{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}


Class_Presentation_19 - Class 19 Vermont Yankee(SC 1978...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Class 19 Vermont Yankee (SC 1978) Rehnquist D.C. Circuit (Bazelon) remanded “Spent Fuel” rule to create a better record through more procedures (Tamm found Dr. Pittman’s report inadequate on an a/c basis) S.C. Draws line on use of (procedural) judicial review under APA – must accept limits of 553(c) only agency can add procedures Sub history – remand to D.C. to reconsider DC Cir strikes down rule - S.C. again reverses Inherent advantages of IRM will be lost by adding or threatening additional APA procedures. What about organic stat requirements – e.g. “sub evidence” ERM – opens comment system – indexing problems see regulations - gov see Exceptions to §553 (AHA v Bowen, D.C. Cir 1987) Exceptions Interpretative rules (no substantive effect) Interpretative procedural rules procedural statements of policy McGowan – even with sustantative effect, is agency still free to McGowan exercise discretion does rule make a “substantive value judgment” judgment” N.B. Appalachian Power v EPA (DC Cir 2000) EPA “guidance” is mandatory, effectively changes rules. Good cause exception = disfavored. Good ...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}