Court Opinion

ID: 9638781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:53:52.24338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:09.752333
License: Public Domain

FRANK, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
The notice given by the Administrator of the public hearing which led to his order was worded as was that part of his order quoted in the foregoing opinion. I think it gave adequate notice of the hearing to appellants because of the meaning of the word “passementerie” as it should have been understood by persons like appellants, for reasons stated in the opinion.
I think it desirable to say that we are not here deciding that, if the wording of the notice of hearing had not been sufficient to be thus understood by such persons, the notice would have been valid (so that the order would have bound appellants) merely because of administrative interpretations.1 For I think that the doctrine of Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 65 S.Ct. 161, and of other cases dealing with the weight to be accorded such interpretations, relate to such interpretations of statutes or of regulations or orders made pursuant to statutes, and not of a notice of an administrative hearing.

 Certainly not any such interpretations began. which were unpublished before the hearing