Part I of this Article reviews the problem of rulemaking ossification, the assertions that hard look review is its primary cause, and the various solutions that have been proposed to address the situation. Part II summarizes the critiques of the ossification hypothesis. Part III describes the methodology that I used in my examination of rulemaking remands in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under the arbitrary and capricious standard of review during the period from 1985 to 1995. Part IV presents the results of this study. Part V discusses its implications.