Administrative Law Tools for More Adaptive and Responsive Regulation

Chapter
Part of the The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology book series (ELTE, volume 7)

Abstract

The ossification of regulatory rulemaking is one of the most substantial obstacles to the law’s ability to keep pace with both emerging and evolving technologies. This chapter explores four administrative law tools that have been used at different times in U.S. and international history to attempt to hasten the regulatory process, and analyzes their potential utility as effective methods to help close the gap between regulation and technology. Three of the four tools discussed are different types of rulemaking procedures – negotiated rulemaking, direct final rulemaking and online or e-rulemaking – each one designed to streamline a specific aspect of the rulemaking process. The remaining administrative tool discussed is sunset provisions or temporary legislation designed to prevent outdated legislation from continuing in perpetuity by allowing legislation to naturally expire in the absence of affirmative re-authorization. By carefully analyzing past uses of the various techniques their strengths and weaknesses are revealed, allowing their potential benefits and most appropriate applications to be better identified.

Keywords

Ossification Negotiated rulemaking Direct final rulemaking Electronic rulemaking Sunset legislation 

References

  1. American Bar Association, Committee on the Status and Future of Federal eRulemaking. 2010. Achieving the potential: The future of federal E-rulemaking. Administrative Law Review 62: 279–288.Google Scholar
  2. American Bar Association Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice. 2009. Improving the administrative process: A report to the president-elect of the United States (2008). Administrative Law Review 61: 235–247.Google Scholar
  3. American Conference of the United States. 1994. Recommendation 93-4, “Improving the environment for agency rulemaking,” Federal Register 59: 4670, 1 Feb 1994.Google Scholar
  4. Balla, Steven, and Wright, John. 2003. Consensual rulemaking and the time it takes to develop rules. In Politics, policy, and organizations, eds. Kenneth Meier and George Krause, 187–206. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  5. Baram, Michael S. 1982. Alternatives to regulation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  6. Benjamin, Stuart Minor. 2006. Evaluating E-rulemaking: Public participation and political institutions. Duke Law Journal 55: 893–941.Google Scholar
  7. Blais, Lynn E., and Wagner, Wendy E. 2008. Emerging science, adaptive regulation, and the problem of rulemaking ruts. Texas Law Review 86: 1701–1739.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, Bradley M. 2008. Landmarks and land mines. The Environmental Forum, Nov/Dec: 30–35.Google Scholar
  9. Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. (1972).Google Scholar
  10. Coglianese, Cary. 2004. E-Rulemaking: Information technology and the regulatory process. Admin. L. Rev. 56: 353–402.Google Scholar
  11. Coglianese, Cary. 1997. Assessing consensus: The promise and performance of negotiated rulemaking. Duke Law Journal 44: 1255–1349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Copeland, Curtis. 2008. Congressional Research Service Report RL32240 The Federal Rulemaking Process: An Overview.Google Scholar
  13. E-Government Act of 2002, section 206(c) & (d)(1)-(2). Pub. L. No. 107–347, 116 Stat. 2899.Google Scholar
  14. European Commission. 2010a. What is IPM (Interactive policy making)?, available at http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/index_en.htm.
  15. European Commission. 2010b. Your voice in Europe, available at http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/index_en.htm.
  16. Freeman, Jody and Langbein, Laura. 2000. Regulatory negotiation and the legitimacy benefit. NYU Environmental Law Journal 9: 60–151.Google Scholar
  17. Gersen, Jacob E. 2007. Temporary legislation. University of Chicago Law Review 74: 247–297.Google Scholar
  18. Gutterman, Alan S. and Brown, Robert L. 2009. Going global: A guide to building an international business. Thomson West.Google Scholar
  19. Harter, Philip J. 1982. Negotiated regulations: A cure for malaise. Georgetown Law Journal 71: 1–118.Google Scholar
  20. Harter, Philip J. 2000. Assessing the assessors: The actual performance of negotiated rulemaking. New York University Environmental Law Journal 9: 32–59.Google Scholar
  21. Holley-Walker, Danielle. 2007. Importance of negotiated rulemaking to the No Child Left Behind Act. Nebraska Law-Review 85: 1015–1057.Google Scholar
  22. Jonhson, S. M. 1998. The internet changes everything: Revolutionizing public participation and access to government information through the internet. Administrative Law Review 50: 277–337.Google Scholar
  23. Kalen, S. 2008. The transformation of modern administrative law: Changing administrations and environmental guidance documents. Ecology Law Quarterly 35: 657–720.Google Scholar
  24. Kobick, Julia. 2010. Negotiated rulemaking: The next step in regulatory innovation at the Food and Drug Administration? Food and Drug Law Journal 65: 425–445.Google Scholar
  25. Kolber, Michael. 2009. Rulemaking without rules: An empirical study of direct final rulemaking. Albany Law Review 72: 79–113.Google Scholar
  26. Langbein, Laura and Kerwin, Cornelius. 2000. Regulatory negotiation versus conventional rule making: Claims, counterclaims, and empirical evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10: 599–632.Google Scholar
  27. Levin, Ronald M. 1995. Direct final rulemaking. George Washington Law 64: 1–34.Google Scholar
  28. McGarity, Thomas O. 1992. Some thoughts on deossifying the rulemaking process. Duke Law Journal 41: 1385–1462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McGarity, Thomas, Steinzor Rena, Shapiro Sidney, and Shudtz Matthew. 2010. Workers at risk: Regulatory dysfunction at OSHA, Center for progressive reform white paper #1003.Google Scholar
  30. National Research Council. 2006. State and federal standards for mobile-source emissions. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  31. Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA). 1990. Pub. L. No. 101–648, 104 Stat. 4969, codified at 5 U.S.C.A. § 561.Google Scholar
  32. Noah, Lars. 1999. Doubts about direct final rulemaking. Admininistrative Law Review 51: 402–428.Google Scholar
  33. Note (1981). Rethinking regulation: Negotiation as an alternative to traditional rule making. Harvard Law Review 94: 1871–1891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Noveck, Beth S. 2004. The electronic revolution in rulemaking. Emory Law Journal 53: 433–522.Google Scholar
  35. Noveck, Beth S., and Johnson, David R. 2008. A complex(ity) strategy for breaking the logjam. New York University Law Review 17: 170–193.Google Scholar
  36. Office of the Vice President. 1993. Accompanying report of the national performance review: Improving regulatory systems.Google Scholar
  37. Pierce, Richard J. Jr. (1995). Seven ways to deossify agency rulemaking. Administrative Law Review 47: 59–95.Google Scholar
  38. Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990. Pub. L. No. 101-648, 104 Stat. 4969 (1990).Google Scholar
  39. Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996. Pub. L. No. 104-320, §§ 1, 11, 110 Stat. 3870, 3873–3874.Google Scholar
  40. Reigel, S.A., and P.J. Owen. 1982. Administrative law: The law of government agencies. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science.Google Scholar
  41. Seidenfeld, Mark A. 2000. Table of requirements for federal administrative rulemaking. Florida State University Law Review 27: 533–536.Google Scholar
  42. Shapiro, Harold T. 1997. Ethical and policy issues of human cloning. Science 277: 195–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shuck, Peter. 1979. Litigation, bargaining, and regulation. Regulation 3(4): 26–34.Google Scholar
  44. Stewart, Richard B. 2003. Administrative law in the twenty-first century. New York University Law Review 78: 437–460.Google Scholar
  45. Stewart, Richard B. 1975. The reformation of American administrative law. Harvard Law Review 88: 1669–1813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sunstein, Cass R. 2010. Memorandum for the president’s management council: Increasing openness in the rulemaking process – Improving electronic dockets. Office of Management and Budget, 28 May 2010.Google Scholar
  47. Susskind, L., and McMahon, G. 1985. The theory and practice of negotiated rulemaking. Yale Journal on Regulation 3: 133–165.Google Scholar
  48. U.S. Dept. of Education. http://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/hea08/neg-reg-faq.html (last visited 5 June 2009).
  49. World Bank Group. 2008. The World Bank, development and climate change – A strategic framework for the World Bank Group consultation draft 11. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTCC/Resources/407863-1219339233881/DevelopmentandClimateChange.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations