## Q38 key (Rule Changed After Comment)

1. The threshold issue is contestable. Notice that the threshold might be "modestly adjusted" supplied some warning of lowering, but 100,000 to 25,000 is large enough that Meridian can argue it was outside reasonable anticipation. This is not the cleanest claim because threshold magnitude was at least flagged. Missed: counsel treats every final difference as equally invalid.
2. Monthly reporting is vulnerable. Meridian expressly commented on quarterly adequacy and monthly instrumentation cost, yet the final statement did not answer that significant comment. Prejudice is concrete in the $2.4 million commitment. Missed: a preserved procedural defect is reduced to policy disagreement.
3. Supplier and contractor reporting was not a logical outgrowth because the proposal concerned only direct emissions and never identified upstream data or third-party conduct. Missed: the final rule regulates an undisclosed category.
4. The post-comment model supplied the essential basis for that new category and was kept outside the docket. Comment had to reopen. Missed: the agency's central factual predicate escapes adversarial testing.
5. Good cause fails: generalized urgency and an 18-month drafting history do not show impracticability or a new event. Missed: immediate compliance takes effect without the required procedure.
6. Harmless error is weak for monthly and supply-chain duties because Meridian could not comment meaningfully on the model or new data burden and faces imminent cost. The agency's environmental merits do not cure notice. Missed: prejudice is never tied to a concrete act.
7. File within 30 days and seek an immediate stay before the contract deadline. Request vacatur of monthly and supply-chain provisions and, depending severability, the threshold application, with remand for proper notice and comment. Missed: the filing window or $2.4 million leverage disappears.