Notice-and-comment rulemaking
Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking
1. What Is Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking?
Notice-and-comment rulemaking is a formal process used by administrative agencies to create, amend, or repeal rules. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in the U.S. (5 U.S.C. § 553), agencies must:
Publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register explaining the proposed rule.
Allow the public to submit comments within a specified period.
Consider those comments before issuing the final rule.
This process ensures transparency, public participation, and accountability in rulemaking.
2. Key Legal Principles
Agencies must provide adequate notice to interested parties.
They must give the public meaningful opportunity to comment.
Agencies must consider relevant comments in the final rule.
Courts review whether the agency’s process was arbitrary or capricious.
Exceptions exist for interpretive rules and good cause.
3. Detailed Case Law Examples
Case 1: American Textile Manufacturers Institute v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490 (1981)
Issue: The scope of agency obligations in notice-and-comment procedures.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that an agency must provide a reasoned explanation for its actions and respond to significant comments.
Significance: Reinforced that agencies cannot ignore substantive public input; meaningful engagement is required for rule validity.
Case 2: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983)
Facts: NHTSA rescinded a passive restraint safety standard without notice-and-comment.
Ruling: The Court invalidated the rescission because the agency failed to provide adequate notice and explanation.
Legal Principle: Agencies must follow notice-and-comment procedures even when repealing rules unless exempted.
Case 3: Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, 575 U.S. 92 (2015)
Issue: Whether agencies must use notice-and-comment for interpretive rules.
Outcome: The Court ruled agencies may choose to use informal rulemaking but are not required to do so for interpretive rules.
Impact: Clarified the scope of APA’s notice-and-comment requirements, confirming flexibility.
Case 4: Chamber of Commerce v. SEC, 412 F.3d 133 (D.C. Cir. 2005)
Context: The SEC issued a rule without adequate notice regarding compliance costs.
Decision: The court found the rule invalid because the agency failed to consider important issues raised in comments.
Significance: Highlighted that agencies must address significant concerns raised during the comment period to avoid arbitrary decisions.
Case 5: United Steelworkers of America v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189 (D.C. Cir. 1980)
Facts: OSHA issued emergency standards without notice-and-comment.
Holding: The court allowed emergency exceptions but emphasized they must be narrowly construed and justified.
Legal Point: Established limits on bypassing notice-and-comment under the “good cause” exception.
Case 6: Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211 (2016)
Issue: Whether the DOL’s exclusion of certain workers from overtime protections was arbitrary.
Ruling: The Supreme Court found the rule invalid because the agency failed to provide a reasoned explanation, despite undergoing notice-and-comment.
Lesson: Notice-and-comment is necessary but not sufficient; the agency’s final rationale must be sound.
4. Summary Table
| Case | Legal Principle | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|---|
| American Textile Mfrs. v. Donovan | Must respond to significant comments | Agencies cannot ignore public input |
| Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. v. State Farm | Notice required for repeal of rules | Notice-and-comment applies to repeals unless exempted |
| Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn. | Interpretive rules exempt from notice | Agencies can choose procedures for interpretive rules |
| Chamber of Commerce v. SEC | Must consider important issues raised in comments | Failure leads to rule invalidation |
| United Steelworkers v. Marshall | Narrowly apply “good cause” exceptions | Emergency rulemaking exceptions strictly limited |
| Encino Motorcars v. Navarro | Final agency rationale must be reasoned | Procedural compliance is not enough without substantive reasoning |
5. Conclusion
Notice-and-comment rulemaking is critical for democratic accountability in administrative governance. Courts ensure agencies provide fair notice, genuinely consider public comments, and articulate rational justifications for their rules. Failure to meet these standards leads to invalidation of agency rules, safeguarding against arbitrary administrative action.
RELATED Blog
0 comments