Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Administrative Law Tools for More Adaptive and Responsive Regulation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight

Part of the book series: The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology ((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 The remaining administrative tool discussed is sunset provisions or temporary legislation designed to prevent outdated legislation from continuing in perpetuity by allowing legislation to naturally expire in the absence of affirmative re-authorization.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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This chapter will focus on the United States as a case study, but similar innovations in regulatory processes are being implemented or considered in other jurisdictions.

References

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Baram, Michael S. 1982. Alternatives to regulation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, Stuart Minor. 2006. Evaluating E-rulemaking: Public participation and political institutions. Duke Law Journal 55: 893–941.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Campbell, Bradley M. 2008. Landmarks and land mines. The Environmental Forum, Nov/Dec: 30–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  • Coglianese, Cary. 2004. E-Rulemaking: Information technology and the regulatory process. Admin. L. Rev. 56: 353–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coglianese, Cary. 1997. Assessing consensus: The promise and performance of negotiated rulemaking. Duke Law Journal 44: 1255–1349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copeland, Curtis. 2008. Congressional Research Service Report RL32240 The Federal Rulemaking Process: An Overview.

    Google Scholar 

  • E-Government Act of 2002, section 206(c) & (d)(1)-(2). Pub. L. No. 107–347, 116 Stat. 2899.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2010a. What is IPM (Interactive policy making)?, available at http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/index_en.htm.

  • European Commission. 2010b. Your voice in Europe, available at http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/index_en.htm.

  • Freeman, Jody and Langbein, Laura. 2000. Regulatory negotiation and the legitimacy benefit. NYU Environmental Law Journal 9: 60–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gersen, Jacob E. 2007. Temporary legislation. University of Chicago Law Review 74: 247–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutterman, Alan S. and Brown, Robert L. 2009. Going global: A guide to building an international business. Thomson West.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harter, Philip J. 1982. Negotiated regulations: A cure for malaise. Georgetown Law Journal 71: 1–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harter, Philip J. 2000. Assessing the assessors: The actual performance of negotiated rulemaking. New York University Environmental Law Journal 9: 32–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holley-Walker, Danielle. 2007. Importance of negotiated rulemaking to the No Child Left Behind Act. Nebraska Law-Review 85: 1015–1057.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kalen, S. 2008. The transformation of modern administrative law: Changing administrations and environmental guidance documents. Ecology Law Quarterly 35: 657–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kolber, Michael. 2009. Rulemaking without rules: An empirical study of direct final rulemaking. Albany Law Review 72: 79–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Levin, Ronald M. 1995. Direct final rulemaking. George Washington Law 64: 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarity, Thomas O. 1992. Some thoughts on deossifying the rulemaking process. Duke Law Journal 41: 1385–1462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • National Research Council. 2006. State and federal standards for mobile-source emissions. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA). 1990. Pub. L. No. 101–648, 104 Stat. 4969, codified at 5 U.S.C.A. § 561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noah, Lars. 1999. Doubts about direct final rulemaking. Admininistrative Law Review 51: 402–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Note (1981). Rethinking regulation: Negotiation as an alternative to traditional rule making. Harvard Law Review 94: 1871–1891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noveck, Beth S. 2004. The electronic revolution in rulemaking. Emory Law Journal 53: 433–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Office of the Vice President. 1993. Accompanying report of the national performance review: Improving regulatory systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, Richard J. Jr. (1995). Seven ways to deossify agency rulemaking. Administrative Law Review 47: 59–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990. Pub. L. No. 101-648, 104 Stat. 4969 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996. Pub. L. No. 104-320, §§ 1, 11, 110 Stat. 3870, 3873–3874.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigel, S.A., and P.J. Owen. 1982. Administrative law: The law of government agencies. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidenfeld, Mark A. 2000. Table of requirements for federal administrative rulemaking. Florida State University Law Review 27: 533–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, Harold T. 1997. Ethical and policy issues of human cloning. Science 277: 195–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shuck, Peter. 1979. Litigation, bargaining, and regulation. Regulation 3(4): 26–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, Richard B. 2003. Administrative law in the twenty-first century. New York University Law Review 78: 437–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, Richard B. 1975. The reformation of American administrative law. Harvard Law Review 88: 1669–1813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Susskind, L., and McMahon, G. 1985. The theory and practice of negotiated rulemaking. Yale Journal on Regulation 3: 133–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Dept. of Education. http://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/hea08/neg-reg-faq.html (last visited 5 June 2009).

  • 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

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Lyn M. Gaudet & Gary E. Marchant

Authors
  1. Lyn M. Gaudet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gary E. Marchant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lyn M. Gaudet .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Law, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA

    Gary E. Marchant

  2. , Department of Civil and Environmental En, Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering, PO Box 875306, Tempe, 85287, USA

    Braden R. Allenby

  3. , School of Letters and Sciences, Arizona State University, Santa Catalina Hall 250 D, Mesa, 85212, USA

    Joseph R. Herkert

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gaudet, L.M., Marchant, G.E. (2011). Administrative Law Tools for More Adaptive and Responsive Regulation. In: Marchant, G., Allenby, B., Herkert, J. (eds) The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1356-7_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation