Sistema de detección de dióxido de carbono

Technology has changed over time, but notice and comment rulemaking has stayed relatively constant (Dooling, 2011) There have been some updates to the APA over time regarding this. One was that in 1996, they required rulemaking to be electronic and online (Walker, 2017)There still is a requirement for paper records in the occasion that something is hacked or a computer malfunctions (Dooling, 2011). Federal employees who work in

rulemaking are concerned about hacking and other similar technological problems that come with electronic data storage and processes (Lubbers, 2010). There have been news reports about the potential hacking and interference in rulemaking from Russia (Fung, 2017). There is also a concern regarding duplicate comments from interest groups and other unknown sources which is known as astroturfing (Hitlin et al., 2017). There were issues like this in the FDA comments especially with astroturfing, however it was much more prevalent in the FCC case. There was an unusual amount of comments on the Restoring Internet Freedom Act.

Most participation comes from interest groups (Rubin, 2003). This was consistent with the findings in the FCC, but not the FDA. The majority of the comments were from individual people, mostly those who had concerns regarding phosphorous labeling for their patients with kidney problems. They were looking out for specific interests for a particular population, so in a way they are similar to interest groups. The majority of comments from the FCC were from interest groups sending in mass comments at a time.

There is an ongoing debate about whether or not an administrative state is a good thing. Conservatives view the administrative state negatively because they feel that a smaller

government is better for ongoing democracy. Liberals feel that the administrative state is

necessary in modern times and benefits the public. The APA is a compromise between these two ideals that allows for the administrative state, but assures that there will be accountability,

transparency, and a chance for the public to be more involved (Warren, 2010b). There are some parallels to this in the antifederalist debate during the constitutional convention. The same fear of government being too large and powerful, and lacking proficient representation for all (Brutus, 2018). In the end our founding fathers voted to have a strong central government but with checks and balances in order to keep one branch from having too much power. This was a great compromise. The founding fathers could not have imagined the rise of the administrative state. The country was small then, and technology has also changed so much of daily life over time, that it became necessary to have more rules and regulations. It is hard to say what the founding fathers would think of our evolved system. It is important though, to make sure that our system is as democratic as it can be. Notice and comment rulemaking is a way to add a check to administrative agencies which some now refer to as the fourth branch.

Administrative agencies are not required to make changes, only to review the comments (Rubin, 2003). This does not make for a strong and efficient check. In the FCC examples and the FDA example, the agencies sided with corporate interests. This was despite having more comments and concerns coming from the public interest and ordinary citizens combined.

Congressional oversight is a major check for administrative agencies. Congress has been fulfilling its duty (McCubbins & Schwartz, 2018). There were many congressional hearings

about the net neutrality debate over the years, one of which was mentioned in the literature review. Congress has also exercised oversight over the FDA. This is especially true in the 80’s and 90’s when some republicans were considering drastically reducing the power of the FDA or dismantling it completely. There was a fear that there was a drug lag cause by too much red tape at the FDA (Hilts, 2003).

Interest groups provide government maximum legitimacy with minimum force (Theodore Lowi, 1974). Although like Schattschneider says, “the flaw in the pluralist heaven is that

heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent,” interest groups are only funded by those who have the means to fund them, and the time to spend carrying about certain issues. The poor will be much less able to be a member of an interest group. Sometimes those interests are large corporations, like Verizon in the FCC example. The ones with more money, that speak the loudest, are going to get heard (McKay & Yackee, 2007). In both the cases of the FDA and FCC, it was the corporations that got their way. Sometimes the maximum legitimacy with minimum force can benefit the upper class more so than the lower class.

The foundation of American government not only allowed for interest group

involvement, it encouraged it. This has continued through time as actions by FDR regarding the Wagnar Act encouraged the development of organized labor (Loomis & Cigler, 1991). Interest groups and government mutually benefit each other. Agencies get information from corporate interests that can influence their decisions and come up with a compromise that makes sense for both entities. In the example of the FDA, an extension in compliance for the food labeling laws benefited the small businesses and the FDA because they won’t have to get on them for not being on time if they have the appropriate time to alter their products and labels. It takes time, money and research for food companies to get up to par with every new regulation. It is easier on

large businesses that have a lot of money and staff to work on the changes. The notice and comment rulemaking process for the FDA and business is mutually beneficial. It doesn’t help the citizens that have kidney problems know how much phosphorous is in their foods however. Going back to the idea of the upper-class advantage in policy making, this is a good example of that as well. The food businesses won on this particular case. Some important changes are still being made that will help the general public, an extension doesn’t mean that the FDA is doing nothing. It is a compromise more than anything.

Public committees are a good way to add another layer of public participation in agency rulemaking. The FDA and the FCC did not utilize public hearings in this case. This would have been a great way to make the process more democratic.