52 Experiments With Regulatory Review

8/8/2019 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review

1/467

T P E I S

J A Sz N. 6

N 2010

52 Ex


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


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


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


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 .


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 , , .


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


8/467

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 ,


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 .


10/467


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.


11/467


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


12/467


.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


13/467


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 ,


14/467


- : , , , .

T , . T

, , .

F , x . Y q , x , . T , , q: W ? W ?W ? A ?


15/467


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


16/467


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 - .).


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


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 , , , - .


19/467


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.


20/467


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


21/467


( 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.


22/467


, 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, [] ,


23/467


[ ], - .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.


24/467


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


25/467


.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


26/467


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


27/467


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 ),


28/467


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, , .


29/467


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.


30/467


.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.


31/467


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.


32/467


, , x .112 B .113 M, . 114G, q .115

S zz . T . I, x j, , , , . T x x .


33/467


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


34/467


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 .).


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 ).


35/467


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] (.., ), ,


36/467


. 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 ).


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


37/467


.

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 , ).


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


38/467


.).

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.


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.


40/467


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,


41/467


( 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.


42/467


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


43/467


.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


44/467


, .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 .)


45/467


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


46/467


; 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


47/467


x x.78 C x q . I , ,79 .80 T SBA , x .81 H, SBA O P, -

.82

I SBA O .


48/467


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


49/467


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


50/467


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.


51/467


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.


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 ,


53/467


.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)


54/467


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


55/467


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 ,


56/467


, .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.


57/467


. 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


58/467


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 .


59/467


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.


60/467


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


61/467


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.


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


63/467


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.


64/467


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


65/467


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


66/467


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


67/467


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.


68/467


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.


69/467


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


70/467


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.


71/467


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).


72/467


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 , -


73/467


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-


74/467


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).


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


76/467


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 ;


77/467


. 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 ,


78/467


xz , , q.

T - j . Fx ,

. F x, ; , q - .

B -z-- - , - .


79/467


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 ( ).


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


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


82/467


, (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 ,


83/467


, . 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 .


84/467


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 - ., .


85/467


O 120 j. F j, Ax.

Limitations

S ,

52 Experiments With Regulatory Review

Documents

Transcript of 52 Experiments With Regulatory Review