Suchergebnisse

The regulatory process is often criticized for being cumbersome and slow, much like a computer whose hard drive is fragmented by files no longer used or useful. Like such a computer, the regulatory process contains many requirements of dubious utility. These include the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and numerous executive orders. While other parts of the regulatory process such as notice and comment and cost‐benefit analysis have received much more academic attention, these other parts of the process deserve examination as well. This article argues that such an examination will reveal that these statutes and executive orders add little of value to the regulatory process while consuming agency resources. An improved requirement for cost‐benefit analysis with distributional analysis could easily replace virtually all of these requirements and improve regulations while reducing the time needed to promulgate regulations.

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.

This article provides a framework for consideration of values in the use of science in the regulatory process. The science in question includes both the assessment of technologic risk and the assessment of technologic options to reduce those risks. The focus of the inquiry is on the role of the scientist and engineer as analyst or assessor. The difficulties in separating facts and values will be addressed by focusing on the central question: what level of evidence is sufficient to trigger a requirement for regulatory action? For the purposes of this article, the regulatory process includes notification of risks to interested parties, control of technologic hazards and compen- sation for harm caused by technology. The discussion will address the problems in achieving both a fair outcome and a fair process in the regulatory use of science.