The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
When Does a Regulation Become Final?
The D.C. Circuit resolves a dispute over which set of visa regulations bind the public.
Today, in National Council of Agricultural Employers v. U.S. Department of Labor, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit helped bring a little more clarity to the question of when a new regulation becomes binding upon the public. Senior Circuit Judge Ginsburg wrote for court, joined by Judges Katsas and Childs.
The introduction of Judge Ginsburg's opinion effectively summarizes the nature and significance of the dispute, and the court's conclusions.
This case presents a recurring question of administrative law: At what point does a substantive rule submitted by an agency to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for publication become final so that it cannot be withdrawn or amended without going through the notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act? The answer to this question is particularly significant during transitions between one presidential administration and the next. Those periods are often marked by a flurry of rulemaking activity. Agency leaders of the departing administration work furiously to finalize and publish new regulations, then newly appointed leaders act expeditiously to withdraw unpublished rules that might be inconsistent with the new administration's priorities, while through it all the OFR beavers away trying to keep up with the changes.
Ambiguity regarding the legal significance of processing by the OFR can result in regulatory uncertainty that persists well past the presidential transition period, as this case illustrates. In 2019 the Department of Labor (DoL) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend its 2010 regulations regarding a visa program. During the last days of the Trump Administration in 2021, the DoL announced to the public and submitted to the OFR for publication in the Federal Register what it characterized as a final rule. While the OFR was processing the rule, however, the DoL under President Biden withdrew it. Then, in 2022, the DoL issued a new rule based upon the 2019 NPRM.
The question here is which rule marked the culmination of the rulemaking process that began in 2019, the 2021 Trump rule or the 2022 Biden rule? Or, more generally, at what point does a substantive rule submitted to the OFR for publication become final so that a new round of notice and comment is required before the agency can change or withdraw the rule?
In this case, we hold the rulemaking process culminated in the 2022 Rule. A substantive rule is not ordinarily final until the OFR makes it available for public inspection. At that juncture the rule is "duly fixed," GPA Midstream Ass'n v. Dep't of Transp., 67 F.4th 1188, 1195 (D.C. Cir. 2023), and "becomes 'valid' against the public at large," Humane Soc'y v. USDA, 41 F.4th 564, 570 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (quoting 44 U.S.C. § 1507). Although an agency can "for good cause," 5 U.S.C. § 553(d)(3), make a rule final without processing by the OFR — by putting it into effect expeditiously and giving actual notice of the official rule to members of the public — the DoL did not do so here. Instead, the DoL made the 2021 Rule contingent upon processing by the OFR and then withdrew the rule before it became final.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Article I Section 1 gives "all" lawmaking power to the legisilature. Until Congress has approved a regulation, it is not in effect. Congress should be forced to read the 10000 pages of the Federal Register into the record, or the regulation is voided. Then vote for or against each. Nor may Congress delegate its power enumerated in the constitution. If Congress argues, it is too time consuming, too bad. That burden is multiplied by 1000 for the victims of these quack, anti-scientific regulations, reflecting the selfish interests of horrible people out to destroy America, the Deep State. No one can even understand the Federal Register. The APA should require that all rules be written at the 6th grade reading level or be void, not voidable. That impossible to read Federal Register fails to provide adequate notice to the victims of the Deep State. The authors of the Federal Register should also be named with their home addresses. That way their victims may visit them.
"All" is a Sesame Street vocabulary word. It is different from "some" and from "none." Why can't the lawyer comply with its meaning?
This is another fictitious practice in the law. The toxic lawyer may not criticize any cult, any delusional mental patient, any mental patient with pseudologia fantastica, any psycho witch doctors, any necromancers, or any mystics. It as full of shit as they are.
I get you're maybe engaging bit a lit of hyperbole here but systems like this do exist in many countries.
In the UK, Acts of Parliament can give ministers the power to make secondary legislation. Depending on how 'important' a matter is (as set out in the underlying Act), it then goes into one of a number of tracks.
Under the Affirmative Procedure, the statutory instrument needs an affirmative vote in parliament. In the case of some emergency legislation (like the Civil Continences Act), the SI might come into power straight away under what's called made affirmative - subject to an affirmative vote within a time limit. In less emergency cases, it will only come into effect after being approved. Unlike with an Act of Parliament, SI are subject to judicial view (that is - courts can strike them down) and are subject to an yes/no vote, with no amendments.
Less important SIs are dealt with under the Negative Procedure. They are laid before parliament and become law after a time limit. However, if either House of Parliament votes against them in that time limit, they are blocked. The system for the House of Commons to block them is a bit ad hoc and uncommon (remember under the Westminster system the PM must control a majority in the Commons to stay PM). So for that house checks tend to be purely legal - does the SI conform to the rules. But there's a House of Lords who does more policy based reviews and can recommend SIs be put before the full house for a vote.
The SCOTUS said a system like the Negative Procedure was unconstitutional, which I tend to view as fairly perverse. Unstrained executive lawmaking seems far worse to me.
"Unstrained executive lawmaking..."
Unrestrained?
Sorry, yes!