- 19 -
regulations. American Paper Inst. v. EPA, 660 F.2d 954, 959 n.13
(4th Cir. 1981); California Citizens Band Association v. United
States, 375 F.2d 43, 48 (9th Cir. 1967); Logansport Broadcasting
Corp. v. United States, 210 F.2d 24, 28 (D.C. Cir. 1954). The
consensus among the Courts of Appeals is that a final rule must
differ substantially from a proposed rule in order to require
another round of notice and comment, but even when it does differ
substantially, the final rule will not require another notice and
comment period if it is "in character with the original proposal"
and a "logical outgrowth" of the notice and comments on the
proposed rule. National Mining Association v. Mine Safety &
Health Admin., 116 F.3d 520, 530-531 (D.C. Cir. 1997); Alabama
Power Co. v. OSHA, 89 F.3d 740, 745 (11th Cir. 1996); Rybachek v.
EPA, 904 F.2d 1276, 1287-1288 (9th Cir. 1990); American Med.
Association v. United States, 887 F.2d 760, 767 (7th Cir. 1989);
Chemical Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 203 (5th
Cir. 1989); United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO-CLC v.
Pendergrass, 855 F.2d 108, 113 (3d Cir. 1988); Natural Resources
Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA, 824 F.2d 1258, 1282-1285 (1st Cir.
1987); National Black Media Coalition v. FCC, 791 F.2d 1016, 1022
(2d Cir. 1986); American Paper Inst. v. EPA, 660 F.2d at 959
n.13. Whether a final rule meets such a test rests on whether
"'the purposes of notice and comment have been adequately
served.'" Northwest Tissue Ctr. v. Shalala, 1 F.3d 522, 528 n.7
(7th Cir. 1993) (quoting Fertilizer Inst. v. EPA, 935 F.2d 1303,
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011