APA Comment Letter on Proposed Rulemaking (General)

COMMENT LETTER ON PROPOSED RULEMAKING

Submitted Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 553(c)

[__/__/____]

VIA: ☐ regulations.gov ☐ Email ☐ Mail ☐ Hand Delivery

TO:
[Name of Rulemaking Official / Docket Clerk]
[Agency Full Name]
[Office / Division]
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]

RE:
Docket Number / RIN: [________________________________]
Title of Proposed Rule: [________________________________]
NPRM Published In Federal Register: [____] Fed. Reg. [____] ([__/__/____])
Comment Period Deadline: [__/__/____]

I. INTRODUCTION

[________________________________] ("Commenter") respectfully submits these comments in response to the above-captioned Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("NPRM"), published by the [________________________________] ("Agency") in the Federal Register on [__/__/____]. These comments are submitted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 553(c), which affords "interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments."

Who Is the Commenter?

Commenter is [describe in detail]: [________________________________]

[Example: "a professional association representing 4,500 licensed environmental engineers practicing in all 50 states," or "an individual practitioner with 25 years of experience advising regulated industries on [subject matter]," or "a regional nonprofit serving low-income clients whose access to [services] would be directly affected by this proposed rule."]

Why These Comments Matter

Commenter has a direct, substantial, and concrete interest in this rulemaking because [________________________________]. Commenter interacts with the regulated subject matter on a [daily / regular] basis and has firsthand knowledge of the practical implications of the proposed changes.

II. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND REQUESTED CHANGES

The following is a summary of Commenter's principal requests:

Overall Position:

☐ Commenter supports the proposed rule in its entirety and submits these comments to address minor technical concerns.
☐ Commenter supports the objectives of the proposed rule but urges the modifications set forth below.
☐ Commenter opposes the proposed rule as written and urges the Agency to withdraw and re-propose with the revisions described herein.
☐ Commenter is a neutral stakeholder offering technical input without a position on the overall rulemaking.

III. BACKGROUND

A. Overview of the Proposed Rule

The Agency proposes to [amend / create / repeal] [cite regulatory provision — e.g., 40 C.F.R. Part ___, Title ___, Section ___] to:

1. [First major element:] [________________________________]

2. [Second major element:] [________________________________]

3. [Third major element:] [________________________________]

The Agency states the proposed rule is authorized by [cite enabling statute] and is designed to achieve [stated regulatory objective].

B. Prior Regulatory History

[If applicable:] This proposed rule follows [prior ANPRM / prior rulemakings / prior guidance documents / litigation] regarding [________________________________]. Key milestones:

• [__/__/____]: [Prior action description]
• [__/__/____]: [Prior action description]
• [__/__/____]: Current NPRM published

C. Commenter's Engagement with the Regulatory Subject Matter

Commenter [has participated in prior comment periods / has engaged with the Agency in stakeholder meetings / has direct operational experience with the current regulatory framework] as follows: [________________________________]

IV. SPECIFIC COMMENTS

A. [Issue 1: Proposed Section / Regulatory Provision]

Proposed Text:

"[Verbatim text of proposed regulation or paraphrase with citation to CFR section and NPRM page number]"
[Proposed [CFR Cite], [NPRM Page ___]]

Commenter's Position: ☐ Support ☐ Oppose ☐ Modify

Concern Identified:

[________________________________]

[Describe the specific problem clearly. Be concrete: identify who is affected, how they would be affected, what outcome the rule would produce that the Agency did not intend, or what important consideration the Agency overlooked.]

Supporting Evidence:

[________________________________]

[Provide evidence. Under Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983), the agency must "examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action." Comments that identify data the agency failed to consider or contradict are most likely to require the agency to respond substantively. Attach studies, expert declarations, industry data, or operational records.]

Specifically:

• [Data point 1:] [________________________________]
• [Data point 2:] [________________________________]
• [Legal authority:] [________________________________]

Recommended Revision:

Commenter respectfully requests that the Agency revise the proposed text as follows:

Current Proposed Text:

"[________________________________]"

Recommended Revised Text:

"[________________________________]"

Alternative (if full revision is not adopted): [________________________________]

Explanation: This revision accomplishes [________________________________] while still achieving the Agency's stated objective of [________________________________].

B. [Issue 2: Proposed Section / Regulatory Provision]

Proposed Text:

"[________________________________]"
[Proposed [CFR Cite], [NPRM Page ___]]

Commenter's Position: ☐ Support ☐ Oppose ☐ Modify

Concern Identified:

[________________________________]

Supporting Evidence:

[________________________________]

Recommended Revision:

Current Proposed Text: "[________________________________]"

Recommended Revised Text: "[________________________________]"

C. [Issue 3: Proposed Section / Regulatory Provision — Repeat as Needed]

Proposed Text:

"[________________________________]"

Commenter's Position: ☐ Support ☐ Oppose ☐ Modify

Concern Identified: [________________________________]

Supporting Evidence: [________________________________]

Recommended Revision: [________________________________]

V. LEGAL AND PROCEDURAL CONCERNS

A. Statutory Authority

The Agency asserts that this rulemaking is authorized by [cite statute]. Commenter [accepts / questions] this authority basis.

[If questioning authority:] The proposed rule [may exceed / clearly exceeds] the Agency's statutory authority because [________________________________]. Specifically, [cite provision] authorizes the Agency to [________________________________], but does not authorize [________________________________]. See West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022) (major questions doctrine requires clear congressional authorization for rules of vast economic and political significance).

B. Logical Outgrowth Doctrine

The final rule may only be promulgated if it is the "logical outgrowth" of the NPRM. Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158, 174 (2007). [If applicable:] The proposed rule's provision regarding [________________________________] goes beyond the NPRM's scope of [________________________________] and cannot be finalized without a new notice-and-comment period.

C. Arbitrary and Capricious Concerns

Under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) and Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983), a rule is arbitrary and capricious if the agency:

1. Relies on factors Congress did not intend it to consider;
2. Entirely fails to consider an important aspect of the problem;
3. Offers an explanation that runs counter to the evidence; or
4. Makes a decision so implausible it cannot be ascribed to a difference in view or agency expertise.

Commenter respectfully asserts that the proposed rule raises arbitrary-and-capricious concerns because:

• [Failure to consider ___:] [________________________________]
• [Explanation contradicted by evidence:] [________________________________]
• [Unexplained inconsistency with prior Agency approach:] [________________________________]

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 601–612)

☐ The Agency's Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) [adequately / inadequately] describes the economic impact on small entities because [________________________________].

☐ Commenter requests the Agency modify the rule to reduce burden on small entities as described in Section IV above.

☐ Commenter [disputes / supports] the Agency's finding that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. § 1532)

☐ Commenter [asserts / does not assert] that the proposed rule may impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector in excess of $100 million annually.

F. Notice Adequacy

[If applicable:] Commenter [respectfully submits / expressly objects] that the NPRM failed to provide adequate notice of [________________________________] as required by 5 U.S.C. § 553(b). Specifically, [________________________________].

VI. ECONOMIC IMPACTS

A. Compliance Costs

Based on Commenter's analysis, compliance with the proposed rule as written would impose the following annual costs:

Supporting analysis is attached as Attachment [____].

B. Commenter's Proposed Alternatives and Cost Savings

By adopting the modifications Commenter recommends in Section IV, the Agency could achieve its regulatory objectives at an estimated [____]% reduction in compliance costs, specifically by: [________________________________]

C. Transition / Implementation Timeline

Commenter requests that the Agency allow [____] months/years for implementation of the new requirements, given the following operational realities: [________________________________]

VII. ADDITIONAL REQUESTS

A. Request for Extension of Comment Period

☐ Commenter requests a [____]-day extension of the comment period to allow for completion of a technical analysis. The Agency may grant an extension for good cause.

B. Request for Public Hearing

☐ Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 553(c), Commenter requests that the Agency hold a public hearing to allow oral presentation of technical and factual comments.

C. Request for Additional Guidance

Commenter requests that the Agency commit to issuing [guidance / FAQs / safe harbors] addressing the following implementation questions prior to the rule's effective date: [________________________________]

D. Request for Phased Implementation

Commenter requests that the Agency phase in the requirements on the following schedule to allow for orderly implementation: [________________________________]

VIII. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Commenter respectfully requests that the Agency:

1. [Primary request:] [________________________________]

2. [Secondary request:] [________________________________]

3. [Additional requests as relevant.]

The Agency is reminded that it must provide a response to all "significant" comments in the preamble to the final rule. Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92, 96 (2015). The comments submitted herein—particularly those supported by data and expert analysis—constitute significant comments requiring a reasoned, substantive response.

Commenter is available to provide additional technical assistance, participate in a supplemental consultation process, or meet with Agency staff to discuss these comments further.

Respectfully submitted,

[________________________________]
[Signatory Name]

[________________________________]
[Title]

[________________________________]
[Organization]

[________________________________]
[Street Address]

[________________________________], [____] [____]

Telephone: ([____]) [____]-[____]
Email: [________________________________]

Date: [__/__/____]

ATTACHMENTS

• Attachment 1: [Cost analysis / Economic study]
• Attachment 2: [Technical report or expert declaration]
• Attachment 3: [Industry survey data or operational records]
• Attachment 4: [Proposed redlined regulatory text]
• Attachment 5: [Letters of support from affected stakeholders]

CERTIFICATE OF SUBMISSION

I certify that this comment letter has been submitted to the Agency on or before the comment deadline of [__/__/____] via [regulations.gov / email / mail / hand delivery] in accordance with the Agency's submission instructions.

[________________________________]
[Signature]

ATTORNEY PRACTICE NOTES

The most important thing: Comments are your record for litigation. Arguments not raised in comments during the rulemaking may be forfeited in subsequent judicial review. Always raise every legal and factual challenge in comments.

Specificity wins: Generic statements that a rule is "bad for business" carry very little weight. The agency's obligation to respond arises only for "significant" comments — those that raise specific, non-trivial issues supported by evidence. Be precise and cite data.

Post-Loper Bright practice: Since the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Loper Bright, agencies no longer receive automatic deference on statutory interpretations. This makes it more important than ever to challenge the statutory basis for a rule directly and specifically in comments.

"Logical outgrowth" trap: If the agency's final rule differs significantly from what was proposed, it may be invalidated for lack of notice. Monitor the final rule carefully against what you commented on.

Electronic submission: Most agencies use regulations.gov. Include the docket number prominently on all materials. Submit before the deadline — agencies are not required to consider late comments. Screenshot your submission confirmation.

State rulemaking: State agencies typically have analogous notice-and-comment procedures under state APAs. Requirements vary significantly by state. For example, California uses the Office of Administrative Law; New York uses the State Register. Always verify state-specific rules.

Major questions doctrine: After West Virginia v. EPA (2022), courts require clear congressional authorization for rules of "vast economic and political significance." Raise the major questions doctrine in comments where appropriate.