Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T01:26:16.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regulatory policy: what role for retrospective analysis and review?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2015

Randall Lutter
Randall Lutter*
Affiliation:
Resources for the Future, 1616 P St., NW Washington, District of Columbia 20036, USA
*
Randall Lutter, Resources for the Future, 1616 P St., NW Washington, District of Columbia 20036, USA, Tel.: +240 271 8430, [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Given that President Obama’s Executive Orders on regulation have emphasized the importance of retrospective analysis and review of existing federal rules, I survey the state of retrospective analysis and review of federal regulations. I first ask how much is known about the economic merit of past federal regulatory decisions, based on retrospective economic analyses of their effects. I review reports of the Office of Management and Budget and related literature, but unlike those reports I find only five rules, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), for which retrospective analyses provide estimates of both costs and reasonably good proxies for benefits (e.g., adverse health effects avoided). Other retrospective studies of federal rules estimate are incomplete, estimating only the compliance costs, or only the benefits, or only costs and measures of effectiveness, like emissions reductions, which do not closely relate to people’s welfare.

I also seek to explain differences in the practice of retrospective analysis and review between NHTSA, which appears to have the best record of retrospective analyses among federal agencies, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), an important regulatory agency. I find that NHTSA regularly conducts such analyses and reviews, while EPA rarely does retrospective analysis and presents rulemakings that look like business as usual as being the result of a retrospective review. I analyze the role of data limitations, statutory authority, and institutional incentives in influencing the different behaviors of these two agencies. I conclude that differences in data availability and in particular the lack of relevant control groups, are an important barrier to retrospective analysis at EPA. This data deficiency, combined with important restrictions on EPA’s ability to consider information on net benefits or cost-effectiveness in its rule-making, are together the biggest hindrance to generating better information about the effects of its rules. I conclude with recommendations intended to generate more measurement of the actual effects of regulations.

Keywords

retrospective requlatory analysisregulatory review
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , 28 March 2013 , pp. 17 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2013

References

Arrow, K., Cropper, M., Eads, G., Hahn, R., Lave, L., Noll, R., ... Stavins, R. (1996). Is there a role for benefit-cost analysis in health, safety and environmental regulation? Science 272, 221–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). (2011). Statement of regulatory priorities for FY 2012. Fall 2011. Retrieved from http://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/eAgenda/StaticContent/201110/Statement_0900.html.Google Scholar
Department of Transportation. (2011). Plan for implementation of executive order 13563: Retrospective review and analysis of existing rules. Washington, DC: GPO. Retrieved from http://www.dot.gov/regulations/dot-retrospective-reviews-rules. Accessed on March 25, 2013.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1997). The benefits and costs of the clean air act: 1970–1990. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/copy.html. Accessed on March 11, 2013.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2001). National primary drinking water regulations; Arsenic and clarifications to compliance and new source contaminants monitoring. Federal Register 66(4), 6975–7066. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2001/January/Day-22/w1668.htm. Accessed on March 11, 2013.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2006). 2006 National ambient air quality standards for particle pollution: the regulatory impact analysis. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/ria.html. Accessed on March 11, 2013.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2011a). Spring 2011 Regulatory Agenda. Federal Register, 76(30), 40118–40130. Retrieved from www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-07/pdf/2011-15496.pdf. Accessed on March 25, 2013.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2011b). Improving our regulations: final plan for periodic retrospective reviews of existing regulations. Washington, DC: GPO. Retrieved from Improving our Regulations: Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews of Existing Regulations (PDF). Accessed on March 25, 2013.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. (2011c). Regulatory impact analysis: final national ambient air quality standard for Ozone Research Triangle Park, NC: EPA. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/glo/pdfs/201107_OMBdraft-OzoneRIA.pdf. Accessed on March 11, 2013.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2012a). Progress report: final plan for periodic retrospective reviews of existing regulations. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulemaking/retrospective/documents/eparetroreviewprogressrpt-jan2012.pdf. Accessed on March 11, 2013.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2012b). Progress report: final plan for periodic retrospective reviews of existing regulations(PDF). Retrieved from http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/. Accessed on March 11, 2013.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2012c). Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Airport Deicing Category: Final Rule. Federal Register 77(95), 29168–29205. Retrieved from http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/airport/index.cfm. Accessed on March 11, 2013.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2013). Summary of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. Section 136 et seq. (1996). Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/regulations/laws/fifra.html. Accessed on March 11, 2013.Google Scholar
Fraas, A., & Munley, V. (1989). Economic objectives within a bureaucratic decision process: setting pollution control requirements under the clean water act. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 17, 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
General Accountability Office (GAO). (2007). Reexamining regulations: opportunities exist to improve effectiveness and transparency of retrospective reviews, GAO-07-791. Vol. 35 (pp. 43–44). Washington, DC: GPO. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07791.pdf. Accessed on March 11, 2013.Google Scholar
Greenstone, M. (2002). The impacts of environmental regulations on industrial activity: evidence from the 1970 and 1977 clean air act amendments and the census of manufactures. Journal of Political Economy 110(6), 1175–1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenstone, M. (2009). Toward a culture of persistent regulatory experimentation and evaluation. In: David, M. & John, C. (Eds.), New Perspectives on Regulation. Cambridge, MA: The Tobin Project, Inc.Google Scholar
Greenstone, M. (2010). Effective regulation through credible cost–benefit analysis: the opportunity costs of superfund. In: Balleisen, E. and Moss, D. (Eds.), Government and Markets: Toward a New Theory of Regulation. (p. 82). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harrington, W. (2006). Grading estimates of the benefits and costs of federal regulations. RFF Discussion Paper 06-39 September 2006. Retrieved from http://www.rff.org/Publications/Pages/PublicationDetails.aspx?PublicationID=17463. Accessed on March 11, 2013.Google Scholar
Heinzerling, L. (2008). Lisa Heinzerling responds to Richard Revesz on cost-benefit analysis. Grist.org. Retrieved from http://www.grist.org/article/cost-benefit-environmentalism-an-oxymoron. Accessed on March 11, 2013.Google Scholar
Kahane, C., & Hertz, E. (1998). The long-term effectiveness of center high mounted stop lamps in passenger cars and light trucks. NHTSA Technical Report Number DOT HS 808 696. Washington, DC: GPO. Retrieved from http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/808696.html.Google Scholar
Kamensky, J. (1999). A brief history. National Partnership for Reinventing Government. Available at: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/whoweare/history2.html. Accessed on March 11, 2013.Google Scholar
Litan, R., & Hahn, R. (1997). Improving regulatory accountability. Retrieved from SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1409891. Accessed on March 11, 2013.Google Scholar
Lutter, R., & Belzer, R. (2000). EPA pats itself on the back. Regulation 23(3), 23–28.Google Scholar
National Highway Trafic Safety Administration. (2004a). Federal motor vehicle safety standards; head restraints; final rule. Federal Register. 69(239). Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/FR-2004-12-14/04-26641/content-detail.html. Accessed on December 14, 2004.Google Scholar
National Highway Trafic Safety Administration. (2004b). Cost and weight added by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for model years 1968–2001 in Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. DOT HS 809 834. December 2004, Technical Report. Retrieved from www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809834.pdf. Accessed on March 11, 2013.Google Scholar
National Highway Trafic Safety Administration. (2011). List of published evaluation reports and plans evaluation division (and its predecessors), National center for statistics and analysis. NHTSA, Washington DC. Retrieved from NHTSA by emailing Charles Kahane at [email protected]. Google Scholar
National Highway Trafic Safety Administration. (2013). Regulatory evaluation: effectiveness of NHTSA’s regulations and programs. Retrieved from http://icsw.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/. Accessed on March 11, 2013.Google Scholar
Obama, President B. (2011a). Executive order no. 13563. Government printing office. Retrieved from http://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/Utilities/EO_13563.pdf.Google Scholar
Obama, President B. (2011b). Executive order no. 13579. Government printing office. Retrieved from http://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/Utilities/EO_13579.pdf.Google Scholar
Obama, President B. (2012). Executive order no. 13610, identifying and reducing regulatory burdens. Federal Register 77(93), 28469–28470.Google Scholar
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). (2010). Regulatory Review of 29 CFR 1910.1052: Methylene Chloride: Pursuant to Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Section 5 of Executive Order 12866. Vol. 3. Washington, DC: GPO. Retrieved from http://www.osha.gov/dea/lookback/MC-lookback-Feb-2010-final-for-publication-May-2010.pdf. Accessed on February, 2013. Accessed on March 11, 2013.Google Scholar
Office of the Federal Register (OFR). (2011). Federal register and CFR publication statistics – aggregated charts (XLS). Retrieved from https://www.federalregister.gov/blog/learn/tutorials/ofr-statistics-charts-all. Accessed on March 11, 2013.Google Scholar
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). (2005). Validating regulatory analysis: 2005 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities. Washington, DC: GPO. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_regpol_reports_congress. Accessed on March 11, 2013.Google Scholar
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). (2011). 2011 Report to congress on the benefits and costs of federal regulations and unfunded mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities. Washington, DC: GPA. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_regpol_reports_congress. Accessed on March 11, 2013.Google Scholar
Pope, A. 1989. Respiratory disease associated with community air pollution and a steel mill. American Journal of Public Health 79, 623–628.Google Scholar
Reagan, P. R. (1981). Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 6 FR 13193, 3 CFR, Comp. (p. 127). Retrieved from http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12291.html. Accessed on March 11, 2013.Google Scholar
Regulatory Flexibility Act , “Periodic Review of Rules,” U.S. Code 5, part 1, chap. 6, sec. 610, Available at: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/regulatory-flexibility/610.html. Accessed on March 11, 2013.Google Scholar
Safe Drinking Water Act. Section 1412(b)(9). Retrieved from http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/regulatingcontaminants/sixyearreview/index.cfm. Accessed on March 11, 2013.Google Scholar
Seong, S. K., & Mendeloff, J. (2004). Assessing the accuracy of OSHA’s projected benefits of new safety standards. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 45(4), 313–328.Google Scholar
Sullivan, T. (2008a). Regulatory burdens on small firms: rules need reforms? (testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Regulations, Health Care and Trade. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://archive.sba.gov/advo/laws/test08_0730.html. Accessed on March 11, 2013.Google Scholar
Sullivan, T. (2008b). Regulatory burdens on small firms, Attachment A: Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act: Best Practices for Federal Agencies. (Attachment to testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Regulations, Health Care and Trade. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://archive.sba.gov/advo/laws/attachment08_0730.pdf. Accessed on March 11, 2013.Google Scholar