Chocolate Manufacturers Ass'n of the U.S. v. Block, 755 F.2d 1098 (4th Cir. 1985)
Chocolate Manufacturers Association v. Block is a cornerstone Administrative Procedure Act (APA) case on the adequacy of notice in notice-and-comment rulemaking.
Did the USDA violate the APA's notice-and-comment requirements by adopting a final rule banning flavored milk in the WIC program when the proposed rule did not provide adequate notice that such a prohibition was under consideration?
Under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)-(c), an agency must publish notice of proposed rulemaking that includes either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved, and it must provide an opportunity for interested persons to comment. A final rule must be a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule and the comments received—meaning interested parties should have been reasonably alerted to the possibility of the final change and have had an opportunity to participate meaningfully. The presence of some comments anticipating or advocating the ultimate change does not cure inadequate notice in the NPRM.
Yes. The final ban on flavored milk was not a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule. Because the USDA failed to provide adequate notice that a prohibition on flavored milk was under consideration, the Fourth Circuit vacated the flavored-milk ban and remanded that portion of the rule to the agency.
Chocolate Manufacturers is a leading case on the logical-outgrowth doctrine and the limits of agency flexibility between proposal and final rule. It teaches that agencies must clearly alert the public to significant regulatory options they are actively considering—especially when moving from permitting to prohibiting a product—so affected parties can meaningfully participate. For law students, the case pairs with Vermont Yankee's admonition against judicially imposing extra procedures by illustrating that courts robustly enforce the APA's existing notice-and-comment requirements. It is frequently cited across circuits for the propositions that (1) notice must make the final rule reasonably foreseeable, and (2) the mere fact that some commenters anticipated the change does not cure inadequate notice.