notice-and-comment rulemaking

Improving comment solicitation and fixing Regulations.gov will enhance access to the regulatory process.

Agencies should consider new tools to expand access to public opinion in the rulemaking process.

OIRA should add a benefit-cost analysis focused on protecting the poor when evaluating new agency rules.

Scholars and policymakers should recognize the democratic benefits of public comments.

Alternative agency outreach methods can garner useful feedback and reduce pressure on the notice and comment process.

ACUS should discourage the submission of mass comments in the notice and comment rulemaking process.

Agencies can welcome public participation while discouraging the submission of mass comments.

Mass comments policy should consider agencies’ roles as apolitical policymakers.

Courts should not rely on the number of public comments to assess the legality of regulations.

Agencies can do more to disclose input on regulatory alternatives during notice-and-comment processes.

ACUS recommends best practices for how agencies manage mass, computer-generated, and falsely attributed public comments.

Scholars argue that federal agencies should not use guidance documents to regulate controversial issues.