Legal Definitions - interpretive rule

An interpretive rule (also known as an interpretative rule) is a statement issued by a government agency that clarifies or explains an existing law or regulation. Unlike a legislative rule, an interpretive rule does not create new legal obligations or change existing law. Instead, it provides guidance on how the agency understands and intends to apply its own regulations or the statutes it administers. Because interpretive rules merely explain existing law rather than establish new law, agencies typically do not need to follow the formal public notice-and-comment procedures required for legislative rulemaking.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Example 1: Tax Deduction Guidance

  Imagine the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issues a document explaining how taxpayers should calculate a specific business expense deduction that has been part of tax law for years. The existing tax code states that "reasonable and necessary" business expenses are deductible, but it doesn't define every possible scenario. The IRS's document might provide examples of what it considers "reasonable and necessary" for certain industries, or clarify which types of documentation are acceptable proof. This guidance is an interpretive rule because it doesn't create a new deduction or change the existing tax law; it simply clarifies how the IRS will interpret and enforce the existing "reasonable and necessary" standard.

• Example 2: Environmental Reporting Clarification

  A state environmental protection agency has a regulation requiring factories to report "significant discharges" of pollutants. Over time, the agency notices that different factories are interpreting "significant" differently, leading to inconsistent reporting. To address this, the agency publishes a bulletin detailing specific thresholds or methodologies it will use to determine what constitutes a "significant discharge" for various types of pollutants. This bulletin is an interpretive rule. It doesn't change the underlying regulation that requires reporting significant discharges, nor does it alter the definition of a pollutant. Instead, it clarifies the agency's interpretation of the word "significant" within the existing regulation, providing consistent guidance to regulated entities.

• Example 3: Workplace Safety Protocol Explanation

  A federal agency responsible for workplace safety has a long-standing regulation requiring employers to provide "adequate personal protective equipment" (PPE) to employees in hazardous environments. A new type of hazard emerges in a particular industry, and employers are unsure what "adequate" PPE means in this novel context. The agency then issues a guidance document recommending specific types of respirators and gloves for this new hazard, based on its expert assessment. This guidance is an interpretive rule. It doesn't create a new requirement for PPE; the original regulation already mandated "adequate" PPE. Instead, it interprets what "adequate" means in a specific, evolving situation, helping employers comply with the existing law without creating a new legal obligation.