Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of the APA, substantive rules are rules that create law. These rules usually implement existing law, im posing general, extrastatutory obligations pursuant to authority properly delegated by Congress. Interpretative rules merely clarify or explain existing law or regulations and go “ ‘to what the administrative officer thinks the statute or regulation means.’ ” Id. at 783 (citations omitted). See also New York v. Lyng, 829 F.2d 346 (2d Cir.1987) (ruling that Secretary of Agriculture’s determination that restaurant allowance for food stamp recipients was income was an interpretive rule exempt from the notice and comment requirement of the APA); Chula Vista City School Dist. v. Bennett, 824 F.2d 1573 (Fed.Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1042, 108 S.Ct. 774, 98 L.Ed.2d 861 (1988) (<HOLDING>). FNBL suggests that the proper method for 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing application of sovereign immunity to school districts (B) holding that a county ordinance imposing an impact fee on new residential construction to be used for new school facilities did not constitute an unauthorized delegation of power from the county to the school board because the fundamental policy decisions were made by the county and the discretion of the school board was sufficiently limited (C) holding that a 50 rule used by the secretary of education to evaluate applications for impact aid by local school districts was not subject to the notice and comment procedures of the apa because it was an interpretive rule describing the agencys view of the meaning of a statute (D) holding that exhaustion was not required under a federal education statute where the gravamen of the complaint was not that the plaintiff had been denied the type of education the statute guarantees and hence the relief sought was not available through the statutory appeals process (E) holding that the postal service was not required to follow notice and comment rulemaking procedures
Output (English): holding that exhaustion was not required under a federal education statute where the gravamen of the complaint was not that the plaintiff had been denied the type of education the statute guarantees and hence the relief sought was not available through the statutory appeals process