2015•Scholarship @ Cornell Law (Cornell University)Open access
Open Minds and Harmless Errors: Judicial Review of Post-Promulgation Notice and Comment
Kristin E. Hickman, Mark Thomson
Open full text 14 citations
Abstract
Id. 11 Balt.Gas & Elec.Co. v. United States, 817 F.2d 108, 116 (D.C.Cir.1987); see also Ass'n of Private Sector Colls.& Univs.v. Duncan, 681 F.3d 427, 441-42 (D.C.Cir.2012) (discussing that an agency's obligation to respond to "significant comments raised during rulemaking" is flexible).12 5 U.S.C. § 553(d).13 See Juan J. Lavilla, The Good Cause Exemption to Notice and Comment Rulemaking Requirements Under the Administrative Procedure Act, 3 ADMIN.L.J. 317, 319-20 n.3 (1989) (discussing that Congress provided exemptions from the notice and comment requirements to ensure agency flexibility).14 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(B).15 Guardian Fed.Sav.& Loan Ass'n v. Fed.Sav.& Loan Ins.Corp., 589 F.2d 658, 664 (D.C.Cir.1978).16 5 U.S.C. § 553(a), (b)(A)-(B).17 U.S. GOV'T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, supra note 1, at 15-21.Agencies claimed good cause in 77% of major rules and 61% of nonmajor rules
Open-access reader