In formal rulemaking, if a communication occurs that discusses merits with the agency head, the proper remedy is:

In formal rulemaking, if a communication occurs that discusses merits with the agency head, the proper remedy is:

• A. The rule is automatically voided.
• B. The communication must be disclosed in the record, and the agency must consider it in rulemaking.
• C. The communication is ignored if it concerns status reports.
• D. The agency must hold a new hearing.

Answer: (B)

In formal rulemaking, the process is meant to be transparent and based on the record. If a communication occurs that discusses merits with the agency head, that input could influence the outcome, so the proper approach is to bring it into the public record and have the agency weigh it as part of the rulemaking. This ensures all relevant considerations are visible to participants and to review courts, and it keeps the decision grounded in the merits as presented in the record. The remedy is not to void the rule automatically or to ignore the input, and there’s no automatic need to hold a new hearing solely because of such a communication.

In formal rulemaking, the process is meant to be transparent and based on the record. If a communication occurs that discusses merits with the agency head, that input could influence the outcome, so the proper approach is to bring it into the public record and have the agency weigh it as part of the rulemaking. This ensures all relevant considerations are visible to participants and to review courts, and it keeps the decision grounded in the merits as presented in the record. The remedy is not to void the rule automatically or to ignore the input, and there’s no automatic need to hold a new hearing solely because of such a communication.