norml01 - Page 8
Page 8
Previous ,
Next ,
Original Image
Return to Index
|
I Petitioners with the opportunity to submit evidence to meet the
i standard. However, this Courtrs remand was narrowly focused on
Petitioners _ argument regarding the standard's logical
i impossibility, which the Court characterized as _the part [of the
decision] which we think obliges us to order a remando '_ 930 Fo2d
I at 940°
i This Court did not resolve Petitioners' challenge to
the DEA's reliance on the FDA standard, bu_ only provided general
l guidance regarding an agencySs reliance on another agency's
statute, commenting that it is not necessa_?ily inappropriate for
i an agency to rely on _notions developed by a sister agency
i insofar as these notions serve the missions of both agencies.1'
930 F.2d at 940. The Court offered no opirkion as to whether in
I this specific situation the Administrator_s_ use of the FDA
standard met this test; Respondentrs repeated assertion that this
I Court held that the standard was "in the main acceptable_ '_ see
i Resp. Br_ at 13, does not provide such specific resolution.
Indeed, even after being given this general direction
I by this Court, theAdministrator failed to promulgate an appro-
priate standard. Consequently, in this current appeal, Peti-
i tioners have posed a clear and specific challenge to the
i Administrator's reliance on the FDA criteria° Taking the
guidance provided by this Court, Petitioners have demonstrated
I that the Administrator's use of the FDA standard is inappropriate
since the FDA notions in no way _serve the _issions of both
li agencies°"
_
Previous ,
Next ,
Return to Index