Administrative Procedure Act (Apa) Notice And Comment Rulemaking

96 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Jean v. Nelson
  727 F.2d 957· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-28 ·cited 175×
  The court held that the district court's review of the Attorney General's parole policy should be narrowly confined to whether the Attorney General adopts or approves the actions of his subordinates.
• Guardian Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp.
  589 F.2d 658· D.C. Cir.· 1978-11-13 ·cited 106×
  The court held that the challenged FSLIC regulations were validly promulgated without notice and comment because they fall under the Administrative Procedure Act's exceptions for interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency procedure.
• Batterton v. Marshall
  648 F.2d 694· D.C. Cir.· 1980-08-28 ·cited 104×
  The court held that the Department of Labor's modification of its unemployment statistics methodology, which directly impacts the allocation of CETA funds, constitutes a "rule" under the Administrative Procedure Act and requires notice and comment procedures.
• United States Steel Corp. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency
  595 F.2d 207· 5th Cir.· 1979-05-03 ·cited 100×
  The court held that the EPA's designation of nonattainment areas violated the Administrative Procedure Act's notice and comment requirements, and therefore set aside the designations.
• W. OIL & GAS Ass'n v. The United States Env't Prot. Agency
  633 F.2d 803· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-01 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the EPA violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to provide adequate notice and opportunity for public comment before promulgating air quality designations, but that the designations would remain in effect during the reenactment of the deliberative
• Natural Res. Def. Council v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n & United States
  666 F.2d 595· D.C. Cir.· 1981-10-01 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the petitioner's challenge to the regulations was untimely and that the agency's denial of the rescission request was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
• Indep. Meat Packers Ass'n v. Butz
  526 F.2d 228· 8th Cir.· 1975-11-14 ·cited 65×
  The court held that the district court erred in enjoining the USDA's revised beef grading regulations, finding that the Executive Order 11821 claim was not judicially enforceable and that the USDA did not exceed its statutory authority or act arbitrarily and capriciously in promu
• Basf Wyandotte Corp. v. Costle
  598 F.2d 637· 1st Cir.· 1979-05-07 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the EPA's promulgation of pesticide discharge regulations complied with the Administrative Procedure Act's notice and comment requirements, and that the scientific methodology used was not arbitrary or capricious.
• Energy Reserves Grp., Inc. v. Dep't OF Energy & James R. Schlesinger
  589 F.2d 1082· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1978-10-31 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the interpretation of a regulation regarding oil wells was consistent with the intent of the APA exception to rulemaking requirements.
• Brown Express, Inc. v. The United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n
  607 F.2d 695· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-30 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the Interstate Commerce Commission's "Notice of Elimination of Notification Procedure in the Processing of Emergency Temporary Authority Applications" was a "rule" subject to the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, and was not
• Sharon Steel Corp. v. Env't Prot. Agency
  597 F.2d 377· 3d Cir.· 1979-04-25 ·cited 50×
  The Administrator lacked good cause to dispense with prior notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act when issuing final air quality designations, and the procedural violation was not harmless.
• Cap. Legal Found. v. Commodity Credit Corp.
  711 F.2d 253· D.C. Cir.· 1983-06-17 ·cited 48×
  A party must allege injury in fact derived from agency action and that the injury falls within the zone of interests protected by the relevant law to have standing to challenge agency action.
• Am. Fed'n OF Gov't Emps., AFL-CIO v. Block
  655 F.2d 1153· D.C. Cir.· 1981-03-18 ·cited 48×
  The Department had good cause to issue immediately effective regulations in response to an emergency court order, but not to bypass public procedures for permanent regulations.
• Action ON Smoking AND Health v. Civil Aeronautics Bd.
  699 F.2d 1209· D.C. Cir.· 1983-01-28 ·cited 47×
  The Civil Aeronautics Board has the authority to regulate smoking on aircraft under the Federal Aviation Act, but its promulgation of Regulation ER-1245 was partially invalid due to inadequate explanation for rescinding protections and rejecting proposed rules.
• Chamber OF Commerce OF the United States v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration
  636 F.2d 464· D.C. Cir.· 1980-07-10 ·cited 46×
  The court held that OSHA's announcement of a new view on a statutory provision, which is prospective and definitive, constitutes a new requirement subject to notice and comment procedures.
• Mobil OIL Corp. v. The Dep't OF Energy & James B. Edwards
  728 F.2d 1477· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1983-12-20 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the 'deemed recovery rule' was procedurally invalid due to lack of proper notice and comment, and that laches was available as a defense against Mobil's challenge.
• Shell OIL Co. v. Fed. Energy Admin.
  527 F.2d 1243· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1975-11-11 ·cited 39×
  The FEA exceeded its statutory authority under the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act by promulgating regulations to control rents for real property used in gasoline retailing. The regulations were also invalid for failing to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act's notice
• Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. U. S. Env't Prot. Agency
  683 F.2d 752· 3d Cir.· 1982-07-08 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the EPA's indefinite postponement of the effective date of final amendments to regulations, without complying with the notice and comment rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), was unlawful.
• Am. Standard, Inc. v. The United States
  602 F.2d 256· Ct. Cl.· 1979-06-13 ·cited 37×
  The court concurred in the result, finding the regulation invalid due to procedural irregularities, specifically the lack of notice and explanation.
• In re Establishment Inspection of Stoddard Lumber Co., Inc. v. Marshall
  627 F.2d 984· 9th Cir.· 1980-09-15 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the OSHA inspection selection process and the ex parte warrant procedure were not subject to APA notice and comment rulemaking and that the Secretary had the authority to seek ex parte warrants.
• Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n
  680 F.2d 810· D.C. Cir.· 1982-06-11 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the challenge to the initial promulgation of the 'military functions' rule is moot because the agency repromulgated it with notice and comment, and the challenge to the rule's application in an ongoing proceeding is not ripe for review as it is not a final age
• Am. Trucking Ass'n, Inc. v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n
  688 F.2d 1337· 11th Cir.· 1982-10-12 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the ICC's rule invalidating special permission authorities for rate bureaus violated the Administrative Procedure Act's notice and comment requirements, but upheld the ICC's interpretation of the independent action rule and the industry average costs limitatio
• Fairfax Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. Califano
  590 F.2d 1297· 4th Cir.· 1979-01-15 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the Secretary could retroactively recoup excess accelerated depreciation payments from a provider withdrawing from the Medicare program, as the regulation was within statutory authority and did not violate due process.
• Cmty. Nutrition Inst. v. Young
  818 F.2d 943· D.C. Cir.· 1987-05-15 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the critical distinction between a substantive rule and a general statement of policy is whether the pronouncement has the force of law in subsequent administrative proceedings.
• The Conn. Light & Power Co. v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n
  673 F.2d 525· D.C. Cir.· 1982-03-16 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's fire protection regulations, finding that while procedural issues existed, the agency's actions were not arbitrary or capricious and the final rules were a logical outgrowth of the proposed rules.
• Ass'n OF Nat'l Advertisers, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  617 F.2d 611· D.C. Cir.· 1979-10-02 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the challenges to the FTC's special rules and Commission Rule 1.18 were premature and not ripe for judicial review.
• Marshall v. W & W Steel Co., Inc.
  604 F.2d 1322· 10th Cir.· 1979-08-28 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Secretary of Labor could obtain an ex parte inspection warrant under OSHA regulations and that the warrant was supported by probable cause.
• The Nat'l Nutritional Foods Ass'n v. Kennedy
  572 F.2d 377· 2d Cir.· 1978-02-16 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the FDA committed procedural error by failing to provide notice and an opportunity for public comment before issuing final regulations implementing a new law, violating the Administrative Procedure Act.
• Am. Mining Cong. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency
  907 F.2d 1179· D.C. Cir.· 1990-07-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while EPA's interpretation of 'discarded' under RCRA was permissible, the agency failed to provide adequate reasoned explanations for relisting certain hazardous wastes (K066, K064, K065), necessitating a remand.
• Glass Packaging Inst. v. Regan
  737 F.2d 1083· D.C. Cir.· 1984-06-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Bureau's procedural compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act because their alleged injury fell outside the zone of interests protected by the relevant statute. The court also held that the Bureau's enviro
• Levesque v. Block
  723 F.2d 175· 1st Cir.· 1983-12-20 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the interim food stamp regulations were invalid because they were substantive rules promulgated without required notice-and-comment procedures, and the "good cause" exception did not apply. However, the regulations promulgated the following year were valid.
• Reynolds Metals Co. v. Rumsfeld
  564 F.2d 663· 4th Cir.· 1977-10-14 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Memorandum of Understanding's provisions allowing agencies to exchange employer compliance information are valid, but reversed the lower court's invalidation of a paragraph allowing one agency to transmit complaints to another.
• Nat'l Ass'n OF Farmworkers Orgs. v. Marshall
  628 F.2d 604· D.C. Cir.· 1980-03-20 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the Secretary of Labor's regulations allowing waivers for child labor in harvesting were inconsistent with statutory requirements for objective safety data and procedurally flawed due to lack of notice and comment.
• AIR Transp. Ass'n OF Am. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd.
  732 F.2d 219· D.C. Cir.· 1984-04-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Board's refund policy for fees collected after 1977 has an unlawful retroactive effect by using an 'offsetting' procedure that can retroactively increase fees.
• Louis v. Nelson
  544 F. Supp. 1004· S.D. Fla.· 1982-06-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the INS's policy of detaining Haitian nationals pending admission was adopted in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and ordered their release on parole, while also finding no discrimination based on race or national origin.
• GO Leasing, Inc. v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd.
  800 F.2d 1514· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-30 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the FAA has the discretion to choose among statutory enforcement actions, including certificate revocation or suspension, and that such actions are not limited to punitive purposes. Furthermore, the court found that the FAA's regulations were validly promulgat
• Indep. U.S. Tanker Owners Comm. v. Dole
  809 F.2d 847· D.C. Cir.· 1987-01-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Secretary of Transportation exceeded her statutory authority by failing to provide an adequate explanation of how the "payback rule" serves the objectives of the Merchant Marine Act, rendering the rule arbitrary and capricious agency action.
• United States Dep't OF Labor v. E. Metals Corp.
  744 F.2d 1145· 5th Cir.· 1984-10-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that OSHA's inspection plan (CPL 2.25B) was a procedural rule exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act's notice and comment rulemaking requirements because it did not have a substantial impact on the rights or interests of regulated parties.
• Neighborhood TV Co., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States
  742 F.2d 629· D.C. Cir.· 1984-08-17 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the FCC's order establishing low power television service and its interim processing procedures, finding no infirmity in either the procedures or the channel allocation.
• The Fertilizer Inst. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency
  935 F.2d 1303· D.C. Cir.· 1991-06-11 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the EPA's interpretation of 'release' under CERCLA was contrary to the statute's plain meaning and vacated that portion of the rule. The court also found that the EPA failed to provide adequate notice and comment for administrative exemptions but allowed them
• Mid-Tex Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  822 F.2d 1123· D.C. Cir.· 1987-06-30 ·cited 15×
  The court held that FERC's interim rule allowing utilities to include construction work-in-progress costs in rate base was permissible, as it provided adequate safeguards against anticompetitive effects and was promulgated with good cause.
• Lou Gallegos v. Lyng
  891 F.2d 788· 10th Cir.· 1989-12-15 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's ruling that the food stamp mail loss regulation was not arbitrary and capricious but reversed the ruling prohibiting the federal government from charging interest on New Mexico's debt.
• Vietnam Veterans of Am. v. Secretary OF THE Navy
  843 F.2d 528· D.C. Cir.· 1988-03-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Laird Memorandum's language was not specific or prescriptive enough to create rights or bind agency discretion, and therefore did not mandate upgrades for all drug-related discharges.
• Env't Def. Fund, Inc. v. Env't Prot. Agency
  716 F.2d 915· D.C. Cir.· 1983-08-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is entitled to attorneys' fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) because it was a prevailing party and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) position was not substantially justified.
• Daniel Int'l Corp. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n & The Sec'y of Labor
  656 F.2d 925· 4th Cir.· 1981-08-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Daniel International Corp. could not challenge the procedural validity of OSHA standards in an enforcement proceeding without demonstrating prejudice from the alleged procedural defect.
• Shell Oil Co. v. Env't Prot. Agency
  950 F.2d 741· D.C. Cir.· 1991-12-06 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the EPA failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment when promulgating the mixture and derived-from rules, and the leachate monitoring requirement, as they were not logical outgrowths of the proposed regulations.
• Donovan v. RED Star Marine Servs., Inc.
  739 F.2d 774· 2d Cir.· 1984-07-10 ·cited 13×
  The court held that OSHA has jurisdiction over the working conditions of employees aboard uninspected vessels, and that the ex parte warrants obtained by OSHA were valid.
• Petry v. Block
  737 F.2d 1193· D.C. Cir.· 1984-06-29 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the agency's promulgation of an interim rule under the "good cause" exception was justified due to the congressionally mandated tight deadline and the complexity of the rulemaking process, and that the final rule was not arbitrary or capricious.
• AIR Transp. Ass'n OF Am. v. Dep't OF Transp.
  900 F.2d 369· D.C. Cir.· 1990-04-13 ·cited 12×
  The FAA was obliged to engage in notice and comment procedures before promulgating regulations governing administrative civil penalty actions because these rules substantially altered the rights of regulated parties, and the agency's reliance on the 'good cause' exception was not
• Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps., Afl-Cio v. Off. OF Pers. Mgmt.
  821 F.2d 761· D.C. Cir.· 1987-06-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that OPM's immediate implementation of RIF rules was lawful, but its regulation creating a presumption of overtime ineligibility for GS-11 employees was unlawful.