I need help answering the following questions regarding the Vermont Yankee case. I would like 5 pages of information Under what circumstances could hybrid rulemaking still continue despite this decision. Is hybrid rulemaking really necessary for the courts to review issues like that those raised in Vermont Yankee? Why or why not© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com March 22, 2019, 2:30 am ad1c9bdddf
Hybrid rulemaking can still continue despite the decision of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The decision of the case actually lays down the circumstances in which hybrid rulemaking can continue. The Supreme Court of USA used the analysis that was contained in the Chevron decision. In this case the court first asks if the Congress had directly spoken on the issue of the type of rule making that is required. if there is any evidence that the Congress has directly spoken about the type of rulemaking the intent expressed by the Congress should be given the top priority. In case Congress has not spoken about the type of rulemaking it wants then asks if the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute. If there is a permissible construction of the statute then the agencies interpretation should be accepted.
In case of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Section 3008 (h) was examined. This was a Congress law that authorized the Administrator of the EPA to issue an order requiring corrective action whenever he determined that there had been a release of hazardous material into the atmosphere. There was also a change in Section 3008 (b) making it clear that those subject to corrective action would have a right to a "public hearing". Formal judiciary procedures of Part 22 would only be applicable to challenges to corrective action orders that included a suspension or revocation of interim status or an assessment of civil penalties for noncompliance. In case of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, there was no suspension, revocation, or assessment of civil penalties for noncompliance. The order was meant to investigate with interim corrective measures. In this situation the agency was required to use informal procedures outlined in Part 24. The US Supreme Court ruled that the agency was required to carry out hearings under Section 3008 (h), by using informal procedures outlined in Part 24. In case of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. ...
This solution explains why hybrid rule making is required. The sources used are also included in the solution.