Save Our Oceans Act: Case Study

1409 Words3 Pages

I. Was the Save Our Oceans Act a constitutional delegation of authority to the EPA?
For a delegation of power to an administrative agency to be constitutional, Congress must provide three things: First, Congress must explain the general policy it wants furthered. Second, Congress must identify the public agency which is to apply this policy. Third, Congress must set the boundaries for the agency. American Power & Light Co. v. SEC, 329 U.S. 90, 105 (1946).
The general policy in the Save Our Oceans Act was to protect the nation’s oceans from catastrophic oil spills. Congress identified the EPA as the public agency in charge of furthering this policy. Then, Congress set boundaries for the EPA by making the Act applicable to all oil companies …show more content…

This guideline was not interpretive.
In Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. OSHA, 636 F.2d 464 (1980), an administrative agency announced a rule it called interpretive but was actually substantive. In that case, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, without following notice and comment procedures, declared an employer’s refusal to compensate employees for time spent accompanying OSHA officials during a walk around inspection per se discrimination under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. OSHA characterized this action as an interpretive rule and claimed it exempt from notice and comment under §553(b)(3)(A) of the APA.
However, when examining the substance of walk around pay rule, the court found it was not an interpretive rule at all. An interpretive rule explains the meaning of an existing law by clarifying its language and reminding the affected parties of their pre-existing duties. 636 F.2d 464, 469 (1980). In the OSHA case, Congress had not declared a policy regarding walk around pay. So the agency could not have been interpreting an existing statute. Moreover, the walk around pay rule changed the duties of employers. In the past, OSHA had said a failure to provide walk around pay was not per se discrimination. Because OSHA was trying to create a substantive rule without following rulemaking procedures, the court decided to vacate the walk around pay …show more content…

V. Did the EPA violate §553(c) of the APA by failing to include a general statement of the basis and purpose with the adopted tax rule?
Yes. Section 553(c) of the APA requires an administrative agency to give the public an opportunity to submit written arguments for and against a proposed rule. Then, the agency must consider all relevant material. Finally, when adopting the final rule, the agency must provide “a concise general statement of [the rule’s] basis and purpose.” 5 U.S.C. §553(c).
A concise general statement of basis and purpose is important so that the public may know what major issues were contemplated by the agency and why the agency chose to take a certain course of action instead of others. United States v. Nova Scotia Food Products Corp., 568 F.2d 240, 252

Open Document