The APA allows private parties to petition federal agencies to commence rule-making proceedings on subjects within the agencies' jurisdiction. If the agency in question chooses to refrain from acting, it should promptly inform the petitioner or petitioners of its decision. The general practice, however, is that judicial review will not be available to the disappointed petitioners. The courts typically will review neither the agency's refusal to hold a hearing on the subject or its refusal to issue the requested rule. Please answer the three questions below as to this state of affairs:

1. Discuss policy reasons for this general practice, which exempts from judicial review an agency's refusal to act on the petition to commence rule-making. (Why might this general practice be good for public policy?)
2. Explain whether and why you agree or disagree with this general practice of declining to review an agency's refusal to act on a petition to commence rule-making.
3. Lay out one exception that you would propose to this usual rule. That is, if you were a judge, under what circumstances would you be persuaded than an agency must develop a rule? Your answer should be in clear English, not legalese.