What might be a reason why interpretive rules do not require public comment?

Interpretive rules are generally issued by agencies to provide guidance on how they interpret regulations, statutory requirements, or policies. One key reason these rules do not require public comment is that they are considered non-binding. This means they do not create new laws but merely explain existing ones. Since interpretive rules do not impose new legal obligations or restrictions on the public, the regulatory process does not necessitate the same level of public scrutiny that binding rules might require.

In contrast, the other options present varying circumstances that do not align with the nature of interpretive rules. For instance, while technical content might make public commentary challenging, it does not exempt a rule from requiring comment. Similarly, the temporary nature of a rule or its approval by Congress does not inherently relate to whether public comment is necessary. The classification of interpretive rules as non-binding is the core reason why such rules streamline the process and allow agencies to issue them without formal comment periods.