Rail Regulators Ponder Benefit-Cost Analysis
.
Publications
The GW Regulatory Studies Center scholars regularly conduct applied research to understand regulatory policy and practice from a public interest perspective. Our content often takes the form of public interest comments, formal testimony, working papers, policy insights, and short commentaries analyzing the most pressing issues in regulatory policy. View the rest of our material by the different types of publications listed on this page or our research areas.
What We Publish
Journal Articles & Working Papers
Long-form publications intended for academic audiences that take a deep dive into a particular aspect of regulatory policy.
Public Comments & Testimonies
Scholarly analysis of the potential effects of particular rulemakings from federal agencies, and advice to Congress on how to improve the rulemaking process.
Commentaries & Insights
Short-form publications intended for all audiences which provide easy to access analysis of regulatory policy.
Books & Reports
Formal publications, often completed with other leading organizations and individuals, providing a thorough understanding of regulations and the rulemaking process.
Newsletters
The weekly Regulation Digest contains everything you need to know about regulatory policy today, and our monthly Center Update gives you all of the latest from our team.
For accessible charts and supporting data that you can use in your own publications or presentations, visit the Reg Stats page.
Latest Publications
Tracking Regulatory Activity through Trends in Federal Budgets
Comparing Regulators' Budget reports provides a way to analyze administrations' regulatory priorities and assess the extent to which they are realized.
Accounting for Regulatory Reform Under Executive Order 13771
Executive Order (EO) 13771, known as the “regulatory two-for-one” EO, imposed new constraints on executive branch regulatory agencies, directing them to: (1) to cut two existing rules for each new rule issued and (2) offset any costs imposed by new rules while operating under a regulatory cost cap.
STB's Market Dominance and Final Offer Rate Review
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.
Are Agencies Responsive To Mass Comment Campaigns?
In this age of clicktivism, federal agencies sometimes receive a large number of public comments during rulemaking. High-profile rules such as greenhouse gas emissions and Restoring Internet Freedom garnered millions of public comments. Advocacy organizations orchestrate campaigns to encourage politically conscious citizens to send letters in favor or against proposed regulations.
This article examines the sponsorship and content of mass comment campaigns in administrative rulemaking in the United States. Mass comment campaigns consist of identical and near‐duplicate comments sponsored by organizations and submitted by group members and supporters to government agencies in response to proposed rules. Drawing from research on interest group lobbying, it is posited that organizations of all types sponsor mass comment campaigns, but that campaigns submitted by regulated entities (i.e., industries) are more substantive than campaigns generated by beneficiaries of stringent regulations (e.g., environmental advocacy groups).