home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ The Supreme Court / The Supreme Court.iso / pc / briefs / 1992 / 92_896 / 896r055.tif (.png) < prev    next >
Tagged Image File Format  |  1995-08-30  |  79KB  |  1696x2200
Labels: book | reckoner
OCR: wise instituted enforeement action against petitioner based on that interpretation. And even if MSHA had issued citation and proposed penalty, neither PrnoM consti tute final agency action subject to revicw under the APA Standard 10 Co. 449 239 -243 sinec each would (at petitioner's request) be subject to independent review the Commission before any uction by the government against. petitioner could become administratively final. See Franklin V Masrac husetts, 112 2767. 2773-2775 (1992) Thu5 the district court was required dis- miss the complaint hecause there has been no final agency action in this case that may be challenged causc action under the APA Petitioners Claims Are Not Ripe For Judieial Review Even petitioner were challenging "final agency ac- tion subject 1 review apun the APA ...