Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Hybrid rulemaking

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
What is rulemaking in the context of the administrative state?

Rulemaking is a process by which administrative agencies amend, repeal, or create an administrative regulation. The most common rulemaking process is informal rulemaking, which solicits written public feedback on proposed rules during a comment period. When required by statute, certain agencies must follow the formal rulemaking process, which incorporates a trial-like hearing in place of the informal comment period, or hybrid rulemaking, which blends specified elements of formal rulemaking into the informal rulemaking process. Learn about rulemaking here.


Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Read more about the administrative state on Ballotpedia.


Hybrid rulemaking, in the context of administrative law, is a rulemaking process that enables federal agencies to amend, repeal, or create an administrative regulation. Hybrid rulemaking occurs when Congress requires an agency to expand on informal rulemaking procedures by incorporating certain elements of the formal rulemaking process. According to the Congressional Research Service, hybrid rulemaking generally results in greater public participation than informal rulemaking while remaining less rigid than formal rulemaking.[1]

Background

See also: rulemaking, informal rulemaking and formal rulemaking

Hybrid rulemaking occurs when Congress mandates that an agency follow certain procedures in addition to those required by the informal rulemaking process. Hybrid rulemaking blends specified elements of formal rulemaking into the informal rulemaking process to create a non-standard rulemaking method for use in certain circumstances. For example, Congress may require an agency to create a formal record, hold hearings, allow for oral testimony, or cite detailed fact findings or conclusions from the record. According to the Congressional Research Service, hybrid rulemaking generally results in greater public participation than informal rulemaking while remaining less rigid than formal rulemaking.[1][2][3]

Examples of statutes that require hybrid rulemaking include the Clean Air Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Federal Trade Commission's rulemaking statute.[3]

Non-statutory hybrid rulemaking

According to a recommendation from the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), agencies may also engage in certain hybrid rulemaking procedures at their own discretion "in order to enlarge the opportunity for public participation and increase its effectiveness." When appropriate, ACUS recommends that agencies consider incorporating the following additional procedures into the informal rulemaking process:[4]

  • Open a second comment period for additional feedback
  • Provide the public with additional background information regarding the agency's regulatory positions and data resources
  • Hold public conferences
  • Allow for oral testimony
  • Allow for requested cross-examination on issues of specific fact

For more information about the steps of the informal and formal rulemaking processes, click here.

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Congressional Research Service, "A Brief Overview of Rulemaking and Judicial Review," March 21, 2012
  2. ↑ Center for Effective Government, "Hybrid Rulemaking," accessed August 23, 2017
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 The Regulatory Group, "Regulatory Glossary," accessed August 23, 2017
  4. ↑ Administrative Conference of the United States, "Procedures in Addition to Notice and the Opportunity for Comment in Informal Rulemaking," June 4, 1976
v • e
The Administrative State
MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
Pillars
Reporting
Laws
Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Cases
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
Terms
Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
Bibliography
Agencies
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Hybrid_rulemaking&oldid=7711304"