Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot.Click to learn more!

Regulatory impact analysis

From Ballotpedia
New Administrative State Banner.png
Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
Agency control
Executive control
Judicial control
Legislative control
Public Control

Click here for more coverage of theadministrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to accessBallotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.


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

Background

In 1981, PresidentRonald Reagan's Executive Order 12291 required federal regulatory agencies (excluding those defined asindependent) to conduct a regulatory impact analysis of any proposedeconomically significant rules (referred to asmajor rules at the time).[4]Executive Order 12866, issued by PresidentBill Clinton in 1993, established a framework for conducting RIAs and mandated them for allsignificant regulatory actions, including economically significant rules. Before asignificant regulatory action can bepromulgated, the regulation and supporting analysis (including the agency's RIA) must be reviewed by theOffice of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).[1][2][5]

RIA process

Purpose

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

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

Content

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

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

Requirements

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

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

See also

External links

Footnotes

v  e
The Administrative State
MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
Pillars
Reporting
Laws
Administrative Procedure ActAntiquities ActCivil Service Reform ActClayton Antitrust ActCommunications Act of 1934Congressional Review ActElectronic Freedom of Information ActFederal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938Federal Housekeeping StatuteFederal Reserve ActFederal Trade Commission Act of 1914Freedom of Information ActGovernment in the Sunshine ActIndependent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952Information Quality ActInterstate Commerce ActNational Labor Relations ActPaperwork Reduction ActPendleton ActPrivacy Act of 1974Regulatory Flexibility ActREINS ActREINS Act (Wisconsin)Securities Act of 1933Securities Exchange Act of 1934Sherman Antitrust ActSmall Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness ActTruth in Regulating ActUnfunded Mandates Reform Act
Cases
Abbott Laboratories v. GardnerA.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United StatesAssociation of Data Processing Service Organizations v. CampAuer v. RobbinsChevron v. Natural Resources Defense CouncilCitizens to Preserve Overton Park v. VolpeFederal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of CaliforniaField v. ClarkFood and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco CorporationHumphrey's Executor v. United StatesImmigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. ChadhaJ.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United StatesLucia v. SECMarshall v. Barlow'sMassachusetts v. Environmental Protection AgencyMistretta v. United StatesNational Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. SebeliusNational Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning CompanyNational Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Panama Refining Co. v. RyanSecurities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery CorporationSkidmore v. Swift & Co.United States v. LopezUnited States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co.Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations BoardVermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense CouncilWayman v. SouthardWeyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife ServiceWhitman v. American Trucking AssociationsWickard v. FilburnWiener v. United States
Terms
Adjudication (administrative state)Administrative judgeAdministrative lawAdministrative law judgeAdministrative stateArbitrary-or-capricious testAuer deferenceBarrier to entryBootleggers and BaptistsChevron deference (doctrine)Civil servantCivil serviceCode of Federal RegulationsCodify (administrative state)Comment periodCompliance costsCongressional RecordCoordination (administrative state)Deference (administrative state)Direct and indirect costs (administrative state)Enabling statuteEx parte communication (administrative state)Executive agencyFederal lawFederal RegisterFederalismFinal ruleFormal rulemakingFormalism (law)Functionalism (law)Guidance (administrative state)Hybrid rulemakingIncorporation by referenceIndependent federal agencyInformal rulemakingJoint resolution of disapproval (administrative state)Major ruleNegotiated rulemakingNondelegation doctrineOIRA prompt letterOrganic statutePragmatism (law)Precautionary principlePromulgateProposed rulePublication rulemakingRegulatory budgetRegulatory captureRegulatory dark matterRegulatory impact analysisRegulatory policy officerRegulatory reform officerRegulatory reviewRent seekingRetrospective regulatory reviewRisk assessment (administrative state)RulemakingSeparation of powersSignificant regulatory actionSkidmore deferenceStatutory authoritySubstantive law and procedural lawSue and settleSunset provisionUnified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory ActionsUnited States CodeUnited States Statutes at Large
Bibliography
Agencies
Ballotpedia
Editorial Content
Josh Altic, Director of ContentDaniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & DataCory Eucalitto, Associate Director of FeaturesRyan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot MeasuresMandy McConnell, Managing Editor of NewsDoug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local ExpansionAbbey Smith, Managing Editor of ElectionsJanie Valentine, Managing Editor of LawJoel Williams, Managing Editor of EventsJoseph Greaney, Managing Editor of PolicyAndrew BahlJaclyn BeranMarielle BrickerJoseph BrusgardEmma BurlingameKelly CoyleJon DunnVictoria EdwardsThomas EllisNicole FisherThomas GrobbenBrianna HoseaMolly KehoeTyler KingGlorie MartinezNorm Leahy, Senior EditorNathan MaxwellJimmy McAllisterBrandon McCauleyAndrew McNairEllie MikusMackenzie MurphyKaley PlatekSamantha PostAdam PowellAnnelise ReinwaldSpencer RichardsonVictoria RoseBriana RyanMyj SaintylMaddy SaluckaEmma SoukupAlexis ThackerMina VogelSamuel WonacottTrenton Woodcox