This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
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
This note was uploaded on 01/31/2010 for the course LAW 7521 taught by Professor Stack during the Fall '04 term at Yeshiva.
- Fall '04