Retrospective Review Comment on SEC’s Proposed Reporting Requirements for Swap Dealers, Participants, and Broker Dealers

From: Regulatory Studies Center/George Washington University

By Mark Bigley, Summer Fellow

The George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center strives to improve regulatory policy through research, education, and outreach. As part of its mission, the Center conducts careful and independent analyses to assess rulemaking proposals from the perspective of the public interest. This comment on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC” or “Commission”) proposed rule establishing recordkeeping and reporting requirements for security-based swap dealers (“SBSDs”), major security-based swap participants (“MSBSPs”), and broker-dealers does not represent the views of any particular affected party or special interest, but is designed to evaluate whether Commission’s proposal incorporates plans for retrospective review, pursuant to Executive Orders 13563 and 13579.

The Funnel of Gov — OMB’s 2014 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations

From: Competitive Enterprise Institiute

Over the weekend the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the 2014 Draft Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations.

If it draws attention to it at all, the administration will say it’s fiscal year 2013 rules had benefits of up to $81.4 billion annually, while costing just $2.5 billion annually. The problem is only seven rules out of thousands had benefit and cost analysis.

Agencies Don’t Treat All Comments Equally. Nor Should They.

Editor’s Note: It’s the quality of comments that matters, not the quantity. The study, “Do U.S. Regulators Listen to the Public? Testing the Regulatory Process with the RegRank Algorithm” asserts “that the government adjusts its final rules almost entirely in response to comments from industry insiders.” Unfortunately, the study does not examine the quality of the comments being considered by the agency. A comment which raises a substantive issue, such a violation of a “good government law” that regulates the regulator, needs to be taken in consideration to a far greater extent than a simple cheer or boo for a proposed regulation—no matter how heartfelt.

Unbridled Regulation Sets Stage For Another 2008

Editor’s Note: For more information about the long-recognized need for OIRA review of independent agency regulations, please see the 1987 National Journal article here.

From: Real Clear Markets

By Hester Peirce & Abby McCloskey

Hester Peirce is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Abby McCloskey is the program director of economic policy at the American Enterprise Institute.

Want more accountability of Wall Street? Start with their regulators. Financial regulators are rewriting the rules of finance with little to no consideration about how their actions will impact the economy. The result is unnecessary and potentially serious costs on consumers, investors, and economic growth.

Series: Debating the Independent Retrospective Review of Regulations

From: RegBlog/Penn Program on Regulation

Advocates and critics of regulation make familiar but competing claims. Either regulations hamper economic growth, or their inadequacies contribute to economic failures. Either regulations stifle innovation, or they are needed to keep us safe.

Of course, all of these claims could be at least partly true, at least with respect to specific types of regulation or different types of public problems. But so far, authoritative answers have remained far too elusive.

GAO to OIRA: Link Retrospective Review to Agency GPRMA Goals

Editor’s Note:  GAO’s report, “Reexamining Regulations: Agencies Often Made Regulatory Changes, but Could Strengthen Linkages to Performance Goals. GAO-14-268” is attached here. The GAO report discusses the importance of retrospective review analysis and emphasizes the need for OIRA improve the links between retrospective analysis and Agency Priorty Goals (APGs)under the GPRA Mondernization Act (GPRMA). GAO also highlighted that they found greater transparency compared with 2007.

The following is an excerpt from the GAO report,

While Regulatory Spending and Output Increase, Economic Analysis of Regulations Is Often Incomplete

From: Mercatus

Jerry Ellig, James Broughel

Federal regulatory agencies consume enormous amounts of time and resources in producing approximately 3,000 final regulations each year. Agencies have seen sizable increases in their budgets in the last several years, as they have added thousands of new rules and requirements to the books. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that these increases have not necessarily meant resources have been used well.

Reducing Costs and Burdens: Further Progress in Regulatory Lookback Effort

From: OIRA

By  Howard Shelanski

Over the last few years, Federal agencies have been implementing the President’s call for a government-wide review of existing regulations, identifying rules to be changed or removed because they are out-of-date, unnecessary, or overly burdensome.  As part of this retrospective review, or “regulatory lookback,” agencies across the Federal government have identified hundreds of initiatives to reduce burdens and save taxpayer dollars. In fact, the retrospective review effort to date includes actions that will save more than $13 billion dollars in the near term, with more savings on the way.

The Federal Rulemaking Process: Setting an Example for the World

Editor’s Note: Complaints about the American regulatory system make it easy to forget that our process sets an example for the world.; this is a trust that all participants in the regulatory process should strive to uphold.

From: Leadership — Nigeria’s Most Influential Newspaper

The Rulemaking Process

The reason for this article is to clearly educate the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) or the yet to be implemented merger called Federal Civil Aviation Authority (FCAA) on how rulemaking is processed in a rational country like the USA.

Retrospective Review: Do Agencies’ Proposals Measure Up?

From: George Washington University/Regulatory Studes Center–Regulatory Commentary

Sofie E. Miller, Policy Analyst

As part of our continuing focus on retrospective review of regulations, the GW Regulatory Studies Center is commencing a new initiative, the Retrospective Review Comment Project. Through this project, we will examine significant proposed regulations to assess whether they include plans for conducting retrospective review, and submit comments to provide suggestions on how best to incorporate plans for retrospective review when new regulations are issued. Our first retrospective review comment is on the National Labor Relations Board’s Representation Case Procedures proposal.