ELI LILLY AND CO. v. COSTLE, 444 U.S. 1096 (1980)
U.S. Supreme Court
ELI LILLY AND CO. v. COSTLE , 444 U.S. 1096 (1980)444 U.S. 1096
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
v.
Douglas M. COSTLE, Administrator, Environmental Protection
Agency
No. 79-485
Supreme Court of the United States
February 19, 1980
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
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 the respondent had complied with the Administrative Procedure Act:
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,
820-821 (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 [444
U.S. 1096 , 1098]
U.S. Supreme Court
ELI LILLY AND CO. v. COSTLE , 444 U.S. 1096 (1980) 444 U.S. 1096 ELI LILLY AND COMPANYv.
Douglas M. COSTLE, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency
No. 79-485 Supreme Court of the United States February 19, 1980 On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. 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 Page 444 U.S. 1096 , 1097 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 the respondent had complied with the Administrative Procedure Act:
