Opportunity for public comment
What is Opportunity for Public Comment?
Overview:
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 requires federal agencies to provide notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for the public to comment before finalizing rules (5 U.S.C. § 553).
The purpose is to promote transparency, democratic participation, and improve decision-making by incorporating diverse viewpoints.
This process typically involves:
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM): Agencies publish their proposed rules in the Federal Register.
Comment Period: The public, stakeholders, and experts submit written feedback.
Final Rule: Agency reviews comments and issues a final rule with explanations.
Why Is Public Comment Important?
Prevents arbitrary agency action.
Encourages more informed and democratic policy-making.
Holds agencies accountable.
Gives affected parties a voice before rules bind them.
Landmark Cases on Opportunity for Public Comment
1. American Mining Congress v. EPA (1976)
Citation: 824 F.2d 1177 (D.C. Cir.)
Facts: The EPA attempted to issue a final rule without following proper notice-and-comment procedures.
Issue: Whether the EPA violated the APA by failing to provide an opportunity for public comment.
Holding: The court held that EPA must adhere to the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures unless an exception applies.
Significance: Reinforced that agencies cannot bypass public participation except in narrow circumstances (like “good cause” emergencies).
2. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC (1978)
Citation: 435 U.S. 519
Facts: Environmental groups challenged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) rulemaking process for lack of adequate public participation.
Issue: Whether courts can impose additional procedural requirements beyond the APA.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that courts must not impose procedural requirements beyond those in the APA.
Significance: This case established the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements as the exclusive procedural standard for federal agencies, limiting judicial overreach.
3. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (1983)
Citation: 463 U.S. 29
Facts: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) rescinded a mandatory seatbelt rule without providing adequate explanation or considering public comments.
Issue: Whether the agency’s action was arbitrary and capricious.
Holding: The Court held the agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously for failing to consider relevant factors and public input.
Significance: Though mainly about arbitrary and capricious review, this case emphasized the importance of public input in rulemaking.
4. Pacific States Box & Basket Co. v. White (1935)
Citation: 296 U.S. 176
Facts: California adopted rules without public notice.
Issue: Whether due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard in administrative rulemaking.
Holding: The Court held that public notice and an opportunity to comment are required before rules become effective.
Significance: One of the earliest cases recognizing the need for public participation in administrative rulemaking.
5. Chrysler Corp. v. Brown (1979)
Citation: 441 U.S. 281
Facts: The Department of Defense issued regulations without following proper notice and comment.
Issue: Whether the agency violated the APA’s procedural requirements.
Holding: The Court held that agencies must comply with the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures.
Significance: Reaffirmed the mandatory nature of public comment and notice requirements.
6. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971)
Citation: 401 U.S. 402
Facts: The Department of Transportation approved highway construction without adequate public input.
Issue: Whether the agency’s decision-making process was subject to judicial review for compliance with procedural requirements.
Holding: The Court held agencies must follow proper procedures, including public input.
Significance: Highlighted the importance of procedural safeguards and public participation.
7. Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro (2018)
Citation: 579 U.S. ___
Facts: The Department of Labor excluded certain workers from overtime protections without adequate notice and comment.
Issue: Whether the agency violated the APA by failing to consider public comments properly.
Holding: The Court emphasized agencies must consider significant comments and explain their responses.
Significance: Reinforced that public comments must be meaningfully considered, not ignored.
Summary of Legal Principles
Notice and comment are mandatory under the APA except in specific “good cause” exceptions.
Agencies must genuinely consider the comments received.
Courts will invalidate rules if agencies fail to follow proper procedures or ignore public input.
The process promotes transparency, accountability, and better policy.
RELATED Blog
0 comments