The OIRA Module: Published Research

From: RegBlog/Penn Program on Regulation

Sherzod Abdukadirov

Many debates over regulation focus only on the costs of new rules. Critics argue that the weight of regulatory costs depresses economic activity, reduces productivity, and discourages formation of new businesses. Estimates seeking to quantify the total federal regulatory burden range from hundreds of billions to well over a trillion dollars. Regulation advocates, in contrast, claim that many of those estimates exaggerate the costs of regulation. More importantly, they point out that regulation critics focus exclusively on the costs and overlook the benefits of regulation.

From: FCW

By Reid Davenport

Should the government have to provide the data underlying a scientific report that it has used to support a regulation? Or would increasing the required burden of proof moot policymaking and expose participants’ private data?

Environmental Protection Agency regulations have brought this issue from the abstract to the halls of Congress, where lawmakers and academics have debated the issue over the past several months.

Last week, Republican lawmakers, backed by some scientists, demanded that EPA make available to the public all of the data used to justify its regulations. Democrats, with their own scientific supporters in tow, argued that requiring the release of such data would undercut EPA’s ability to use outside research to inform its work.

From: Mercatus Center/George Mason University

Patrick McLaughlin, Richard Williams
DOWNLOAD PUBLICATION PDF

While every American president for the past 30 years has embraced the notion of performing economic analysis on new regulations before their implementation, no president has successfully reexamined the enormous stock of previously existing regulations that he inherited nor materially altered the growth of the stock of regulations. Yet this stock of federal regulations in the United States is enormous and growing. In 2012, the Code of Federal Regulations—the series of books that contain all the currently applicable federal regulations—comprised over 170,000 pages of dense legal text. Importantly, as the quantity and scope of regulations grow, so does the degree to which they can negatively affect people and the economy.

From: RegBlog/Penn Program on Regulation

House Subcommittee Airs Debate Over “Secret Law”

Jessica Bassett

Debate over public access to all regulatory standards continued recently before a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee considering “the scope of copyright protection.”

The debate centered on a practice called “incorporation by reference,” which some legislators say keeps binding laws hidden from the public.

Debate over public access to all regulatory standards continued recently before a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee considering “the scope of copyright protection.”

The debate centered on a practice called “incorporation by reference,” which some legislators say keeps binding laws hidden from the public.

From: GovExec.com

By John Kamensky | IBM Center for the Business of Government

A new law requires the Office of Management and Budget to determine annually whether programs meet goals set out in agencies’ annual performance plans. To do this, OMB has created a new review process.

A provision of the 2010 Government Performance and Results Modernization Act that kicks in this year requires OMB to determine whether programs meet the goals outlined in agency performance plans. If not, then OMB has to prepare a report to Congress on unmet goals.

Editor’s Note: A letter from the US Chamber of Commerce to the House Financial Services Committee discussing the Volker rule is attached here. A portion of the letter (notes omitted) is reprinted below.

From: US Chamber of Commerce

The Chamber and its members were surprised when the Agencies provided no meaningful assessment of the quantifiable costs and benefits associated with their Volcker Rule Proposal when it was published for comment. Instead, the Agencies concluded that the Volcker Rule Proposal “would not appear to have a significant economic impact on small entities” such that no economic analysis was required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) or the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (“SBREFA”). This is remarkable in light of the impact that the Final Volcker Rule is having on many small financial institutions with an interest in CDOs.

Editor’s Note:  The New York University School of Law/Institute for Policy Integrity working paper by Michael A. Livermore is attached here.  Below is the Abstract.

Abstract: The presidential mandate that agency rulemakings be subjected to cost-benefit analysis and regulatory review is one of the most controversial developments in administrative law over the past several decades. There is a prevailing view that the role of cost-benefit analysis in the executive branch is to help facilitate control of agencies by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). This Article challenges that view, arguing that cost-benefit analysis helps preserve agency autonomy in the face of oversight. This effect stems from the constraints imposed on reviewers by the regularization of cost-benefit analysis methodology and the fact that agencies have played a major role in shaping that methodology. The autonomy-preserving effect of cost-benefit analysis has been largely ignored in debates over the institution of regulatory review. Ultimately, cost-benefit analysis has ambiguous effects on agency independence, simultaneously preserving, informing, and constraining agency power.