Post on 10-Apr-2018
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
1/467
T P E I S
J A Sz N. 6
N 2010
52 Ex
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
2/467
C 2010 I P I.
A .
P U S A.
I P I
N Y U S L
139 MD S, T F
N Y, N Y 10012
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
3/467
Execuive Summary .................................................................................ii
Inroducion .............................................................................................1
PA ONE: Where Weve Been and Where Were rying o Go
1. W O ...................................................................................10
2. H M .......................................................................................31
3. P S S P ............................................................444. L F P .....................................................................54
5. P E C ...............................................67
PA WO: Where We Are Now
6. M .................................................................................73
7. G C C .................................................................79
8. S--S S ...........................................................................146
PA HEE: Where o Go and How o Ge ere
9. I P ....................................................................................418
10. ...................................................................................421
Appendix ...............................................................................................426
C
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
4/467
S S j. S J Gz .
T J B, M D, E F, , J T, JW , , .
T B C, B C, Y-S H, A J, N K,M L, M M, K P, N , J S, D Sz,
M , J K-Kz .
T j L.z M A. L, E I.
A
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
5/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Executive Summary ii
Ex S
The Problem
N A . S , .G x , .
Y , . Iq , x . , .
I , , q, . S , . I , , , , .
The Research
F - , . T q , x , -q .
, z N Y U S L 50 , W D.C. P . I , , , 120 . T z, j .
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
6/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Executive Summary iii
Key Findings
S 20% . P , , .
P x .M .
I , ; .
A - .
A x .
W x ( ) , , ,
. B - , A; D+;
D-.
B , -- (, , -, z, , , ), .
How the States Stack Up
D x
, :#1: q .
#2: , .
#3: .
#4: x , .
#5: , .
#6: A .
#7: A .
#8: .
#9: P x .
#10: P x , , .
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
7/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Executive Summary iv
#11: I .
#12: I .
#13: I xz , j z .
#14: I .
#15: I .
T - , : A, D.
S B : I (B+); V W (B); M, N H, P,
V (B-). S j D-, : A, D, D C, G, L, N Mx, x.
T D+, q D. A , .
The Diagnosis
S : ; x, , q , , ; .
M q ; z , x q, . B xz . O , , .
F x, K, , z , . I W V, q, x. Bq , z - j.
T x j
As 0 states
B+ 1 state
B 2 states
B- 4 states
C+ 6 states
C 10 states
C- 2 states
D+ 5 states
D 15 states
D- 7 states
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
8/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Executive Summary v
. O , x z , - , z , . T x q j , x .
B q , , , . T : q .
Recommendations
N : . D , , - :
T , , . F , x . Y q ,
x , .
T q:W ? W ? W ? A ? W q , , , .
Sep-by-Sep ecommendaions
#1: Low-Hanging Frui : : , , N P A: I-S I-S S:
#2: esearch and esource Prioriizaion C Pz
#3: Sroke o he Pen Changes A -- , D O Ax O ,
#4: Process-Inensive Changes U A P A Fx A
#5: Coninual eevaluaion M S ,
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
9/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Introduction 1
IBe careul i you dont know where youre going,
because you might not get there.Yogi Berra1
S 1930, x .2E ,3 x : x , x .
U, x ,4 ,, j . N, x, ? M , , ?
T x , ( D C P ) q , x q. B z , , , , j , .
What Is Regulatory Review?
x . S , -
. I , x, , . D q x q: - x? ? z ? L , , , x . L x .
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
10/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Introduction 2
Y .B , :
? G , , j, .
x , ,, . Fx, x . B
x j . O , x z , - , z , . . O, , .
S x q j , x . A q q , , , z , . S x , q q .
E , , . T q
, , , . T , ,, . T - U.S. .
Regulatory reviewcan encompass
any o the legislativeand executive
branches checkson the rulemakingdiscretion aordedto administrativeagencies. The
regulatory reviewtoolbox houses many
more instruments
than just the rubberstamp and veto pen.
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
11/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Introduction 3
Why Study the States?
D , , , - . I , 1980 ,
x .5 I , x .6
I 1965, F C j ,7 . S , , , . S ; ; , q.8 B q , , z .9 O ,
x . T , , ( x S L x ).10 M , , , .11
T x , , .12 T $100 .13 S z
. F x, , $350 .14 I C , - $1.5 .15 N A .16 G x , .
The Need to Update and Expand the Literature
T q . I 1965, F C: I , 1941 ( ), .17 , A B , , .18 A , P
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
12/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Introduction 4
.19
S, W D C [] x .20 H - .21 I , []
.22
T ; , , z . N, x q - . E , x. T z x -- - .
The Structure o this Report
Y B , . , P O z ;P ; P T .
I P O, C O z . C , . C T x , . C F x
. C F .
P -- , , . T .I x , , , j
In marked contrast to
the incandescent glareo investigation anddebate, which since
1941 has been ocusedon the unctions o
ederal administrativeagencies (a glare whichhas at times produced
more heat than light),comparatively littleattention has been
paid to the multiormagencies operatingwithin the states.
Frank Cooper
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
13/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Introduction 5
120 , , 52 j ( P D C). D , - : q ( ); ( ); . T q :
W , ?
W q, q, ?
W , ? W , ?
F : , ,
, ? D , , ?
W ? A , , ? D x , ?
I q, ?A x? A , ?
D q? H x ?
P 52 . T , x . F, P P O, . G A (S S) B ( I) C (P A) D( ).
P T , , . G , , , . F ,
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
14/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Introduction 6
- : , , , .
T , . T
, , .
F , x . Y q , x , . T , , q: W ? W ?W ? A ?
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
15/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Introduction 7
1 Yogi Berra & David Kaplan, What ime Is It? You Mean Now? 39 (2002).
2 S Council of State Govts, Administrative ule-Making Procedure in the States 1 (1961) ( ).
3 S N S I C. . L, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (B, J., ) (I , z , , x.).
4 B , .g., Cal. Govt Code 11340 (2010) ( ).
5 S Paul eske, egulation in the States 1 (2004).
6 F x, - -, - . S J L. H, Mkg Eoml glo Mo Ad Togh
Dclzo: T C o Sbdy , 52 U. Kan. L. ev. 1377 (2005); David Schoenbrod, Saving OurEnvironment From Washington (2005); J H. A, Ltg Fy Flo Bloom: Ug Fdlm oS Eoml Ioo, he Jurisdynamics Of Environmental Protection: Change And hePragmatic Voice In Environmental Law 263-64 (J C ., 2004); W E. O, A codo
o Eoml Fdlm, ecent Advances In Environmental Economics 22 (J A. L & A Z ., 2002); P S. N & J A. S,Mgg G Md: Locl go O U.S. Eoml
glo (AEI-B J C S, 2001); P S. W, Fdl d S Pmoo Eoml L: A Ccl Aly, 24 Harv. Envtl. L. ev. 237, 258-59 (2000); Daniel A. Farber, Eco-Pragmatism: Making Sensible Environmental Decisions In An Uncertain World 179-83 (1999); z, Fdlm d Eoml glo: A Nom Cq, he New Federalism: Canhe States Be rusted? 105 ( J Fj & B . W, . 1997); L. z, T c o h
Botom d Fdl Eoml glo: A o o Cc, 82 Minn. L. ev. 535, 536-37 (1997); L. z,hblg I Como: hkg h c o h Botom ol o Fdl Eoml
glo, 67 N.Y.U. L. ev. 1210 (1992).
7 S Frank Cooper, State Administrative Law: Volume One, 2 (1965).
8 S eske, 5, 8.
9 S z, Fdlm d Eoml glo: A Pblc Choc Aly , 115 Harv. L. ev. 553(2001).
10 S eske, 5, 7.
11 S P C. G C C, U.S. S & , ://../- ( J 15, 2010) ( -- ); I M. C & J ASz, T od Ahd: EPA Oo d Oblgo o glg Gho G (P I N. 3, 2009) (x E P A , C ).
12 S eske, 5, 8.
13 S Ex. O 12,866, 58 F. . 51,735 (1993) (q , $100 ).
14 H, I P: M H, ://../////.x?ID=102 ( D. 18, 2008).
15 California Air esources Board, Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan ES-6 (2008), ://...////_x_..
16 eske, 5, 8.
17 Cooper, 7, 1 ( [] x, ).
N
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
16/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Introduction 8
18 Arthur E. Bonfield, State Administrative ule Making xx (1986). S loJames . Bowers, egulatingthe egulators: An Introduction to the Legislative Oversight of Administrative ulemaking 3(1990) (T q .).
19 eske, 5, 7. S lo Mj S-T ., Lglo d Admo: Comlxloh Comlcd by m Lm, 35 Legis. Stud. Q. 57, 57 (2010) (P C , .); D O. G & K M. S,Polcl d Bcc Dco: T C o
S Gom l Mkg, 30 Pol. & Poly 646, 648 (2002) (S A P A.O x [ A P A] H 1952 x x .).
20 W & D DW C,Ecoomc Aly o l: Dolo, Eolo, d lm, 31 WakeForest L. ev. 693, 697 (1996).
21 W. H, S d Fdl gloy om: A Com Aly, 29 J. Legal Stud. 873, 874 (2000).
22 N W,I Go Ic o S Adm l Mkg: T Imc o l , 35 Am. ev.Pub. Admin. 402, 404 (2005); ccod. C M. M & D S. W, Who Mdg Whch So? Iold Oh Aco Ic o Adm lmkg S Agc 1978-2004, 33 Pub. Admin. Q. 397, 398(2009) (G - .).
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
17/467
P OWh W B d Wh W yg o Go
Holding those who write rules accountable or thedecisions they make and the manner in which they make
them is critical to the maintenance o our democracy.Cornelius Kerwin1
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
18/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter One: Weighing the Options 10
C OWeighing the Options
E x , : , x, , , . T , j
. T z . T , , . F, z .
The Scope o Regulatory Review
x . G, x , , , . T
x x , q j x.
Adminisraive Funcions Subjec o eview
T l d glo ( ), x, . , , .
M j , , . F x, x x. S, , , x , , , - .
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
19/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter One: Weighing the Options 11
S x . T q .Ex ( ) ; ( ) .
Elemens o he ulemaking Process
A, x . - (, , x, ), , , x , . O , ; .
x,
x .2 N, , : j ;3 , j, ; q .4 H,
,5 x .
G, q j . S x q , , , , .
Legislaive Oversigh
T x , q . (T , , q , j , x .)
To some extent, any
procedural constraintimposed on an agencysdiscretion and rulemaking
eorts can oer thelegislature or executive thepower to stack the deckand indirectly inuence all
regulatory content.
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
20/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter One: Weighing the Options 12
I x, x , j , . T , . L , j , .
N, j ( ), - j .T , -, , ,, .
Execuive Oversigh
A , x ,
. M , , , . F , g A C, .O x . I , , x ( x, ). S, q , . A q , x .
G, , -, x , q .
egulaory Impac Analyses
T , , -, - . T q , , q . D , x ( x ).
O z , , x . F x, , x . T x ( C F) x
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
21/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter One: Weighing the Options 13
( C T).
erospecive eviews
F, x . A q . L x
x . I , , x j x .M , x , . S , .
Are the States Special?
S x , , . B
, , , .
Legal Dierences
Ply Lgl Ahoy: T x, , .6 S x . M , C U.S. , x .7
No-Uy Exc Bch: W x
( A, H, N J), x x .8 K , , - ; , , ,, .9 O , x .10 S, .11 S
.12 A x qx ,13
.14 T x j .15
Co Cc: N , , j j
A states executivebranch may existas an amalgam oseparate fedoms,interering with the
governors power tolead and supervisethe bureaucracy
eectively.
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
22/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter One: Weighing the Options 14
, 16 x . I , - . B , x - . M,
z [] j .17
Poliical Dierences
Elcd Ocl: S , , , .18 M, - , .19
Py Cool: I ,
, x , . L- x , .20
Pblc Acc: V , , . A z , ,21 . S, x , z z . . . , x , x,
.22
Pracical Dierences
Lgl Poolm: T , j , , .23 I - , ( ).24 M U.S. C, .25 L q : 2000 .26 B
, , , .27
Sho Lgl Cld: M .28 O -; x .29 W , . F x, [] ,
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
23/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter One: Weighing the Options 15
[ ], - .30 S -.31
Lmd oc: A z -
, q q x .32 S x q : , x - , j x .33 D , .34 S ( x) , -
j.35
W , . F , . O , x , . M, , , . Fx, , z .36 I ,z , .
Theoretical Advantages and Disadvantages
T z , , .F q, , j x . H, q , .
O : , ; , . , , , : x j, q , .
Only seven statelegislatures operate
ull-time; in sixstates the legislature
convenes only everyother year. Statelegislatures may havelittle time to devote to
agency oversight.
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
24/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter One: Weighing the Options 16
Rationality and responsiveness, while bothtraditional values in administration, reect contradictory
assumptions about the nature o administration.
Patty D. Renrow and David J. Houston37
Is egulaory eview Necessary and Appropriae?
T q .J , - x, . G , , -- .38
M, , j . N ( ) x q . P j , , . S . I, ,39 .40 T ,
j - .41
B x . , j q. J , x, , . O , , , ,42 ( j , ).43 I , j q , .44 S, , -
x q x,45
.46
. A, , ,47 . A , j
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
25/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter One: Weighing the Options 17
.48 B , .49 F, j; .50 .51
E , . A x, z x .52
. C ; , , ; , z ; j j.53 N, , q .54 T , .55
M, : xz . F x, , , q. . U q q z , . B , z .
Legislaive versus Execuive eview
, x :
, x , ?
S .56 L ; ; . W , z x .57
O , , , x,
, .58 G , , - , z , .59
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
26/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter One: Weighing the Options 18
There is always so much the committee has to dowith important legislation, we just cant take the time toworry about what an agency is doing with something
we drated fve or ten years ago. The agencys going tobe on its own or the most part. Because nobody
wants to do the job o checking up on it.
Anonymous Legislative Committee Chair (1963)60
T , q x . L , , . 61 I ,
. T , x, .62
x, . L , . T , q .63 B ,
. P .64
F , x . G, x , . M, , . S z x, , .65 O , x q x .66
S, , z .67 B , x , , . I , , .68
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
27/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter One: Weighing the Options 19
A q. I , , .69 A , .
How Should Legislaive eview Be Srucured?
I -, x ,70 : ; ; .
O , - j x .71 O . O ,
j , . B j , , z .
O , x . B z , .72 T j x x , ,73
j q . P q .74
M x , j , , . S . 75 E , q , . A , , q , , .76
W q ,
?77 T q .78 G , x .
T q . W ,79 . B ( -, C ),
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
28/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter One: Weighing the Options 20
80 , , , , .81 T - , x ; .
A ,
x j .82 F, : , x ; , , - .83
A, , . A j , . , j. Cz ,84
j. B , . I , , , , j.85
A - q. U , j , q , . B- , j (
), .86
How Should Execuive eview Be Srucured?
T x , x (C F). M q x : x, . P q x .
T x . F , ; q , z - q .87 T, , .
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
29/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter One: Weighing the Options 21
B , x. E [ ] - . O , x A G.88
F, , x , , .I , , .89 O , , x
x . T x .
Should Saes Conduc Impac Analyses?
T - ,90 , ,
. B q j , - . I, , . W , , , .
, , . I , j : .91 B
, x z .92
S , x , ( C ). S x .93 S ,
By requiring
governments to justiytheir regulatory choicesin the language o
science and economics,cost-beneft analysis
helps ensure thatdecisions are not madeon the basis o special
interest politics. Whendecisions are madein the open, using
the best inormation,and in response topublic participation,
democracy ourishes.
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
30/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter One: Weighing the Options 22
.94 B , j j .95 I, : , x, .96 A ,
, .
How Should Impac Analyses Be Srucured?
T - , x ( C F). B, , . O q , z , - q. I, , -
. O , z z. D , , q , , z.97
S q : , q , z , . E , , .98 F x, , q
q, z q .99
M , , . x x. L , x , j x.100 , x z x , xz
x. A , x, ( ).P x, x.101 A x x
Any regulatoryexibility act thatblindly creates
exemptions withoutweighing whetherthose exemptionsreally enhance net
benefts does notaccomplish its goals.
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
31/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter One: Weighing the Options 23
x .102
Inacion and eview o Exising egulaions
A . S
, .103
A x .T , , : ;
; ;x ; .104 T ,, ,105 q.
M , , , , , .106 A
x . x: - -; , ; z . 107A -- x , , .108
S, x .109W , . A, . O
, .110
O j - . 111S - . B ,
There are many reasonswhy a rule may no longer beas efcient, air, or legal asit was when frst adopted:
laws or administrative policymay change; technology
may advance; the economiclandscape may shit;
unexpected implementationproblems may crop up;
and regulated parties mayrespond to regulation in
unpredictable ways.
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
32/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter One: Weighing the Options 24
, , x .112 B .113 M, . 114G, q .115
S zz . T . I, x j, , , , . T x x .
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
33/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter One: Weighing the Options 25
1 Cornelius Kerwin, ulemaking: How Government Agencies Write Law and Make Policy 212 (2003).
2 A z . S M D. MC, G. N, & B. W,Adm Pocd Im o Polcl Cool, 3 J. L. Econ. & Org. 243 (1987).
3 F , Paul eske, egulation in theStates 218 (2004). T j .
4 A x -- q . SArthur E.Bonfield, State Administrative ule Making 436 (1986); lo W W, Foml Pocd, Ioml
Poc, Accobly, d o Bcc Polcy Mkg: A Iol Polcy Aly , 64 Pub.Admin. ev. 66 (2004) (, 42 , -- , ).
5 G -- , : - , . M D. MC & T Sz,Cogol Ogh Olookd: Polc Pol F Alm, 28 Am. J. Pol. Sci. 165 (1984); lo AL & M D. MC,Lg om Ogh: F Alm d Polc Pol cocd, 10 J. L. Econ.& Org. 96 (1994); N W, Pomog Pco? A Exmo o lmkg Noco d Acc
Pocd, 69 Pub. Admin. ev. 518, 523 (2009) (A , , , . A - x . . . 24 .).
6 S Bonfield, 4, 38.
7 S G. A ,Ig h So o Po S Coo, 59 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 329, 329(2004).
8 S Council of State Govts, he Book of the States 213 4.10 (. 42, 2010 .).
9 S d.; F M, Ddd Gom S Exc Bch, 31 Pol. & Poly 232, 232 (2003).10 M . F & C J. B, Exc Od d Adm Cool , Pub. Admin. ev. S20
(D. 2008).
11 M, 9, 232.
12 A OM. B, N D. W, & M . S II, Goo Po, 63 Pol. es. Q. 304, 307-08 (2010).
13 Id.
14 J ,Iol Dg d h Lgg Lgcy o Adl So o Po Idl h S , 52 Vand. L. ev. 1167, 1226-27 (1999) ( , ).
15 S d. 1231.
16 Id. 1229.
17 S A M J 2008 C M S A P A D C, ://.../////2008j_.( L) ( j , ).
18 S Bonfield, 4, 38; lo P , T N ol d Polc o S glo, egulation, F2004, 18-19 ( ).
N
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
34/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter One: Weighing the Options 26
19 S Mj S-T .,Lglo d Admo: Comlx loh Comlcd by mLm, 35 Legis. Stud. Q. 57, 57 (2010) (O , .).
20 S N D. W,Polcl Ic o Agcy l Mkg: Exmg h Efc o Lgl d Gboll Po, 36 State & Local Govt ev. 174, 182 (2004) (P x , .); B. D,Ph d
Ogh o Agcy l Idho, 11 Legis. Stud. Q. 109, 112 (1986) (D .).
21 S Bonfield, 4, 30.
22 J , Ocomg Pochlm: S Adm Pocd d Iol Dg, 53 Admin. L. ev. 551,556 (2001). S lo , 18, 18 ( , , . Ex .).
23 SJ D. K, Chg Poolm U.S. S Lgl, 25 Legis. Stud. Q. 327, 327 (2000) ( [ ] , , );he Book of the States, 8, 88 ( 1930, - ).
24 S Paul eske, egulation in the States 201, 203 (2004).
25 S , Ocomg Pochlm, 22, 556-57.
26 eske, 24, 209 ( D ).
27 Id.
28 S he Book of the States, 8, 97 . 3.2.
29 eske, 24, 201, 203.
30 ,Adl So o Po Idl, 14, 1231.
31 S d.
32 Bonfield, 4, 30.33 W & D DW C,Ecoomc Aly o l: Dolo, Eolo, d lm, 31 Wake
Forest L. ev. 693, 696-97 (1996).
34 Frank Cooper, State Administrative Law: Volume One, 4-5 (1965).
35 Bonfield, 4, 34.
36 W, Polcl Ic, 20, 182.
37 P D. & D J. H, A Com Aly o lmkg Poo S AdmPocd Ac, 6 Poly Stud. ev. 657, 663 (1987).
38 S D S. N, Q Cod Io Cod?: Gbol d Lgl o Agcy lmkg dh 1981 Modl Ac, 57 Wash. L. ev. 669, 695 (1982).
39 S , x. S B J. G, CM, N C. D, S Lgl Ic o Agcy lmkg: T Uly o Ex A , 5State Pol. & Poly Q. 24 (2005); W,Polcl Ic, 20. B . N W,I Go Ic o S Adm l Mkg: T
Imc o l , 35 Am. ev. Pub. Admin. 402, 402-03 (2005).
40 SW,I Go Ic, 39, 404 ( E 1981 1984 ).
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
35/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter One: Weighing the Options 27
41 S Bonfield, 4, 461-62 (, x, , , ). S . Sichard C. Elling, Public Management in the States (1992).
42 S Council of State Govts, Administrative ule-Making Procedure in the States 11-12 (1961).
43 SBonfield,
4, 460.
44 Id. 456, 459.
45 S O J, 431 A.2 783 (N.H. 1981) ([L] . L, , x , .); lo D B. S, Adm L d Agcy
Polcy-Mkg: hkg h Po Toy o Polcl Cool , 14 Yale J. on eg. 407, 436-38 (1997) (S ); C & S P,
Agcy Dg Ogog ool o Bcc Ic, 29 Legis. Stud. Q. 383, 394 (2004) ( 24 , , , x x x . F x , , x x , ). B q . L. H L,
Lgl d Exc Vo o l o Adm Agc: Modl d Al , 24 Wm. & Mary L. ev.79, 97 (1982). S lo M D. MC, G. N, & B . W,Adm Pocd
Im o Polcl Cool, 3 J. L. Econ. & Org. 243 (1987).
46 L, 45, 106.
47 S , x -- , , , x j . Bonfield, 4, 457. S -: , x .Id. 458. W , . Id. 460.
48 S E B Mq & M C. S,gloy Qly d Imc Ogh, 101 Am. Pol.Sci. ev. 605, 605 (2007).
49 S C . S, Cogo d Co-B Aly, 29 J. Legal Stud. 1059 (2000).
50 SJ.B. & J Sz,Moz d h d Q: T Poblm o gloy Acco h AdmS, 91 Geo. L. J. 757 (2003).
51 F x, z . S S J. P & C ,Polcl Ilo d Lgl Io: T Imc o
l , 9 State Pol. & Poly Q. 456, 457 (2009).
52 S Bonfield, 4, 480 ([] [] , , x
.).53 S D Mq & S, 48, 606, 613 ( z
z , j .).
54 D Mq & S, 48, 617 ([W] (.., ), ,
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
36/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter One: Weighing the Options 28
. I , (.., ), .).
55 W. H & P C. , H Ecoomc Aly Imod gloy Dco? (AEI-B J C. . S. W P N. 07-08, 2007) ( OIR
. OIR $72 ,
(.., )).
56 N C. S L., L O, ://../.x?=13538 ( F.13, 2010).
57 S Cooper, 34, 222, 230.
58 S, .g., A ,Lgl Bho d Lgl Ogh, 6 Legis. Stud. Q. 115 (1981) ; M S. O& B A. , Og Ogh: N D d Old Poblm, 15 Legis. Stud. Q. 5 (1990); N, 38, 694.
59 S S S, Codo o Lgl Cool, 25 J. Pol. 526, 532 (1963). A . H q C: C
. . . . L , . W . , 58, 118.
60 S, 59, 532 (q ).
61 F , O & , 58. F- - . U - , . MC &Sz, 5, 166, 172 (A C, z z z , z .).
62 Herbert Simon, Administrative Behavior 58 (3. . 1976).
63
S N, 38, 694.64 S Bonfield, 4, 508-09.
65 SW, Pomog Pco?, 5, 524 (T, , x .).
66 Council of State Governments, Administrative ule-Making Procedure in the States, 42, 4. A 1961, I N q . I, C S G x z, , .Id. 12.
67 S Bonfield, 4, 463; b c. N, 38 (z MSAPA ).
68 S Bonfield, 4, 475.
69 N, 38, 695.
70 Bonfield, 4, 457-58.
71 N, 38, 688.
72 Bonfield, 4, 482 ( Natl Conf. of State Legislatures, estoring the Balance (1979)).
73 A, z
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
37/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter One: Weighing the Options 29
.
74 Bonfield, 4, 483-84 ( Natl Conf. of State Legislatures, estoring the Balance(1979)). A, .Id. 485.
75 Natl Conf. of State Legislatures, estoring the Balance (1979). M , x
. N, 38, 687. B James . Bowers, egulating the egulators: An Introduction to theLegislative Oversight of Administrative ulemaking 108 (1990) ( , I, j x , ).
76 S Bonfield, 4, 488.
77 S M E. E III,Lgl-Adm Ico I Acc: A Emcl Aly, 43 J. Pol.473, 475 (1981) (q ).
78 S Cooper, 34, 222.
79 S , C ( ). S q . L, 44, 91(P - - q .).
80 L, 45, 86. L ; ; x. T A C U S A B A j . Id. 96. L
j .Id. 90.
81 29 S . A.L.I.V.E. V, 606 P.2 769 (A 1980) ( H H. B & E G, CogolCool o Adm glo: A Sdy o Lgl Vo , 90 Harv. L. ev. 1369 (1977)). E , z x x
. Bonfield, 4, 507.
82
Bonfield, 4, 513. B q ( j) . L, 45, 92.
83 Bonfield, 4, 511.
84 S N, 38, 689.
85 S L, 45, 102.
86 Bonfield, 4, 534-35.
87 Council of State Governments, Administrative ule-Making Procedure in the States, 42, 4.
88 Cooper, 34, 220-21.
89 Bonfield, 4, 475.
90 S Frank Ackerman & Lisa Heinerling, Priceless: On Knowing the Price of Everything and theValue of Nothing (2004).
91 W N, Mo Loly Nmb, 26 egulation 22 (2003); lo W. H, S d Fdlgloy om: A Com Aly, 24 J. Legal Stud. 873, 874 (2000) (I , z
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
38/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter One: Weighing the Options 30
.).
92 S W & C, 33, 695.
93 S Bonfield, 4, , 109-112 (1993).
94 S J. P, J., Smll I No Bl: T C Ag Scl gloy m o Smll Fm , 50A. L. . 537, 549 (1998) (z : ; ;
j ).95 S Bonfield, 4, , 109-112 (1993).
96 P, 94, 550. S q .., j .Id. 539-40; b C. S B,Do Sz Mt? A Ecoomc Aly o Smll B Exmo om glo,8 J. Small & Emerging Bus. L. 1, 19 (2004) (q P ).
97 S Bonfield, 4, , 106 (1993).
98 W & C, 33, 702-05.
99 Id. 700; N O. K, T chocc d Dmocc Fco o h CAI gloy Aly, eforming egulatory Impact Analysis 48 (W H, L Hz, & D. M
., 2009).100 S B, 96, 19.
101 C. S B, T Co o gloy Exmo, 72 UMKC L. ev. 857, 858-59, 864, 869 (2004).
102 M, , , C j , j . B,Do Sz Mt?, 96, 26.
103 S Bonfield, 4, , 178 (1993) ( 71 M. L. . 543 (1987)).
104 S N . E & J S. K, Fdl Agcy o Exg glo, 48 Admin. L. ev. 139, 144-46 (1996); U.S. Govt Accountability Office, GAO-07-791, eeamining egulation: OpportunitiesEist to Improve Effectiveness and ransparency of etrospective eviews 12 (2007).
105 E & K, 104, 153.
106 Id. 147.
107 U.S. G A O, 104, 11.
108 E & K, 104, 148-9.
109 Id. 147-48 ([F ] , , , x .).
110 U.S. G A O, 104.
111 S Bonfield, 4, 435-36.
112 , 18, 20-21.
113 S D S & J P ,Ptg h G Bck h Botl: T Lgl Sggl o Co lmkgby Exc Agc, 21 Fla. St. U. L. ev. 415, 420 (1993) ( Staff of Fla. S. Comm. on Govtl. Ops., Aeview of the egulatory Sunset Act and the Sundown Act (1991)).
114 Id.
115 E & K, 104, 160.
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
39/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Two: History and Models 31
W , q . I , . T , , ,
; M S AP A; M Fx A.
Early Experiments in Administrative Process and Economic Analysis
T E P. N, P , x U.S. .1 S, E x U S.2
K , 1939,3 M
.4 B 1970 .5 T - , , .6 I , -q x . B 1970, [ ] , q , j .7 T ,8 .9O x
x - .10 , 1993 x .11
B 1970 1980,
History and Models
C
By 1993, everystate but three
had experimented
with somevariation on
legislative review.
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
40/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Two: History and Models 32
x, , , .12 I , 1943,13 W x 1977.C 1980, Az x x . A , C P q , x 1994
C A.14
W , q .D - x , 1980 q .15 T j 1980 1990 . I (x , ), x. F x, N Y G j
G O ( , ).16
I 1960 1970, .17 T 1990 [] .18 E , , .19A - .20
The Rise, Decline, and Resurrection oLegislative Vetoes and Sunsets
O z x . B 1979, .21 S A, C, K, M, M, M,N H, N J, O, W V .22 A , x x ,
, q . K S C .23 V .24
I . I,
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
41/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Two: History and Models 33
( C , CF), j, :25 x, F , .26 T N C S L N C C U S L .27
B . , . I S C ,28 W .29 I , N C, .30
C . T M S D x ,31 C, I, N, N J .32
B q , : I 2004.33 O .N D 1995, , .
W V , q .A C : x x .34
I, j . S
-x 1981.35 B , , , x .36 B , q x, , . N C , q .37 T , .38
Reports o the death o thelegislative veto may havebeen premature. Not all
courts have ound legislativevetoes unconstitutional.
Constitutional amendmentsare another route back to the
legislative veto. And, evenquite recently, states havecreatively overcome potentialconstitutional problems using
regular statutory means.
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
42/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Two: History and Models 34
The Inuence o Model Rules
T .M 1961 1981 M S AP A (MSAPA), N C C U S L (NCCUSL). A j
M Fx A, U.S. S B A O A.
M , . H, ,39 APA .40 T S B A x .
Model Sae Adminisraive Procedure Ac
I J 2010, NCCUSL j MSAPA, 1981.41H, MSAPA A PA ,42 j . B , x , F, I, .
W MSAPA, NCCUSL x , , A BA , , .43
T Ogl 1946 MSAPA d h 1961 o: MSAPA :
j , , , U. I . I , x .44
T , x , , , j. N, .45
T 1961 . 46 B j , MSAPA 1961
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
43/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Two: History and Models 35
.47
T 1981 MSAPA o: I 1981, , . I , A B, , , j .48 M , .49 (S Ax
x 1981 MSAPA.)
B x q .50 S ( 51) , MSAPA x F q.52 x, q q ; q , z
, - q. A x j x j , q.53
MSAPA x , .
, , . T , , - , z .55
T 1981 MSAPA , ,
z . T, MSAPA , . T x , MSAPA .56 S, , , , q, x .57 (L, B
The regulatory analysisrequirement implements
both the ideal o
comprehensive rationalityand the political modelo rulemaking because
it is calculated to ensurean adequate opportunityor the agency and thepublic to evaluate the
desirability o a proposed
rule and an adequateopportunity or thosewho oppose it to do
so eectively.
Arthur E. Bonfeld54
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
44/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Two: History and Models 36
, .58)
B MSAPA x , . , MSAPA I ,
, : x, .59
MSAPA I N. MSAPA z, -, j j .60MSAPA j , .
MSAPA , q , ; . I x .61
I 1981, NCCUSL z . 62 B , MSAPA j . U MSAPA, j ,
, , j .63 I j, q .
T , , , z q . T , q .64 S j , q .65
C MSAPA o: B 2004, NCCUSL MSAPA . A , 1981 , x .66 B A 2007, , J 2010, NCCUSL . (S Ax x A 2007 J 2010 , -- 1981 .)
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
45/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Two: History and Models 37
I , ; , . P . Q z , j . (A , , q
x - .67
) A x q xz , jz .
S x. M , , - . O x , x q. I, , q .
I , , NCCUSL , : W j . W . M , .68 I , , .69
T j. T x , , , , . A j , j , . T , q ,
-.70
T , j : j - q; x
We were just
swamped with all therules. We had no
idea how many ruleswere being issued.Many o them wereso perunctory that
they really didnt needto be reviewed, but
under our statute,initially, they all
had to be.A Frustrated
Legislative Reviewer
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
46/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Two: History and Models 38
; q ;q .71
T NCCUSL . W . A , MSAPA
, .
Model egulaory Flexibiliy Ac
I D 2002, U.S. S B A (SBA) O A x . C , SBA .72
T q , , , , . T, , x z , , ,, . T , , x x .73 T j , .74 F, q x . T z , x , ,
.
T SBA . T , , . T A L Ex C, N F I B, , U.S. C C, z.75
T . S 2002, - , , x . E x : z
.76 A SBA A 2010, P x ; -x x ; x (A, I, M, N,N C, W) D C x .77
B SBA . S SBA , K, q
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
47/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Two: History and Models 39
x x.78 C x q . I , ,79 .80 T SBA , x .81 H, SBA O P, -
.82
I SBA O .
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
48/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Two: History and Models 40
1 S Council of State Govts, Administrative ule-Making Procedure in the States 6 (1961).
2 S Frank Cooper, State Administrative Law: Vol. One, 222 (1965); B Sz,Lgl Coolo Adm l d glo: T Amc Exc, 30 N.Y.U. L. ev. 1031, 1039 (1955) ([B]
E x [ ] [x] A q [ ] .).
3 D S. N, Q Cod Io Cod?: Gbol d Lgl o Agcy lmkg d h1981 Modl Ac, 57 Wash. L. ev. 669, 673 (1982).
4 S F A. H, Lgl o Adm l d h Idho Adm Pocd Ac, 30I L. . 369, 371 ( M 1947); James . Bowers, egulating the egulators:
An Introduction to the Legislative Oversight of Administrative ulemaking 24 (1990) ( M 1943).
5 H, 4, 369.
6 J B & G M. Lz, Cocg S Gom om h Pblc Po: T Io C, 31 State
& Local Govt ev. 78, 79 (1999).7 N W & M B,Lgl Poolm d Ic o S Agc: T Efc o oc
d Cm, 31 Legis. Stud. Q. 585, 585 (2006).
8 Id. 586 (2006) (G , x . O , , .).
9 S L. H L, T Dcl o h Lgl Vo: Fdl/S Como d Ico , 17 J.Federalism 115, 120-21 (1987) ( j 1960 1970).
10 M E. E,A Polcl-Iol Io o Lgl Ogh Mchm & Bho, 17 Polity
340, 345 (1984).11 H, 4, 371. . B ,
1987, 29 j ; 4 j x ; 3 . 22 ( q); 7 x . 27 q. 5 . P D. & D J.H,A Com Aly o lmkg Poo S Adm Pocd Ac, 6 Poly Stud. ev.657, 659-60 (1987) ( 49 , K, APA). B 1981 38 . N, 3, 673.
12 SJ K. C,I h Shdo o Wlo d Bolo: Exc Bch ogzo h S, 1965 o1987, 48 Pub. Admin. ev. 892, 898 (1988).
13 S S x . S . E, 228 I. 13 (1950) (A 1943, . 213; 60-1501, B 1943 , , , ,
q .). N x .14 Paul eske, egulation in the States 210 (2004).
15 S Arthur E. Bonfield, State Administrative ule Making 488-89 (1986).
16 . P, 93 N.Y.2 273 (1993).
17 & H, 11, 662.
18 W D DW C, Ecoomc Aly o l: Dolo, Eolo, d lm , 31
N
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
49/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Two: History and Models 41
Wake Forest L. ev. 693, 695 (1996).
19 S Council of State Govts, 1, 11. A, q q. & H, 11, 660.
20 I x , x x . SW & C,
18, 719, 720 (T , , .).
21 S L, 9, 120-21.
22 S S . A.L.I.V.E. V, 606 P.2 769 (A 1980); M . P, 439 A.2 349 (C. 1981)(C S C j ); S x . S . H , 687 P.2 622 (K.1984); B . D C, 611 N.W.2 530 (M. 2000); M. C. E . J C.
A. , 948 S.W.2 125 (M. 1997); M x A . D , N. 47126 (M., L& C C., 18 M 1982); O J, 431 A.2 783 (N.H. 1981); G. A . B, 448
A.2 438 (N.J. 1982) ( ); G C . D E.Q, 849 P.2 500 (O. 1993), d o oh god, 511 U.S. 93 (1994); S x . B . M, 279S.E.2 622 (W.V. 1981).
23
L C . B, 664 S.W.2 907 (K. 1984). I - 1981, N H , W
V . O J, 431 A.2 783, 789 (N.H. 1981); S x . B. M, 279 S.E.2 622, 632 (W.V. 1981).
24 L, 9, 122; lo O A G, OAG 01-086 (., M 23, 2001).
25 L, 9, 128-29.
26 F. S B,Lgl Chck o lmkg Ud Flod N APA, 24 Fla. St. U. L. ev. 309, 331 (1997).
27 S L, 9, 131.
28 M . A, 791 P.2 410, 414 (I 1990). A E . N J B. A., 448 A.2 449 (N.J. 1982), N
J .S lo C . K, 500 A.2 1205 (P. S. 1985).T K , , - . O j j , , . Cq, j j .
29 Mz . DILH, 478 N.W.2 582, 587 (W. 1992); lo O J, 431 A.2 783, 789 (N.H.1981).
30 N.C. B. P. . C, 620 S.E.2 893 (2005), d, o oh god, mdd, modly llod, 637 S.E.2 515 (N.C. 2006); lo C . Bj, 895 N.E.2 1091 (I. A. C. 2008).L M .
31 M. C., A. 4 37 ( 1963); S.D. C., A. III 30 ( 1980).
32 C. C. A. 2 ( 1982); I C. A. 3 40 ( 1984); N. C., A. 3 1(2)
( 1996); N.J. C. A. V 4(6) ( 1992).
33 I. P.A. 93-1035 (2004).
34 S , C E, .
35 H, 4, 370.
36 P , T N ol d Polc o S glo, egulation, F 2004, 20-21.
37 B 1988, . Sx . S
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
50/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Two: History and Models 42
K, S: A Sy d Aly o h S Exc, 50 Pub. Admin. ev. 49 (1990).
38 E , , . S Natl Conf. of State Legis., Ensuring thePublic rust: Program Policy Evaluations ole in Serving State Legislatures (2008).
39 J ,Polc, Io, d Adm Pocd: Wh Excly Do W Ko om h Emcl Sdy oS Ll APA, d Wh Mo C W L?, 58 Admin. L. ev. 961, 962-63 (2006) ( L E.
B H. K, A Ecoomc Aly o Uom S L
, 25 J. Leg. Stud. 131 (1996)).40 J. P. F, J. & G. V B, T Polcl Ecoomy o S-Ll Adm Pocd
Ac, 47 J. L. & Econ. 569 (2004).
41 N C. C U S L, M S A P A (2010), lbl, ://.../////2010_..
42 M A,Iodco o hA L Symom o S Adm L, 53 Admin.L. ev. 395, 396 (2001) (T 1961 M S APA , , . H[ 1981 ] , , x APA.).
43 Bonfield, 15, 3.
44 E. B S, T Modl S Adm Pocd Ac, 33 Iowa L. ev. 196, 199 (1948).45 Id. 200-01, 203.
46 S N C. C U S L, M S A P A (1961), lbl ://.j...//USAPA/MSAPA1961..
47 Cooper, 2, 221.
48 A E. B,A Iodco o h 1981 Modl S Adm Pocd Ac, P I, 34 Admin. L. ev. 1,2 (1982).
49 Id. 3.
50 Bonfield, 15, 211.
51
B, 48, 8.52 Bonfield, 15, 212.
53 Id. 213-14, 222 (1986).
54 A E. B, T Q o Idl S Adm lmkg Pocd , 18 Fla. St. U. L. ev. 617,(1991).
55 Bonfield, 15, 434, 437-38.
56 Id. 463-68.
57 N, 3, 683-85 (N ; N , j, , , j
, j ).58 Bonfield, 15, .,184 (1993) ( 71 Minn. L. ev. 543 (1987)).
59 Id. 471-72. A I x, 20% , 5% . N, 3, 683 .94 & 684.96.
60 Bonfield, 15, 489.
61 Id. 489-90.
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
51/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Two: History and Models 43
62 Id. 495.
63 Id. 518.
64 Id. 548-49.
65 Id. . 198 (1993) ( A).
66 S D C, N 2004 D M S A P A (2004),
lbl ://.../////N2004D.#OC2_43.67 M 2009 A M D C, ://...////
/2009. ( L).
68 J 2008 C C D C, ://.../////2008j_..
69 Id. ( L).
70 Id. ( L); lo N 2008 A M D C, ://.../////2008_..
71 Id.; loAx, ( ).
72 O A, U.S. S B A, Fx A FY 2009 (2010),
lbl ://..///x/09x.; ccod. O A, U.S. S BA, S B Fx M L I (2005), lbl ://..///_..
73 O A, U.S. S B A, M L, ://..///_..
74 S 72.
75 S O A, Fx A FY 2009, 72.
76 Id. F x, 2010, F x x q, . S F, C E.
77 O A, U.S. S B A, F S, ://..///_03..
78 S K S, .
79 S, .g., W V S, .
80 S, .g., N Mx S, .
81 I K C. , SBA L C, S C MG, SBA A, J 1, 2010.
82 Id.
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
52/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Three: Previous Studies on State Practices 44
Previous Studies on State Practices
C T
J x , . N, x x , x q . T , , x.
Catalogues o Processes On Paper
S , -- : NC S L ;1 N A S S A C S q ;2 , , , C S G Book o hS , .3 T , - , , .
O - . Fx, MSAPA, N C C US L .4 S , V, .5
A x .6
H z N A A 1996 ( - P , I ) 7 .8 H :
W q z , q, - .. . . [S] . W ,
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
53/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Three: Previous Studies on State Practices 45
.9
D G K S 1996 N A A . U , , , G S z
x .10
F , - x :
T x 1996.
Table 1Grady & Simons Executive Rule Review Power Index
8.0 Formal procedure to review all existing and all proposed rules (5 states)
7.0 Formal procedure to review all proposed and some existing rules (3 states)
6.0 Formal procedure to review some existing and some proposed rules (4 states)
5.0 Formal procedure to review only proposed rules (6 states)
4.0 Formal procedure to review only some existing rules (1 states)
3.0 Formal procedure to review only some proposed rules (6 states)
2.0 Procedure to review rules but may not void any rules (1 states)
1.0 No formal power to review rules but informal political power over agencies (24 states)
0.0 No power to review rules or political power over agency (0 states)
Table 2Grady & Simons Legislative Rule Review Power Index
8.0 Power to veto without gubernatorial concurrence (2 states)
7.0 Power to veto subject to gubernatorial veto (2 states)
6.0 Power to permanently suspend or sunset a rule subject to later legislative action (4 states)
5.5 Power to temporarily suspend or sunset a rule subject to later legislative action, withoutgubernatorial concurrence (3 states)
5.0 Power to temporarily suspend or sunset a law subject to later legislative action (9 states)
4.5 Power to temporarily suspend rule, with gubernatorial concurrence, pending later legisla-tive action (2 states)
3.5 Power to object, with objection forwarded to governor and placed in register or forwardedto legislature for action not subjected to gubernatorial concurrence (2 states)
3.0 Power to approve rule and advise full legislature of its opinion for action, not subject togubernatorial concurrence (1 states)
2.5 Power to review rule and advise full legislature of its opinion for action, not subject to
gubernatorial concurrence (1 states)2.0 Power to review rule and advise full legislature/governor/agency of its opinion (11 states)
1.0 Power to review only a special type of rule (1 states)
0.5 Power to create committee to review rules provided for but never done (2 states)
0.0 No formal power to review agency rules (5 states)
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
54/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Three: Previous Studies on State Practices 46
G S (-) ().11
O , ; -- P .
Paper and Practice Do Not Always Match
P . I 2001, V A L A C - q . H:
O , x , z .M z . T
x , z .12
S, H . F x, C - , H ( q
): , C .13 M, H :
z . V q . A V, x, q 20 . . . .[M] .14
F, q
. I M 1998 2004 - A C, , . F, . . . x .15
There is,unortunately, and
ironically, little gooddata about the level oresources needed oroptimal [regulatory.impact] analysis.
Richard Whisnant andDiane Cherry16
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
55/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Three: Previous Studies on State Practices 47
E S P I P
A , q . O .
Impacs on Policy
I 1980, M E .C x , E x ;E z x ( ) , x .17 W E z ( , - ), .18
I 1984, E M, , W .E , M , j , .19
I W, , E . P , W z M
, W -. T x . TW - - .20
O, E j. I, . F x, z . S, x . , .21
P x . , . G ,
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
56/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Three: Previous Studies on State Practices 48
, .22 B , q , .23
I 2007, D D
( ; ; ; z , ) - .24 T x . N, .25
B , . F x, H S , . . . . A , q
.26
Governors Policy Oces
I 2004, N G AC B P - . G . S- ( -
1997), x- , , , , . L : , . S , x .27
P x
. F-x , , q, . A , , ,
When asked whoexercises greater control
over agencies, orty-fve percent o state
agency administratorsreport the governor;thirty percent say the
legislature; and twenty-fve percent answer thattheir inuence is equal.
When asked who shouldexercise more control,
thirty-our percent namethe governor, and only
seventeen percentchoose the legislature.
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
57/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Three: Previous Studies on State Practices 49
. O .28
Percepions o Poliical Inuence (Woods)
I 2000, N W 991
, , .
Po: W x .29 B , . 30 I , ; , x .31
G . T , x, .32
Ecoomc Aly: q x .33
Lgl Poolm: W , , , .34 B : , ( ).35 I,
.36
Conacs and Percepions o Inuence (ASAP)
F , A C G S AS A Pj (ASAP), .37 T , x x .
Coc: T ,38 --
, -- .39
D , x- 1974, 2004.40
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
58/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Three: Previous Studies on State Practices 50
Pcd Ic Ll: x , . 41
W x , - ; ; - q.
W hold x , - , .42 I , , , , .43
O , , , , .44
Fco Chgg Pcd Ic: C W , ASAP , C M, B G, N D ,
( z 1994 Book o h S), .45 T ,46, .47 T ( x ) , .
A , x .48 B ,
.49 I , 50 .51 A z ( ), , .52
T - , , . F x .
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
59/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Three: Previous Studies on State Practices 51
N1 N C. S L., L O, ://../.x?=13538 ( F.
13, 2010).
2
E.g., Admin. Codes & egisters Section, Natl Assoc. of Secys of State, State & Federal Survey: 2007-2009 (2008).
3 E.g., Council of State Govts, he Book of the States 163-69, 256-57 (. 42, 2010 .).
4 S D C MSAPA, lbl ://.../////200717_7., ://.../////2007_., ://.../////2008j1_305..
5 S V A. L A C., S S P 3 (2001)( 50- , 10 ); S M. T, V A. L A C., L P S C P (2001) ( 40 49 ).
6 E.g., N W,Pomog Pco? A Exmo o lmkg Noco d Acc Pocd, 69 Pub.Admin. ev. 518, 520 (2009) ( 0 , ; 9 , ; 30 , ; 25 , ; 22 , ; 12 , ; 6 , ; 42 , ; 15 , ).
7 T N A A C S G-.
8 W. H, S d Fdl gloy om: A Com Aly, 29 J. Legal Stud. 873, 875 (2000).
9 Id. 876-77.10 D O. G & K M. S,Polcl d Bcc Dco: T C o S Gom
l Mkg, 30 Pol. & Poly 646, 649, 654 (2002).
11 Id.
12 S E ., V A L A C, S. S SL C I P (2001).
13 H, 8, 877-78.
14 Id. 880-81. A I , x, q 5 . A , , . T .Id. 882.
15 Mj S-T .,Lglo d Admo: Comlx loh Comlcd by m Lm-, 35 Legis. Stud. Q. 57 (2010).
16 W D DW C, Ecoomc Aly o l: Dolo, Eolo, d lm , 31Wake Forest L. ev. 693, 720 (1996).
17 M E. E, III,Lgl-Adm Ico I Acc: A Emcl Aly, 43 J. Pol.473, 487-89 (1981).
18 Id. 490.
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
60/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Three: Previous Studies on State Practices 52
19 M E. E, Coqc o Lgl o Agcy glo T U.S. S, 9 L. S. Q. 161,171 (1984).
20 Id. 172, 174.
21 Id.
22 Paul eske, egulation in the States 197-98 (2004).
23
Id. 209 (I , . . . , .).
24 S D . z q: x, N C , C . Cz C S G-Book o h S, , .
25 D M. D ., Chck, Blc, d h Co o glo: Edc om h Amc S, 60 Pol. es.Q. 696 (2007).
26 H, 8, 882.
27 Natl Governors Assoc.s Ctr. for Best Practices, Organiing the Governors Policy Office 1, 10(2005).
28 Id. 5-6.29 N W, Polcl Ic o Agcy l Mkg: Exmg h Efc o Lgl d Gbol l
Po, 36 State & Local Govt ev. 174, 180 (2004) (A x 12 .).
30 Id. 180-82.
31 W, Pomog Pco?, 6, 518, 525.
32 N W,I Go Ic o S Adm l Mkg: T Imc o l , 35 Am. ev. ofPub. Admin. 402, 409 (2005).
33 W, Pomog Pco?, 6, 525.
34 W, Polcl Ic, 29, 180-82; lo M B,Lgl Poolm d I-
c o S Agc, 29 Pol. & Poly 147 (2001) ( ).
35 W B , ( , ), ( ,
, ), . N W & M B, Lgl Poolm d Ic o S Agc:T Efc o oc d Cm, 31 Legis. Stud. Q. 585, 596-97 (2006). W B x .
36 W,I Go Ic, 32, 409.
37 F ASAP , M B & D A. G, Ic o S AgcyAc: A o o Sy-Bd M, 6 S P. & P Q. 220 (2006) (q ASAP ); lo C M. M & D S. W, Who Mdg WhchSo? Iol d Oh Aco Ic o Adm lmkg S Agc, 1978-2004 , 33 Pub.
Admin. Q. 397, 420 (2009) ( ASAP , z ).
38 SASAP 2004 S , lbl ://..////T2004ASAP-.
39 Y-S C ., Adm Aoomy Amog Amc S Admo: A Emcl Aly o
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
61/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Three: Previous Studies on State Practices 53
Fgmo d Fcolm, 27 Intl J. Pub. Admin. 373, 379 (2004).
40 SASAP 2004 S , 38 ( 30% 2004).
41 Y-S C ., 39, 380. I , , B F. B ., Coy d Chg Exc Ldh: Igh om h Pc o S Ad-mo, 68 Pub. Admin. ev. s29 (2008); lo Baranowski & Gross, 37.
42 SASAP 2004 S , 38.
43 F x , , , , . N-, z- , x - . C M. M & D S. W, T Polc-Polcy-Admo Com:Zo-Sm Po-Sm Pt Blcg Bcc I h Adm Accobly, - 2002 A M A P S A.
44 M & W, Who Mdg Whch So?, 37, 403.
45 C D. M, B J. G, & N C. D, Ag h Efc o LAI: Lgl Ahoy o l Flxbl Ex A Cool o Agcy Dco-Mkg(2003).
46 S lo B J. G, C M, & N C. D, S Lgl Ic o Agcy lmkg:T Uly o Ex A , 5 State Pol & Poly Q. 24, 35 (2005) ( -
).47 M, G, & D, 45.
48 Id.
49 M & W, 37, 408.
50 C A. K & S W Y, Who Whg Yo E? T Ic o Td P O SAgcy Dco, 59 Pol. es. Q. 629 (2006).
51 N C. D, Gbol Aol d Adm Ic, 2 State Pol. & Poly Q. 251 (2002).
52 M & W, 37, 405.
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
62/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Four: Lessons rom Federal Practice 54
F . , j z[] z[] , .1 I, x
, x C .2
P , , , , ( C O). T x ,3 . N, .4 P , , x q .5
Brie History o Federal Executive Review
T . H z x .6
E , P q 1981. W , Ex O 12,291, z .7
T Ex O q ; x x x , . O I A(OIR), .8
Lessons rom Federal Practice
C F
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
63/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Four: Lessons rom Federal Practice 55
U , . I , OIR , . A OIR . T z OIR . M,
, . V P G H.W. B Ex O 12,291, .
W P C 1993, z . U, z x, , , OIR
. H, , q
, , - . z -, C Ex O, .
Ex O 12,866, C x , OIR .9 H, C O. T
q. A q , . T , C . T , - .
F x , G W. B C Ex O . H, . W B A, . I , , OIR
q q. A OIR x. A C q , .
W P B Ex O J 2007, . Ex
History showsboth the dangersand the promiseso a centralized
system based onexecutive oversight
and mandatory cost-beneft analysis.
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
64/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Four: Lessons rom Federal Practice 56
O 13,422 : q ; P O, x.10
A 2009, P O q B
C Ex O 12,866, z , z .11 A , , :
OIR ; ; ; - ; , , ; ; ;
.
A - Ex O z, OIR . F x, OIR , , q ; , , -; , q z.12
Current Structure o Federal Executive Review
Ex O 12,86613 , j , j z . A OIR . OIR - . S $100 , , , , - . I , , , , q x . A
.
I , OIR . S OIR ,14 q q .15
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
65/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Four: Lessons rom Federal Practice 57
T Ex O 12,866 x , , .16 I z ,17 OIR x
.18
Brie History o Federal Legislative Review
T , , q , j, x . A , C 350 .21
B 1983, S C (
). I I.N.S. . Chdh, C , C x P . 22 N .23
A , j--, , ( C ), Chdh , j
.24 M q, C . T x. T , q - . F x,C
D x .25A , z q, - .26
I 1996, , C C A (CR) .
The once rather vibrantlegal and policy debateover the pros and conso presidential reviewhas gradually evolved
into a airly broadagreement that it is not
only legal, but that iproperly administered, itis essential to eective
executive branchmanagement.
Jerey S. Lubbers19
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
66/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Four: Lessons rom Federal Practice 58
T CR q C j .27 C x j . B P , P , q CR. B 1996 2008, 48,000
C , j - CR j - ; , W H.28 T j ,29 CR, .30
A , C -, . M
.31 O , , , , , .32 S, - , .33
C x ,
, x . C .34 O C x q q , , j x .
T N E P A 1969 q , . F x, U M A 1995q z ; j .35
T Fx A 1980, S B EF A 1996, .36 T A q x .37 T x , , q, j .
Our orm ogovernment simplycould not unction
eectively or rationally
i key executivepolicymakers wereisolated rom eachother and rom theChie Executive.
D.C. Circuit Court oAppeals20
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
67/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Four: Lessons rom Federal Practice 59
T A q x , z.
C x j q: W H
; OIR ; S BA x ; q .38
S q x . A 2004 U M A .39 A OIR x ,40 Fx A. F x, ,41 , , .42
A Flawed System with Great Potential
T x, 43 . F P - , P C . B D z , q- ,
, .
W - - , x . C- . W P G W. B 2001,
C- x . H, W H - ($3 $5 ) (8,300 , 5,500 , 361,400
Both Republicans andDemocrats recognize
the many beneftso regulatory review,
including quality-controlover a growing and
increasingly importantregulatory state, a
dispassionate secondopinion concerning
new regulation, and theintroduction o a broader
perspective into thesometimes parochialrulemaking process.
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
68/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Four: Lessons rom Federal Practice 60
q $60 ). I , , WH E P A x - .44
T - , . F x,
1994-1995, F D A , . T WH, , .45
F, . I , W H O S H A x , F D A q - , .46T ,
- .47
A x , j . . B q j , - .I, , . W , , , .
Lessons States Can Learn rom the Federal System
I 2008, I P I x , , .48 M .
F, x x. T Ex O 12,866 . N x , ,
. E , q Ex O 12,866 Fx A q .49 F , , , q.
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
69/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Four: Lessons rom Federal Practice 61
A .M . P x , . A , , , , , . T .
U C A, W G , , . T , B A . S .
A . A j , - . OIR
. H, q, Ex O.U, , q ,
- . S , , .
W , x. I , OIR j . T OIR q , x , OIR , q . O , . D C A, OIR , . T .
A , . C , . M, x : , q , , .
When agencies aretold that they may,at their discretion,
take some action thatrequires substantial
cost or eort on theirpart, at least some
agencies will seek toavoid it.
Curtis W. Copeland50
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
70/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Four: Lessons rom Federal Practice 62
W , .
H, j . T j , , , . T x
j . P x - N S P CA A x . M , .
S, . D - . C-
, , . T q q -xz. W , - x , .
H, ( ) - . T . B z xz . S, , . I , . F ,51 : .
F, 1993, Ex O q . H, O q , . S x .
Federal courts have ruledthat ignoring signifcantancillary benefts can be
arbitrary and capricious,and states should takethat legal precedent toheart: treat costs andbenefts dierently atthe peril o producinginefcient and legally
insufcient regulations.
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
71/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Four: Lessons rom Federal Practice 63
N1 J M. B, Symom: T Mo Dgd Bchod Mo obl Cog?: T o-
d Cog Adm L, 89 B.U. L. ev. 727, 758-59 (2009).
2
L. H L,Lgl d Exc Vo o l o Adm Agc: Modl d Al, 24 Wm.& Mary L. ev. 79, 84 (1982) (Ex .). B 1961, (I N) q - . C S G, A -M P S 4 (1961).SC T, .
3 S J. P, J. Ho Mch Shold Adm L Co Accomlh?: A o o Schold FE P, 43 Admin. L. ev. 123 (1991) ( x z x).
4 J , Ocomg Pochlm: S Adm Pocd d Iol Dg, 53 Admin. L. ev. 551,554 (2001) (T z
z - -
. S, , - .).
5 Arthur E. Bonfield, State Administrative ule Making 31-32, 40 (1986).
6 O L. z & M A. L, Fxg gloy : commdo oh Nx Admo (P I N. 2, 2008); lo ichard L. eves & Michael A. Liver-more, etaking ationality: How Cost-Benefit Analysis Can Beer Protect the Environment andOur Health (2008).
7 Ex. O N. 12,291, 46 F. . 13,193 (1981).
8 S etaking ationality, s 6; lo C W. C, Fdl lmkg: T ol o h Oc oIomo d gloy Af, inFederal ulemaking and egulation 148 (P L, . 2010) (- OIR ). U P A 1980, - OIR, . 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520 (2010). I, OIR P A - OIR Ex O 12,866, x , - -- . S U.S. Govt AccountabilityOffice, GAO-09-205, Federal ulemaking: Improvements Needed to Monitoring and Evaluation ofules Development As Well As to the ransparency of OMB egulatory eviews 28 (2009).
9 Ex. O N. 12,866, 58 F. . 51,735 (1993).
10 Ex. O N. 13,422, 72 F. . 2763 (2007).
11 P M , 74 F. . 5977 (2009), lbl ://..//j/EO//POUS_M___..
12 OIR, 2009 eport to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal egulation 35 (2010).
13 B Ex O 12,866, x q : Ex O 13,132 q ; Ex O 12,898 q - ; Ex O 13,045 q - ; Ex O 13,211 q -; . F x , Jeffrey S. Lubbers, A Guide to Federal Agencyulemaking 266 (4 ., 2006).
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
72/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Four: Lessons rom Federal Practice 64
14 S C, T ol o OIR, 8, 160-68; GAO-09-205, 8, 6 ( OIR - 10 12 ).
15 S W. H & P C. , H Ecoomc Aly Imod gloy Dco? (AEI-B JC. F S W P 07-08, A 2007). S lo eforming egulatory Impact Analy-sis (Winston Harrington, Lisa Heinerling, & ichard D. Morgenstern eds., 2009).
16 U.S. Govt Accountability Office, GAO-07-791, eeamining egulation: Opportunities Eist to
Improve Effectiveness and ransparency of etrospective eviews 13 (2007).17 S M I P I, O-B Pj, J. 6, 2009 (
) ( ).
18 S, .g., OMB, 2004 eport to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal egulation (2005).
19 Lubbers, 13, 31.
20 S C . C, 657 F.2 298 (D.C. C. 1981).
21 Cornelius Kerwin, ulemaking: How Government Agencies Write Law and Make Policy 220-21(2003).
22 I Nz S . C, 462 U.S. 919 (1983).
23 U.S. C. A. 1 7 (E B H S, ,
L, P U S).24 S J ,Iol Dg d Lgg Lgcy o Adl So o Po Idl h S , 52
Vand. L. ev. 1167, 1184-85 (1999).
25 C W. C, Cogol Ic o lmkg d glo hogh Aoo co, Federal ulemaking and egulation, supra note 8, at 33, 36. iders can also eempt certain rulesfrom the OIR review process.
26 W W. Bz, gloy Udkll , ://..//. (A- .[] .B , , .); ccod.C, Cogol Ic, 25, 45 (x ).
27 5 U.S.C. 801-808 (2010) ( j ). A C, q. S CC, CS 40997, C A: N S GAO C (2009).
28 C W. C, Cogol Ic, 25, 30-31; lo M A. L, I M. C-, & J A Sz, T P N: T H E P H C B E- (P I N. 1, 2008) ( ). S - CR j , , , C [] x . D C & P L. S, Cogol
o Agcy glo, 49 Admin. L. ev. 95, 103 (1997).
29 B, 1, 758-59 ( A ).
30 K, 21, 141.
31 Id. 140-41 (C , , , , x .).
32 Id. 219-20 ( J A (1990) S F (1998)).
33 B, 1, 759 (C . T . F, P. S, x C , -
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
73/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Four: Lessons rom Federal Practice 65
C .).
34 S M D. MC, G. N, & B . W,Adm Pocd Im o Pol-cl Cool, 3 J. L. Econ. & Org. 243 (1987).
35 2 U.S.C. 1532-1538 (2010).
36 5 U.S.C. 601-612 (2010); lo O A, U.S. S B A, -
Fx A FY 2009 (2010), lbl ://..///x/09x..37 S , .
38 S 35-36.
39 S C C, T Fdl lmkg Poc: A O, Federal ulemaking and egulation, 8, 122 ( 2004 GAO ).
40 F x, D x O M B .gloy om: A glo H-dg O Com? Bo h Sbcommt o gloy Af, Ho Comm. o Gom om, 109C. (2005) ( C M, M D, S I, G AO), lbl ://..// 7-27-2005%20GAO%20%20F..
41
S E. S,I Yo Aly Do I T Wy, I Pobbly Wog: Ho h gloy Flxbly Ac H Fldo Chg Agcy Bho, d Ho Cog C Fx I, 1 Entrepren. Bus. L. J. 153, 158 (2006); Copeland,AnOverview, 39, 114.
42 M . S, Wlll Bld: Fdl Agc Fl o Comly h h gloy Flxbly Ac Podc qmAd C Pool o Igo h Ac , 33 Fordham Urb. L. J. 1199, 1200 (2006)(U, - , 610 . E x 610 . M , F. I, 610, .); lo U.S. Govt Accounting Office, GAO/-GGD-98-64, egulatory eform: Agencies Section 610 eview Notices Often Did Not MeetStatutory euirements 1 (1998).
43 F x , z & L, Fx , 6. F , L, C & Sz,Pc o Nglc, 28.
44 J D. G, T Eolg gloy ol o h U.S. Oc o Mgm d Bdg, 1 ev. Envtl. Econ. &Poly 171 (2007), lbl ://.xj./// /1/2/171.
45 I P I, N Y U S L, N Y, NY (N. 17, 2008).
46 G, 44.
47 C, T ol o OIR, 8, 171; eves & Livermore, etaking ationality, 6.
48
S z & L, Fxg gloy , 6 ( x : B, N K-C, S C, A F, S Kz, M, D. M-, V P, K , S, K W).
49 S W. H & P C. , H Ecoomc Aly Imod gloy Dco? (AEI-B JC. F S W P 07-08, A 2007). S lo eforming egulatory Impact Analy-sis (W H, L Hz, & D. M eds., 2009).
50 gloy om: A glo Hdg O Com? Bo h Sbcommt o gloy A- , Ho Comm. o Gom om, 109 C. (2005) ( C W. C, S F-
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
74/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Four: Lessons rom Federal Practice 66
E P, C E I), lbl ://../U-F/7-27-2005%20C%20.
51 C. B D . NHSA, 508 F.3 508, 533 (9 C. 2007).
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
75/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Five: Principles or Evaluation and Comparison 67
T , ,, , .1 T j q .2 T q . D
,3 -j : x. B :
egulaory review requiremens should be realisic given resources. O x , , ; x; . O , , , . A , , ( j ). q , , x . O, .O , .
egulaory review should calibrae rules, no simply be a check agains hem. T . C- , . xz , ; , .
egulaory review should no unnecessarily delay or deer rulemaking. I , , , . I ,-, - , . , q x .
Principles or Evaluation and Comparison
C F
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
76/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Five: Principles or Evaluation and Comparison 68
egulaory review should be exercised consisenly, no only on an ad hoc basis. x j . I, . B x
. B , j , , .
Subsanive sandards o review are necessary o ensure consisency and o increaseaccounabiliy. G , , j - . T x .
A leas par o he review process should be devoed o helping agencies coordinae.T . W x , -j . I- , - , z - .
A leas par o he review process should be devoed o combaing agency inacion.T j
. x - .
egulaory review should promoe ransparency and public paricipaion. T x, . ; z . S -- .
Periodic reviews o exising regulaions should be balanced, consisen, andmeaningul. P . W , xz . S . P ;
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
77/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Five: Principles or Evaluation and Comparison 69
. A, , .
Impac analyses should give balanced reamen o boh coss and benefs. W , j . I,z j q
. I, , , q ; (z) q . U-q q . T , q, , , , x. T - , . T - .
Analyical requiremens should be meaningully incorporaed ino he rulemakingprocess. I j , q . W , j. P z , , .
Impac analyses should ocus on maximizing ne benefs, no jus on minimizingcompliance coss. . S - q .
Impac analyses should consider a range o policy alernaives. A . D ; - ; xz
.
Impac analyses should include a meaningul and balanced disribuional analysis.A j ( ) . I, , . T ,
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
78/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Five: Principles or Evaluation and Comparison 70
xz , , q.
T - j . Fx ,
. F x, ; , q - .
B -z-- - , - .
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
79/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Five: Principles or Evaluation and Comparison 71
N1 B J B & G M. Lz, Cocg S Gom om h Pblc Po: T Io C,
31 State & Local Govt ev. 78 (1999). B Lz I zz , , ,
; , , ; z -.Id. 84-86, 88. T , - , .
2 S Council of State Govts, Administrative ule-Making Procedure in the States 11 (1961) (I , j , x, x .).
3 T q , x - , . S gllyJ ,Iol Dg d h Lgg Lgcy o Adl So o Po
Idl h S , 52 Vand. L. ev. 1167, 1226-27 (1999); d. 1231-32 ( , . A , , ,
j ); d. 1237 ( ).
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
80/467
P Wh W A No
It would be an impossible task to present a complete,thorough, and accurate survey o all the statutory
[administrative] law in the fty states.Frank Cooper (1965)1
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
81/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Six: Research Methodology 73
T x .
Fity-Two Jurisdictions
I , - j D C C P . T W, D.C. q U.S. C , q . I, , N Y C, x .2 H, x , .
A, q- N A . B
P , U.S. . G, AS, U.S. V I - ,3 .
Existing Literature
T j x x - . A j, j, , .
A j -- , : Adm L
Jol o h Amc Uy, Adm L , Amc Polcl Scc ,Amc o Pblc Admo, Lgl Sd Qly, Polcl ch Qly,Polcl Scc Qly, Polc d Polcy, Pblc Admo , Pblc AdmoQly, glo, S d Locl Gom , S Polc d Polcy Qly, Yl Jol o glo. A j j - . O j, j,
Research Methodology
C Sx
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
82/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Six: Research Methodology 74
, (LxNx, W, Pq, HO, WC, S S N).
I , - , N A S S ( A
C S), N C C U S L, C S G, N A A , N G A, N C S L, U.S. SB A O A. S .
G , G AO C S, , . ( V C) - , .
x - .
F, - , :, . S - ( K A S) LxNx ( ) , -- .
State Laws and Other Primary Sources
q x , j x - j. M , . B x q .
S , , , x . I , ,
. G , ,, . T j ; , ( ).
F ,
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
83/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Six: Research Methodology 75
, . M , , , . S, , S , .
O , x , , .4 S, .
I , ( ), .
Survey o State Actors and Stakeholders
C
. , j - j.
T : - q . , q , x .Q --, ? ? ? . A , q
j , , , q. T , j , .5 I , q q q .
F , q . I, j. F
j, ; , , , , , , , . S , - ,-, . A .
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
84/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Six: Research Methodology 76
A . I , , q .6 A . ,
. F x, V J C A q .7
(B V.)
T . O - , , . O , q.
, z j
. F x, , , . M, N Y S , x - - . T , , .
A , x,, q : Az, C, F, I, M, NY, P, V. F , - q
, ( Ax) - z . C . A - z , L D , , .
C - z . I . ,
.8 A q x , .9 T x - ., .
8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review
85/467
52 Experiments with Regulatory Review | Chapter Six: Research Methodology 77
O 120 j. F j, Ax.
Limitations
S ,