Opinion ID: 221052
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: General Statement of Policy

Text: Finally, the TSA argues notice and comment is not required because, rather than promulgating a legislative rule, the agency, in announcing it will use AIT for primary screening, made a general statement[] of policy. The question raised by the policy exception is whether a statement is ... of present binding effect; if it is, then the APA calls for notice and comment. McLouth Steel Prods. Corp. v. Thomas, 838 F.2d 1317, 1320 (D.C.Cir. 1988). Our cases make clear that an agency pronouncement will be considered binding as a practical matter if it either appears on its face to be binding, or is applied by the agency in a way that indicates it is binding. Gen. Elec. Co. v. EPA, 290 F.3d 377, 383 (D.C.Cir.2002) (internal citation omitted); see also Chamber of Commerce, 174 F.3d at 212-13. It is enough for the agency's statement to purport to bind those subject to it, that is, to be cast in mandatory language so the affected private parties are reasonably led to believe that failure to conform will bring adverse consequences. Gen. Elec., 290 F.3d at 383-84 (internal quotation marks omitted). The TSA seems to think it significant that there are no AIT scanners at some airports and the agency retains the discretion to stop using the scanners where they are in place. More clearly significant is that a passenger is bound to comply with whatever screening procedure the TSA is using on the date he is to fly at the airport from which his flight departs. 49 C.F.R. § 1540.105(a)(2) (no passenger may enter the sterile area of an airport without complying with the systems, measures, or procedures being applied to control access to that area). To be sure, he can opt for a patdown but, as the TSA conceded at oral argument, the agency has not argued that option makes its screening procedures nonbinding and we therefore do not consider the possibility. We are left, then, with the argument that a passenger is not bound to comply with the set of choices presented by the TSA when he arrives at the security checkpoint, which is absurd. [] In sum, the TSA has advanced no justification for having failed to conduct a notice-and-comment rulemaking. We therefore remand this matter to the agency for further proceedings. Because vacating the present rule would severely disrupt an essential security operation, however, and the rule is, as we explain below, otherwise lawful, we shall not vacate the rule, but we do nonetheless expect the agency to act promptly on remand to cure the defect in its promulgation. See Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 988 F.2d 146, 150-51 (D.C.Cir.1993). The agency asks us to make clear that on remand, TSA is free to invoke the APA's `good cause' exception to notice-and-comment rulemaking, 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(B) (exception when the agency for good cause finds ... that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest). We have no occasion to express a view upon this possibility other than to note we do not reach it.