metropolitan school district of wayne township v. davila (1992)

on other grounds, Interstate Commerce Commission v.

See also American Trucking Association, Inc. All agencies charged with enforcing and administering a statute have 'inherent authority to issue interpretive rules informing the public of the procedures and standards it intends to apply in exercising its discretion.' Production Tool, 688 F.2d at 1166 (citing General Electric Co. But this formulation is of limited value when an agency, like the Department of Education, has both delegated rulemaking authority and the power to issue interpretive rules. Interpretive rules, although they are entitled to deference, do not bind reviewing courts. Legislative rules have the force and effect of law-they are as binding upon courts as congressional enactments. As we pointed out in Production Tool, Professor Davis' formulation focuses upon the kind of power the agency is using, and hence the force and effect of the rule.

This new obligation did not render the EPA's reading of the regulation legislative. This interpretation required treatment of materials that heretofore had not been covered by the regulation.

The court found this was a clarification of an existing regulation and hence an interpretive rule. The EPA determined that the hazardousness of waste does not depend upon the time of its disposal, and thus materials found to be hazardous after disposal could produce hazardous byproducts requiring treatment. Chemical Waste considered an EPA interpretation of a regulation which provides: 'any solid waste generated from the treatment, storage, or disposal of a hazardous waste, including any leachate is a hazardous waste.' 40 C.F.R. 'The distinction between interpretive (or 'interpretative') and substantive (or 'legislative') rules is admittedly far from crystal-clear.' Chemical Waste Management, Inc.

Metropolitan school district of wayne township v. davila (1992)