## Facts

- Congress amended the Food Stamp Program in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, including a revised definition of “household” that generally required certain relatives living together to be treated as one household for eligibility and benefits.
- The statute left the amendments’ effective date to the Secretary of Agriculture, instructing implementation to account for “orderly” administration.
- The Secretary issued interim regulations implementing the new household definition and made them effective immediately.
- The Secretary bypassed notice-and-comment and the APA’s 30-day delayed-effective-date requirement, citing the APA “good cause” exceptions and the need to realize budget savings by the start of the federal fiscal year.
- A class of recipients and applicants challenged the interim regulations, alleging they were substantive rules adopted in violation of APA procedural requirements.
- After the interim rules took effect, the Secretary later conducted notice-and-comment and issued final regulations in 1982.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1981 interim regulations implementing the amended “household” definition were interpretive rules exempt from APA § 553 notice-and-comment or substantive (legislative) rules subject to § 553 procedures.
2. If substantive, whether the Secretary had “good cause” under 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(B) and § 553(d)(3) to dispense with notice-and-comment and to make the interim rules effective immediately.
3. Whether the procedural defect in the interim regulations required invalidation of the later 1982 final regulations or further rulemaking.

## Decision

- The First Circuit held the interim regulations were substantive rules subject to APA § 553.
- The court held the Secretary lacked “good cause” to bypass notice-and-comment and the 30-day delayed-effective-date requirement for the interim regulations.
- The court affirmed the judgment invalidating the interim regulations.
- The court modified the remedy, holding the later 1982 final regulations—adopted after notice-and-comment—were valid and that further rulemaking was unnecessary.

## Legal Principles

- Rules that bind regulated parties and materially affect eligibility or benefits are substantive (legislative) rules requiring compliance with APA § 553.
- The APA “good cause” exceptions in § 553(b)(B) and § 553(d)(3) are narrowly construed and generally require genuine urgency or a public-interest harm that would result from delay.
- Budgetary objectives and the approach of an avoidable or agency-created deadline do not, without more, establish “good cause” to forgo notice-and-comment or immediate effectiveness.
- A procedurally invalid interim rule does not automatically taint later regulations that are promulgated through full, procedurally proper notice-and-comment.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit invalidated the Secretary’s immediately effective interim Food Stamp regulations for failure to comply with APA procedures and for lack of good cause, but allowed the later notice-and-comment final regulations to stand and rejected the need for additional rulemaking.


Levesque v. Block, 723 F.2d 175 (1st Cir. 1983)