Opinion ID: 390286
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Is It a General Policy Statement?

Text: 34 Another exception to § 553 notice and comment procedures falls under the label, general policy statement. As this court articulated in Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. 35 11 A general statement of policy is the outcome of neither a rulemaking nor an adjudication; it is neither a rule nor a precedent but is merely an announcement to the public of the policy which the agency hopes to implement in future rulemakings or adjudications. A general statement of policy, like a press release, presages an upcoming rulemaking or announces the course which the agency intends to follow in future adjudications. 36 The statistical methodology at issue here does not merely represent DOL's future intention. It presents the course the agency has selected and followed, resulting in significant changes from the previous method. 63 Moreover, the statistical methodology leaves no room for further exercise of administrative discretion. As described above, it is determinative of DOL's analysis in allocating CETA funds under the emergency job program. 37 1 In this respect, the methodology significantly differs from the general statement of policy in Guardian Federal Savings and Loan Ass'n v. Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corp., supra. The regulation at issue there prescribed criteria for audits of Savings and Loan Associations to satisfy the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. Because the regulations granted the agency discretion to accept even non-conforming audit reports, this court found the regulations to be a general statement of policy, rather than a binding rule requiring notice and comment. 64 The Secretary of Labor retains no such discretion here. 38 1 DOL's statistical methodology bears a clear resemblance to the parole guidelines contested in Pickus v. United States Board of Parole, 507 F.2d 1107 (D.C.Cir.1974). There, the Parole Board published guidelines specifying factors it considers in exercising its discretion to parole eligible federal prisoners. This court rejected the Board's argument that such guidelines were merely a general statement of policy because, formula like, 65 they effectively directed the focus of the Board's discretionary judgment. Because the guidelines define a fairly tight framework to circumscribe the Board's statutorily broad power, we found they could not be exempted from the notice and comment provisions of § 553. 66 We reach the same conclusion here, for the statistical methodology at issue is a formula, and leaves no discretion to weigh or alter the contributing elements. 39