[YOUR NAME / ORGANIZATION] [ADDRESS] [CITY, STATE, ZIP] [DATE] [AGENCY HEAD NAME] [AGENCY NAME] [AGENCY ADDRESS] [CITY, STATE, ZIP] Re: Administrative Challenge to [RULE NAME], [CFR CITATION] Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706 and Loper Bright v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. ___ (2024) Dear [AGENCY HEAD]: I. IDENTIFICATION AND AUTHORITY I am [YOUR NAME], a natural person and citizen of the United States, writing to formally challenge [RULE NAME], codified at [CFR CITATION], published in the Federal Register on [DATE] at [FR CITATION], and effective [DATE]. This challenge is submitted pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706, and the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), which overruled Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), and restored the constitutional duty of courts to independently determine whether an agency's action is within its statutory authority. II. IDENTIFICATION OF THE CHALLENGED RULE The challenged rule is: Rule Name: [FULL RULE NAME] CFR Citation: [e.g., 40 C.F.R. § 60.5520] Federal Register: [Volume] Fed. Reg. [Page] ([Date]) Effective Date: [DATE] Claimed Authority: [STATUTE AND SECTION THE AGENCY CITES] The agency claims authority to promulgate this rule under [STATUTE], [SECTION]. This claim is without statutory basis for the reasons set forth below. III. STATUTORY AUTHORITY CHALLENGE — THE ROBERTS THREE-PART TEST Under Loper Bright, courts must exercise independent judgment to determine whether an agency action is authorized by the statute. The Roberts majority identified three analytical tools: (1) statutory text, (2) statutory structure, and (3) statutory context. A. Statutory Text The text of [STATUTE], [SECTION] provides: "[QUOTE THE RELEVANT STATUTORY TEXT]." This text [does not / cannot reasonably be read to] authorize [DESCRIBE THE SPECIFIC AGENCY ACTION]. The word "[KEY WORD]" in the statute means [PLAIN MEANING], not [AGENCY'S CLAIMED MEANING]. Where Congress has authorized [SIMILAR BROAD AUTHORITY], it has used explicit language such as [CITE EXAMPLE STATUTE]. No such language appears here. B. Statutory Structure The structure of [STATUTE] confirms that Congress did not grant the claimed authority. [DESCRIBE HOW NEARBY PROVISIONS, SECTION HEADINGS, OR THE OVERALL STATUTORY SCHEME CONTRADICT THE AGENCY'S CLAIMED AUTHORITY]. Congress placed [RELATED PROVISION] in [SECTION], which [EXPLAINS WHY THE CLAIMED AUTHORITY WOULD BE REDUNDANT / CONTRADICTORY / OUTSIDE THE STATUTORY SCHEME]. C. Statutory Context The legislative history and context of [STATUTE] demonstrate that Congress did not contemplate [THE AGENCY ACTION]. When Congress enacted [STATUTE] in [YEAR], the [DESCRIBE THE REGULATORY LANDSCAPE]. Congress has since [AMENDED / DECLINED TO AMEND] the statute [NUMBER] times without granting the claimed authority, confirming that no such authority exists. IV. LOPER BRIGHT v. RAIMONDO APPLICATION In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), the Supreme Court held: "Courts must exercise their own judgment in determining the meaning of the law, including determining whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority." "Chevron is overruled. Courts need not and under the APA may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous." Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court, confirmed that Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) — "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is" — applies with full force to agency statutory interpretation. Under Loper Bright, this agency cannot claim deference for its interpretation of [STATUTE]. The question of whether [STATUTE] authorizes [THE RULE] is a pure question of law that courts must resolve independently. The agency's longstanding interpretation, however consistent, does not transform an unauthorized action into an authorized one. V. APA § 706 GROUNDS The challenged rule must be set aside under 5 U.S.C. § 706 on the following independent grounds: A. In Excess of Statutory Jurisdiction (§ 706(2)(C)) The rule exceeds the agency's statutory authority as demonstrated in Section III above. An agency "literally has no power to act" beyond its statutory grant. City of Arlington v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290, 297 (2013). B. Arbitrary and Capricious (§ 706(2)(A)) The agency [DESCRIBE SPECIFIC FAILURES: failed to consider relevant factors / relied on factors Congress did not intend / offered an explanation that runs counter to the evidence / made a clear error of judgment]. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). C. Contrary to Constitutional Right (§ 706(2)(B)) The rule violates [CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION] because [DESCRIBE THE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION]. The Constitution's structural provisions — including the non-delegation doctrine (Article I, § 1) and the separation of powers — prohibit Congress from delegating its legislative power to executive agencies without an intelligible principle. A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935). D. Without Observance of Required Procedure (§ 706(2)(D)) [IF APPLICABLE: The agency failed to [DESCRIBE PROCEDURAL FAILURE: provide adequate notice / accept meaningful comment / consider significant comments / prepare a required regulatory impact analysis].] VI. MAJOR QUESTIONS DOCTRINE (IF APPLICABLE) [INCLUDE THIS SECTION IF THE RULE HAS VAST ECONOMIC OR POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE] Under West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022), when an agency claims authority to resolve a question of "vast economic and political significance," Congress must have spoken clearly. The Court must apply the major questions doctrine as a "clear statement rule" before deferring to agency authority. The challenged rule has vast economic and political significance because: — It affects [DESCRIBE ECONOMIC MAGNITUDE: estimated $X billion in compliance costs / X million regulated entities] — It resolves a major policy question that [DESCRIBE THE POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE] — Congress has [DEBATED / DECLINED TO PASS LEGISLATION] on this precise question, confirming it is a major question requiring clear congressional authorization Congress has not spoken clearly. The claimed statutory authority — [STATUTE, SECTION] — does not address [THE MAJOR QUESTION]. The agency cannot use ambiguity to claim authority over a question of this magnitude. VII. HARM AND STANDING I have suffered and will continue to suffer concrete, particularized injury from this rule: Injury: [DESCRIBE YOUR SPECIFIC INJURY: compliance costs, restriction of activity, economic harm, constitutional right violation] Traceability: This injury is directly caused by [RULE NAME] and would not exist but for the agency's unlawful action. Redressability: Withdrawal or suspension of the rule would eliminate the injury. VIII. REQUESTED RELIEF I respectfully request that the agency: 1. WITHDRAW [RULE NAME] as exceeding statutory authority under Loper Bright and 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C); 2. SUSPEND enforcement of [RULE NAME] pending this review; 3. PROVIDE a written response within 60 days identifying the specific statutory text that authorizes each element of the challenged rule; 4. PRESERVE all rulemaking records, including internal deliberations, cost-benefit analyses, and legal opinions regarding statutory authority; and 5. NOTIFY all regulated parties of this challenge and the suspension of enforcement. IX. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL PRESERVATION This letter constitutes a formal administrative challenge and exhausts administrative remedies to the extent required by law. If the agency denies this challenge or fails to respond within 60 days, I reserve the right to seek judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 702, which provides that "[a] person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof." Nothing in this letter waives any right, claim, or defense available at law or in equity. X. CLOSING AND CERTIFICATION I certify that this challenge is submitted in good faith and based on a reasonable belief that the challenged rule exceeds the agency's statutory authority under Loper Bright v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. ___ (2024). Respectfully submitted, [YOUR SIGNATURE] [YOUR NAME] [ADDRESS] [PHONE] [EMAIL] [DATE] cc: [AGENCY GENERAL COUNSEL] [RELEVANT CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE] [OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS (OIRA)]