Notice And Comment Rulemaking

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

• Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency
  759 F.2d 905· D.C. Cir.· 1985-04-16 ·cited 202×
  The court held that the petitioners' challenge to the Hazardous Ranking System (HRS) was untimely because it was filed outside the statutory ninety-day review period, and the claim was ripe for review during that period.
• 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.
• Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle
  590 F.2d 1011· D.C. Cir.· 1978-09-05 ·cited 156×
  The court upheld EPA's effluent limitations for the pulp and paper industry, finding they were rationally exercised under delegated authority and followed appropriate procedures, with one exception not detailed in the provided text.
• The Second Nat'l Natural Gas Rate Cases Am. Pub. GAS Ass'n v. Fed. Power Comm'n
  567 F.2d 1016· D.C. Cir.· 1977-06-16 ·cited 138×
  The Court affirmed the FPC's Opinions 770 and 770-A establishing nationwide natural gas rates of $1.42 per Mcf for gas from wells commenced after January 1, 1975 (with escalation), $0.93 per Mcf for 1973-1974 biennium gas (reduced from $1.01), and $0.52 per Mcf for renewal contra
• S. Terminal Corp. v. Env't Prot. Agency
  504 F.2d 646· 1st Cir.· 1974-09-27 ·cited 134×
  The court held that the EPA's transportation control plan was not arbitrary or capricious, and that the agency followed proper procedures in its promulgation, rejecting claims of inadequate notice and the need for adjudicatory hearings.
• Sierra Club v. Costle
  657 F.2d 298· D.C. Cir.· 1981-04-29 ·cited 124×
  The court held that the EPA did not exceed its statutory authority under the Clean Air Act in promulgating the revised New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), including the variable percentage reduction option for sulfur dioxide emissions.
• Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency
  703 F.2d 700· 3d Cir.· 1983-03-23 ·cited 118×
  The court held that the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) requires examination of both the agency's pre-litigation conduct and its litigation position to determine substantial justification for awarding attorney's fees.
• Citizens TO Save Spencer Cnty. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency
  600 F.2d 844· D.C. Cir.· 1979-03-27 ·cited 112×
  The court held that the agency's regulation was reasonable and did not violate any discernible Congressional command.
• Humana OF S.C., Inc. v. Califano
  590 F.2d 1070· D.C. Cir.· 1978-09-18 ·cited 111×
  The court held that Humana failed to exhaust administrative remedies for its statutory and constitutional claims regarding Medicare reimbursement rates, but its procedural challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act was properly before the court. The court affirmed the distr
• 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.
• Standard OIL Co. v. Dep't OF Energy
  596 F.2d 1029· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1978-12-13 ·cited 100×
  The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate for these complex cases due to an indefinite factual foundation and insufficient discovery.
• Am. Iron & Steel Inst. v. Env't Prot. Agency
  568 F.2d 284· 3d Cir.· 1977-09-14 ·cited 100×
  The court held that the EPA's interim final regulations were invalid as applied to the specialty steel industry due to insufficient notice under the Administrative Procedure Act. However, the court found the notice sufficient regarding the adoption of more stringent treatment tec
• Better Gov't Ass'n v. Dep't OF State
  780 F.2d 86· D.C. Cir.· 1986-01-03 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the facial challenges to the DOJ guidelines and the Interior regulation concerning FOIA fee waivers are ripe for judicial review, despite the mootness of the specific fee waiver denials.
• Joseph v. United States Civil Serv. Comm'n
  554 F.2d 1140· D.C. Cir.· 1977-01-17 ·cited 77×
  The Civil Service Commission's regulation exempting the District of Columbia from certain Hatch Act prohibitions was invalid because it was legislative rulemaking subject to Administrative Procedure Act notice and comment requirements, which were not followed.
• Ass'n OF Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Bd. OF Governors OF the Fed. Reserve Sys.
  745 F.2d 677· D.C. Cir.· 1984-10-02 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the substantial evidence standard of review under 12 U.S.C. § 1848 is substantively identical to the arbitrary and capricious standard under the APA, and that the Board of Governors did not err in applying a 'data test' to determine if data processing activiti
• 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
• Gen. Motors Corp. v. Ruckelshaus
  742 F.2d 1561· D.C. Cir.· 1984-09-07 ·cited 72×
  The EPA's rule requiring manufacturers to repair all members of a recall class, regardless of their age or mileage at the time of repair, is a valid interpretative rule supported by the Clean Air Act.
• 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.
• Cerro Metal Prods. v. Marshall
  620 F.2d 964· 3d Cir.· 1980-04-24 ·cited 70×
  The dissenting judge holds that the original version of § 1903.4 permitted ex parte warrants, making the injunctions improper due to lack of probable success on the merits.
• 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
• Kessler v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
  326 F.2d 673· D.C. Cir.· 1963-12-20 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the FCC's freeze on radio broadcast applications was a procedural rule change, not a substantive one, and therefore did not require the notice and public rulemaking procedures mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act.
• The Honorable Shirley Chisholm v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States
  538 F.2d 349· D.C. Cir.· 1976-04-12 ·cited 60×
  The court defers to the FCC's interpretation that debates and press conferences initiated by non-broadcast entities are exempt from the equal time provision of the Communications Act, provided they are covered live and deemed bona fide news events by licensees.
• Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  710 F.2d 1165· 6th Cir.· 1983-06-24 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the FTC's actions constituted final agency action reviewable by the court, and that Brown & Williamson's claims under the Administrative Procedure Act lacked merit.
• State of N.J. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency & Douglas M. Costle
  626 F.2d 1038· D.C. Cir.· 1980-06-30 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the Administrator erred in invoking the 'good cause' exception to bypass notice and comment rulemaking for the Clean Air Act designations, as the statutory schedule did not make such procedures impracticable.
• State OF Mont. v. Clark
  749 F.2d 740· D.C. Cir.· 1984-11-20 ·cited 56×
  The court held that Montana's petition for judicial review was timely filed and that the challenged Interior Department regulation was a reasonable construction of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.
• 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.
• Barry v. Bowen
  825 F.2d 1324· 9th Cir.· 1987-08-19 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the award of attorney's fees under the EAJA was proper, but the hourly rate should be reduced from $150 to $75.
• 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
• Diebold v. Marshall
  585 F.2d 1327· 6th Cir.· 1978-11-03 ·cited 54×
  The court held that while the Commission's interpretation of the safety regulation was reasonable, its application to Diebold violated due process due to vagueness and lack of adequate warning.
• Jean v. Nelson
  711 F.2d 1455· 11th Cir.· 1983-04-12 ·cited 53×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment ordering the release of detained Haitian immigrants, agreeing that the government's detention policy was unlawful.
• Gosman v. The United States
  573 F.2d 31· Ct. Cl.· 1978-02-22 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the Hearing Panel's decisions regarding depreciation, advertising costs, deferred financing charges, and interest-free loans were not arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence, and affirmed the Panel's rulings.
• 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.
• Action ON Smoking AND Health v. Civil Aeronautics Bd.
  713 F.2d 795· D.C. Cir.· 1983-06-30 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the CAB's promulgation of ER-1245A, revoking a protection for nonsmokers without new notice and comment proceedings, violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
• 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.
• Nat'l Ass'n FOR the Advancement OF Colored People v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States
  682 F.2d 993· D.C. Cir.· 1982-06-29 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the Federal Communication Commission's repeal of the Top-Fifty Policy, which required evidentiary hearings for certain television ownership applications in major markets, was a rational and permissible administrative 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.
• Wis. GAS Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  770 F.2d 1144· D.C. Cir.· 1985-08-20 ·cited 46×
  The court affirmed the Commission's orders eliminating variable cost recovery through minimum bills, finding it was reasoned decisionmaking and did not violate settlement agreements or import authorizations. However, it remanded the issue of whether downstream pipelines can inclu
• Iowa Power & Light Co. v. Burlington N., Inc.
  647 F.2d 796· 8th Cir.· 1981-04-27 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 did not apply to this case due to its timing and the manifest injustice of retroactive application, and that the ICC properly considered the parties' agreed rate as evidence of a reasonable maximum.
• Sauder v. Dep't OF Energy & Charles W. Duncan, Jr.
  648 F.2d 1341· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1981-04-24 ·cited 46×
  The court held that a formal unitization agreement is required to treat multiple oil leases as a single 'property' for the stripper well exemption, and that the owner-operator can be held liable for the full amount of overcharges.
• 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.
• Am. Hosp. Ass'n v. Bowen
  834 F.2d 1037· D.C. Cir.· 1987-12-04 ·cited 45×
  Specific numerical objectives for reducing reimbursed services are not mere 'general statements of policy' and are therefore subject to the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
• Aqua Slide 'N' Dive Corp. v. The Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n
  569 F.2d 831· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-03 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the Commission's cost-benefit analysis for warning signs lacked substantial evidence, requiring remand.
• Cabais v. Roscoe Egger
  690 F.2d 234· D.C. Cir.· 1982-09-23 ·cited 43×
  The court held that most Department of Labor letters concerning FUTA pension offset provisions were interpretative rules exempt from APA notice and comment, and that statutory interpretation issues were not ripe for review.
• Consolidation Coal Co. v. Costle
  604 F.2d 239· 4th Cir.· 1979-06-25 ·cited 41×
  The court upheld most EPA water pollution regulations for the coal industry but struck down a variance clause for failing to consider statutory factors and remanded it for revision. The court also upheld the exclusion of western mines from certain limitations pending further stud
• State OF Md. v. Env't Prot. Agency
  530 F.2d 215· 4th Cir.· 1975-09-19 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the EPA's regulation requiring employers to submit mass transit incentive plans was impermissibly vague and lacked adequate notice, rendering it invalid. It also found that the EPA could not direct a state legislature to enact laws.
• 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.