Notice And Comment Rulemaking

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

• Nat'l Ass'n OF Metal Finishers v. Env't Prot. Agency
  719 F.2d 624· 3d Cir.· 1983-09-20 ·cited 40×
  The court held that certain provisions of the EPA's General Pretreatment Regulations, specifically the definitions of 'interference' and 'pass through,' were improperly promulgated and remanded them to the Administrator for revision.
• Council OF the S. Mountains, Inc. v. Donovan
  653 F.2d 573· D.C. Cir.· 1981-04-16 ·cited 39×
  The Secretary of Labor had good cause to defer implementation of SCSR regulations without notice and comment due to special circumstances, and the decision to postpone was reasonable.
• Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Snow
  561 F.2d 227· D.C. Cir.· 1976-10-28 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the agency's authority to make advance acquisitions of highway right-of-way was not repealed by subsequent legislation, and the balancing of competing interests is primarily for Congress and the agency, not the court.
• 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
• Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & the United States
  572 F.2d 17· 2d Cir.· 1978-01-26 ·cited 38×
  The FCC's order permitting unlimited resale and sharing of private line services is affirmed, as the agency's notice and comment procedures were adequate, its findings were supported by the record, and its classification of resellers as common carriers was proper.
• 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.
• Consol. Edison Co. OF NEW York, Inc. v. Fed. Power Comm'n
  512 F.2d 1332· D.C. Cir.· 1975-05-19 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the FPC did not exceed its authority in implementing Order No. 467-type curtailment plans under Section 4 of the Natural Gas Act, distinguishing the case from Moss v. CAB due to the lack of undue industry favoritism and the presence of extensive hearings.
• S. Cal. Edison Co. & Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  770 F.2d 779· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-03 ·cited 36×
  The court held that FERC's promulgation of procedural rules for BPA rate approval did not require notice and comment under the APA, but that the agency failed to apply required Federal Power Act procedures regarding ex parte communications and case-in-chief filing for nonregional
• 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.
• Sol Tabor v. Joint Bd. for the Enrollment of Actuaries
  566 F.2d 705· D.C. Cir.· 1977-07-22 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the Joint Board for Enrollment of Actuaries failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act by not providing a contemporaneous statement of basis and purpose for its regulations, requiring a remand.
• 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
• Associated Indus. OF NEW York State, Inc. v. The United States Dep't OF Labor
  487 F.2d 342· 2d Cir.· 1973-10-04 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the Department of Labor failed to provide adequate justification and rationale for the lavatory standards promulgated under OSHA, rendering them arbitrary and capricious.
• Ill. Bell Tel. Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States
  740 F.2d 465· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-29 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the FCC's order requiring divested Bell operating companies to sell customer premises equipment through separate subsidiaries was not arbitrary or capricious, despite potential inconsistencies with prior rulings and a lack of precise cost-benefit analysis.
• United States Steel Corp. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency
  605 F.2d 283· 7th Cir.· 1979-08-01 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the EPA had good cause to bypass notice and comment procedures for air quality designations due to statutory deadlines and that the designations were not arbitrary or capricious. Furthermore, statutory limitations on judicial review of procedural errors preven
• Nat'l Welf. Rights Org. v. Mathews
  533 F.2d 637· D.C. Cir.· 1976-02-20 ·cited 34×
  The Secretary has the power to promulgate regulations specifying maximum resource limits, exemptions, and valuation methods for AFDC recipients, but the specific regulation at issue is invalid because it values property without regard to encumbrances, conflicting with the statute
• 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
• Cent. & S. Motor Freight Tariff Ass'n, Inc. v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n
  757 F.2d 301· D.C. Cir.· 1985-03-19 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Interstate Commerce Commission has the statutory authority to exempt motor contract carriers of property from tariff-filing requirements and that its use of this authority to exempt all such carriers was reasonable and consistent with the public interest a
• British Caledonian Airways v. Civil Aeronautics Bd.
  584 F.2d 982· D.C. Cir.· 1978-06-15 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) did not err in issuing a declaratory order to clarify that cancellation charges must be included in airline tariffs, as this was an interpretation of existing regulations, not the promulgation of a new legislative rule.
• 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.
• Citizens FOR A Better Env't v. Anne Gorsuch
  718 F.2d 1117· D.C. Cir.· 1983-10-04 ·cited 30×
  A consent decree impermissibly restricts the discretion of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency when it imposes duties not found in the statute, thereby violating separation of powers principles.
• State OF S.C. ex rel. Leslie E. Tindal v. Block
  717 F.2d 874· 4th Cir.· 1983-09-09 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the Secretary of Agriculture complied with the Administrative Procedure Act in implementing a milk deduction program and that the authorizing legislation is constitutional.
• Env't Def. Fund, Inc. v. Anne M. Gorsuch
  713 F.2d 802· D.C. Cir.· 1983-07-26 ·cited 30×
  The case should be dismissed as moot because the EPA voluntarily ceased the challenged policy, and there is no reasonable expectation that the circumstances leading to the policy will recur, nor is there continuing harm.
• 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.
• Philadelphia Citizens IN Action by Roxanne Jones v. Schweiker
  669 F.2d 877· 3d Cir.· 1982-01-15 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the federal defendant had good cause under the APA to dispense with notice and comment procedures when promulgating regulations for the AFDC program.
• Am. Mining Cong. & Engelhard Corp. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency
  824 F.2d 1177· D.C. Cir.· 1987-07-31 ·cited 28×
  The EPA's interpretation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to regulate certain recycled industrial materials is a reasonable construction of an ambiguous statute and should be deferred to.
• Georgetown Univ. Hosp. v. Bowen
  821 F.2d 750· D.C. Cir.· 1987-06-26 ·cited 28×
  The Secretary's retroactive application of the 1984 cost-limit rule was barred by both the Administrative Procedure Act and the Medicare Act, as legislative rules must be prospective.
• United States v. Articles OF Drug Consisting OF 203 Paper Bags
  818 F.2d 569· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-04 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the appeal is moot because the drugs were re-exported and there is a low probability that Amexchem will import similar drugs without firm orders in the future, thus vacating the district court's decision.
• Bessemer & Lake Erie R.R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States
  691 F.2d 1104· 3d Cir.· 1982-10-19 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the ICC's order adopting a single standard of revenue adequacy based on the current cost of capital, finding it consistent with statutory mandates and not arbitrary or capricious. The court also found the carrier petition regarding unused rail properties not ri
• 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.
• Feliza Gallardo Linoz v. Heckler
  800 F.2d 871· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-23 ·cited 26×
• Am. Transfer & Storage Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States
  719 F.2d 1283· 5th Cir.· 1983-11-21 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Interstate Commerce Commission had good cause to issue interim rules without full notice and comment due to the immediate effectiveness of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 and the need to adapt procedures to new statutory requirements.
• United States v. Thompson
  687 F.2d 1279· 10th Cir.· 1982-06-17 ·cited 26×
  The Department of Energy's expansion of trespass boundaries at the Rocky Flats plant constituted substantive rulemaking and was invalid because it failed to comply with the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
• Energy Consumers & Producers Ass'n, Inc. v. Dep't OF Energy
  632 F.2d 129· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1980-04-04 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Administration's Ruling 1975-12, Part III, was void for failing to comply with the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Federal Energy Administration Act.
• Mobil OIL Corp. v. Fed. Power Comm'n
  469 F.2d 130· D.C. Cir.· 1972-10-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Commission's actions in modifying rate ceilings and rejecting rate filings constituted rulemaking, which complied with the Administrative Procedure Act's notice and comment requirements, and did not require an evidentiary hearing.
• Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States
  823 F.2d 1554· D.C. Cir.· 1987-07-17 ·cited 25×
  The Commission's redefinition of 'basic cable service' is valid because the statute is not perfectly clear and the legislative history, adopted by both Houses, clarifies the intent.
• Louis v. Nelson
  544 F. Supp. 973· S.D. Fla.· 1982-06-18 ·cited 25×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the case, finding that the plaintiffs' claims regarding the Administrative Procedure Act and discriminatory application of the detention policy were not barred by the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine.
• Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Thomas
  838 F.2d 1224· D.C. Cir.· 1988-01-22 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the "control-first" approach, requiring sources to assume the lowest achievable emissions rate for stack height credit demonstrations, is not mandated by Section 123 of the Clean Air Act.
• Camacho v. Civil Serv. Comm'n
  666 F.2d 1257· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-01 ·cited 24×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to hear appeals from the appellate division of the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, even on issues of local law. It also affirmed the lower court's determination that the appointment scheme for the Civil Service Commission v
• Wash. State Farm Bureau v. Marshall
  625 F.2d 296· 9th Cir.· 1980-08-13 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in substituting its judgment for the Secretary of Labor's regarding pesticide safety for child harvesters and in conducting a de novo review of informal rulemaking.
• Guadamuz v. Bowen
  859 F.2d 762· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-18 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court erred by not deferring to the Secretary's interpretation of attorneys' fees provisions and associated procedures, finding them to be within the Secretary's discretion and not contrary to statute or the APA.
• Chula Vista City Sch. Dist. v. Bennett
  824 F.2d 1573· Fed. Cir.· 1987-07-20 ·cited 23×
  The court's majority opinion upheld the validity of the $50 Rule, but the concurring judge dissented, finding the rule contravenes governing statutes and agency practice.
• W.C. v. Bowen
  807 F.2d 1502· 9th Cir.· 1987-01-13 ·cited 22×
  The Bellmon Review Program, which increased the review of favorable Social Security disability benefit decisions, was a substantive rule requiring notice and comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.
• Carlin Commc'ns, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
  749 F.2d 113· 2d Cir.· 1984-11-02 ·cited 22×
  The FCC's time-channeling regulation for dial-a-porn services is set aside because it is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest and less restrictive alternatives were not adequately considered.
• Nat'l Treas. Emps. Union v. Devine
  733 F.2d 114· D.C. Cir.· 1984-04-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a congressional appropriations measure, H.R.J.Res. 413, barred the implementation, administration, and enforcement of OPM's final personnel regulations, rendering them null and void as long as OPM's funding derived from that resolution.
• Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Costle
  629 F.2d 118· D.C. Cir.· 1980-07-02 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the EPA's revised regulations, which established less stringent restrictions for dredged wastes compared to nondredged materials, were not unlawful. However, the court found that the issue of whether the Corps' site designations constituted APA rulemaking was
• 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.
• State v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
  19 F.4th 1271· 11th Cir.· 2021-12-06 ·cited 20×
  Florida challenged a federal interim rule mandating COVID-19 vaccinations for healthcare workers at Medicare and Medicaid facilities, arguing the rule exceeded the Secretary's statutory authority, violated notice-and-comment procedures, and was arbitrary and capricious. The Eleve