The Informal
Rulemaking Process
The
summary that follows was prepared to help the public better understand how the
rulemaking process works so that you may more effectively participate in it. We
prepared it particularly for individuals, small businesses, and others who do
not participate in the process on a regular basis. We want to stress that this
web page provides only a brief summary – and one that we attempted to keep
simple – of what we believe are the important elements in the process. It should
not be relied on as a legal document. In our “Rulemaking
Requirements” document provided elsewhere on regs.dot.gov, we provide
hyperlinks to give you easy access to the statutes, executive orders, guidance
documents, memoranda, etc. that contain the actual legal requirements or provide
guidance on the process.
What is rulemaking?
Rulemaking is a process for developing and issuing rules (rules are also
referred to as “regulations”). The process can lead to the issuance of a new
rule, an amendment to an existing rule, or the repeal of an existing rule.
What is a rule?
There
are basically three types. The legal distinctions are not always clear, and an
agency document or statement can contain more than one kind of rule. The three
basic types are:
-
Legislative (sometimes called “substantive”) Rules.
These are rules that implement a statute. They have the force and effect of
law; that is, they are legally binding on the agency, the public, and the
courts. For example, such a rule might say: “you must not operate your
aircraft within 20 miles of a thunderstorm.”
-
Non-legislative Rules.
These rules are often referred to as “guidance.” (More
information on guidance documents
at DOT can be found elsewhere on this website.)
-
Interpretive Rules.
These tell the public what the agency thinks the statute and the rules the
agency administers mean. For example, the agency might tell you how it
defines “thunderstorm.”
-
Policy Statements.
These tell the public how the agency plans to exercise a discretionary
power. For example, the agency might tell you that, because of a series of
accidents, it plans to place enforcement emphasis on its “thunderstorm”
rule.
-
Management and Procedural Rules.
-
Management or Personnel.
These involve the running or supervising of the agency’s business. They
concern the agency and do not affect the public.
-
Organization, Procedure,
or Practice.
These describe the agency’s structure and functions and the way in which
its determinations are made.
What is the
agency’s authority to issue legislative rules?
An
agency cannot issue a legislative rule unless it is provided the authority to do
so by statute. The statutory delegation can range from broad discretionary
authority to a very specific mandate. For example, Congress could delegate to
DOT the authority to set minimum safety standards for the manufacture of
automobiles that will be sold in the U.S. Alternatively, the statute could
mandate that DOT require airbags in all motor vehicles, that those airbags meet
standards specified in the statute, and that the airbags be installed in all
motor vehicles manufactured after a specified date. Between these two extremes,
DOT may be delegated different levels of discretion. For example, a statute
could mandate that DOT issue a final rule to decrease the number of fatalities
and injuries occurring in frontal collisions involving motor vehicles. Or the
statute could mandate that DOT require airbags in all motor vehicles but give
DOT the discretion to determine the specific standards the airbags must meet and
the deadline by which they must be installed.
How does an
agency identify the need for a rulemaking?
There
are many reasons why an agency may decide to initiate the rulemaking process.
The major reasons for DOT agencies fit mostly in the following categories:
-
Statutory mandate.
Congress may specifically
require a rule or at least the initiation of the rulemaking process –
sometimes with a deadline.
-
Agency identification of a problem.
To the extent an agency
has discretion to decide whether to issue a rule, it may identify the need to
initiate the rulemaking process in a variety of ways, including the following:
We may identify a problem as a result of inspectors’ reports or general
agency oversight. For example, we review accident reports or data that may
show an increasing safety problem with motor vehicle side collisions or leaks
of hazardous materials during transportation. Investigations of accidents may
indicate a manufacturing problem that needs to be addressed. We may have
difficulties enforcing existing rules, and this may provide evidence of a need
to modify the rules. Requests for interpretations or exemptions may
demonstrate that a rule needs to be clarified or modified. Finally, changes in
technology may justify a change to a rule. For example, new technology may
warrant modifying existing rules to permit the use of new materials. The
accessibility of the internet may justify changing reporting requirements to
permit electronic filing.
-
Petition for rulemaking.
The public has the right
to petition an agency to issue, modify, or rescind a rule, and we may agree on
the need for action.
-
NTSB, GAO, IG, or similar recommendations.
Recommendations for rules
may come from the National Transportation Safety Board, the Government
Accountability Office, the DOT Inspector General, or special commissions or
other bodies asked by Congress or the President to develop recommendations on
particular issues.
Agencies may use risk assessments – an analytical tool for determining the
probability of a problem occurring (e.g., an accident) and the probability of
the problem causing harm (e.g., personal injuries) – to help it determine
whether to initiate rulemaking and perhaps which rulemakings need priority
attention.
How does an agency initially determine the best solution to a problem?
Before
deciding to start the rulemaking process, an agency evaluates possible
alternatives. For example, we evaluate whether the problem might be fixed
without the issuance of a rule, through what is often referred to as
“marketplace incentives.” For example, we look at whether consumer reactions to
a problem will result in a manufacturer making changes to fix the problem. We
may also consider whether there are less burdensome alternatives than requiring
such things as changing a manufacturing process or an operating procedure; for
example, we may decide that requiring the disclosure of information on or
labeling a product would achieve the agency’s objective. We may also evaluate a
range of possible substantive alternatives to fixing the problem. For example,
we might assess whether we should require replacement of a part or more frequent
inspections of it. Whenever possible, agencies try to use performance standards
rather than design standards. The latter would prescribe a specific fix, such as
half-inch thick steel plating. The former sets a standard or objective that must
be met. For example, if a crash test with dummies is required, the test
instruments in the dummies must show that injuries did not exceed a specified
level. The manufacturer can meet the performance standard through whatever means
it deems best.
Agencies use economic analyses (sometimes referred to as benefit-cost analyses,
regulatory impact analyses, or regulatory evaluations) to help them determine
the best alternative and whether the benefits of the rule would justify its
costs.
What are the legal requirements for the informal rulemaking process?
Unless
otherwise indicated, this summary briefly describes the process for issuing
legislative rules – those that are legally binding.
Administrative Procedure Act.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) sets forth the basic requirements for
“informal rulemaking,” the process generally used by agencies to issue
legislative rules. There are numerous other statutes, executive orders, or
agency rules that may impose additional requirements. For example, agencies
have the discretion to hold public hearings or meetings, but some statutes may
require them for particular rulemakings. Other statutes may require special
analyses under particular circumstances.
NPRM.
The informal rulemaking process, which often is referred to as
“notice-and-comment rulemaking,” requires that an agency first issue a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and provide an opportunity for public comment on the
proposal before it can issue a final rule. There are exceptions to the
requirement for notice and comment. Some agency rulemakings are completely
exempted. Other rulemakings may be exempted for “good cause” (“impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest;” e.g., for such things as
“emergencies”).
The
NPRM must have a preamble, but proposed rule text (the “you must not operate
your aircraft within 20 miles of a thunderstorm” type language) is optional.
DOT agencies rarely, if ever, omit the proposed rule text. The NPRM also
includes such information as the deadline for comments, how and where to file
comments, and people to contact for information about the proposal.
The
preamble explains the need and the authority for the proposed rule, including a
discussion of any statutory constraints. It also explains any rule text or
subjects and issues involved. This would include how the agency chose its
proposed solution to the problem or need for the rule. For example, it may
explain the safety data that justifies the proposed rule and applying it to
certain individuals but not to others. The preamble will also often contain
summaries of or the actual analyses the agency has prepared for the proposal
(e.g., the risk assessment and the economic analysis). Although the public may
comment on anything in the proposal, including the agency’s analyses, the agency
may include specific questions on which it particularly wants public comment and
data.
NPRM
publication.
When an agency issues an NPRM, it is normally published in the
Federal Register, which is
like a “legal newspaper” for the Federal government. If it is not published in
the Federal Register, the agency must personally serve all affected
persons with a copy. This may be done when, for example, a rule only applies to
the owners of a particular aircraft, and the owners are registered with the
issuing agency and easily served.
Public comment period.
Generally, agencies will allow 60 days for public comment. Sometimes we provide
much longer periods. We may also use shorter periods where we can provide
justification for them. The public may also request more time; if you provide
justification, that will help us make a decision on whether to extend or reopen
the comment period. Agencies also may consider late-filed comments, to the
extent their decisionmaking schedule permits that; commenters should, however,
try to meet the published deadline, since there is no certainty their late-filed
comments will be considered. Agencies usually provide information about whether
they will consider late-filed comments in the proposed rule and/or their
procedural rules.
Public docket.
The NPRM is also placed in the public docket for that rulemaking. The
rulemaking docket is the file in which DOT places all of the rulemaking
documents it issues (e.g., the NPRM, hearing notices, extensions of comment
periods, and final rules), supporting documents that it prepares (e.g., economic
and environmental analyses), studies that it relies on that are not readily
available to the public, all public comments related to the rulemaking (e.g.,
comments that may be received in anticipation of the rulemaking, comments
received during the comment period, and late-filed comments), and other related
documents. Although it is our policy to discourage them outside of any public
meeting or hearing, we sometimes receive substantive oral communications
(sometimes referred to as “ex parte” contacts) concerning a rulemaking;
if we do, it is our policy to prepare summaries of those public contacts and
place them in the docket.
The
public dockets for DOT and other executive branch agency rulemakings can be
found at
Regulations.gov. That site is
searchable by docket number, among other things, and the docket number may be
found at the beginning of the NPRM. DOT agencies use the electronic,
internet-accessible dockets at Regulations.gov as their complete,
official-record docket; all hard copies of materials that should be in the
docket, including public comments, are electronically scanned and placed in the
docket.
Public comments.
Agencies may receive anywhere from no comments to tens or hundreds of thousands
of comments or more. They can be brief one-line or one-paragraph comments, or
they may contain thousands of pages with detailed analysis. We at DOT have found
that public comments can be very helpful. We want public comment. We recognize
that we do not have all the answers, that the public may identify a better way
for us to achieve our objective, and that they may point out problems with our
proposal that we did not see. Our rules are improved through public
participation.
At the
same time, we note that public commenters sometimes make assertions without
including data to support them. They may contain arguments or data that conflict
with those provided by other commenters. They may be vague or unclear. They may
state a position without providing an explanation. While the number of
commenters who support or oppose a particular proposal is important information,
the agency’s decision cannot be based on as simple tally of “votes.” Pursuant
to the APA, the agency’s decision has to be reasonable; we have to provide a
basis for our decision and show how our rule will achieve its purpose. Based on
our experience, we have developed
guidance on how the public can provide effective comments, which can
be found elsewhere on this web page.
Logical outgrowth test.
The APA notice-and-comment process recognizes that changes may be made to the
proposed rule based on the public comments received, but the courts have
required that any changes made in the final rule be of a type that could have
been reasonably anticipated by the public – a logical outgrowth of the proposal.
If the “logical outgrowth test” is not met, we would need to provide a second
notice with an opportunity for public comment on the changes.
The
final rule.
After the comment period closes and the agency has reviewed the comments
received and analyzed them, we decide whether to proceed with the rulemaking we
proposed, issue a new or modified proposal, or withdraw the proposal. Before
reaching our final decision, we will make any appropriate revisions to the
various supporting analyses we prepared for the NPRM.
Any
final rule must include a preamble and the rule text. The preamble includes a
response to the significant, relevant issues raised in public comments and a
statement providing the basis and the purpose of the rule. (We respond to all
public comments at one time, in the preamble to the next rulemaking document
after the proposal, such as the final rule or a withdrawal of the proposal. We
do not respond to public comment by letter, email, or other individual means.)
The response to public comment does not have to be to each commenter; similar
comments may be grouped together with an opening statement such as “several
commenters suggested that…” or the commenters may be referred to by name. The
response also does not have to cover relatively minor comments, such as
editorial suggestions, although agencies may make general statements, such as
“several editorial changes where made at the suggestion of commenters.”
Final rule publication.
The final rule is published in the Federal Register or personally served
on affected interests. In addition, a copy is placed in the rulemaking docket
along with the final version of any supporting documents. The Office of the
Federal Register, on a rolling, annual basis, updates the
Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) to reflect the additions, changes, or rescissions, made by the rule text.
The CFR contains all Federal agency rules currently in effect as of the date of
its publication.
Effective date.
A final legislative rule cannot be made effective in less than 30 days after
publication, unless it is granting an exemption, relieving a restriction, or for
“good cause,” which includes such things as emergencies. Sometimes agencies
will set implementation or compliance dates that are later than the effective
date of the rule. This may be because the rule is being implemented in stages
following its effective date, because the agency may want to allow compliance
with the new rule before it is required, or for other reasons.
Exemptions.
Individuals or entities such as businesses can petition an agency for an
exemption from a final rule. We may grant it, if we find unique circumstances
not considered during rulemaking that we believe justifies the exemption. We may
attach conditions to the exemption.
May an agency supplement
the APA requirements?
Agencies may take steps in addition to the minimum requirements of the APA. We
generally take these extra steps to increase or improve the opportunities for
public participation and to obtain that participation very early in the
development process. The principal, additional steps taken by DOT agencies are
the following:
-
ANPRMs. We
may use an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) prior to the issuance
of an NPRM. We use them to get early public participation for a variety of
reasons, including when we –
-
Want comments on how to solve a problem before making a proposal.
-
Have identified a wide range of alternatives and want to narrow the choices
before making a proposal.
-
Need additional information to help analyze the problem and its solutions.
-
Requests for public comment.
This document may be very
similar to an ANPRM. We often use it to get comment or data on more limited
issues.
-
SNPRMs. We may
use a supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) when we want public comment on a new or
modified proposal. This step is especially valuable if we have concerns over
whether the changes to the proposal could be issued as a final rule under the
logical outgrowth test. Even if another round of comment on the proposals is
not required, we may seek additional comment to make sure we understood the
comments and responded appropriately. We also could use an SNPRM if we
received new information or identified changing circumstances.
-
IFRs. We may
issue an interim final rule (IFR) in situations where we have the authority to
issue a final rule, but we want an additional round of public comment on all
or part of the rule. We will review the comments we receive, do any
additional analysis that is necessary, and then decide whether to modify or
revoke the IFR or issue it as a final rule. Sometimes we will use an IFR to
get comment on the final rule after it goes into effect, so that the comments
can reflect experience under the rule.
-
Public meetings or hearings.
We may use public meetings
or hearings before or after a proposal is issued for a variety of reasons.
Public meetings allow us to ask questions. They allow for interaction among
participants with different views on the issues involved, and they provide a
better opportunity for members of the public who believe they are more
effective making oral presentations than submitting written comments. Agencies
are limited in the number of hearings they can hold by their resources.
-
Reply comments.
We may allow the public to
reply to comments submitted by others for a specified time period after the
close of the regular comment period. We would announce any reply comment
period in the proposed rule or by a subsequent notice.
-
Negotiated rulemaking.
Under the
negotiated rulemaking process, we may decide to convene a committee with
representatives of the interests that might be affected by a rule and an
agency representative. We ask the committee to negotiate a proposed rule. If
the agency head approves the proposal, it would be published under the APA
informal rulemaking procedures. After the comment period closes, the
committee would review any comments and make recommendations to the head of
the agency on whether to modify, reject, or publish the proposal as a final
rule.
-
Direct Final Rules.
Some DOT agencies have
issued rules that describe how and for what rulemakings they may use direct
final rules (DFRs). This is a streamlined rulemaking process in which the
agency only issues a DFR when it determines that it is unlikely that the DFR
would receive any comments in opposition during the time set aside before the
rule goes into effect. If the agency does receive a negative comment, it
would withdraw the DFR; if it decides that a final rule is still necessary,
the agency would have to first issue an NPRM under the APA notice-and-comment
requirements.
-
Electronic rulemaking.
We are taking increased
advantage of electronic technology to increase the opportunities for more
effective public participation in rulemaking. For example, one DOT agency has
used “chat rooms” during the comment periods on its rulemakings to allow more
interchange among commenters.
What is the role of DOT, the President, and other executive branch agencies in
the rulemaking process?
Agency
staffs generally have very good, informal, working relationships with staff from
other agencies that have related responsibilities. For example, DOT staff is in
regular contact with the Environmental Protection Agency on environmental issues
and the Department of Justice on issues involving access for disabled persons.
We also have formal requirements for coordination. For example, pursuant to
DOT procedures, we generally categorize rulemakings as significant or
non-significant. Significant rules are essentially those that are likely to
have high benefits or costs or are potentially controversial. If proposed or
final rules are significant, other DOT agencies, the Secretary of
Transportation, and, pursuant to executive order, the Office of Management and
Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) must review
them before they can be issued. Pursuant to another executive order, the Small
Business Administration’s (SBA) Chief Counsel for Advocacy must review proposed
and final rules anticipated to have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities before they can be issued; if we have
questions about the impact of our proposals on small entities, we will often
discuss these issues informally with this office earlier in the rulemaking
process. There are other statutes and executive orders that may require
coordination with other agencies in specific circumstances.
What is the
role of Congress in the rulemaking process?
Under
the Congressional review provisions in the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act, agencies must submit all final rules to Congress before they can
take effect. After submission, Congress can begin a process to overturn the
rule. Congress can also use a variety of processes as part of its oversight of
agency action, including holding hearings or informal meetings, issuing reports,
or adopting legislation.
What is the
role of the courts in the rulemaking process?
Under
the APA, a rule can be challenged in court because it is arbitrary, capricious,
an abuse of discretion, illegal, unconstitutional, in excess of statutory
authority, or the agency failed to follow legal procedures. The agency head can
also be sued to “compel action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” If
a court does set aside an agency’s rule for one of these reasons, if often sends
the matter back for further consideration by the agency. Other statutes may
provide specific authority to sue particular agencies for other reasons.
What actions do agencies take after they issue legislative rules that could
affect regulated entities?
An
agency may take a variety of actions after it issues final rules to help
regulated entities and others comply with the rules. We may issue guidance
material providing interpretations and agency policy on our own initiative, in
response to public requests, or in response to a statutory mandate. The guidance
may include training material that might be provided in a variety of formats
(e.g., hard-copy manuals and CDs). Much of this material is available through
agency websites.
We may
also conduct inspections, review records or reports, and take other steps to
ensure regulated entities understand and are complying with our rules. We may
follow this up with a meeting with the regulated entity to tell it what fixes
are necessary, or we may identify a problem with the clarity of the rule and
address that with changes to the rule. Our objective is to help our regulated
entities achieve compliance with our rules. If necessary, however, the agency
may take enforcement action against a noncompliant, regulated entity.
How does an agency determine whether its rules are working effectively?
DOT has
a regular plan for the review of its existing rules to determine whether they
are working effectively. A
description of this plan
is available on this website.
How do I get information on, or notices about, rulemakings on which agencies are
working?
DOT
prepares a number of reports to help the public learn about the substance and
status of our rulemaking activities:
-
Report on DOT
Significant Rulemakings.
At the
beginning of each month, we post a report on this website that provides a
summary and the status for all significant rulemakings that DOT currently has
pending or has issued recently. More information on this report can be found
at the above link, including information on how to receive email notifications
of the report.
-
Report on Effects of DOT
Rulemakings.
The public can
generate a separate report on this website for each of 21 possible, different
effects of DOT’s current rulemakings (e.g., effects on small entities or on
state and local governments). More information on these reports can be found
at the above link.
-
DOT’s Regulatory Agenda.
Twice a year,
as part of a government-wide effort, DOT publishes an Agenda of all of its
rulemaking activity. The Agenda includes brief descriptions of each
rulemaking, its current status, and a schedule for next actions. It is
published in Federal Register and made available on the internet.
In
addition to these regular reports, DOT agencies will sometimes issue press
announcements, post information on their specific websites, and take other
actions to provide notice and information to interested persons.
How do I submit
comments to DOT on proposed rules?
We
prefer that comments be submitted electronically. It is easier for us to enter
them in the docket that way. It is also easier for us and the public to search
the documents for information. In addition, it will make it easier to use
computer software to help us and the public sort through comments, organize the
comments by subject, and do other things that allow more effective use of the
comments. We recognize that not everyone has easy internet access, so we do not
require electronic submission. You may send comments identified by Docket
Number using any of the following methods:
-
Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Go to
http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
-
Mail: Send
comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE, Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington,
DC 20590-0001.
-
Hand Delivery or Courier:
Bring comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building
Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
-
Fax: Fax
comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
Please
note that we will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
Using the search function of the docket website, anyone can find and read the
electronic form of all comments received in any of our dockets, including the
name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of
Transportation's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or
you may visit
http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
To read
rulemaking or background documents or comments received, you may go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time and follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket. Alternatively, you may go to Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
If you
have submitted your comments electronically, it is not necessary to submit a
hard copy. It is also not necessary for you to submit your comments more than
once. Doing either of these things may result in cluttering up the docket with
duplicate entries. Finally, you should follow the instructions for submission
to the docket; while we make every effort to ensure that all comments are placed
in the docket regardless of how or where they are received, if you submit your
comments to a departmental official or office other than as noted above, the
person receiving them may not know to send them to the docket.
How do I prepare effective
comments?
We want
your comments. We know we do not have all the answers or know about all of the
possible solutions to a problem. To the extent you provide us with good
comments, you will enhance our knowledge of the issues, and help us make better
rulemaking decisions. We encourage you to challenge our interpretations;
applications of data and research; factual assumptions; analytical
methodologies; factual, technical, and policy conclusions; practicability
assessments; and assessments of the benefits and other impacts of the proposal.
We want you to suggest reasonable alternatives to our proposals.
We have
asked professionals who review and respond to public comments from throughout
DOT for their suggestions on how the public can provide more effective comments.
The following list is intended to provide helpful suggestions on how to make
your comments more effective; they are not mandatory requirements.
-
Typewritten documents.
We prefer typewritten
documents; otherwise the reviewer may not be able read your handwriting. We do
not require this, however, because we recognize that everyone may not have
access to a typewriter or computer.
-
Electronic submissions.
We prefer that comments be
submitted electronically. It is much more efficient for us to enter them in
the docket that way. It is easier for us and the public to search the
comments for information. It will also make it easier to use computer
software to help us and the public sort through comments, organize the
comments by subject, and do other things that allow more effective use of the
comments. We recognize that everyone does not have easy internet access, so
we do not require electronic submission.
-
Docket ID. You
should identify the docket number for the rulemaking document on which you are
commenting. The docket number is provided near the very top of the rulemaking
proposal. You should also provide other identifying information, such as the
RIN (Regulation Identification Number), the title of the rulemaking, or the
Federal Register date and page number.
-
Agency questions.
We want your comments on
any part of the proposal on which you wish to comment. However, we often ask
questions or raise issues in rulemaking proposals on subjects where we
especially need more information. Please answer as many as you can.
-
Organized comments.
We sometimes ask you to
organize your comments under specific headings or by specific sections in the
rulemaking proposal; please try to do so. It will help the public and the
agency review the comments more easily and effectively.
-
Clear explanation and support for views.
You should explain your
views and reasoning as clearly as possible; provide the basis for your
assumptions; and provide empirical evidence or test data, wherever possible,
to support your views. By supporting your arguments, you are more likely to
persuade us to accept them. If you do not, and we do not have separate data to
support your submission, we cannot rely on it. We, the agencies, are required
to provide the basis for our final decisions.
-
Alternatives.
You should provide specific alternatives to the proposed rule, including rule
text, to help us ensure that, if we agree with your concerns, we can
effectively implement your suggestions. In addition, you should provide an
analysis of how your alternative(s) would be more effective than the agency’s
proposal.
-
Basis for calculations.
You should explain the
basis for and the calculations you used in developing any estimates regarding
the costs of compliance or the benefits of our proposals or your alternative(s).
If you do not, and we cannot determine how you arrived at the estimates you
provided, we cannot rely on them. We must be able to reproduce your results.
-
Examples of concerns.
You should provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. Real world
examples or possibilities can help us better understand those concerns.
-
Statutory limitations.
In preparing your
comments, you should consider the requirements and limitations of the
statutory authority under which the agency is making its proposal. You may be
objecting to a proposal over which the agency has no discretion; the agency
may be required to issue a final rule with that provision. You may also be
proposing an alternative that the agency has no authority to implement.
-
Your questions.
If you have questions – if
you do not understand a part of the proposal – you may ask for help. At the
beginning of the rulemaking proposal, the agency provides a person for you to
contact if you need more information. Although the agency can answer your
questions about the proposal’s meaning, it cannot take comments from you on
the proposal through these means.
-
Deadline. You
should comply with the deadline for submission of comments. The deadline for
comments is provided at the beginning of the rulemaking proposal.
|