Commenting on this phase is now closed

Open Recommendation

Social Media in Rulemaking

Summary

Social media offers new opportunities for engaging the public. ACUS is working on recommendations about social media in rulemaking, based on a Consultant's Report by Professor Michael Herz of Cardozo School of Law. You can follow, and be part of, this process here.

An initial draft of the recommendations was open for public discussion until November 6, when the Committee on Rulemaking considered possible changes. This meeting produced a revised draft. You'll able to review and discuss Committee Draft 2 here until the Committee's next meeting on November 13. All the Committee's changes will be in the Plenary Draft, to be debated at the 59th ACUS Plenary Session on December 5. You'll be able to review and discuss the Plenary Draft here until November 27 . Comments and discussion on RecommendationRoom will be part of what ACUS considers when deciding to adopt final recommendations, along with comments submitted to ACUS on their project page.

Plenary Draft Effective Approaches for Using Social Media in Rulemaking - 0

Select other topics

Subtopics

1|Recommendation 10 - 0

Proposal

10. For each rulemaking, agencies should consider maintaining a blog or other appropriate social media site dedicated to that rulemaking for purposes of providing information, updates, and clarifications regarding the scope and progress of the rulemaking. Agencies may also wish to explore using such a site to generate a dialogue.

Read the relevant part of the Consultant's Report: Blogs

Comments0

2|Recommendation 11 - 0

Proposal

11. When an agency sponsors a social media discussion in connection with a notice-and-comment rulemaking, it should determine and prominently indicate to the public how the discussion will be treated under the APA (for administrative record purposes). The agency may decide, for example:

(a) To include all comments submitted via an agency-administered social media discussion in the rulemaking record. Agencies should consider using an application programming interface (API) or other appropriate technological tool to efficiently transfer content from social media to the rulemaking record.

(b) That no part of the social media discussion will be included in the rulemaking docket, that the agency will not consider the discussion in developing the rule, and that the agency will not respond to the discussion. An agency that selects this option should communicate the restriction clearly to the public through conspicuous disclaimers on the social media site itself, provide instructions on how to submit an official comment to the rulemaking docket, and provide a convenient mechanism for doing so. It is especially important in these circumstances that the agency clearly explain the purpose of a social media discussion the agency does not intend to consider in the rulemaking.

Comments0

3|Recommendation 12 - 0

Proposal

12. When soliciting input through a social media platform, agencies should provide a version of the NPRM that is “friendly” and clear to lay users. This involves, for example, breaking preambles into smaller components by subject, summarizing those components in plain language, layering more complete versions of the preamble below the summaries, and providing hyperlinked definitions of key terms. In doing this, the agency should either:

(a) Publish both versions of the NPRM in the Federal Register; or

(b) Cross-reference the user-friendly version of the NPRM in the published NPRM and cross-reference the published NPRM in the user-friendly version of the NPRM.

Comments0

4|Recommendation 13 - 0

Proposal

13. Agencies should consider, in appropriate rulemakings, retaining facilitator services to manage rulemaking discussions conducted through social media. Appropriate rulemakings may include those in which:

(a) Targeted users are inexperienced commenters who may need help to prepare an effective comment (e.g., providing comments that give reasons rather than just reactions); or

(b) The issues will predictably produce sharply divided or highly emotional reactions.

Read the relevant part of the Consultant's Report: Discussions

Comments0

5|Recommendation 14 - 0

Proposal

14. Agencies should realize that not all rulemakings will be enhanced by a crowdsourcing approach. However, when the issue to be addressed is the public or user response itself (e.g., when the agency seeks to determine the best format for a consumer notice), direct submission to the public at large may lead to useful information. In addition, agencies should seek to consider encouraging, and being receptive to, comments from lay stakeholders with “situated knowledge” arising out of their real world experience.

Read the relevant part of the Consultant's Report: Situated Knowledge

Comments0

6|Recommendation 15 - 0

Proposal

15. Agencies should consider experimenting with collaborative drafting platforms, both internally and, potentially, externally, for purposes of producing regulatory documents.

Read the relevant part of the Consultant's Report: Collaborative Drafting

Comments0

7|Recommendation 16 - 0

Proposal

16. If an agency chooses to use voting or ranking tools, the agency should explain to the public how it intends to use the input generated through those tools.

Read the relevant part of the Consultant's Report: Ideation Sites and Ideation Platforms

Comments0

8|Recommendation 17 - 0

Proposal

17. Agencies should use social media to notify and educate the public about the final agency action produced through a rulemaking.

Comments0

9|Recommendation 18 - 0

Proposal

18. In appropriate circumstances, agencies should also use social media to provide compliance information.

Comments0

10|Recommendation 19 - 0

Proposal

19. Agencies should collaborate to identify best practices for addressing issues that arise in connection with the use of social media in rulemaking.

Comments0

All topics