For many years, advocates of negotiated rulemaking have advanced enthusiastic claims about how negotiated rulemaking would reduce litigation and shorten the rulemaking process. In an earlier study, Coglianese tested these claims systematically by assessing the effectiveness of negotiated rulemaking against existing rulemaking processes. He found that negotiated rulemaking neither saves time nor reduces litigation. Recently, Philip Harter, a longtime advocate of negotiated rulemaking, has criticized this study and asserted that negotiated rulemaking has succeeded remarkably in achieving its goals. In this paper, Coglianese responds to Harter's continued defense of negotiated rulemaking, showing why none of Harter criticisms undercuts the findings of his original research. According to Coglianese, the absence of support for Harter's criticisms, like the absence of support for the claims made by other advocates of negotiated rulemaking over the years, serves only to underscore the conclusion of his original research that the promises made for negotiated rulemaking remain unfulfilled.