Contents

Informal RulemakingEdit

Informal rulemaking stands as the backbone of how federal agencies translate statute into practice without saddling the process with the rigidity of a full-blown trial. Under the framework established by the Administrative Procedure Act, agencies typically issue rules through a notice-and-comment process that invites public input before a final rule is published. Proponents view it as a practical balance: it channels expert agency capabilities and public scrutiny into policy, while keeping the pace of governance aligned with changing conditions. Critics, however, point to concerns about influence, transparency, and accountability. The debate around informal rulemaking is inseparable from broader questions about how best to govern a complex economy with limited federal capacity.

From a historical standpoint, informal rulemaking emerged as the default mode for most regulatory action, replacing the older notion that major rules must be established through formal hearings. The key idea is that agencies, wielding technical expertise, can craft rules that reflect statutory aims while still inviting input from businesses, consumers, and other stakeholders. At its core, the process rests on two pillars: public notice and a period for comment, followed by a reasoned final rule that addresses the significant points raised during the process. This design aims to keep policy grounded in statutory authority while preserving accountability to the people through their representatives and through public scrutiny of agency reasoning. See, for example, Administrative Procedure Act and notice-and-comment rulemaking practices.

Background and framework

The Administrative Procedure Act provides the formal structure for how most federal regulatory action is made. It distinguishes between different kinds of rules and actions, with informal rulemaking generally covering the vast majority of legislative rules issued after the notice-and-comment period. In certain cases, agencies issue interpretive rules or guidance that does not go through the same level of procedural formality, because those actions do not carry the same kind of binding, generally applicable effect as substantive rules. See interpretive rule and Legislative rule definitions.

  • Legislative rules: These are rules with the power to create, enlarge, or modify statutory rights and duties. They are typically subject to the notice-and-comment process, and they must be grounded in statutory authority. See legislative rule.
  • Interpretive rules and guidance: These interpret how existing statutes and regulations should be understood; they do not themselves alter rights or obligations in the same binding way as legislative rules. See interpretive rule.
  • Public participation: The central feature of informal rulemaking is the opportunity for interested parties to submit comments, data, and arguments. Agencies must consider these inputs and respond to significant points in the final rule. See public comment.

Public notice typically appears in the Federal Register and may be complemented by hearings, workshops, or data requests. The goal is to build a record demonstrating why a rule is necessary, how it will be implemented, and what impacts are expected. Agencies are also required to conduct some form of economic or regulatory impact analysis in many cases, weighing costs against benefits. See Regulatory impact analysis and cost-benefit analysis.

  • Economic and distributive effects: The process often contemplates analysis of how a rule affects businesses of different sizes, workers, and consumers. The goal is to ensure that the rule’s benefits justify its costs and to offer relief where warranted for small entities. See Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
  • Judicial review: Final rules can be challenged in federal court on grounds that the agency acted beyond statutory authority, failed to comply with the APA’s procedural requirements, or acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. See Judicial review of agency action and Chevron deference.

The rulemaking process

  • Notice and proposed rule: An agency publishes a proposed rule, describing the intended change and its rationale, and invites public comment. This phase makes the agency’s thinking visible and creates input channels for affected parties. See notice-and-comment rulemaking.
  • Comment period and input: Stakeholders may submit data, analyses, and perspectives. Agencies often hold hearings or public listening sessions to gather diverse views. See public comment.
  • Responsive drafting: The agency considers significant comments, may revise the proposal, and prepares a final rule with a responsive section that explains how input shaped the outcome. See final rule and regulatory impact analysis.
  • Publication and implementation: The final rule is published in the Federal Register and becomes effective after a stated period, subject to judicial review if challenged. See effective date and Congressional Review Act.
  • Oversight and sunset considerations: In many cases, agencies may build in sunset provisions or require periodic reviews to ensure that rules remain aligned with current conditions. See sunset provisions.

Along the way, a number of doctrines and standards shape how much weight courts give to agency interpretations. The balance between deference to agency expertise and adherence to statutory text is a live issue, especially when rules address major questions of economy or policy. See Chevron deference and major questions doctrine.

Controversies and debates

From a perspective that prioritizes practical efficiency and clear accountability, informal rulemaking is a pragmatic mechanism for translating policy intent into binding standards while maintaining room for expert input. Yet critics—often pointing to a large and diverse regulatory landscape—identify several areas of concern.

  • Influence and access: The public-comment stage can be crowded by well-resourced actors who can afford data, lobby, and litigate. Proponents argue the process still exposes agency thinking to broader scrutiny, but skeptics worry about net influence skewing outcomes toward those with the loudest voices rather than the broad public interest. See public comment.
  • Transparency and accountability: While the process is open, some observers argue that the behind-the-scenes drafting and the occasional use of guidance that falls short of formal rulemaking reduce transparency. Advocates contend that the final record and the opportunity to comment provide sufficient accountability. See guidance document.
  • Scope and burden on small entities: Critics point to regulatory burdens and ongoing compliance costs, especially for small businesses. The regulatory flexibility framework intends to mitigate this, but debates persist about whether protections are sufficient. See Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
  • Judicial deference and major questions: Courts have debated how much deference to give agency interpretations of statutes. A growing emphasis on the major questions doctrine argues for explicit congressional authorization for significant policy decisions, while others defend steady, predictable deference to expertise. See Chevron deference and major questions doctrine.

  • Democratic legitimacy and speed: Critics claim that a sprawling rulemaking enterprise bypasses direct legislative accountability. Proponents, however, note that the process is grounded in statutory authorization, involves public input, and can be more timely and responsive than waiting for congressional action. See Administrative Procedure Act.

  • Woke criticisms and defensibility: Critics from certain circles argue that informal rulemaking can enable progressive or activist agendas to take shape through administrative action rather than legislative debate. From the perspective favored here, those criticisms miss the core point: rules are anchored in statutory authority, subject to public input, and open to judicial review. The process remains a check on executive action and a vehicle for accountability, not a license for unaccountable governance. It is also a blueprint for predictable rule implementation that reduces the chance of abrupt policy reversals and regulatory uncertainty.

Reforms and prospects

  • Streamlining and predictability: Proposals focus on clarifying when cost-benefit analyses are required, tightening timelines, and ensuring that major rules undergo explicit statutory authorizations. See cost-benefit analysis and statutory authority.
  • Sunset and sunset-like reviews: Embedding automatic sunset provisions or regular review cycles can prevent rules from becoming outdated or unnecessarily burdensome. See sunset provisions.
  • Enhanced transparency while protecting legitimate interests: Advocates seek clearer disclosure of data, model assumptions, and analytic methods used in rulemaking, balanced against legitimate concerns about sensitive information. See transparency in government.
  • Recalibrating deference and statutory interpretation: Some reformers push for a more text-focused approach to statutes, with courts reviewing agency action for alignment with statutory text while limiting expansive interpretive grants. See Chevron deference and major questions doctrine.

See also