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.
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
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Competing and extreme claims about the relationship between regulation and jobs pervade political debate in Washington, D.C. Some politicians claim that regulations kill significant numbers of jobs by increasing the cost of production, while others claim that regulations create jobs by creating new products and new opportunities for investment. Ultimately this heated debate provides little insight into what is, at root, an important empirical question in an era of bleak economic conditions: Do regulations actually kill jobs?
Editor’s Note: CRE in engaged in a long-term project analyzing the centralized regulatory review function in Brazil and the UK. As part of this project, CRE highlights HM Treasury’s just-released binding guidance document, The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government along with its associated business model guidance and templates and its supplementary guidance for specialized purposes, such as assert valuation, discounting and risk. Below is HM Treasury’s overview of The Green Book followed by a brief excerpt from its Preface.
From: HM Treasury