Improving Regulatory Notice

Conteúdo do artigo principal

Joshua Ulan Galperin
E. Donald Elliott

Resumo

Effective notice of law is the cornerstone of any legal system, and yet many federal administrative agencies do not give small businesses, NGOs, and interested citizens notice of the vast amount of new or modified law they produce. They merely publish the text in the Federal Register, which works tolerably well for larger enterprises but not their smaller competitors and citizens’ groups. Despite these facts, few scholars have explored how agencies provide notice of the law. Even fewer have proposed ways that agencies could improve the methods they use for giving more effective notice of significant regulatory changes and thereby increase compliance and fairness. This Article therefore examines notice-giving among federal agencies. Based on dozens of stakeholder interviews, this Article uncovers inconsistencies and shortcomings in the approaches some agencies use to make available information regarding significant regulatory changes. Even more importantly, we highlight successful approaches that some agencies use to get the word out to all constituencies. We argue that adapting these best practices to other agencies and their audiences can improve the efficacy and fairness of U.S. administrative law overall.


To most, the study of administrative notice begins and ends with the Federal Register. However, in many circumstances, mere publication in the Federal Register is inadequate, particularly for marginalized communities and small entities. But even larger entities struggle to “connect the dots” between the materials agencies publish, for example, in the Federal Register, only on agency websites, as adjudicative orders, or as guidance. These shortcomings raise concerns about the fairness and efficacy of administrative processes, but providing effective notice of significant regulatory changes is not merely a policy concern. Constitutional principles, particularly the requirements of due process, as well as a variety of federal statutes, require that agencies give sufficient notice of certain regulatory changes.


To improve administrative governance and meet both constitutional and statutory commands, this Article proposes a comprehensive strategy to improve the way agencies give notice of significant regulatory changes. Our overarching proposal is that agencies should develop proactive notice plans that, among other things, identify target audiences, evaluate costs, and establish policies for gathering and periodically reevaluating data about the effectiveness of agency notice practices. Additional recommendations include improving the usability of the Federal Register, leveraging technological advancements for automated notifications, and developing accessible digests and user manuals.


The needs of each agency vary, but by adopting an appropriate combination of these measures, agencies can avoid legal risk, improve communication, foster compliance, invite meaningful participation, and reinforce the legitimacy of the regulatory system. Ultimately, this Article asserts that effective notice of significant regulatory change is not only a legal obligation but a fundamental democratic practice that supports informed citizenry and good governance.

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Detalhes do artigo

Como Citar
Galperin, J. U., & Elliott, E. D. (2026). Improving Regulatory Notice. Revista De Direito Administrativo, 285(2), 15–89. https://doi.org/10.12660/rda.v285.2026.98432
Seção
Artigos convidados
Biografia do Autor

Joshua Ulan Galperin, Pace University

Josh Galperin is a Professor of Law at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University.

E. Donald Elliott, Yale Law School

Don Elliott is a Doyle Winter Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law at Yale Law School, and was formerly General Counsel, Assistant Administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency, and a partner at several law firms.

Referências

E.g., FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239, 253 (2012).

Id.

E.g., Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 385-86 (2024).

Joshua Ulan Galperin, Governing Private Governance, 56 Ariz. State L.J. 765, 797 (2024).

Although important work does explore the substantive content (rather than tools and strategies) of agency notice. For example: plain language drafting, Blake Emerson & Cheryl Blake, Admin. Conf. of the U.S.: Plain Language Regulatory Drafting 1 (2017), https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Plain%20Regulatory%20 Drafting_Final%20Report.pdf [https://perma.cc/4W4X-TSQH]; agency guidance, Cary Coglianese, Admin. Conf. of the U.S.: Public Availability of Agency Guidance Documents 44 (2019), https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Coglianese%20Guidance%20Report%20to%20ACUS%2005.15.19%20-%20FINAL.pdf [https://perma. cc/W4EQ-T9CS]; making inoperative guidance publicly available, Admin. Conf. of the U.S. Recommendation 2021-7: Public Availability of Inoperative Agency Guidance Documents 4 (Dec. 16, 2021), https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Recommendation%202021-7%20%28Inoperative%20Guidance%29.pdf [https://perma. cc/4XD3-APN8]; and use of social media, Michael Herz, Admin. Conf. of the U.S.: Using Social Media in Rulemaking: Possibilities and Barriers 15 (2013), https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Herz%20Social%20Media%20Final%20Report.pdf [https://perma.cc/CS3P-ZBL2].

See Corner Post v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Rsrv., 603 U.S. 799, 809 (2024).

Id.

The last major congressional action related to regulatory notice was the Freedom of Information Act of 1966. See Freedom of Information Act of 1966, Pub. L. No. 89-487, 80 Stat. 250 (1966). Some research also addresses the issue of regulatory notice, though notice has been a secondary issue, see, e.g., Christopher J. Walker & Matthew Lee Wiener, Admin. Conf. of the U.S.: Agency Appellate Systems 46 (2020), https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Walker%20Wiener%20Agency%20Appellate%20Systems%20Report%20-%2012.14.2020.pdf [https://perma.cc/Z85D-BQNM]; or the question of notice has been limited to specific types of agency action, e.g., Coglianese, supra note 5, at 28; Todd Rubin, Admin. Conf. of the U.S.: Public Availability of Inoperative Agency Guidance Documents 3 (2021), https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Public%20Availabil-ity%20of%20Inoperative%20Agency%20Guidance%20Documents%20Final%20Report.pdf [https://perma.cc/H2E4-XFJW].

Admin. Conf. of the U.S., ACUS Panel 1: Identifying Underserved Communities, at 8:38 (YouTube, Nov. 3, 2021), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGsl93XmarA [https://perma.cc/78YX-LQE8].

See Federal Register Act, 44 U.S.C. §§ 1501-11.

Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552.

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C §§ 551-59.

For an explanation of these terms, see discussion infra Section IV.

For the full details of our methods, see Joshua Galperin & E. Donald Elliott, Admin. Conf. of the U.S.: Providing Effective Notice of Significant Regulatory Changes 33-35 (2022), https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Draft%20Report%20on%20Providing%20Effective%20Notice%20of%20Significant%20Regulatory%20Changes%20%28March%2025%2C%202022%29_2.pdf [https://perma.cc/2UJR-5PGE].

E.g., Michael Sant’Ambrogio & Glen Staszewski, Admin. Conf. of the U.S., Public Engagement with Agency Rulemaking 152 (2018), https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Public%20Engagement%20in%20Rulemaking%20Final%20Report.pdf [https://perma.cc/TR5J-6RDW]. Our own review of political science and other nonlegal literature, as well as discussions with scholars of political science and administrative governance, has returned no significant findings related to the best tools for notice of regulatory changes.

E.g., Telephone Interview with Interviewees 33–39, Gov’t Att’ys (Mar. 9, 2022).

E.g., Edward F. Novak & Charles W. Steese, Survey of Federal and State Environmental Crime Legislation, 34 Ariz. L. Rev. 571, 589 (1992); Anne Joseph O’Connell, Political Cycles of Rulemaking: An Empirical Portrait of the Modern Administrative State, 94 Va. L. Rev. 889, 928 (2008) (“[A]gency activity cannot be hidden if agencies expect anyone to comply with their rules.”).

Westlaw searches in the secondary sources database, and Google Scholar searches for “notice” and “voluntary compliance” in the same paragraph returned no results. E.g., Westlaw, “regulatory notice” /p “voluntary compliance”, 0 results (Nov. 22, 2025) (on file with author); Google Scholar, “regulatory notice” & “voluntary compliance”, 29 results (Nov. 22, 2025) (on file with author).

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 16–17, Non-Profit Att’ys (Feb. 16, 2022); Telephone Interview with Interviewee 23, Former Gov’t Att’y (July 12, 2021); Telephone Interview with Interviewee 30, Non-Profit Att’y (June 28, 2021).

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 23, supra note 19; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 30, supra note 19.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 30, supra note 19.

E.g., Jan M. Rosen, Tips for Coping With the Changes in the Tax Code, N.Y. Times (Feb. 23, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/business/tips-for-coping-with-the-changes-in-the-tax-code.html [https://perma.cc/6ZXE-KMQG].

The Agency, its Mission and Statutory Authority, IRS (May 29, 2025), https://www.irs. gov/about-irs/the-agency-its-mission-and-statutory-authority [https://perma.cc/72C3-JX4C].

Id.

Id.

Telephone Interviews with Interviewees 16-17, supra note 19; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 23, supra note 19; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 30, supra note 19.

See E. Donald Elliott, Re-Inventing Rulemaking, 41 Duke L.J. 1490, 1493-94 (1992); Nicholas R. Parrillo, Federal Agency Guidance and the Power to Bind: An Empirical Study of Agencies and Industries, 36 Yale J. Reg. 165, 184 (2019).

See Elliott, supra note 27, at 1493-94; Parrillo, supra note 27, at 165.

See Elliott, supra note 27, at 1491, 1493-94; Nicholas R. Parrillo, Admin. Conf. of the U.S., Federal Agency Guidance: An Institutional Perspective 28 (2017), https://www. acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/parrillo-agency-guidance-final-report.pdf [https://perma.cc/2JKQ-4DAV]; Blake Emerson & Ronald M. Levin, Admin. Conf. of the U.S., Agency Guidance Through Interpretive Rules: Research and Analysis 8 (2019) https:// www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ACUS%20IR%20final%20report.5.28.2019.pdf [https://perma.cc/CT2Z-CQQW].

49 U.S.C §§ 30101, 30106.

Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 452 F.3d 798, 799 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

Id. at 802-04.

Id. at 811.

Parrillo, supra note 29, at 20.

Id. at 178.

Id. at 180-81.

Id. at 183.

Corner Post v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Rsrv., 603 U.S. 799, 801 (2024).

See, e.g., Admin. Conf. of the U.S., Recent Administrative Law Developments: Corner Post v. Federal Reserve, at 37:45 (YouTube, Aug. 1, 2024), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QbkhaZEqlY&t=16s [https://perma.cc/TE4G-G2SS].

FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239, 253 (2012).

U.S. Const. amend. V.

Gen. Elec. Co. v. EPA, 53 F.3d 1324, 1328 (D.C. Cir. 1995).

Id.

Id.

44 U.S.C. § 1507(1).

5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(A). However, there is some uncertainty, described below, about whether the Freedom of Information Act requires agencies to publish certain guidance documents in the Federal Register. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1). It is also worth noting that agencies can and do use a notice and comment process to publish material in the Federal Register even if that material is not strictly subject to such requirements.

See U.S. v. Chrysler Corp., 158 F.3d 1350, 1354 (D.C. Cir. 1998).

FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239, 253 (2012).

BMW of N. Am. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 574 (1996).

Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314-15 (1950); see also Adamo Wrecking Co. v. United States, 434 U.S. 275, 290 (1978) (Powell, J., concurring) (“The [thirty]-day limitation on judicial review imposed by the Clean Air Act would afford precariously little time for many affected persons even if some adequate method of notice were afforded. It also is totally unrealistic to assume that more than a fraction of the persons and entities affected by a regulation—especially small contractors scattered across the country—would have knowledge of its promulgation or familiarity with or access to the Federal Register.” (italics added)); Arthur Sapper, The Little Statute that Gets No Respect: How Courts Have Ignored the Administrative Procedure Act with Respect to Whether Pre-Enforcement Challenge Provisions are Exclusive, 35 BYU J. Pub. L. *1, *3 (2020).

Higashi v. U.S., 225 F.3d 1343, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

Id.

Id.

Id. at 1345.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 3, Gov’t Att’y (July 26, 2021); Telephone Interview with Interviewee 14, Regul. Att’y (June 23, 2021); Telephone Interview with Interviewee 15, Non-Profit Att’y (July 21, 2021); Telephone Interview with Interviewee 18, Non-Profit Att’y (Feb. 7, 2022); Telephone Interview with Interviewee 19, Micro-Business Owner (Feb. 28, 2022); Telephone Interview with Interviewees 25-27, Small Business Att’ys (Sep. 2, 2021).

John C. Sumberg, Note, El Derecho de Avisio: Due Process and Bilingual Notice, 83 Yale L.J. 385, 386, 390 (1973).

Gen. Elec. Co. v. EPA, 53 F.3d 1324, 1329 (D.C. Cir. 1995).

Id.

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at 42-43, SNR Wireless LicenseCo v. FCC, 868 F.3d 1021 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (No. 15-1330), cert. denied, 585 U.S. 1016 (2018).

Id.

One district court opinion suggests that when an agency publishes a document on its website, that website availability may satisfy due process. See Fuentes v. Azar, 468 F. Supp. 3d 83, 91 (D.D.C. 2020) (“But Plaintiff fails to explain how the right to a fair and open hearing compels Defendants to grant Plaintiff access . . . to records that . . . were . . . already available on the agency’s website”).

Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 317-18 (1950).

Id.; see also E. Donald Elliott & Joshua Galperin, Agency General Counsels, Beware, The Reg. Rev. (Sep. 7, 2022), https://www.theregreview.org/2022/09/07/elliot-galperin-agency-notice/ [https://perma.cc/Z7TU-C2J5].

44 U.S.C. § 1507(4) (“The publication in the Federal Register of a document creates a rebuttable presumption that all requirements of this chapter and the regulations prescribed under it relative to the document have been complied with.” (italics added)).

Id. § 1507; 5 U.S.C § 552(a)(2)(E).

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 40, Gov’t Att’y (July 8, 2021).

Id.

Kenneth Culp Davis, Administrative Law of the Seventies 75 (1st ed. 1976).

44 U.S.C. § 1505(b).

5 U.S.C. § 552(a).

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 4, Gov’t Att’y(July 26, 2021); Telephone Interview with Interviewees 12–13, Bus. Ass’n Att’ys (June 23, 2021); Telephone Interview with Interviewee 21, Former Non-Profit Att’y (July 15, 2021); Telephone Interview with Interviewee 22, Gov’t Att’y (July 14, 2021); Telephone Interview with Interviewee 28, Non-Profit Att’y (Feb. 4, 2022).

5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1)(D).

Id. § 552(a)(1)(D)-(E) (emphasis added).

Coglianese, supra note 5, at 21.

E.g., Cathedral Candle Co. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 400 F.3d 1352, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

See Andersen v. Butz, 550 F.2d 459, 463 (9th Cir. 1977).

Id.; St. Eliz. Hosp. v. U.S., 558 F.2d 8, 12-13 (Fed Cir. 1977).

Nguyen v. United States, 824 F.2d 697, 701-02 (9th Cir. 1987).

Cathedral Candle Co., 400 F.3d. at 1369. For more discussion of user manuals and synthesis material, see infra Section V.C.

E.g., 5 U.S.C § 552(a).

See, e.g., Anderson v. Butz, 428 F. Supp. 245, 250 (E.D. Cal. 1975) (holding that 5 U.S.C. § 552(a) may require publication in the Federal Register even when 5 U.S.C. § 553 exempts rulemaking from other procedural requirements).

Id.

E.g., Nw. Env’t Def. Ctr. v. Brennen, 958 F.2d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. Dep’t of Interior, 88 F.3d 1191, 1203 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (stating that Congress created an “incentive” for publication). There may also be a judicial presumption in favor of finding that a party had actual notice and therefore reducing the incentive to publish in the Federal Register. See Tex. All. for Home Care Servs. v. Sebelius, 811 F. Supp. 2d 76, 103 (D.D.C. 2011) (reiterating that publication is only necessary if there is not actual notice and finding that where there was a dedicated website with relevant information, a party must explain why it did not get actual notice through that website).

Coglianese, supra note 5, at 22.

Coglianese, supra note 5, at 22. When FOIA does not require Federal Register publication of guidance documents it generally requires agencies to make documents available on an agency website for public inspection. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2)(B).

5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2)(E). The drafting in this section is unclear and there is little relevant caselaw to shine light on the matter. But see Marsh v. J. Alexander’s LLC, 905 F.3d 610, 627 (9th Cir. 2018); Pa., Dep’t of Pub. Welfare v. Sebelius, No. CIV.A. 09-808, 2010 WL 2976119, at *7 (W.D. Pa. July 28, 2010). The question remains whether the ability to “rel[y] on, use[], or cite[] as precedent” as laid out in Section 552(a)(2)(E) is only available to documents identified in that subsection or to any “final order, opinion, statement of policy, interpretation, or staff manual or instruction that affects a member of the public.” Id.

By contrast, § 552(a) seems to subtract precedential weight if an agency fails to publish a document in the Federal Register.

Prior to the 1996 amendments, the statute required documents be made “available for public inspection and copying,” thus the historic phrase “reading room.” Freedom of Information Act of 1966, Pub. L. No. 89-487, § 3(b), 80 Stat. 250, 250 (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2016) (1966)).

5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2) (italics added).

Id. § 552(a)(1)(D).

Id. § 552(a)(2)(B).

See, e.g., Anderson v. Butz, 550 F.2d 459, 462-63 (9th Cir. 1977) (holding that agency staff may avoid Federal Register publication if they publish documents in a reading room). But see Appalachian Power Co.v. Train, 566 F.2d 451, 456 (4th Cir. 1977) (“[R]easonable availability is not a substitute for publication; it is one of two conjunctive requirements”). Note that both cases were decided prior to the 1996 amendments that added the website publication requirement, but there is no reason to think that has changed the meaning of the statutory language.

Davis, supra note 68, at 75.

Russell L. Weaver, An APA Provision for Nonlegislative Rules?, 56 Admin. L. Rev. 1179, 1188 (2004).

E.g., Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Fed. Power Comm’n, 506 F.2d 33, 38-39 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1).

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 40, supra note 66.

44 U.S.C. § 3501 note Sec. 207(f)(2)(A) (2002).

Id. § 3101.

Id. § 3102(2).

5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

Id. § 604(a).

Id. § 605(b).

Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996).

§ 212, 110 Stat. at 858. We discuss these guides in detail, infra Part V and Section V.C.

§ 203(5), 110 Stat. at 858.

Id. § 212(a).

Id.

Id. § 212(b).

I.R.C. §§ 6631, 6751 (West).

I.R.C. § 7805.

See 26 C.F.R. § 601.601.

Id. § 601.601(d)(1) (italics added).

Id. § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(a).

Id. § 601.601(d)(2)(iii).

See Understanding IRS Guidance–A Brief Primer, IRS, https://www.irs.gov/news-room/understanding-irs-guidance-a-brief-primer [https://perma.cc/73WW-TWJB]; 26 C.F.R. § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(a) (2025).

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 22, supra note 71; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 31, Non-Profit Att’y (Feb. 1, 2022); Telephone Interview with Interviewee 32, Non-Profit Att’y (Feb. 4, 2022).

Exec. Order No. 12,898, 59 Fed. Reg. 7629 (Feb. 11, 1994).

Id.

Id.

Id.

See id.

Parrillo, supra note 29, at 23 (citing Attorney General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 30 n.3 (1947)).

21 U.S.C. § 371(h)(3).

21 C.F.R. § 10.115(g)(3)(i)(A)-(B) (2025).

45 Fed. Reg. 85400, 85405 (Dec. 24, 1980) (codified at 40 C.F.R. §§ 56.6; 42 U.S.C. § 7601(a)(2)(C)).

Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, Final Bull. for Agency Good Guidance Pracs., 72 Fed. Reg. 3432, 3432 (Jan. 25, 2007).

Id. at 3437.

Exec. Order No. 13,891, 84 Fed. Reg. 55235, 55236 (Oct. 9, 2019).

Id.

Exec. Order No. 13,892, 84 Fed. Reg. 55239 (Oct. 9, 2019).

Exec. Order No. 13,922, 86 Fed. Reg. 7049 (Jan. 25, 2021).

E.g., Proposed Rules Department of Energy: Procedures for the Issuance of Guidance Documents, 86 Fed. Reg. 16114, 16114 (proposed Mar. 26, 2021).

40 C.F.R. § 56.6 (1980) (2024).

One interviewee surmised that a possible reason why some agency staff may be reluctant to publish guidance is that staff can benefit from “insider knowledge” in future employment in the private sector. Telephone Interview with Interviewee 41, Priv. Prac. Att’y (Mar. 1, 2022). Some academic literature would tend to support this notion. See generally Jerry L. Mashaw & David L. Harfst, The Struggle for Auto Safety 16 (Harvard Univ. Press, 1st ed. 1990) (arguing that decisions by some agency officials may be influenced by enhancing their post-government career prospects).

See 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(1)-(2) and further discussion of the legal requirements supra Section II.B.

For further details on our methods, see Galperin & Elliott, supra note 14, at 33.

Galperin & Elliott, supra note 14.

James Frederick, Acting Assistant Sec. of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, OSHA, COVID-19 Guidance Press Call (Jan. 29, 2021), https://www.osha.gov/news/ speeches/20210129 [https://perma.cc/R7E2-XFXF].

Occupational Safety & Health Admin., Opinion Letter on Guidance on Wearing Gloves (Apr. 15, 1992), https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1992-04-15-0 [https://perma.cc/C8LQ-DXDR].

A rule is “significant” for the purposes of review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs if it will impose annual costs of $100 million, create certain inconsistencies, adversely affect the economy, jobs, competition, or the environment, impact the federal budget in certain ways, or raise novel legal issues. Exec. Order No. 12,866, 58 Fed. Reg. 51735 § 3(f) (Sep. 30, 1993). A rule is a “major rule” for the purposes of review under the Congressional Review Act if it will have “an annual effect on the economy” of $100 million or more, as well as several other circumstances. 5 U.S.C. § 804(2). For a recent Congressional Research Service report that includes a variety of definitions, see generally Maeve P. Carey, Cong. Rsch. Serv., Counting Regulations: An Overview of Rulemaking, Types of Federal Regulations, and Pages in the Federal Register (2019), https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/ R43056.pdf [https://perma.cc/T7QY-SCLD].

See Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program Rules, EPA, https://www.epa. gov/lead/lead-renovation-repair-and-painting-program-rules [https://perma.cc/SNU5-V554].

Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., https://www.uscis.gov/DACA [https://perma.cc/SW6V-E4M8].

Id. Despite the government’s description of the programs as merely a shift in enforcement priorities, the Fifth Circuit held that DAPA was a violation of the APA because it was a substantive rule that changed the rights of many individuals and had financial impacts on, at least, the State of Texas but did not go through the notice and comment process. Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 176-77 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally divided court, United States v. Texas, 579 U.S. 547, 548 (2016). The Trump Administration attempted to rescind DACA, which the Supreme Court held, 5-4, was also a violation of the APA. Dep’t Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1, 4 (2020).

Texas, 809 F.3d at 153.

818 F.2d 943, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

Id. at 945.

Id.

Id.

Id. at 945.

44 U.S.C. § 1507.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 12-13, supra note 71; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 14, supra note 55; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 18, supra note 55; Telephone Interview with Interviewees 25-27, supra note 55; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 30, supra note 19.

Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, § 212(a), 110 Stat. 847, 858 (1996).

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 22, supra note 71.

Id.; Telephone Interview with Interviewees 25-27, supra note 55.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 14, supra note 55; Telephone Interview with Interviewees 16-17, supra note 19; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 21, supra note 71.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 12-13, supra note 71.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 29, Regul. Att’y (June 10, 2021).

The Small Business Administration defines micro-businesses as those with fewer than ten employees. Brian Headd, The Role of Microbusiness Employers in the Economy, U.S. Small Bus. Admin. (Aug. 1, 2017), https://advocacy.sba.gov/2017/08/01/the-role-of-microbusiness-employers-in-the-economy/ [https://perma.cc/AXK9-988A].

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 14, supra note 55.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 30, supra note 19.

Notably, 70% of all businesses are on the small end of microbusinesses, having four or fewer employees. See Detailed Business Counts, N. Am. Indus. Classification Sys. Ass’n, https://www.naics.com/business-lists/counts-by-company-size/ [https://perma.cc/84KC-F22Q]. According to our interviews, the smallest entities are least likely to be engaged with intermediary organizations.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 22, supra note 71; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 30, supra note 19; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 31, supra note 117.

About Us, U.S. Chamber of Com., https://www.uschamber.com/about [https://perma. cc/JR2U-VXPV].

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 12-13, supra note 71. In some cases, agencies can and do provide resources of this nature. In particular, the SBREFA requires Small Business Compliance guides. Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 § 212(a). We discuss these strategies in more detail in Section V.C.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 24, State Gov’t Att’y (July 23, 2021).

Id.

Id.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 25-27, supra note 55.

Id.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 30, supra note 19.

Id.

Id.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 22, supra note 71.

Id.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 32, supra note 117.

Id.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 16-17, supra note 19; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 22, supra note 71.

For a discussion of SBREFA and other small-business-focused legislation, see supra Section II.B; infra Section V.C.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 30, supra note 19.

See supra Part III.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 16-17, supra note 19.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 11, Gov’t Att’y (Sep. 8, 2021); Telephone Interview with Interviewees 25–27, supra note 55.

Resources for Small Businesses, EPA, https://www.epa.gov/resources-small-businesses [https://perma.cc/7J55-TUQS].

Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, § 212(a), 110 Stat. 847, 858 (1996).

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 16-17, supra note 19.

Reeve T. Bull, How to Account for Small Business Interests in President Biden’s Modernizing Regulatory Review Initiative, The Brookings Inst. (Sep. 29, 2021), https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/09/29/how-to-account-for-small-business-interests-in-president-bidens-modernizing-regulatory-review-initiative/ [https://perma.cc/HL6S-HKYP].

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 12-13, supra note 71.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 14, supra note 55; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 29, supra note 158.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 16-17, supra note 19.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 29, supra note 158.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 14, supra note 55.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 24, supra note 166.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 12-13, supra note 71.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 14, supra note 55.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 12-13, supra note 71; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 21, supra note 71.

We likewise recognize, pursuant to the discussion of legal requirements in Section III, that in many cases agencies are failing to publish material in the Federal Register even where FOIA apparently requires such publication. See supra Part III.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 15, supra note 55; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 20, Non-Profit Att’y (Feb. 18, 2022).

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 15, supra note 55.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 20, supra note 198.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 15, supra note 55.

Id.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 12-13, supra note 71; see also Telephone Interview with Interviewee 15, supra note 55 (discussing personal connections without regard specifically to business interests).

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 15, supra note 55.

See Will Kenton, Regulatory Capture Definitions With Examples, Investopedia (Aug. 1, 2024), https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regulatory-capture.asp [https://perma. cc/89A4-VK73].

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 31, supra note 117.

Id.

See discussion infra Section VI.H.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 31, supra note 117.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 24, supra note 166.

Id.

Id.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 15, supra note 55. Some existing research suggests larger businesses have more resources, particularly dedicated staff, to establish and maintain government connections, including by hiring former agency officials. See, e.g., Bull, supra note 187.

Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, § 213, 110 Stat. 847, 858 (1996).

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 25-27, supra note 55; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 31, supra note 117.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 14, supra note 55.

Id.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 29, supra note 158.

Policy changes can emerge from multiple agencies in different ways. In some cases, Congress delegates overlapping regulatory authority to multiple agencies. Jody Freeman and Jim Rossi call this “shared regulatory space.” Jody Freeman & Jim Rossi, Agency Coordination in Shared Regulatory Space, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 1131, 1136 (2012). For instance, in 2009 EPA and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration issued a joint rule to limit greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. Id. at 1169. Our interviewees highlighted another form of “shared regulatory space” in which multiple agencies are not collaboratively developing and issuing a new policy but are instead issuing distinct policies that impact the same group of potentially interested persons or entities.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 14, supra note 55.

Walker & Wiener, supra note 8, at 44.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 12-13, supra note 71.

E.g., Selena Simmons-Duffin, ‘Whiplash’ of LGBTQ Protections and Rights, From Obama to Trump, NPR (Mar. 2, 2020) https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/02/804873211/whiplash-of-lgbtq-protections-and-rights-from-obama-to-trump [https://perma.cc/4P7X-U8DA] (describing policy changes in the Department of Education, the military, and the DOJ); Telephone Interview with Interviewees 16-17, supra note 19.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 14, supra note 55; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 29, supra note 158.

See supra text accompanying note 142.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 30, supra note 19; Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirements, 87 Fed. Reg. 59498 (Sep. 30, 2022).

Id.

Id.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 30, supra note 19.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 15, supra note 55; Telephone Interview with Interviewees 16-17, supra note 19.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 19, supra note 55; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 31, supra note 117.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 18, supra note 55; Telephone Interview with Interviewees 25-27, supra note 55.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 12-13, supra note 71; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 14, supra note 55; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 30, supra note 19.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 18, supra note 55.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 15, supra note 55; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 32, supra note 117.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 16-17, supra note 19.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 30, supra note 19.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 16-17, supra note 19.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 11, supra note 183.

Parrillo, supra note 27, at 251-52.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 12-13, supra note 71; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 15, supra note 55.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 16-17, supra note 19.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 9, Gov’t Att’y (July 26, 2021).

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 37, Gov’t Att’y (Mar. 9, 2022); Telephone Interview with Interviewee 23, supra note 19.

E.g., Admin. Conf. of the U.S., Admin. Conf. of the U.S. Recommendation 2020-1: Rules on Rulemaking 1 (Dec. 16, 2020), https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/doc-uments/Recommendation%202020-1%2C%20Rules%20on%20Rulemakings.pdf [https://perma.cc/S9B2-EH3S].

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 16-17, supra note 19.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 39, Gov’t Att’y (Mar. 9, 2022).

See About the Office of Public Participation (OPP), Fed. Energy Regul. Comm’n: Off. of Pub. Participation, https://www.ferc.gov/OPP [https://perma.cc/KLN5-LGE9].

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 23, supra note 17.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 33-39, supra note 16.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 12-13, supra note 71; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 15, supra note 55.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 31, supra note 117.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 20, supra note 198.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 32, supra note 117.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 12-13, supra note 71.

See 44 U.S.C. § 1505.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 4, supra note 71; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 40, supra note 63.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 4, supra note 71; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 40, supra note 66.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 40, supra note 66; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 15, supra note 55; Telephone Interview with Interviewees 16-17, supra note 19.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 4, supra note 71.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 40, supra note 66.

CMS Small Entity Compliance Guides, Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Servs. https://web.archive.org/web/20200116035522/https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/SmallEntity [https://perma.cc/FYS9-FTKC].

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 12-13, supra note 71.

Thesaurus of Indexing Terms, Off. of the Fed. Reg., https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/thesaurus.html [https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/thesaurus. html].

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 4, supra note 71; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 40, supra note 66.

Id.

However, a countervailing consideration is the potential effect on enforcement litigation if a regulated party were not listed.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 29, supra note 158.

Subscription Options and Managing Your Subscriptions, Off. of the Fed. Reg., https://www.federalregister.gov/reader-aids/using-federalregister-gov/subscription-options-and-managing-your-subscriptions [https://perma.cc/8BQ2-K2EZ].

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 4, supra note 71; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 40, supra note 66; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 18, supra note 55.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 18, supra note 55.

eCFR, Off. of the Fed. Reg., https://www.ecfr.gov/ [https://perma.cc/88HT-KCZE].

Using the eCFR Point-in-Time System: Getting Started, Off. of the Fed. Reg., https://www.ecfr.gov/reader-aids/using-ecfr/getting-started [https://perma.cc/KS7Z-N483]; see also E-mail from John Hyrum Martinez, Dir. of Publ’n and Serv. Div., Off. of the Fed. Reg. (Sep. 23, 2021) (on file with authors) (describing the features of eCFR).

Off. of the Fed. Reg., supra note 273; see also E-mail from John Hyrum Martinez, supra note 273.

A third shortcoming is also worth noting. An interviewee at a litigation-focused NGO commented that the eCFR sometimes incorporates the text of promulgated regulations, but when courts later stay the regulation or the agency delays the effective date, the eCFR fails to update accordingly. In this respect, the tool can be a source of inaccurate notice.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 40, supra note 66; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 18, supra note 55; Telephone Interview with Interviewees 16-17, supra note 19.

See Code of Federal Regulations, Off. of the Fed. Reg., https://www.govinfo.gov/help/cfr [https://perma.cc/WQ8W-9VXM].

See FR API Documentation, Off. of the Fed. Reg., https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/documentation/api/v1 [https://perma.cc/EWU8-VZND].

Id.

Walker & Wiener, supra note 8, at 44.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 1, Gov’t Att’y (July 26, 2021).

Id.

Id.

Id.

Id.

Id.

See supra Section IV.B.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 16-17, supra note 19.

5 U.S.C § 601 note Sec. 212(a).

Id.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 25-27, supra note 55.

Id.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 30, supra note 19.

Though SBREFA allows agencies to publish guides covering multiple rules. Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, § 212(a), 110 Stat. 858 (1996).

Another potential shortcoming in the use of manuals is that agencies may be concerned that the explanatory materials summarizing policies may limit their flexibility if it is categorized as guidance and therefore requires publication. At least one court implied that a synthetic manual would escape statutory publication requirements, holding that documents merely incorporating regulatory standards published elsewhere do not themselves need to be published. Cathedral Candle Co. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 400 F.3d 1352, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 12-13, supra note 71.

See Label Review Manuel, EPA, https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/label-review-manual [https://perma.cc/Q5QH-C6A5].

Id.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 25-27, supra note 55.

Id.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 16-17, supra note 19.

Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Servs., supra note 262.

Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure, U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off. (July 2021), https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current [https://perma.cc/8ZCZ-95BT].

Id.

Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure — Files and Archives, U.S. Pat. & Trade-mark Off., https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/guides-and-manuals/tmep-archives [https://perma.cc/5X88-3TRU].

E.g., Sophia June, Could Gen Z Free the World From Email?, N.Y. Times (July 10, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/10/business/gen-z-email.html [https://perma.cc/8EWC-ML9Q].

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 19, supra note 55; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 31, supra note 117.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 32, supra note 117.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 16-17, supra note 19.

Id.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 31, supra note 117.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 32, supra note 117.

Limited to 280 characters. Counting Characters When Composing Tweets, X Dev. Platform, https://docs.x.com/fundamentals/counting-characters [https://perma.cc/7ZGD-D9YH].

E.g., Susie Allen, How Social Media Rewards Misinformation, Yale Insights (Mar. 31, 2023), https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/how-social-media-rewards-misinformation [https://perma.cc/5WQX-Y6WH].

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 20, supra note 198.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 15, supra note 55.

Sign Up for News from EPA, EPA, https://www.epa.gov/newsroom/sign-news-epa [https://perma.cc/7J82-HCLQ].

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 24, supra note 166.

Id.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 25-27, supra note 55.

Number of Public and Private Airports in the United States From 1990 to 2020, Statista (Dec. 19, 2023), https://www.statista.com/statistics/183496/number-of-airports-in-the-united-states-since-1990 [https://perma.cc/C3MU-AUP3].

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 19, supra note 55.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 20, supra note 198.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 16-17, supra note 19; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 18, supra note 55.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 32, supra note 117.

Id.

Id.

Id.

See, e.g., Search Engine Optimization (SEO) Starter Guide, Google, https://developers.google.com/search/docs/beginner/seo-starter-guide [https://perma.cc/7ANB-BB6K].

Why Government Websites Need SEO, Digital.gov (May 2, 2013) https://web.archive.org/web/20250226220012/https://digital.gov/2013/05/02/why-government-websites-need-seo/. But see SEO For Government Websites: 7 Powerful Success Steps 2025, Elasticity (Apr. 28, 2025), https://goelastic.com/seo-for-government-websites [https://perma.cc/W63G-56FA] (noting that “[c]ontrary to popular belief, search engines don’t automatically favor .gov domains,” but government websites may rank well if they have the qualities they look for).

Id.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 31, supra note 117.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 15, supra note 55.

RSS Feeds, U.S. Dep’t of Agric., https://www.usda.gov/rss-feeds [https://perma.cc/ JG8N-3QS9].

E.g., Sign up for News from EPA, supra note 317.

Christopher Manning, Artificial Intelligence Definitions, Stan. Univ. Human-Centered A.I. (Sep. 2020), https://hai.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/2020-09/AI-Definitions-HAI.pdf [https://perma.cc/3M2G-DDKJ].

Bull, supra note 187.

Indeed, the Administrative Conference of the United States is studying artificial intelligence. Statement #20 Agency Use of Artificial Intelligence, Admin. Conf. of the U.S. (Dec. 16, 2020), https://www.acus.gov/research-projects/agency-use-artificial-intelligence [https://perma.cc/VWN2-SSLT].

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 16-17, supra note 19.

E.g., Rubin, supra note 8, at 2; Coglianese, supra note 5, at 2; Jeremy Grayboyes & Mark Thomson, Admin. Conf. of the U.S., Public Access to Agency Adjudicative Proceedings 48 (2021), https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Public%20Access%20Final%20Report%2011.21.21.pdf [https://perma.cc/W9TX-LZRY]; Mark Thomson, Admin. Conf. of the U.S.: Report on Agency Litigation Webpages 1 (2020), https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Agency%20Litigation%20Webpages%20Report%20 11.24.20_2.pdf [https://perma.cc/FJ9P-LZQE].

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 37, supra note 244.

See, e.g., Agricultural Occupations—Overview, Occupational Health & Safety Admin., https://www.osha.gov/agricultural-operations [https://perma.cc/AEV3-Z78M] (linking to “standards” and then collecting various documents under each standard).

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 16-17, supra note 19.

E.g., Healthcare, Occupational Health & Safety Admin., https://www.osha.gov/healthcare [https://perma.cc/PQ2W-AK6C] (providing “highlights” of ongoing work on the right side of the page and boxes for related subjects at the bottom of the page).

OSHA Alliance Program: Frequently Asked Questions, Occupational Health & Safety Admin., https://www.osha.gov/quicktakes [https://perma.cc/T6XV-E6TN].

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 41, supra note 135.

FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 111-353, 121 Stat. 3885 (2011).

21 U.S.C. § 2223(d)(2)(B).

We note that 5 U.S.C § 552(a)(2) generally requires agencies to publish material on websites even if Federal Register publication is not required. See further discussion supra Section II.B. The FDA example in the text is therefore an instance of Congress providing an explicit and program-specific notice requirement.

21 U.S.C. § 371(h)(1)(A).

Id. § 371(h)(3) (italics added).

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 19, supra note 55.

Id.

See Warning Letters, U.S. Food & Drug Admin., https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/compliance-actions-and-activities/warning-letters [https://perma.cc/6UFC-2BZK].

Id.

Id.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 22, supra note 71.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 16-17, supra note 19.

Id.

Email from Peter L. Fitzgerald, Professor of L. Emeritus, Stetson Univ. Coll. of L., to Matthew Gluth, Attorney Advisor, Admin. Conf. of the U.S. (Mar. 21, 2022) (on file with authors).

Id.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 16–17, supra note 19.

See Virtual File Cabinet, Ind. Dep’t of Env. Mgmt., https://www.in.gov/idem/legal/public-records/virtual-file-cabinet/ [https://perma.cc/46MX-5HNR].

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 19, supra note 55.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 18, supra note 55.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 16-17, supra note 19.

Id.

Id.

Id.

Id.

Id.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 33, Gov’t Att’y (Mar. 9, 2022).

E.g., FTC Blogs, Fed. Trade Comm’n, https://web.archive.org/web/20210630161002/ https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs (showing blogs drafted specifically for consumers and businesses). At some point the FTC changed the strategy it uses for posting blogs. It now has a business-oriented blog but apparently nothing directed to consumers. See Blog Posts, Fed. Trade Comm’n, https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/blog-posts [https://perma. cc/9U2R-2C2B]. The historic approach remains a good example of how agencies can tailor notice to different types of potentially interested entities.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 23, supra note 19.

Internal Revenue Bulletins, IRS, https://apps.irs.gov/app/picklist/list/internalRevenueBulletins.html [https://perma.cc/E2P6-LPH2].

Id.

Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Servs., supra note 262.

Id.

Id.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 19, supra note 55; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 31, supra note 117.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 31, supra note 117.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 21, supra note 71.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 6, Gov’t Att’y (July 26, 2021).

Many agencies use public service announcements. For example, the Department of Labor issued ten public service announcement videos, in various languages, about COVID-19. U.S. Department of Labor Publishes 11 New Translations of OSHA Poster to Help Prevent Workplace Coronavirus Exposure, U.S. Dep’t of Lab. (May 4, 2020), https://www.dol.gov/ newsroom/releases/osha/osha20200504 [https://perma.cc/5RCM-R7HK]. OSHA has created public service announcements in the form of video and audio messages related to fall prevention, storm recovery, and more. See Public Service Announcements, U.S. Dep’t of Lab.: OSHA, https://www.osha.gov/psa [https://perma.cc/YYE4-VZCY].

Another approach to direct engagement is technologies such as “chatbots” and “virtual assistants.” These technological approaches to one-on-one interaction hold promise and the Administrative Conference of the United States has investigated them. See Automated Legal Guidance at Federal Agencies, Admin. Conf. of the U.S. (July 5, 2022), https://www.acus.gov/research-projects/automated-legal-guidance-federal-agencies [https://perma.cc/2DHS-3GCG].

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 15, supra note 55; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 20, supra note 198.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 15, supra note 55; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 18, supra note 55; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 32, supra note 117.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 18, supra note 55; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 32, supra note 117.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 23, supra note 19.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 15, supra note 55.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 18, supra note 55.

Id.

PFAS Science Webinars for EPA Region 1 and State & Tribal Partners, EPA, https://www.epa.gov/research-states/pfas-science-webinars-epa-region-1-and-state-tribal-partners [https://perma.cc/TD2E-Z879].

EPA Tools and Resources Webinar Series, EPA, https://www.epa.gov/research-states/ epa-tools-and-resources-webinar-series [https://perma.cc/GAG8-L7HS].

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 34, Gov’t Att’y (Mar. 9, 2022).

In addition to sharing information with the broader interested public, webinars can serve as training tools to help train intermediaries and other experts in how to comply with a given regulation. Agencies might also develop training programs for regulatory schemes in which intermediaries help carry out the requirements. The EPA’s lead repair and replacement rule provides a good example because contractors, painters, landlords, and other intermediaries are responsible for compliance. Local training programs to help prepare these parties could provide notice of the regulation and guidance on how to comply. A European administrative law scholar noted that such training programs are common in Europe and that governments sometimes pay for training.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 6, supra note 383.

OSHA Alliance Program, Occupational Health & Safety Admin., https://www.ha.gov/alliances [https://perma.cc/U82E-NTVJ].

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 6, supra note 383.

Id.

Id.

Compliance Assistance Specialists (CAS), Occupational Health & Safety Admin., https://www.osha.gov/complianceassistance/cas [https://perma.cc/4YHV-EKUE].

U.S. Dep’t of Lab., At-A-Glance: OSHA 1, 2 (2014), https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/3439at-a-glance.pdf [https://perma.cc/FP4Y-T6W4].

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 6, supra note 383.

E.g., Telephone Interview with Interviewees 12-13, supra note 71; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 32, supra note 117.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 15, supra note 55; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 20, supra note 198.

See generally Joshua Ulan Galperin, The Life of Administrative Democracy, 108 Geo. L.J. 1213 (2020) (surveying the unique mechanics of county committees in the context of the modern administrative state).

Id. at 1219.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 24, supra note 166.

Some agencies have intentionally “walled off” outreach programs and local offices from enforcement programs. Unfortunately, some interviewees, particularly those supporting immigrant communities, said that a formal separation of the enforcement program would not increase trust in other staff.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 32, supra note 117.

OSHA Offices by State, Occupational Safety and Health Admin., https://www.osha.gov/contactus/bystate [https://perma.cc/SNE2-FAVJ].

EPA Region 3 (Mid-Atlantic), EPA, https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/epa-region-3-mid-atlantic [https://perma.cc/DQ4N-PNFQ].

Service Center Locator, U.S. Dep’t of Agric., https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/loca-tor/app?service=page/ServiceCenterSummary&stateCode=09&cnty=009 [https://perma.cc/ AYC3-D6LL].

U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., https://www.uscis.gov/ [https://perma.cc/ P89R-AA23].

Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Dep’t of Educ., https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-offices/ocr [https://perma.cc/7Q69-TA5W].

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 34, supra note 395.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 33, supra note 372.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 15, supra note 55; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 20, supra note 198.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 12-13, supra note 71; Telephone Inter-view with Interviewee 14, supra note 55; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 18, supra note 55; Telephone Interview with Interviewees 25-27, supra note 55; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 30, supra note 19.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 30, supra note 19.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 31, supra note 117.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 25-27, supra note 55.

U.S. Dep’t of Lab., supra note 403, at 3.

OSHA Training Institute Education Centers, Occupational Health & Safety Admin., https://www.osha.gov/otiec/ [https://perma.cc/9RWB-S973].

View Grant Opportunity: EPA-G2023-STAR-B2, Grants.gov (Oct. 19, 2022), https://www.grants.gov/search-results-detail/344114 [https://perma.cc/9MRV-PSJQ].

See Environmental Justice in Your Community, EPA (Jan. 19, 2021), https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/environmental-justice-your-community_.html [https://perma.cc/X2DW-RDZS].

Email from Todd Rubin, Former Att’y-Advisor, Admin. Conf. of the U.S. (Mar. 17, 2022) (on file with authors).

Id.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 31, supra note 117.

Id.

Id.

Id.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 32, supra note 117.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 16-17, supra note 19.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 19, supra note 55.

Id.

Id.

Id.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 33, supra note 372.

On-Site Consultation, Occupational Health & Safety Admin., www.osha.gov/ consultation [https://perma.cc/FX6Q-4D45]. Compliance consultations are available to entities with fewer than 250 employees at a site and no more than 500 employees nationwide. 50 Years of the OSHA On-Site Consultation Program, Occupational Health & Safety Admin., https://www.osha.gov/consultation/50thanniversary [https://perma.cc/6JAT-KVCG].

OSHA Strategic Partnership Program, OSHA, https://www.osha.gov/partnerships/ [https://perma.cc/DP85-48PR].

In supra Section V.E we discussed the QuickTakes publication. And in supra Section V.H we addressed face-to-face programs through OSHA’s field offices.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 23, supra note 19.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 30, supra note 19.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 23, supra note 19.

Id.

Id.

Id.

Id.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 11, supra note 183.

Id.

Id.

Id.

Id.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 29, supra note 158.

Roger Reinhart, Fundamentals for Conducting Compliance Inspections, EPA (July 2019), https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-08/documents/reinhart_-_inspection_fundamentals_2019.pdf [https://perma.cc/K8FP-5TUE].

Id.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 11, supra note 183.

Thomas K. McCraw, With the Consent of the Governed: SEC’s Formative Years, 1 J. Pol’y Analysis Mgmt. 346, 352 (1982).

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 11, supra note 183.

Id.

Office of Small Business Policy Division of Corporation Finance, U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, https://www.sec.gov/smallbusiness/OSBP [https://perma.cc/DUQ8-8FQZ].

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 11, supra note 183.

Id.; see also Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation, U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, https://www.sec.gov/oasb [https://perma.cc/LJM8-3J4N]; 15 U.S.C. § 78d(j).

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 39, supra note 247.

Organization of EPA’s Region 2 Office in New York City, EPA, https://www.epa. gov/aboutepa/organization-epas-region-2-office-new-york-city#cepd [https://perma.cc/ ZMD8-JETN].

Id.

Id.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 31, supra note 117.

Id.

Id.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 15, supra note 55; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 20, supra note 198.

5 U.S.C. § 609(b).

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 30, supra note 19. It is notable that in our conversations we detected some conflict over who should be part of these panels. Agencies seem to prefer participation from actual businesses while trade associations, perhaps as one would expect, think that they can bring more experience and knowledge to the table. Agencies see some benefit from direct input and direct experience while trade associations point to their aggregate knowledge and political expertise.

5 U.S.C. § 609(d).

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 15, supra note 55.

Admin. Conf. of the U.S., Recommendation 2018-7, Public Engagement in Rulemaking, 84 Fed. Reg. 2146 (Feb. 6, 2019); Sant’Ambrogio & Staszewski, supra note 15, at 152.

Galperin, supra note 407, at 1219 (citing 16 U.S.C § 590h(b)(5)(B)(i)(I) (2012)).

Id. at 1252 (criticizing the committee structure for its reliance on majoritarianism without regard to reasoned and deliberative decision making).

Id. at 1217.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 32, supra note 117.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 31, supra note 117.

Coglianese, supra note 5, at 36.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 16-17, supra note 19.

See supra Section II.B.3.

See supra Part II.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 30, supra note 19.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 12-13, supra note 71; Telephone Interview with Interviewee 15, supra note 55.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 32, supra note 117.

Telephone Interview with Interviewees 16-17, supra note 19.

Id.

Telephone Interview with Interviewee 29, supra note 158.

E.g., FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239, 253 (2012).

See supra Part II.

See Joshua Ulan Galperin, A Restatement of Democracy, 69 Vill. L. Rev. 55, 59 (2004) (“At base, democracy is a justification for coercion.”).