Use of e-rulemaking platforms
✅ What Is E-Rulemaking?
E-rulemaking (electronic rulemaking) refers to the use of digital tools and online platforms by administrative agencies to conduct rulemaking processes. This includes:
Publishing proposed rules online.
Receiving and processing public comments electronically.
Using data analytics or AI tools to analyze feedback.
Enhancing transparency and access to rulemaking records.
The primary platform used in the U.S. is Regulations.gov, operated by the eRulemaking Program Management Office (under GSA).
📜 Legal Framework
The foundation for e-rulemaking lies in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946, especially the informal rulemaking provisions under 5 U.S.C. § 553, which require:
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
Opportunity for public comment.
Consideration of relevant matter presented before issuing the final rule.
Although the APA does not explicitly mandate electronic processes, the E-Government Act of 2002 and executive orders (e.g., E.O. 13563 and 12866) encourage the use of technology to modernize public participation.
⚖️ Key Case Law Related to E-Rulemaking
Here are six major cases involving e-rulemaking or significant implications for its legal use and evolution:
1. Citizens for a Better Environment v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 384 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004)
📝 Facts:
Environmental groups challenged a final rule issued by the Department of the Interior, alleging that the agency ignored online comments submitted via Regulations.gov.
⚖️ Holding:
The court ruled that agencies must consider all substantive comments, regardless of how they are submitted (online or by mail).
It emphasized that dismissing electronically submitted comments violates the APA's procedural requirements.
🔍 Importance:
Established that comments submitted through e-rulemaking platforms are equally valid and must be addressed.
Reinforced the need for transparent processing of digital input.
2. Becerra v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 381 F. Supp. 3d 1153 (N.D. Cal. 2019)
📝 Facts:
California sued the Department of the Interior for repealing the 2016 Valuation Rule (related to fossil fuel royalties) without proper consideration of comments submitted through e-rulemaking.
⚖️ Holding:
The court found the repeal arbitrary and capricious under the APA.
The agency failed to meaningfully engage with substantive public input, including comments submitted online.
🔍 Relevance:
Demonstrated how failure to address digital comments can invalidate a rule.
Highlighted courts’ willingness to scrutinize e-comment handling in APA review.
3. United Steel v. Mine Safety and Health Administration, 925 F.3d 1279 (D.C. Cir. 2019)
📝 Facts:
Unions challenged the agency’s final rule on exposure to diesel exhaust in mines. They claimed the agency failed to respond adequately to public comments submitted electronically.
⚖️ Holding:
The D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of the union, finding that the agency did not sufficiently explain why it rejected public concerns raised via e-comments.
APA demands a “reasoned explanation” for rejecting significant input.
🔍 Significance:
Validated that comments submitted through e-rulemaking are substantive and must be addressed.
Agency silence or evasion in e-comment review can lead to vacatur of rules.
4. National Ass’n of Home Builders v. EPA, 682 F.3d 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2012)
📝 Facts:
Industry groups challenged EPA’s stormwater rule, claiming that the notice published online and subsequent comment period were inadequate under the APA.
⚖️ Holding:
The court ruled that while online notice is sufficient, the agency must give a clear, accessible opportunity for public input.
EPA had properly used Regulations.gov to meet APA standards.
🔍 Importance:
Confirmed that online posting of NPRMs meets legal notice requirements.
Supported e-rulemaking legitimacy under APA as long as it facilitates fair participation.
5. American Radio Relay League v. FCC, 524 F.3d 227 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
📝 Facts:
The FCC failed to disclose technical studies in its electronic docket, and stakeholders argued they couldn’t meaningfully comment.
⚖️ Holding:
The D.C. Circuit held the FCC’s final rule violated the APA because it withheld key documents from public access.
Even in an electronic docket, full disclosure is necessary to allow informed public comment.
🔍 Relevance:
Ensured that agencies must upload complete administrative records into e-rulemaking platforms.
Set precedent for data transparency obligations in digital dockets.
6. New York v. U.S. Department of Labor, 477 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2020)
📝 Facts:
Multiple states challenged the DOL’s final rule interpreting joint employer standards under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs claimed the Department ignored over 30,000 comments, most submitted electronically.
⚖️ Holding:
The rule was vacated in part for being arbitrary and capricious.
The court emphasized that agencies must consider the weight of public comments, even if repetitive or submitted online.
🔍 Importance:
Reinforced that high volumes of e-comments cannot be dismissed as “form letters.”
Every substantive concern raised in electronic submissions must be evaluated.
🧠 Key Legal Principles Derived from These Cases
| Principle | Legal Source / Case |
|---|---|
| E-comments are equal in legal force | Citizens for a Better Environment |
| Failure to consider e-comments invalidates rules | Becerra, United Steel, New York v. DOL |
| Transparency in online dockets is mandatory | American Radio Relay League v. FCC |
| Agencies must respond to significant digital input | United Steel, New York v. DOL |
| Online publication satisfies APA notice requirement | National Ass’n of Home Builders v. EPA |
🧩 Challenges and Issues in E-Rulemaking
Mass Comment Campaigns: Agencies often receive hundreds of thousands of identical or bot-generated comments.
Still, courts require agencies to analyze themes or issues, even from form letters.
Algorithmic Filtering: Use of AI to group or summarize comments raises questions about loss of nuance.
Access and Equity: Not all stakeholders have equal digital literacy or internet access, affecting participation.
Comment “Flooding”: Strategic mass comments may dilute meaningful input, which agencies must still consider under APA.
✅ Conclusion
The use of e-rulemaking platforms has become central to the modern regulatory state. Courts have repeatedly affirmed that:
Electronic comments must be given full procedural weight.
Transparency in digital dockets is mandatory.
Rules can be vacated if agencies ignore or mishandle online public participation.
Agencies must ensure that their technological practices comply with APA standards, and courts are increasingly scrutinizing how e-rulemaking is executed—not just whether it exists.
RELATED Blog
0 comments