What's New from the GW Regulatory Studies Center
8/3/17 - GW Regulatory Studies Center Research Update
8/2/17 - Regulation Digest, Vol. 6, No. 29
8/2/17 - Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Consumer’s Guide to Regulatory Impact Analysis: Ten Tips for Being an Informed Policymaker, by Susan E. Dudley, et. al.
7/27/17 - Public Comment on the CPSC’s Proposed Rule: Safety Standard Addressing Blade-Contact Injuries on Table Saws, by Sofie E. Miller & Jacob Yarborough
7/26/17 - Wall Street Journal, The Myth of Trump's Do-Nothing Presidency, citing Sofie Miller and the GW Regulatory Studies Center
7/25/17 - Sofie Miller participated in a panel discussion hosted by the Competitive Enterprise Institute on regulatory process reform.
7/21/17 - A Glimpse of President Trump's Deregulatory "Agenda," by Sofie E. Miller
7/20/17 - Washington Post, Trump administration cancels hundreds of Obama-era regulations, quoting Susan Dudley
7/20/17 - Increasing Immigration Spending, Decreasing Rates of Return, by Jacob Yarborough
7/20/17 - The Hill, Regulatory experts push Senate leaders for regulatory reform, mentions Susan Dudley
@RegStudies
New Commentaries from the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center
A Glimpse of President Trump’s Deregulatory “Agenda”
Increasing Immigration Spending, Decreasing Rates of Return
Missing Offsets: EPA and DOE Rules May not Comply with One-in-Two-out Executive Order
Private Sector Solutions for an Outdated Government Website
Trump’s OIRA Nominee Receives Warm Reception from Senate Committee
Regulating on the Technological Margin
The Window on Low-Hanging Fruit in Regulatory Reform is Closing
More Historic “Firsts” for Regulatory Disapprovals under the Congressional Review Act
Spinning Out of Control: The Hidden Costs of Appliance Efficiency Standards
A Glimpse of President Trump’s Deregulatory “Agenda”
7/21/17 - On Thursday, OMB released its biannual Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which outlines the regulatory activity that agencies are planning to undertake in the next year. In comparison to previous Agendas, the 2017 Agenda contains about 31% fewer active regulatory actions in all rulemaking stages combined. Although the new Agenda does not clearly track which regulatory activities are meant to offset new rules per Executive Order 13771, it indicates that agencies are withdrawing a large number of rules.
Increasing Immigration Spending, Decreasing Rates of Return
7/20/17 - President Trump made immigration reform a key pillar of his campaign. This policy direction is reflected in the 2018 Regulators’ Budget which shows increases both to ICE and CBP. Though we are in a period of dwindling apprehensions causing the cost per apprehension to skyrocket, this year’s proposed expansion would continue a trend that has been growing since 2000. Polices of continual immigration enforcement budgetary expansion should take into account immigration data and trends to allow for a more cost efficient, evidence-based appropriations process.
Missing Offsets: EPA and DOE Rules May not Comply with One-in-Two-out Executive Order
7/19/17 - Executive Order 13771 requires agencies to identify two rules for removal for each new significant rule they issue. While some scholars have hypothesized that the requirements of EO 13771 will halt rulemaking entirely, agencies have managed to finalize or publish two significant rules in recent weeks without mentioning the requirements of EO 13771. Going forward, all eyes will be on the Unified Agenda, which lists ongoing and future regulatory actions, to identify the associated regulatory offsets.
Private Sector Solutions for an Outdated Government Website
6/28/17 - Argive, a non-profit organization dedicated to improving public engagement in the regulatory process, recently released a report focused on modernizing Regulations.gov. Argive suggests that by employing private sector advances in consumer technology, Regulations.gov can overhaul their archaic regulatory website into an ergonomic, streamlined process where agencies can sort and integrate comments more efficiently, and where private parties can have a larger role shaping regulations, fostering a more transparent system.
Trump’s OIRA Nominee Receives Warm Reception from Senate Committee
6/12/17 - President Trump’s nominee to lead OIRA, Professor Neomi Rao, testified before the U.S. Senate HSGAC last Wednesday for her confirmation hearing as administrator of the agency responsible for overseeing federal regulatory activity. Given that regulatory scholars say OIRA “may be the most important office you’ve never heard of,” it was refreshing to hear many senators recognize the significance of the position of the OIRA administrator and offer to help the small, but important, agency improve the effectiveness of the regulatory review process.
Regulating on the Technological Margin
6/7/17 - At their onset, and sometimes well beyond that, radical technological breakthroughs can present difficult public policy dilemmas. Emerging technologies are, by definition, full of surprises: there are developments that we cannot fully anticipate, and may include some bad outcomes as well as good ones. In this commentary, Mannix weighs in on the challenges of regulating in a technologically innovative society and provides helpful insight as to how agencies can regulate effectively without impeding innovation.
The Window on Low-Hanging Fruit in Regulatory Reform is Closing
5/10/17 - The 60 day window for Congress to use the CRA to repeal rules issued during the Obama midnight period is coming to a close. So far, the most visible results of President Trump’s deregulatory agenda have been signing these legislative actions but today's Senate vote on the methane rule resulted in the CRA's first failure under President Trump. In this commentary, Pérez explains how future regulatory reform efforts will require considerably less expeditious legislative and executive branch action.
More Historic “Firsts” for Regulatory Disapprovals under the Congressional Review Act
4/4/17 - Congress continues to make history by exercising its powers under the CRA to eliminate rules issued at the end of the Obama administration. To date, 13 resolutions of disapproval have passed both chambers of Congress; two additional bills have passed the House. President Trump has signed eight of these into law with three additional resolutions awaiting his signature. Finally, the Senate passed two more resolutions on March 30th which should be sent to the president soon. Prior to 2017, Congress had only successfully struck down a single rule using the CRA.
Spinning Out of Control: The Hidden Costs of Appliance Efficiency Standards
3/30/17 - A recent court settlement illustrates that consumers bear burdens—including indirect burdens—as a result of regulation gone awry. In this case, consumers bore costs in the form of higher prices, continued inconvenience, expense, time and bad odors from moldy washing machines. Although consumers in the class action suit didn’t realize it, their moldy washer problem began with DOE’s energy efficiency standards for clothes washers. Because regulations affect all Americans, it’s important to review their effects to make sure consumers aren’t left out to dry.
Latest Research from the GW Regulatory Studies Center
CPSC Hearing on Safety Standard Addressing Blade-Contact Injuries on Table Saws
By Sofie E. Miller & Jacob Yarborough
In a testimony before the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Miller and Yarborough discuss three components of the Commission's proposed performance standard for table saws: 1) there is not a clear market failure to justify the rulemaking, 2) the rule will have negative effects on competition by creating a legal monopoly, and 3) the benefits that the Commission expects to result from its standard are uncertain.
Consumer’s Guide to Regulatory Impact Analysis: Ten Tips for Being an Informed Policymaker
By S. Dudley, R. Belzer, G. Blomquist, T. Brennan, C. Carrigan, J. Cordes, L. Cox, A. Fraas, J. Graham, G. Gray, J. Hammitt, K. Krutilla, P. Linquiti, R. Lutter, B. Mannix, S. Shapiro, A. Smith, W. .Viscusi & R. Zerbe in the Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis
Regulatory impact analyses (RIAs) weigh the benefits of regulations against the burdens they impose and are invaluable tools for informing decision makers. We offer 10 tips for nonspecialist policymakers and interested stakeholders who will be reading RIAs as consumers.
Public Comment on the CPSC’s Proposed Rule: Safety Standard Addressing Blade-Contact Injuries on Table Saws
By Sofie E. Miller and Jacob Yarborough
The CPSC’s proposed rule mandates that all table saws sold in the U.S. be equipped with Active Injury Mitigation (AIM) technology. Miller and Yarborough argue that this rule would lead to a monopoly of the table saw market. This monopoly would reduce consumer choice, dramatically raise costs, and stifle innovation. In addition, they question the underlying assumptions and models that the CPSC uses to conduct their benefit-cost analysis and argue that the benefits may be overstated and the costs understated.
Regulators’ Budget Reflects President Trump’s Priorities
By Susan E. Dudley & Melinda Warren
This year's annual report finds that although President Trump has made reducing regulatory burdens a priority, he proposes to increase the regulators' budget in FY 2018. Some agencies are budgeted for significant increases in both expenditures and staff, while others face dramatic cuts. In addition, this report finds that while spending and staffing at federal agencies has generally increased over the 59-year period covered by this report, the focus of those resources and the rate of increase have varied with the perceptions of public policy issues and the philosophies of elected officials in the executive and legislative branches.
Public Comment on The Federal Communications Commission’s Proposed Rule: Restoring Internet Freedom
By Gerald Brock, Ph.D, Co-Director
As an independent regulatory agency, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is not required to perform a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) of major regulations. In this public interest comment on the FCC’s “net neutrality” rule, Brock argues that it is desirable to conduct RIA voluntarily because they have become the standard method of ensuring careful analysis of proposed regulations in the U.S. and other major countries.
Public Comment on DOE’s Request for Information on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs
By Sofie E. Miller
This comment provides the Department of Energy with recommendations on how to reduce regulatory burdens pursuant to Executive Orders 13771 and 13777. Miller recommends that DOE establish consistent internal standards for determining whether a rule is "economically justified," including using a threshold to limit the proportion of consumers who bear net costs. DOE should also review each rule before increasing the stringency of its standards, and consider surveys or other measures of actual consumer behavior to ensure that its assumptions about household appliance energy use are accurate.
Regulation: A Primer (Korean edition)
Susan Dudley and Jerry Brito's book, "Regulation: A Primer" has been translated in Korean. This primer provides an accessible overview of regulatory theory, analysis, and practice. It examines the constitutional underpinnings of federal regulation and discusses who writes and enforces regulation and how they do it. It also provides insights into the different varieties of regulation and how to analyze whether a regulatory proposal makes citizens better or worse off.
Structured to Fail? Regulatory Performance under Competing Mandates
By Christopher Carrigan, Ph.D, Senior Scholar
Commentators often point to the structure of regulatory agencies charged with overseeing the associated industries in the wake of a national crisis, noting that the need to balance competing regulatory and non-regulatory missions undermined each agency's ability to be an effective regulator. Carrigan challenges this critique by employing a diverse set of research methods, including an in-depth case study of US regulatory oversight of offshore oil and gas development leading up to the Gulf oil spill, to systematically evaluate the benefits and concerns associated with either combining or separating regulatory and non-regulatory missions. His analysis shows why assigning competing non-regulatory missions to regulatory agencies can still be better than separating them in some cases.
Improving Regulatory Science: A Case Study of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
By Susan E. Dudley & Marcus Peacock
This paper explores the motivations and institutional incentives of participants involved in the development of regulation aimed at reducing health risks, with a goal of understanding and identifying solutions to what the Bipartisan Policy Center has characterized as “a tendency to frame regulatory issues as debates solely about science, regardless of the actual subject in dispute, [that] is at the root of the stalemate and acrimony all too present in the regulatory system today.” This analysis is focused on a case study of the procedures for developing National Ambient Air Quality Standards under the Clean Air Act, and attempts to identify procedural approaches that bring greater diversity into the decision process.
Reforming the Energy Policy and Conservation Act: Learning from Experience on Energy Efficiency
By Sofie E. Miller
The Energy Policy Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) grants the Department of Energy the authority to regulate the energy efficiency of everyday consumer appliances like dishwashers and refrigerators. Because these standards affect almost all households and incur such large potential benefits and costs, the underlying statute merits close inspection. This working paper provides seven recommendations for reforming EPCA to ensure that consumers do not bear disproportionate burdens as a result of energy efficiency rules.
How to Regulate Genome-Edited Animals? A Comment on FDA’s Proposed Guidance
By Randall Lutter, Ph.D, Visiting Scholar, and Lena Lewis
The FDA is considering an approach to oversight of genome-edited animals that closely follows its current policy regarding genetically engineered animals. Unfortunately, the proposed approach is unwise because the existing policy regarding genetically engineered animals, which it mimics, has itself simply failed. In this public comment, Lutter and Lewis argue that FDA’s draft guidance for genome edited animals lacks a cogent scientific basis, is inconsistent with FDA’s policies regarding genome edited plants, and is unlikely to advance FDA’s mission to protect and promote public health.
Structure and Process: Examining the Interaction between Bureaucratic Organization and Analytical Requirements
By Stuart Shapiro, Ph.D, Visiting Scholar, in the Review of Policy Research
Attempts by politicians to control bureaucratic decisions include both structural and procedural approaches. But how do these two modes of influence interact? This article examines the interaction between bureaucratic structure and one procedural control, the requirement that agencies conduct an analysis of their decisions prior to their issuance. Shapiro looks at this interaction in the context of two types of analysis, cost-benefit analysis and environmental impact assessment and finds that the conduct of analysis is affected by where analysts are placed in agencies. In particular, independence of analysts has a trade-off.
Public Comment on DOE’s Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
By Sofie E. Miller
The Department of Energy’s direct final rule amends the energy efficiency standards for residential central air conditioners and split-system heat pumps. However, DOE’s own analysis suggests that up to 45% of households in some regions will bear net costs as a result of these standards, and that consumers would experience greater savings under less stringent energy efficiency standards. Due to the lack of consumer input in the negotiated rulemaking process—and the significant burdens that consumers are likely to bear from this standard—DOE should not pursue this standard via direct final rule.
Shining a Light on Regulatory Costs
By Brian Mannix
President Trump’s Executive Order 13771, "Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs," has caused some confusion among the analysts, inside and outside federal agencies, who forecast the economic effects of regulations. Which effects should count as costs and which as benefits? It sounds like it should be an easy question, but it is not. In this Regulatory Insight, Brian Mannix examines some of the obstacles.
Is Consultation the New Normal?: Online Policymaking and Governance Reform in China
By Steven J. Balla, Ph.D, Senior Scholar, in the Journal of Chinese Political Science, Vol. 21, No. 4
This article examines the operation of notice-and-comment-style policymaking in China. What kinds of government organizations have embraced consultation? What kind of information is disclosed during consultation? The article assembles original data on online consultation from more than one hundred central government ministries and provincial governments. The analysis shows that consultation is more commonly used by organizations that are well-resourced and that do not make policy in areas characterized by fundamental political sensitivities. Consultation holds promise as a Party-led, incremental administrative response to the governance challenges faced by contemporary China.
Regulatory Studies Center
Columbian College of Arts & Sciences
805 21st St. NW
Washington, DC 20052
regulatorystudies@gwu.edu
