Negotiated rulemaking

Last updated

Negotiated rulemaking is a process in American administrative law, used by federal agencies, in which representatives from a government agency and affected interest groups negotiate the terms of a proposed administrative rule. The agency publishes the proposed rule in the Federal Register and then follows the usual rulemaking procedure of soliciting public comments, which are evaluated for inclusion in the final rule.

Contents

Origins

Negotiated rulemaking, sometimes abbreviated as "neg reg" or "reg neg," emerged most prominently in the early 1980s because of a concern that traditional rulemaking procedures had become too adversarial. John Dunlop, Secretary of Labor under President Gerald Ford, first introduced the idea of formally engaging affected interests in negotiations over federal regulations in the 1970s. [1] In 1982 Phillip Harter, an administrative law expert, developed the idea of neg reg further in a report to the Administrative Conference of the United States and then a law review article, proposing negotiation as a means of alleviating the "malaise" that hindered the existing federal rulemaking process. [2] The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Department of Transportation were the first agencies to experiment with negotiated rulemaking. Other agencies were more reluctant to try it, out of concern about its legality. Those questions were answered when the United States Congress enacted the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 (Neg Reg Act), "to encourage agencies to use negotiated rulemaking when it enhances the informal rulemaking process." [3] The Neg Reg Act was reauthorized in 1996 and is now incorporated into the Administrative Procedure Act, at 5 U.S.C. §§ 561-570. [4]
A believer in the effectiveness of neg reg, President Clinton encouraged agencies to use the approach in Executive Order #12866 and in a subsequent Presidential Memorandum. [5]

Although only a small fraction of all regulations have been developed through negotiated rulemaking, a variety of federal government agencies have used the procedure, including the U.S. Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, the Interior, Labor, and Transportation, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Negotiated rulemaking is currently required under the Higher Education Act and the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act.

Procedure

Usually, an agency is not mandated to use negotiated rulemaking, but does so by choice. Its decision to use negotiated rulemaking is not subject to review by the courts. [6] An agency can publish a proposal adopted by its negotiating committee, but the Negotiated Rulemaking Act does not require it. [5]

The decision to use negotiated rulemaking is based on a number of factors, including whether it is likely that a balanced committee can be formed and whether it is reasonable to believe that the committee will reach a consensus recommendation for a proposed rule. The agency's resources are also considered.[ citation needed ]

The use of a convener to determine the feasibility of undertaking a negotiated rulemaking is authorized under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act. A convener may also recommend a list of stakeholder representatives for participation on the neg reg advisory committee. Sometimes, the agency compiles its own list. Regardless, the proposed advisory committee members and the issues to be negotiated are published in the Federal Register and subject to public comment. People who feel they are under-represented on the committee can request membership.[ citation needed ]

Neg Regs are facilitated by a public policy mediator. Once established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the committee prepares a set of ground rules, which include the committee's deadline, mission, responsibilities, commitments, and a decision rule or definition of consensus. A final list of the issues to be negotiated is also created, and negotiators are provided with relevant background materials. With the public policy mediator providing focus and managing the negotiations, the committee discusses each issue striving for agreements in concept, which government staff draft as regulatory text. This draft text is reviewed and revised until a tentative consensus agreement is reached. If an early consensus cannot be reached, the drafting team outlines multiple options discussed. When tentative agreements are reached on all issues, the agreements are checked for consistency before final consensus is achieved. [7] Negotiated rulemaking typically takes six months to a year and involves multi-day meetings approximately once a month.

Successes and critiques

In a study published in 1997, University of Pennsylvania Law School Professor Cary Coglianese reported that negotiated rulemaking did not provide the benefits advocates of the procedure had promised, namely decreased litigation and more expeditious rulemaking. At the agency that had conducted the most rules developed with neg reg at the time of his research - the EPA - 50% of the negotiated rules resulted in litigation, compared with an overall rate closer to 25%. [1] Coglianese also found that negotiated rulemaking did not save agencies any time. [1]
In an article published in 2000, Philip Harter characterized Coglianese's research as possessing fundamental flaws, notably stating that he "misapplies his own methodology, incorrectly measures the duration of several negotiations, and fails to differentiate among different types of judicial challenges to negotiated rules." [8] In a reply article, Coglianese rebutted Harter's criticisms, stating that "Harter makes unfounded assertions about [the original] study, disregards basic principles of empirical analysis, and continues to advance bold claims for negotiated rulemaking unsupported by reliable empirical analysis." [9]

In a subsequent paper, public policy mediator Susan Podziba has argued that negotiated rulemaking allows the benefits of face-to-face interaction and cooperation. She has also claimed that it allows all parties to share information and take advantage of the different skill sets of committee members. [7] Research conducted by Dr. Laura Langbein of the School of Public Affairs at American University indicated that rules developed through neg reg were perceived by survey respondents to be of better quality, more accurate and timelier than rules created using the traditional process. [10] Coglianese has outlined several limitations in the Langbein study [9]

Another criticism of negotiated rulemaking is that it subverts the public interest because special interest groups have too much sway. [11] Professor Jody Freeman of Harvard Law School argues against this idea and asserts that the phrase "public interest" is far too vague to act as a variable in the assessment of negotiated rulemaking. [12]

In 2006, the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Public co-sponsored a workshop to reflect on lessons learned during past negotiated rulemakings conducted throughout the federal government. According to background materials prepared for the workshop, more than 30 federal negotiated rulemakings occurred between 1996 and 2005, including the No Child Left Behind Act, Off-Road Vehicle Regulations at Cape Cod National Seashore, and Worker Safety Standards for the Use of Cranes and Derricks in Construction. [10]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914</span> 1914 US law establishing the Federal Trade Commission

The Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 is a United States federal law which established the Federal Trade Commission. The Act was signed into law by US President Woodrow Wilson in 1914 and outlaws unfair methods of competition and unfair acts or practices that affect commerce.

A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is a public notice that is issued by law when a U.S. federal agency wishes to add, remove, or change a rule or regulation as part of the rulemaking process. The notice is an important part of US administrative law, which facilitates government by typically creating a process of taking of public comment. The term is also used at the state level in the United States.

<i>Code of Federal Regulations</i> Compilation of US federal regulations

In the law of the United States, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the codification of the general and permanent regulations promulgated by the executive departments and agencies of the federal government of the United States. The CFR is divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to federal regulation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Environmental Policy Act</span> United States federal environmental law (enacted 1970)

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a United States environmental law designed to promote the enhancement of the environment. It created new laws requiring U.S. federal government agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of their actions and decisions, and it established the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The Act was passed by the U.S. Congress in December 1969 and signed into law by President Richard Nixon on January 1, 1970. To date, more than 100 nations around the world have enacted national environmental policies modeled after NEPA.

<i>Federal Register</i> Official journal of the US federal government

The Federal Register is the official journal of the federal government of the United States that contains government agency rules, proposed rules, and public notices. It is published every weekday, except on federal holidays. The final rules promulgated by a federal agency and published in the Federal Register are ultimately reorganized by topic or subject matter and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which is updated quarterly.

In administrative law, rulemaking is the process that executive and independent agencies use to create, or promulgate, regulations. In general, legislatures first set broad policy mandates by passing statutes, then agencies create more detailed regulations through rulemaking.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs</span> Subagency within the US Government

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is a Division within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which in turn, is within the Executive Office of the President. OIRA oversees the implementation of government-wide policies in, and reviews draft regulations under, Executive Order 12866, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Information Quality Act.

United States federal administrative law encompasses statutes, rules, judicial precedents, and executive orders, that together form administrative laws that define the extent of powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of the United States government, including executive departments and independent agencies. Because Congress, the president, and the federal courts have limited resources to address all issues, specialized powers are often delegated to a board, commission, office, or other agency. These administrative agencies oversee and monitor activities in complex areas, such as commercial aviation, medical device manufacturing, and securities markets.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rules Enabling Act</span> 1934 United States law allowing judicial rules

The Rules Enabling Act is an Act of Congress that gave the judicial branch the power to promulgate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Amendments to the Act allowed for the creation of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and other procedural court rules. The creation and revision of rules pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act are usually carried out by the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure and its advisory committees, which are part of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body of the United States federal courts.

The Administrative Law, Process and Procedure Project is a bipartisan undertaking of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress. It consists of a comprehensive study of the state of administrative law, process and procedure in the United States. A description of the Project was included in the Judiciary Committee's Oversight Plan for the 109th Congress, as approved by the Committee on January 26, 2005. The Project will culminate with the preparation of a detailed report with recommendations for legislative proposals and suggested areas for further research and analysis to be considered by the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS). House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) and Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI) requested the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to assist Representative Chris Cannon (R-UT), the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law (CAL), in conducting the Project.

The California Code of Regulations is the codification of the general and permanent rules and regulations announced in the California Regulatory Notice Register by California state agencies under authority from primary legislation in the California Codes. Such rules and regulations are reviewed, approved, and made available to the public by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), and are also filed with the Secretary of State.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cary Coglianese</span> American legal scholar

Cary Coglianese is an American legal scholar who is the Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where he is also director of the Penn Program on Regulation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Administrative Conference of the United States</span> Independent agency of the U.S. government

The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) is an independent agency of the United States government that was established in 1964 by the Administrative Conference Act. The conference's purpose is to "promote improvements in the efficiency, adequacy, and fairness of the procedures by which federal agencies conduct regulatory programs, administer grants and benefits, and perform related governmental functions."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lawrence Susskind</span>

Lawrence E. Susskind is a scholar of conflict resolution and consensus-building in urban planning. He is one of the founders of the field of public dispute mediation and is a practicing international mediator through the Consensus Building institute. He has taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology since 1971, where he is Ford Professor of Environmental Planning.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Administrative Procedure Act</span> US federal statute

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law  79–404, 60 Stat. 237, enacted June 11, 1946, is the United States federal statute that governs the way in which administrative agencies of the federal government of the United States may propose and establish regulations, and it grants U.S. federal courts oversight over all agency actions. According to Hickman & Pierce, it is one of the most important pieces of United States administrative law, and serves as a sort of "constitution" for U.S. administrative law.

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court decision that held valid a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) rule that during the licensing of nuclear power plants, the permanent storage of nuclear waste should be assumed to have no environmental impact.

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983), commonly known in U.S. administrative law as State Farm, is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning regulations requiring passive restraints in cars. Decided in 1983, one year before Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., the Court found that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had not provided a "reasoned analysis" for rescinding regulations that required either airbags or automatic seat belts in new cars.

Executive Order 12866 in the United States, issued by President Clinton in 1993, requires a cost–benefit analysis for any new regulation that is "economically significant", which is defined as having "an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect[ing] in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, [or] jobs," or creating an inconsistency with other law, or any of several other conditions. The Order established a "regulatory philosophy" and several "principles for regulation", among them requirements to explicitly identify the problem to be addressed, determine whether existing regulations created or contributed to the problem, assess alternatives to direct regulation, and design regulations in the most cost-effective manner possible. Section § 1(a) summarizes this regulatory philosophy as follows:

Federal agencies should promulgate only such regulations as are required by law, are necessary to interpret the law, or are made necessary by compelling public need, such as material failures of private markets to protect or improve the health and safety of the public, the environment, or the well-being of the American people.

Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital, 488 U.S. 204 (1988), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that agencies should not be presumed to have the power to promulgate retroactive rules unless that power is expressly authorized by Congress. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for a unanimous court that the Secretary of Health and Human Services had exceeded his rulemaking authority under the Medicare Act in promulgating a wage index rule in 1984 under which he would recoup Medicare reimbursements paid to hospitals, including Georgetown University Hospital, that had been disbursed since 1981 according to the pre-1984 rule. Justice Antonin Scalia concurred in the judgment, writing separately that, in addition to the particular language of the Medicare Act, the Administrative Procedure Act more broadly prohibits retroactive rulemaking because it defines rules as having exclusively future effect, as opposed to adjudicative orders.

The federal government maintains a “regulatory agenda” of all regulations under development by executive branch agencies. The requirement to list rules likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities arises under statute, and the requirement to list all other rules arises under Executive Order 12866 § 4(b). The full regulatory agenda is printed twice a year in the Federal Register. Each agency's regulatory agenda lists:

References

  1. 1 2 3 Cary Coglianese, "Assessing Consensus: The Promise and Performance of Negotiated Rulemaking," 46 Duke Law Journal 6, 1997, pp 1255-1350, https://ssrn.com/abstract=10430.
  2. ↑ Harter, Philip J., Negotiating Regulations: A Cure for Malaise, Georgetown Law Journal, vol. 71, 1982.
  3. ↑ "5 U.S.C. § 561". http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+5USC561. Retrieved 2008-06-05.
  4. ↑ "5 U.S.C. §§ 561-570". http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title5/parti_chapter5_subchapteriii_.html Archived 2008-04-10 at the Wayback Machine . Retrieved 2008-06-05.
  5. 1 2 Lubbers, Jeffery, A Guide to Federal Agency Rulemaking (3d ed., ABA Book Publg. 1998), pg. 175.
  6. ↑ "5 U.S.C. §570". Retrieved 2008-06-05.
  7. 1 2 Podziba, Susan. Occupational Safety & Health Reporter, Vol. 35, No. 39, 10/06/2005, pp. 891-893. 2005, https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/57e552041c882348567f1676/5c3dd87e6891ba61b411e182_BNA%20Negotiated%20Rulemaking.pdf
  8. ↑ Philip J. Harter, Assessing the Assessors: The Actual Performance of Negotiated Rulemaking, 9 N.Y.U. ENVTL. L.J. 32, 2000, http://www1.law.nyu.edu/journals/envtllaw/issues/vol9/1/v9n1a2.pdf.
  9. 1 2 Cary Coglianese, "Assessing the Advocacy of Negotiated Rulemaking: A response to Philip Harter," 9 New York University Environmental Law Journal 2, 2001, pp 386-447, http://www1.law.nyu.edu/journals/envtllaw/issues/vol9/2/v9n2a4.pdf
  10. 1 2 U.S. Department of the Interior & U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Moving Beyond Notice and Comment: Reflections on Negotiated Rulemaking, 2006, http://mits.doi.gov/CADR/Material02132006/Done_for_Web/2004_05_14/2006_05_03_RegNeg_Summary.htm.
  11. ↑ William Funk, "Bargaining Toward the New Millennium: Regulatory Negotiation and the Subversion of the Public Interest," Duke Law Journal 46, 1997, pp. 1351-1388.
  12. ↑ Jody Freeman, The Private Role in Public Governance, 75 N.Y.U. L. 2000.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.