Scholarly analysis of the potential effects of particular rulemakings from federal agencies, and advice to Congress on how to improve the rulemaking process by GW Regulatory Studies Center scholars.
"Your input and expertise during the drafting of the Early Participation in Regulations Act of 2019 and SMART Act of 2019 was invaluable."
Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ)
Senator James Lankford (R-OK)
Joint statement
Reply Comment on Benefit-Cost Analysis at the STB
On November 4, 2019, the STB solicited further information from the public about specific methods that could be used for benefit-cost analysis of rules related to economic regulation of freight railroads.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is proposing an update to its regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The purposes of NEPA include establishing a national policy toward the environment and promoting “efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man.”
OMB's Request for Comment on Marginal Excess Tax Burden & EO 13771
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has requested advice on incorporating a measure of “marginal excess tax burden” (METB) as a potential cost under the regulatory cost accounting system mandated by Executive Order (E.O.) 13771.
OMB's Request for Comment on Marginal Excess Tax Burden and EO 13771
Executive Order (EO) 13771 of January 30, 2017 imposed new regulatory procedures on executive branch agencies by directing them to (1) eliminate two existing rules for each new rule issued and (2) offset costs imposed by new rules through compliance with an incremental regulatory budget.
For the past several years, along with colleagues at GW, I have been conducting research on mass comment campaigns in agency rulemaking. By mass comment campaigns, we mean collections of identical and near-duplicate comments sponsored by organizations and submitted by group members and supporters
STB Petition to Consider Benefit-Cost Analysis
On July 8, 2019, the STB decided to delay consideration of a petition asking the board to adopt a procedural rule that would require benefit-cost analysis in certain board rulemakings. On November 4, 2019, the STB solicited further information from the public about specific methods that could be used for benefit-cost analysis of rules related to economic regulation of freight railroads. The STB is prudent to explore methods for improving its economic analysis of regulatory proposals—as several other independent agencies have done in recent years.
GSA's Mass and Fake Comments Meeting
Over the last few years, we've been, with a bunch of colleagues at George Washington University, working on a project on mass comment campaigns and agency rulemaking. And I want to spend a few minutes sharing what we've been up to, what we've found. And what we think some of the broader implications of the research are, but for the larger interests we're discussing today.
FDIC's Framework for Analyzing the Effects of Regulatory Actions
The FDIC is considering a more structured approach to economic analysis that informs regulatory decisions. The RFI seeks comment on an approach that is based on Circular A-4, the Office of Management and Budget’s peer-reviewed guidance for conducting regulatory impact analysis (RIA) under Executive Order 12,866, as well as economic analysis guidance issued by other financial regulators.
STB's Railroad Revenue Adequacy
The Staggers Rail Act of 1980 deregulated most freight rail rates but left the Interstate Commerce Commission (and now the STB) with responsibility for ensuring that rail rates are “just and reasonable” for shippers who lack good transportation alternatives to a single railroad.
STB's Rate Review and Market Dominance -- Reply Comment
In two related proceedings, the STB has proposed a streamlined approach to assessing whether a railroad has market dominance and a final offer process for small rate disputes.
