Negotiated rulemaking (“Reg-Neg”)
⚖️ What is Negotiated Rulemaking (“Reg-Neg”)?
Negotiated Rulemaking is a collaborative process where regulators and stakeholders (e.g., industry, advocacy groups, labor unions, etc.) come together to negotiate the text of a proposed rule before it is formally published.
It is a consensus-based rule development process, aiming to:
Improve regulatory legitimacy
Reduce litigation
Enhance stakeholder buy-in
Make complex rules more accurate and effective
🧩 Legal Framework
In the U.S., Reg-Neg is governed primarily by:
Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 (5 U.S.C. §§ 561–570)
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) – still applies; Reg-Neg is supplementary to notice-and-comment rulemaking
In other countries, Reg-Neg has inspired similar participatory lawmaking or co-regulation models.
🔑 Core Features of Reg-Neg
Convening Process – Agency assesses if negotiation is feasible.
Committee Formation – Balanced representation of interests.
Consensus Rule Drafting – Participants draft rule text through meetings.
Notice and Comment – Draft rule still goes through APA's formal procedures.
Final Rule Issuance – Based on consensus draft, modified if necessary.
✅ Advantages of Reg-Neg
Encourages cooperation over confrontation
Builds technical accuracy into rules
Reduces post-rulemaking litigation
Strengthens democratic legitimacy
⚠️ Criticisms of Reg-Neg
Potential domination by powerful stakeholders
Time-consuming and resource-intensive
Difficult to achieve genuine consensus
📚 Case Law and Examples
Case 1: Public Citizen Health Research Group v. U.S. Department of Labor, 557 F.3d 165 (D.C. Cir. 2009)
Facts:
Public Citizen challenged the Department of Labor’s use of negotiated rulemaking in creating safety rules for certain industries, claiming the agency unduly favored industry interests.
Issue:
Did the negotiated rulemaking process violate the APA by allowing undue influence or by producing arbitrary rules?
Holding:
The court upheld the rule, noting that negotiated rulemaking is not exempt from the APA, and so long as notice-and-comment is preserved, participatory processes are permissible.
Significance:
Affirmed that Reg-Neg is legally valid under APA.
Emphasized that final rule must be reasonable and procedurally sound, not just consensus-based.
Case 2: Association of American Medical Colleges v. United States, 217 F.3d 770 (9th Cir. 2000)
Facts:
A regulation developed through Reg-Neg governing Medicare funding to medical schools was challenged for being vague and lacking adequate evidence.
Issue:
Did the agency fail to properly support the negotiated rule with evidence?
Holding:
Court ruled that consensus cannot substitute for administrative record and reasoned decision-making.
Significance:
Highlights that substantive justification is still required under APA.
Shows that negotiated rules must be legally and factually supportable.
Case 3: United States v. Nova Scotia Food Products Corp., 568 F.2d 240 (2d Cir. 1977)
Facts:
FDA issued a regulation about fish processing after consulting only a few stakeholders in a manner akin to Reg-Neg.
Issue:
Was the process inclusive and transparent enough to meet APA standards?
Holding:
Court invalidated the rule due to lack of openness and scientific basis, noting that secretive or narrow consultation violates the principles of administrative law.
Significance:
Reinforces the importance of broad and fair participation.
Shows early judicial skepticism of informal or exclusive negotiated processes.
Case 4: Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. EPA, 873 F.2d 1477 (D.C. Cir. 1989)
Facts:
EPA used negotiated rulemaking to develop rules for hazardous waste disposal. Industry groups challenged the rule, arguing unfair procedures.
Issue:
Did the negotiated process produce arbitrary results?
Holding:
Court upheld the rule, emphasizing that even in negotiated settings, agencies must document the rationale behind rules.
Significance:
Clarified that Reg-Neg must still produce a rule based on a reasoned analysis, not just consensus.
Legitimized the use of Reg-Neg in technically complex areas.
Case 5: National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) v. ICC, 41 F.3d 721 (D.C. Cir. 1994)
Facts:
The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) used Reg-Neg to develop rules on motor carrier safety, which NARUC challenged as giving too much power to private interests.
Issue:
Did the process unlawfully delegate public authority to private actors?
Holding:
Court held that as long as the agency retains final authority, involving private actors in negotiation does not amount to improper delegation.
Significance:
Established that Reg-Neg is not an unconstitutional delegation of power.
Emphasized that agencies must retain control and accountability.
Case 6: National Wildlife Federation v. EPA, 286 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2002)
Facts:
Environmentalists challenged EPA’s negotiated rule on water pollution permits for being too industry-friendly.
Issue:
Did consensus through Reg-Neg violate public interest mandates?
Holding:
Court did not invalidate the rule but warned that agencies cannot use consensus as a shield against scrutiny.
Significance:
Reinforced that public interest duties prevail over negotiated consensus.
Warned that Reg-Neg cannot become a backdoor for deregulation.
🧾 Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Issue | Ruling | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Citizen v. DOL | USA (D.C. Cir.) | APA challenge to Reg-Neg | Rule upheld | APA compliance still required |
| AAMC v. US | USA (9th Cir.) | Evidence behind rule | Rule invalidated | Consensus ≠ sufficient justification |
| Nova Scotia Foods | USA (2nd Cir.) | Secretive rulemaking | Rule invalidated | Broad participation necessary |
| Chem. Waste Mgmt. v. EPA | USA (D.C. Cir.) | Procedural challenge | Rule upheld | Reasoned decision-making required |
| NARUC v. ICC | USA (D.C. Cir.) | Delegation to private parties | Allowed | Final authority must rest with agency |
| NWF v. EPA | USA (D.C. Cir.) | Industry-biased rule | Rule allowed but cautioned | Public interest > negotiated consensus |
🧠 Lessons from Case Law
Reg-Neg is lawful but must meet APA requirements.
Agencies must retain final decision-making power.
Consensus cannot replace factual and legal justification.
Inclusive participation is essential for legitimacy.
Courts will uphold rules if agencies document their rationale clearly.
✅ Conclusion
Negotiated rulemaking can be an effective tool for collaborative governance, especially in complex, technical areas. However:
It does not exempt agencies from APA’s requirements.
Rules developed through Reg-Neg must still be legally sound, transparent, and justified.
Courts are generally supportive, but remain cautious of regulatory capture, bias, and procedural shortcuts.
RELATED Blog
0 comments