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