Opinion ID: 335983
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Fitness of Issues for Judicial Resolution.

Text: 32 In determining whether the issues are fit for judicial resolution, we must first look to whether they are sufficiently concrete at this time to prevent the courts . . . from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner,supra, 387 U.S. at 148, 87 S.Ct. at 1515, 18 L.Ed.2d at 691. 33 The issues raised in the instant case by the petitioners are either  purely le- gal 1 : whether the Clean Air Act and the Constitution authorize the June 1973 regulations; or concern completed matters: whether the June 1973 regulations were issued in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act and whether the particular AQMA designations were substantively correct. These issues will not be clarified if review is delayed since there is no further factual development which can occur. Thus they are sufficiently concrete for our review at this time. 34 We must next consider whether the challenged agency action is final. If it is not, we must postpone our review in order to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized, Id. at 148, 87 S.Ct. at 1515, 18 L.Ed.2d at 691. 35 As the Supreme Court said in Abbott Laboratories, Id. at 149, 87 S.Ct. at 1516, 18 L.Ed.2d at 692, The cases dealing with judicial review of administrative actions have interpreted the 'finality' element in a pragmatic way. The Court went on to distinguish prior cases in which agency action was found to be not final and to explain why the action in the case at hand was final: 36 The regulation challenged here, promulgated in a formal manner after announcement in the Federal Register and consideration of comments by interested parties is quite clearly definitive. There is no hint that this regulation is informal, see Helco Products Co. v. McNutt, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 71, 137 F.2d 681, 149 A.L.R. 345, or only the ruling of a subordinate official, see Swift & Co. v. Wickham, D.C., 230 F.Supp. 398, 409, aff'd, 2 Cir., 364 F.2d 241, or tentative. It was made effective upon publication, and the Assistant General Counsel for Food and Drugs stated in the District Court that compliance was expected. 387 U.S. at 151, 87 S.Ct. at 1517, 18 L.Ed.2d at 693. 37 Like the regulation challenged in Abbott Laboratories, the challenged EPA regulations in the instant case were promulgated in a formal manner 2 and can be considered definitive. Unlike the agency action in Abbott Laboratories, no compliance by the petitioners is expected. The regulations in question only provide for a study by the State of Indiana of future air pollution problems in the designated areas. Any standards for petitioners to follow will not be promulgated until the study is completed. Our review of the challenged actions consequently will interfere with an ongoing administrative process. Because of this we cannot say the agency action is final. 38 Thus, the issues here are fit for judicial review in the sense that they present concrete legal questions, but are not fit for judicial review in the sense that the actions challenged are part of a continuing agency decision-making process which has not yet resulted in an order requiring compliance by the petitioners. 39