James v. Hurson Associates, Inc. v. Glickman
229 F.3d 277, 47 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1238, 343 U.S. App. D.C. 313 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An agency rule that alters the manner in which parties interact with the agency but does not change the substantive standards used to evaluate their claims is a rule of agency procedure, exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act's notice-and-comment requirements, regardless of the rule's practical impact.
Facts:
- The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible for reviewing and approving labels for commercial food products.
- Historically, food producers could obtain label approval through several methods, including using courier/expediter firms like James V. Hurson Associates, Inc. for 'face-to-face' meetings with FSIS, which allowed for immediate approval.
- In July 1998, the USDA announced it was eliminating 'routine, daily, time-set, face-to-face appointments' for label approval.
- The USDA justified the change as necessary to allow more time for complex reviews, facilitate internal agency consultation, and ensure fairness to producers who submitted applications by mail.
- The new rule did not alter the substantive criteria by which the FSIS evaluated and approved or denied proposed labels.
- The elimination of face-to-face meetings directly threatened the business model of courier/expediter firms like Hurson.
Procedural Posture:
- James V. Hurson Associates, Inc. sued the USDA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking a temporary restraining order.
- Hurson's initial complaint alleged that the USDA violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to use notice-and-comment rulemaking.
- The USDA did not file an answer but instead filed a motion to dismiss. The parties agreed to treat the cross-motions as motions for summary judgment.
- Before the court ruled, Hurson moved to amend its complaint to add claims that the new rule was arbitrary and capricious and violated the Commerce Clause.
- The District Court denied Hurson's motion to amend as untimely.
- The District Court then granted summary judgment in favor of the USDA on the notice-and-comment claim.
- Hurson (appellant) appealed the District Court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, with the USDA as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the U.S. Department of Agriculture's elimination of in-person, 'face-to-face' meetings for food label approvals, without undergoing notice-and-comment rulemaking, violate the Administrative Procedure Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Sentelle
No, the USDA's elimination of face-to-face meetings does not violate the Administrative Procedure Act because the rule is procedural and therefore exempt from notice-and-comment requirements. A rule is procedural if it covers agency actions that do not themselves alter the rights or interests of parties, even if it alters the manner in which parties present themselves to the agency. Here, the USDA's rule did not change the substantive standards for label approval; it merely changed the process for submission and review. The court rejected the argument that the rule's substantial burden on regulated parties converted it into a substantive rule, stating that the practical impact has no bearing on whether a rule is procedural. Similarly, the fact that the rule was based on a 'substantive value judgment' about efficiency and fairness does not make the rule itself substantive, as all agency housekeeping rules embody such judgments.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the D.C. Circuit's narrow interpretation of what constitutes a 'substantive' rule requiring notice and comment. It clarifies that a rule's significant practical or economic impact on regulated parties is not, by itself, sufficient to convert a procedural rule into a substantive one. The case provides agencies with significant flexibility to alter their internal processes for efficiency or fairness without undergoing the lengthy notice-and-comment process, so long as the underlying substantive standards applied to the public remain unchanged. This precedent strengthens agency discretion in 'housekeeping' matters but may limit the ability of affected private parties to challenge burdensome procedural changes.
