Regulatory impact analysis

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Agency control
• Executive control
• Judicial control
•Legislative control
• Public Control
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.


A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) is a process used by regulators and other government officials to assess the anticipated costs and benefits of a regulation. The process involves comparing the estimated effects of a regulation with the estimated effects of other regulatory and non-regulatory options, including inaction. RIAs are used by the federal government to inform the rulemaking and regulatory review processes.[1][2][3]

Background

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan's Executive Order 12291 required federal regulatory agencies (excluding those defined as independent) to conduct a regulatory impact analysis of any proposed economically significant rules (referred to as major rules at the time).[4] Executive Order 12866, issued by President Bill Clinton in 1993, established a framework for conducting RIAs and mandated them for all significant regulatory actions, including economically significant rules. Before a significant regulatory action can be promulgated, the regulation and supporting analysis (including the agency's RIA) must be reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).[1][2][5]

RIA process

Purpose

A guidance document issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 2016 gave the following explanation of the purpose of conducting an RIA:

“ The most important goals of the RIA are (1) to indicate whether Federal regulation is necessary and justified, and, if so, (2) to identify the regulatory option that is most economically efficient, providing the largest net benefits to society. A well-conducted RIA has numerous additional benefits. It develops the evidence to support well-informed decision-making and supplies a record of the data, assumptions, and analyses considered – providing a reasonable basis for rulemaking as required by the Administrative Procedure Act.[1][6] ”

Content

According to an RIA guidance document issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 2016, all RIAs address the following:

“ The RIA describes the effects of the regulation rather than advocating a particular approach. The arguments supporting the agency’s decision are provided separately in the preamble to the Federal Register notice for the proposed and final regulation. The core of the RIA is an assessment of the benefits and costs of regulatory and other policy options in comparison to a “without regulation” (or “no action”) baseline. In addition, the RIA includes supplementary analyses that respond to various statutory and administrative requirements.[1][6] ”

Requirements

The framework and process for RIAs conducted by federal regulatory agencies is governed by the following policies:[1]

All RIAs include an assessment of the estimated costs and benefits of a regulation. RIAs conducted by federal agencies may also include an assessment of the distribution of a regulation's impacts or address additional requirements under the following statutes and executive orders:[1]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Department of Health and Human Services, "Guidelines for Regulatory Impact Analysis," 2016
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Mercatus Center, "The Role of Regulatory Impact Analysis in Federal Rulemaking," April 10, 2014
  3. ↑ Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, "Regulatory Impact Analysis," accessed August 4, 2017
  4. ↑ National Archives, "Executive Order 12291," accessed August 10, 2017
  5. ↑ Environmental Encyclopedia, "Regulatory Review," 2003
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
v • e
The Administrative State
MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
Pillars
Reporting
Laws
Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Cases
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
Terms
Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
Bibliography
Agencies
v • e
Ballotpedia
About
Editorial Content
Geoff Pallay, Director of Editorial Content and Editor-in-Chief • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Frank Festa • Nicole Fisher • Brianna Hosea • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Nathan Maxwell • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Alexis Thacker • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Regulatory_impact_analysis&oldid=10301850"