ELI LILLY & CO.
v.
COSTLE, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Justice Rehnquist,
with whom Mr. Justice Powell joins,
dissenting.
This case presents an issue of great importance, which cannot help but become greater as time goes on and more and more administrative proceedings are conducted either directly under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.
S. C. § 553, or similar provisions in new Acts of Congress for review of agency action. That question is the degree to which an agency, which publishes a rule for notice and comment under § 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act and very substantially changes the rule in response to the comments it receives, is obliged to publish the revised rule to allow another opportunity for notice and comment. In deciding this case, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit was fully aware of the problems that could result from a complete “about face” by the administrative agency, see BASF Wyandotte Corp. v. Costle, 598 F. 2d 637 (1979), as can be seen from this portion of the first paragraph of its opinion concluding that the respondent had complied with the Administrative Procedure Act:
“Petitioners’ first complaint is that EPA failed to comply with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act in that the final regulations were so different from the interim final regulations that the interims were not notice of 'either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved.’ 5 U. S. C. § 553 (b)(3). This requirement is a critical one because it supports the assumption we make with regard to EPA’s substantive decisions that those decisions are in fact the product of informed, expert reasoning tested by exposure to diverse public comment.” Id., at 641 (emphasis supplied).
Petitioner claims that the differences between the effluent limitations imposed in the original regulations and the ones finally promulgated were so great as to make impossible any such judgment by a reviewing court in the absence of further opportunity for notice and comment on the revised regulations. The Court of Appeals’ conclusion to the contrary is a carefully reasoned one, and I am not at this point willing to say that I disagree with it. But when we consider the very significant effects that a “rulemaking” procedure may have upon the parties involved, see United States v. Florida East Coast R. Co., 410 U. S. 224, 244-245 (1973), I think this Court should grant certiorari to examine the question. It is the sort of question upon which there will never be a “square conflict” among the various Courts of Appeals, since the differences between the originally promulgated regulations and the finally promulgated regulations will necessarily be ones of degree.
Thus, one need not accept at full face value the contention of petitioner that the Court of Appeals’ decision squarely conflicts with decisions from the Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fourth, and District of Columbia Circuits in order to realize that the question is a recurring one that will ultimately require interpretation of important statutory language by this Court.
Accordingly, I would grant the petition limited to the question whether § 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.
S. C. § 553, required EPA to provide an additional opportunity to comment on the final regulations proposed here.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
United Steelworkers OF Am. v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189 (D.C. Cir. 1980)…opportunity to comment, commenters would not have their first occasion to offer new and different criticisms which the Agency might find convincing.” BASF Wyandotte Corp. v. Costle, 598 F. 2d 637, 642 (1st Cir. 1979) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1096, 100 S.Ct. 1063, 62 L.Ed.2d 784 (1980). The First Circuit went on to say: Not only do we think that petitioners had fair notice * * *, but we cannot think how their comments would have differed fundamentally if they had known what EPA would do. Tho…
-
Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 705 F.2d 506 (D.C. Cir. 1983)…rience under the sliding-scale standard, but need not give “any specific weight” to this factor. Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F. 2d 1011, 1045 (D.C.Cir.1978); accord BASF Wyandotte Corp. v. Costle, 598 F. 2d 637, 662 (1st Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1096, 100 S.Ct. 1063, 62 L.Ed.2d 784 (1980). Here, EPA devoted an entire rulemaking to the issue of the appropriate lead standard for small refiners. It concluded that: experience under the two-tiered approach has been that it fosters inequities, as sma…1 / 4
-
Webb v. Anne Gorsuch, 699 F.2d 157 (4th Cir. 1983)…urts permit an agency to alter its position in reaction to comments or seek new evi [*162] dence without reopening the comment period. Cf. BASF Wyandotte v. Costle, 598 F. 2d 637, 664-65 (1 Cir.1979), cert. denied sub nom, Eli Lilly & Co. v. Costle, 444 U.S. 1096, 100 S.Ct. 1063, 62 L.Ed.2d 784 (1980). Finally, EPA was under no duty to hold a public hearing. One was not timely requested by Webb or the only other party who responded to EPA’s invitation for comments. Not only does the absence of a timely reque…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 410 U.S. 224 (U.S. 1973)
- Basf Wyandotte Corp. v. Costle, 598 F.2d 637 (1st Cir. 1979)