting Ott v. Everett, 420 So.2d 258, 260 (Ala.1982)). Stiff also agrees that the ABC Board has these powers, but he argues that the ABC Board must nonetheless comply with the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act when it implements a pricing policy. In Brunson Construction & Environmental Services, Inc. v. City of Prichard, 664 So.2d 885, 893 (Ala.1995), this Court stated: The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act impose upon administrative agencies the duty  preliminary to the `adoption, amendment, or repeal,' § 41-22-5(a)(1), of `rules of practice,' § 41-22-4(a)(2)  to publish the `terms or substance' of such rules, § 41-22-5(a)(1), and, among other things, to `[a]fford all interested persons reasonable opportunity to submit data, views, or arguments, orally or in writing.' Section 41-22-5(a)(2). Noncompliance with these provisions voids every `agency rule, order, or decision' taken in any case in which the provisions are applicable. Section 41-22-4(b). Section 41-22-3(9) defines a `rule' as `[e]ach agency regulation, standard or statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy, or that describes the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of any agency.' (Emphasis omitted.) We cannot find any evidence in the record indicating that the ABC Board has published its procedure for marking up the price of table wine in the Alabama Administrative Monthly, nor does the record indicate that interested persons were allowed to submit comments or proposals regarding the markup procedures for table wine. Although the trial court correctly found that it has no authority to strike down the markup on table wine and provide refunds based on an alleged failure to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, [13] the trial court erred by not requiring the ABC Board to comply with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. The ABC Board has near plenary authority to price wine, but, because it is not exempt from compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act, the ABC Board may not sell wine to wholesale or retail customers without complying with the procedures set forth in that Act. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's order entering a summary judgment in favor of the ABC Board on Stiff's Alabama Administrative Procedure Act claim, and remand this cause for such proceedings as are necessary for the trial court to order the ABC Board, consistent with this opinion, to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. MOORE, C.J., and HOUSTON, [14] LYONS, BROWN, JOHNSTONE, and HARWOOD, JJ., concur. WOODALL and STUART, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.