Sponsor Statement for HB 264

Negotiated Regulation/Rule Making

House Bill 264, enables and encourages negotiated regulation/rule making. Currently negotiated regulation making is in use by the Federal government, Montana and Nebraska and several other states.

The citizens of Alaska are clamoring for the Legislature to do something about the regulation process; negotiated regulation making addresses the issue on point.

Negotiated regulation making is used only in cases involving very complex or controversial regulations.

Negotiate regulation (Neg/Reg) is a voluntary process for drafting regulations that brings together those parties who would be significantly impacted by a regulation (rule), including the Government, to reach consensus on some or all of its aspects before the rule is formally published as a proposal. An impartial mediator is used to facilitate intensive discussions among the participants, who operate as a committee open to the public.

Regulations drafted using this process tend to be more technically accurate, clear and specific, and less likely to be challenged in litigation than are rules drafted by the agency alone without input from outside parties. The APA notice process is unchanged.

The negotiated regulation making process costs more money at the front end than the traditional approach (e.g. the added cost for a facilitator). In addition, agency personnel must work closely as a team with outside party representatives and their time must be dedicated to the project if it is to succeed. The advantages clearly outweigh these considerations, however. Because representative of all the interested parties draft the regulation, the formal process of public notice and comment is generally very smooth and very few comments and concerns are raised in that process. More importantly, lengthy regulation litigation is hopefully generally eliminated and compliance with the rule is believed to be much higher. Thus, agency long-term costs of litigating rules and enforcing standards are sharply reduced.

Use of a negotiated regulation making process requires most agencies to change the way they are accustomed to developing a rule. Standard practice in rule development is to have a particular office in the agency develop a draft regulatory document, and then that document is critiqued and reformulated as it is sequentially referred to other parts of the agency, the department, the Executive Branch, and the public. In negotiated regulation making, by contrast, the parties are brought together for simultaneous discussion and consideration of particular issues at the beginning of the process.

Please call Walt Wilcox, or me if there are questions.

Last updated 03/12/98

Sponsor Statement for HB 264

Negotiated Regulation/Rule Making

House Bill 264, introduced today, enables and encourages negotiated regulation/rule making. Currently negotiated regulation is in use by the Federal government, Montana and Nebraska.

The citizens of Alaska are clamoring for the Legislature to do something about the regulation process, negotiated regulation making addresses the issue on point.

Negotiated regulation making is used only in cases involving very complex or controversial regulations.

Negotiate regulation (Neg/Reg) is a voluntary process for drafting regulations that brings together those parties who would be significantly impacted by a regulation (rule), including the Government, to reach consensus on some or all of its aspects before the rule is formally published as a proposal. An impartial mediator is used to facilitate intensive discussions among the participants, who operate as a committee open to the public.

Regulations drafted using this process tend to be more technically accurate, clear and specific, and less likely to be challenged in litigation than are rules drafted by the agency alone without input from outside parties. The APA notice process is unchanged.

The negotiated regulation making process costs more money at the front end than the traditional approach (e.g. the added cost for a facilitator). In addition, agency personnel must work closely as a team with outside party representatives and their time must be dedicated to the project if it is to succeed. The advantages clearly outweigh these considerations, however. Because representative of all the interested parties draft the regulation, the formal process of public notice and comment is generally very smooth and very few comments and concerns are raised in that process. More importantly, lengthy regulation litigation is generally eliminated and compliance with the rule is believed to be much higher. Thus, agency long-term costs of litigating rules and enforcing standards are sharply reduced.

Use of a negotiated regulation making process requires most agencies to change the way they are accustomed to developing a rule. Standard practice in rule development is to have a particular office in the agency develop a draft regulatory document, and then that document is critiqued and reformulated as it is sequentially referred to other parts of the agency, the department, the Executive Branch, and the public. In negotiated regulation making, by contrast, the parties are brought together for simultaneous discussion and consideration of particular issues at the beginning of the process.

I have enough backup to choke a large horse, you are welcome to any or all of it. Please call me, or Walt Wilcox if there are any questions.

Please review the bill, your comments are solicited.

Thank you.