Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. NRC
Citation: 673 F.2d 525 (D.C. Cir. 1982)
Facts
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a “policy statement” that it would consider prior license violations in future licensing proceedings. Connecticut Light & Power challenged this as a legislative rule requiring notice-and-comment.
Issue
When is an agency “general statement of policy” exempt from notice-and-comment requirements under APA § 553(b)(A)?
Holding
A general statement of policy is distinguishable from a legislative rule if it: (1) does not establish a binding norm, and (2) leaves agency decision-makers free to exercise discretion in individual cases. A policy statement that actually binds the agency or binds private parties is a legislative rule requiring notice-and-comment.
Rule
Policy statement test: A statement qualifies as a non-legislative policy statement (exempt from notice-and-comment) only if it genuinely leaves the agency free to exercise discretion in individual cases. If the statement has a “present effect” binding on agency decision-makers — i.e., if an ALJ or hearing officer must follow it — it is a legislative rule.
Significance
- Key D.C. Circuit case distinguishing policy statements from legislative rules
- The “binding norm” / “present effect” test is widely cited alongside American Mining Congress
- Agencies frequently label rules as “policy statements” to avoid notice-and-comment; courts look at the actual effect rather than the label
- Related: Syncor International Corp. v. Shalala — a rule is a legislative rule if it creates rights or obligations binding on parties or the agency