Search results

While legislation tends to get more attention, the regulatory process within the executive branch is at the core of day-to-day democratic governance. Federal regulation and rule-making engages dozens of agencies and affects every American. The Biden-Harris administration acknowledged the centrality of the regulatory process with two actions on the President's first day in office. The first called for modernizing the regulatory review process, particularly the central oversight role of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). The second was an executive order calling on the federal government to support underserved communities and advance racial equity. These two initiatives together lay the groundwork for a reorientation and modernization of the regulatory process to move it in the direction of equity and justice.To understand the challenges to and advantages of a reformed regulatory review process, New America's Political Reform Program and the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government convened a group of academic experts from across the country to share their findings on the state of regulatory review and to identify alternative measures of not just the cost of regulations, but also the distributional impact of their costs and benefits. These experts specialize in administrative law, economic analysis, public participation, and regulatory review, and their work covers policy areas including patent law, healthcare, and environmental justice.This conversation focused first on the changes that could be made within the framework of cost-benefit analysis, and then on reforms that would go beyond cost-benefit to new modes of analysis. Much of the discussion centered around ensuring that regulations appropriately benefit and do not harm vulnerable or marginalized communities.

Testimony issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "Federal regulation is a basic tool of government. Agencies issue thousands of rules and regulations each year to achieve goals such as ensuring that workplaces, air travel, and foods are safe; that the nation's air, water and land are not polluted; and that the appropriate amount of taxes are collected. The costs of these regulations are estimated to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars, and the benefits estimates are even higher. Over the past 25 years, a variety of congressional and presidential regulatory reform initiatives have been instituted to refine the federal regulatory process. This testimony discusses findings from the large number of GAO reports and testimonies prepared at the request of Congress to review the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives. Specifically, GAO discusses common strengths and weaknesses of existing reform initiatives that its work has identified. GAO also addresses some general opportunities to reexamine and refine existing initiatives and the federal regulatory process to make them more effective. GAO's prior reports and testimonies contain a variety of recommendations to improve particular reform initiatives and aspects of the regulatory process."

This guide offers an easy-to-read, concise analysis of federal regulations as well as the history, structure, purpose, actions, and key contacts for every regulatory agency in the U.S. government. It is indexed by subject, including organization and agency names

COVER -- TITLE PAGE -- COPYRIGHT PAGE -- CONTENTS -- THEMATIC TABLE OF CONTENTS -- PREFACE -- FEDERAL REGULATION: AN INTRODUCTION -- ESSAYS -- AFTER CENTURIES, AMERICANS ARE STILL DEBATING THE VALUE OF REGULATIONS -- FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND THE STATES -- MAJOR REGULATORY AGENCIES -- CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION -- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY -- EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION -- FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION -- FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION -- FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION -- FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM -- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION -- FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION -- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -- OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION -- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION -- OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES -- ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD -- COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION -- ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION -- FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION -- FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION -- FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY -- FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION -- NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION -- NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD -- NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD -- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -- PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION -- POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION -- SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION -- SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD -- UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION -- UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE -- DEPARTMENTAL AGENCIES -- AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT -- DEPARTMENTAL RESOURCES -- ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE -- FARM SERVICE AGENCY -- FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE -- FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE -- FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE -- FOREST SERVICE -- NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE -- RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY -- RURAL DEVELOPMENT -- COMMERCE DEPARTMENT -- DEPARTMENTAL RESOURCES -- BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND SECURITY -- ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION.

This report provides Congress with a broad overview of significant congressional and presidential regulatory reform efforts within the past 20 to 30 years.

Numerous regulatory reform proposals would require federal agencies to conduct more thorough economic analysis of proposed regulations or expand the resources and influence of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which currently reviews executive branch regulations. Such reforms are intended to improve the quality of economic analysis agencies produce when they issue major regulations. We employ newly gathered data on variation in current administrative procedures to assess the likely effects of proposed regulatory process reforms on the quality of agencies' regulatory impact analyses (RIAs). Our results suggest that greater use of advance notices of proposed rulemakings for major regulations, advance consultation with regulated entities, use of advisory committees, and expansion of OIRA's resources and role would improve the quality of RIAs. They also suggest pre-proposal public meetings with stakeholders are associated with lower quality analysis.

For decades, a strong case has been made for comprehensive reform of the U.S. federal government's regulatory processes (for early contributions, see Weidenbaum & DeFina, 1978; Lave, 1981; Breyer, 1982; Harrison & Portney, 1983; Litan & Nordhaus, 1983; Viscusi, 1992; Breyer, 1993; Sunstein, 1996; Graham, 1996, 1997). Establishment of centralized Office of Management and Budget (OMB) oversight through the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) was an important achievement, but Congress has not yet passed comprehensive regulatory reform legislation.

Patterns of power and political processes within public agencies are poorly understood. From a political-economy perspective and based upon interview data, seven federal regulatory commissions are examined to ascertain the structure and foundations ofpower in them and salient characteristics of its mobilization and utilization. The analysis shows that contrary to common perceptions, the structure ofpower in the commissions is marked by substantial stability and integration in the position of chairman.

Rick McKinney's "Federal Administrative Law: A Brief Overview" is a succinct and helpful place to find information about rulemaking, common administrative law statutes, and the major administrative agencies. But what about those unsung heroes, the minor regulatory agencies whose necessity—and sometimes purpose—are lost to history? We propose this addendum to Rick's article to give a couple of these minor agencies their due.