Public policy made simple. Dive into ourinformation hub today!

Presidential Executive Order 13563 (Barack Obama, 2011)

From Ballotpedia
Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Agency control
•Executive control
•Judicial control
•Legislative control
• Public Control
Click here for more coverage of theadministrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to accessBallotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.


Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review is a presidentialexecutive order issued byPresidentBarack Obama (D) in 2011 that aims "to improve regulation and regulatory review," according to its stated purpose. The order seeks to streamline overlapping or duplicative agency regulations, reaffirm the cost-benefit analysis provisions of PresidentBill Clinton's (D)E.O. 12866, and improve public participation in therulemaking process, among other provisions.[1]

Background

PresidentBarack Obama (D) issued Executive Order 13563, titled "Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review," on January 18, 2011. Cass Sunstein, the director of theOffice of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the time, stated in a 2013 interview with theWashington Post that the order was part of the Obama administration's broad goal of facilitating transparency and communication in therulemaking process and improving the application of cost-benefit analysis across federal agencies. Obama explained the rationale behind the order in an editorial forThe Wall Street Journal:[2][3]

“But creating a 21st-century regulatory system is about more than which rules to add and which rules to subtract. As the executive order I am signing makes clear, we are seeking more affordable, less intrusive means to achieve the same ends—giving careful consideration to benefits and costs. This means writing rules with more input from experts, businesses and ordinary citizens. It means using disclosure as a tool to inform consumers of their choices, rather than restricting those choices. And it means making sure the government does more of its work online, just like companies are doing.[3][4]”


E.O. 13563 instructs federal agencies to work together to simplify overlapping or redundant regulations. Agencies are also required to carry out the cost-benefit analysis provisions under Clinton'sE.O. 12866 and incorporate the evaluation of qualitative factors that can be difficult to quantify, such as human dignity and fairness. In addition, the order calls on federal agencies to increase the participation of affected stakeholders and the general public in therulemaking process and conduct periodicretrospective regulatory reviews to streamline outdated or overlapping regulations.[5]

Impact

In his 2013 interview with theWashington Post, Sunstein described the impact of the order'sretrospective regulatory review provision, or "regulatory lookback," on streamlining agency regulations:[2]

“I do think that in the first four years, we took steps in the direction of simplification. The fact that we were able to use regulatory lookback to eliminate billions of dollars in regulatory costs. The administration quietly announced in January that it had eliminated more than 100 million hours of paperwork burdens — I believe that's the largest reduction the U.S. has ever had.[2][4]”

Provisions

Regulatory principles

The order puts forth the following general regulatory principles for federal agencies:[1]

“(a) Our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. It must be based on the best available science. It must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. It must promote predictability and reduce uncertainty. It must identify and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. It must take into account benefits and costs, both quantitative and qualitative. It must ensure that regulations are accessible, consistent, written in plain language, and easy to understand. It must measure, and seek to improve, the actual results of regulatory requirements.[1][4]”

The order reaffirms the cost-benefit analysis provisions ofE.O. 12866 and includes a requirement that agencies only adopt regulations where a reasonable determination has been made that the benefits justify the costs. The order also calls on agencies to incorporate the evaluation of qualitative factors that can be difficult to quantify, including human dignity and fairness, into cost-benefit analyses.[1]

Public participation

The order emphasizes the importance of public participation in therulemaking process and encourages agencies to operate according to an open exchange of information among stakeholders. The order also establishes a minimum timeframe of 60 days for agencycomment periods and requires that the public be able to submit comments via the internet. Regulatory information, includingproposed rules and supporting scientific findings, is required to be made available online for public access. Agencies are also encouraged to communicate with affected parties to seek out their views on proposed regulation.[1]

Retrospective regulatory review

Under the order, agencies are required to conduct periodicretrospective regulatory reviews in order to streamline overlapping or outdated regulations. Within 120 days of the order, agencies were required to submit a plan for periodicretrospective regulatory review toOIRA.[1]

Other provisions

  • Integration and innovation: Agencies are encouraged to seek out innovative approaches to achieve regulatory goals. Agencies are also encouraged to coordinate in order to reduce duplicative or overlapping regulations.[1]
  • Flexibility: Agencies are encouraged to "reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public" in their regulatory approach.[1]
  • Objectivity: Agencies are required to "ensure the objectivity of any scientific and technological information and processes used to support the agency's regulatory actions."[1]

Presidential administrations

Donald Trump

President Donald Trump's (R)E.O. 13777 requires federal agencies to name a regulatory reform officer (RRO). Each RRO is tasked with overseeing agency compliance with the regulatory offset provisions of Trump'sE.O. 13771, the regulatory planning and review provisions of Clinton'sE.O. 12866, and theretrospective regulatory review provisions of Obama's E.O. 13563.[6]

See also

External links

Footnotes

v • e
The Administrative State
MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
Pillars
Reporting
Laws
Administrative Procedure Act •Antiquities Act •Civil Service Reform Act •Clayton Antitrust Act •Communications Act of 1934 •Congressional Review Act •Electronic Freedom of Information Act •Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 •Federal Housekeeping Statute •Federal Reserve Act •Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 •Freedom of Information Act •Government in the Sunshine Act •Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 •Information Quality Act •Interstate Commerce Act •National Labor Relations Act •Paperwork Reduction Act •Pendleton Act •Privacy Act of 1974 •Regulatory Flexibility Act •REINS Act •REINS Act (Wisconsin) •Securities Act of 1933 •Securities Exchange Act of 1934 •Sherman Antitrust Act •Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act •Truth in Regulating Act •Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Cases
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner •A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States •Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp •Auer v. Robbins •Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council •Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe •Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California •Field v. Clark •Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation •Humphrey's Executor v. United States •Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha •J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States •Lucia v. SEC •Marshall v. Barlow's •Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency •Mistretta v. United States •National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius •National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company •National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. •Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan •Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation •Skidmore v. Swift & Co. •United States v. Lopez •United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. •Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board •Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council •Wayman v. Southard •Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service •Whitman v. American Trucking Associations •Wickard v. Filburn •Wiener v. United States
Terms
Adjudication (administrative state) •Administrative judge •Administrative law •Administrative law judge •Administrative state •Arbitrary-or-capricious test •Auer deference •Barrier to entry •Bootleggers and Baptists •Chevron deference (doctrine) •Civil servant •Civil service •Code of Federal Regulations •Codify (administrative state) •Comment period •Compliance costs •Congressional Record •Coordination (administrative state) •Deference (administrative state) •Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) •Enabling statute •Ex parte communication (administrative state) •Executive agency •Federal law •Federal Register •Federalism •Final rule •Formal rulemaking •Formalism (law) •Functionalism (law) •Guidance (administrative state) •Hybrid rulemaking •Incorporation by reference •Independent federal agency •Informal rulemaking •Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) •Major rule •Negotiated rulemaking •Nondelegation doctrine •OIRA prompt letter •Organic statute •Pragmatism (law) •Precautionary principle •Promulgate •Proposed rule •Publication rulemaking •Regulatory budget •Regulatory capture •Regulatory dark matter •Regulatory impact analysis •Regulatory policy officer •Regulatory reform officer •Regulatory review •Rent seeking •Retrospective regulatory review •Risk assessment (administrative state) •Rulemaking •Separation of powers •Significant regulatory action •Skidmore deference •Statutory authority •Substantive law and procedural law •Sue and settle •Sunset provision •Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions •United States Code •United States Statutes at Large
Bibliography
Agencies
Ballotpedia
Editorial Content
Josh Altic, Director of Content •Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data •Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features •Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures •Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News •Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion •Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections •Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law •Joel Williams, Managing Editor of Events •Andrew Bahl •Jaclyn Beran •Marielle Bricker •Joseph Brusgard •Emma Burlingame •Kelly Coyle •Jon Dunn •Victoria Edwards •Thomas Ellis •Nicole Fisher •Joseph Greaney •Thomas Grobben •Brianna Hosea •Molly Kehoe •Tyler King •Glorie Martinez •Norm Leahy, Senior Editor •Nathan Maxwell •Jimmy McAllister •Brandon McCauley •Ellie Mikus •Ellen Morrissey •Mackenzie Murphy •Kaley Platek •Samantha Post •Adam Powell •Annelise Reinwald •Ethan Rice •Spencer Richardson •Victoria Rose •Briana Ryan •Myj Saintyl •Maddy Salucka •Emma Soukup •Alexis Thacker •Mina Vogel •Samuel Wonacott •Trenton Woodcox