Which type of rulemaking allows for interested parties to cross-examine witnesses?

Formal rulemaking is the type of rulemaking that allows for interested parties to cross-examine witnesses. This process is characterized by a more stringent framework, as it requires a formal hearing similar to court proceedings, where evidence can be presented, and witnesses can be interrogated. The primary purpose of formal rulemaking is to ensure a thorough examination of the issues at hand, facilitating transparency and allowing all stakeholders a chance to contest or support the evidence presented.

In contrast, informal rulemaking, often called "notice-and-comment" rulemaking, does not include an evidentiary hearing where cross-examination occurs. Instead, it involves publishing a proposed rule in the Federal Register, allowing the public to submit comments, which are then considered by the agency. Hybrid rulemaking combines elements of both informal and formal processes but still does not usually include witness cross-examination. Administrative rulemaking is a broader term that encompasses various forms, including both informal and formal, but does not specifically reference the ability to cross-examine witnesses.