comment (002) of todd rubin, attorney advisor ... · comment on fr doc # 2018-09359 submitter...
TRANSCRIPT
PUBLIC SUBMISSIONAs of: 6/28/18 2:46 PMReceived: June 27, 2018Status: Pending_PostTracking No. 1k2-93yg-x58xComments Due: July 02, 2018Submission Type: Web
Docket: NRC-2017-0214Review of Administrative Rules
Comment On: NRC-2017-0214-0001Review of Administrative Rules
Document: NRC-2017-0214-DRAFT-0002Comment on FR Doc # 2018-09359
Submitter Information
Name: Todd RubinAddress:
1120 20th Street NWSuite 706 SouthWashington DC, DC, 20036
Email: [email protected]'s Representative: The Office of the ChairmanOrganization: ACUSGovernment Agency Type: FederalGovernment Agency: ACUS
General Comment
Attached, please find a comment I am submitting on behalf of the Office of the Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States.
Attachments
Comment for NRC 06 27 2018
Page 1 of 2
06/28/2018https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=090000648346bc12&format=xml&showorig=false
PR-1 83FR19464 2
ACUS Recommendation 2014-5
Page 2 of 2
06/28/2018https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=090000648346bc12&format=xml&showorig=false
Executive
T
“culture
mindful
regulatio
goals wh
reassessi
retrospec
valuable
officials
promote
Preamble
T
Congress
agencies
may bec
numerou
substant
have per
regulatio
Admin
e Summary
he following
of retrospe
of their ex
ons may nee
hile minimiz
ing existing
ctive review
resource th
to coordina
coherence
e
raditionally,
s delegates
devise rule
come outda
us federal ag
ial burden o
riodically un
ons currently
nistrative
Retros
A
g recomme
ective review
xisting body
d to be mod
zing regulat
regulations
w easier and
hat can facili
ate with oth
in shared re
federal reg
power to
es designed
ated, and t
gencies can
on regulate
dertaken a
y on the boo
e Confere
spective R
Adopted D
ndation is i
w” within r
y of regulat
dified, streng
tory burden
and to des
more effect
tate and im
her agencie
gulatory spa
gulatory pol
administrat
to address t
he cumulat
both comp
d entities.
program of
oks and elim
1
ence Reco
Review of A
December
ntended to
regulatory a
tions and t
gthened, or
ns. It enco
sign new reg
tive. It reco
prove retros
es and the
ace.
licymaking h
ive agencie
those challe
tive burden
plicate agenc
As a conse
“retrospect
minate, modi
ommend
Agency Ru
4, 2014
provide a
agencies. It
he ever‐pre
eliminated
ourages age
gulations in
ognizes that
spective rev
Office of M
has been a
es to respon
enges. Over
of decade
cies’ enforce
equence, Pre
ive review,”
ify, or streng
dation 201
ules
framework
t urges age
esent possib
in order to a
encies to m
a way that
input from
view. Finally
Management
forward‐loo
nd to new
r time, how
es of regula
ement effor
esidents sin
” urging age
gthen those
14-5
for cultivat
encies to re
bility that t
achieve stat
make a plan
t will make
stakeholder
y, it urges ag
t and Budg
oking enterp
challenges,
ever, regula
ations issue
rts and impo
ce Jimmy C
ncies to rea
e regulations
ting a
emain
those
utory
n for
later
rs is a
gency
et to
prise:
, and
ations
ed by
ose a
Carter
assess
s that
have bec
subject t
Act, whic
a substa
retrospec
T
especiall
individua
regulatio
statutory
has soug
issued Ex
reassess
become
he issue
1 Joseph E.
for Impro
http://www
2 5 U.S.C. §
3 Aldy, sup
4 See gener
5 See gene
available a
Administra
agency lea
6 76 Fed. R
7 Id. § 6.
come outmo
to more limi
ch requires a
ntial numbe
ctive review
hough histo
y in those
al agencies
ons has not
y lookback re
ght to build
xecutive Or
existing rule
“outmoded,
ed another
. Aldy, Learning
oving the De
w.acus.gov/re
§ 610.
ra note 1, at 4
rally MARTHA D
erally John Ka
at http://govin
ation’s Nationa
dership).
Reg. 3821 (Jan.
oded in ligh
ited regulato
agencies to
er of small
w requiremen
rical retrosp
instances i
has stron
been held
equirements
on these in
der (EO) 13
es to identify
, ineffective
order enco
g from Experie
esign & Imp
port/retrospec
.
DERTHICK & PAUL
mensky, Natio
nfo.library.unt.
al Performance
21, 2011).
ht of change
ory lookbac
review regu
entities”2 w
nts erected b
pective revie
in which hi
ngly suppor
to the same
s apply only
itiatives in s
3,563,6 whic
y opportunit
, insufficient
ouraging ind
nce: An Assess
plementation
ctive‐review‐re
J. QUIRK, THE PO
onal Partnersh
edu/npr/whow
e Review and e
2
ed circumsta
k requireme
ulations havi
within ten y
by statute. 3
ew efforts ha
igh‐level lea
rted these
e standard
to subsets o
several exec
ch directed
ties for elim
t, or excessi
dependent
sment of Retro
of Regulator
eport.
OLITICS OF DEREG
hip for Reinven
weare/history2
emphasizing th
ances. 1 Ag
ents, includi
ing “a signif
years of issu
ave resulted
adership in
endeavors,
as prospect
of regulation
cutive order
executive b
minating or a
ively burden
regulatory
ospective Revie
ry Policy 4
GULATION (1985
nting Governm
2.html (highlig
he importance
gencies have
ing the Regu
icant econo
uance, and
d in some no
the execut
,5 retrospec
tive review,
ns. Presiden
rs. On Janu
branch agen
ltering regu
nsome.”7 Sh
agencies to
ews of Agency R
(Nov. 17, 2
5).
ment: A Brief
ghting the succ
of high‐level e
e also long
ulatory Flexi
mic impact
program‐sp
otable succes
tive branch
ctive review
and the va
nt Barack Ob
ary 18, 201
ncies regular
lations that
hortly therea
o pursue si
Rules & the Evi
014), availab
History (Jan.
cesses of the C
executive branc
been
ibility
upon
ecific
sses,4
h and
w of
arious
bama
1, he
rly to
have
after,
imilar
idence
ble at
1999),
Clinton
ch and
regulator
framewo
T
update e
“[a]ll age
review o
modified
analysis.1
Conferen
goals.11
A
retrospec
costs and
framewo
Office of
yielded b
8 76 Fed. R
9 77 Fed. R
10 Adminis
60 Fed. Re
11 Adminis
Summary (
12 Exec. Or
13 CASS R. S
efforts, inc
over five y
practice sa
Federal Re
Relief, whi
consumers
ry lookback
ork for retros
he Administ
existing regu
encies (exec
of existing r
d or revoked
10 In addit
nce hosted
Administrativ
ctive review
d tens of mil
ork and prom
f Informatio
billions of d
Reg. 41,587 (Ju
Reg. 28,469 (M
trative Confer
g. 43,108, 43,1
strative Confe
(Mar. 10, 2011
der No. 13,610
SUNSTEIN, SIMPL
cluding a Depa
years and a De
aving $2.5 billio
egulatory Prog
ich included “s
s billions of do
efforts (EO
spective rev
trative Conf
ulations. In
cutive branc
regulations
d” and offe
tion, in ear
a workshop
ve law schola
w efforts. EO
lions of hou
mises additio
n and Regu
dollars in sa
ly 14, 2011).
ay 14, 2012).
ence of the Un
109 (Aug. 18, 1
erence of the
1), http://www
0, § 1, 77 Fed.
ER: THE FUTURE
artment of Hea
epartment of
on over five ye
rams (Dec. 15
substantial cha
llars each year
O 13,5798) a
iew in execu
ference has
1995, the
ch or ‘indep
to determin
ring genera
rly 2011, sh
p designed
ars and othe
O 13,610 tout
rs in annual
onal savings
latory Affair
avings.13 N
nited States, R
1995).
United State
w.acus.gov/fact
Reg. 28,469, 2
OF GOVERNMEN
alth and Huma
Labor rule to
ars); see also M
, 1986) (descr
anges to over
r”).
3
and yet ano
utive branch
long endors
Conference
pendent’) sh
ne whether
l guidance
hortly after
to highlight
er experts ha
ts the elimin
paperwork
s.12 Cass Su
rs (OIRA), ha
evertheless,
Recommendati
s, Retrospecti
t‐sheet/retrosp
8,469 (May 14
NT 180–84 (201
an Services ref
harmonize ha
Memorandum
ibing the resu
100 existing b
other order
agencies (E
sed agencie
issued a re
hould develo
r such regu
by which a
the promu
t best pract
ave debated
nation of “bi
burdens” ac
nstein, the
as suggeste
, many criti
ion 95‐3, Revie
ive Review of
pective‐review
4, 2012).
13) (highlightin
form to report
azard warnings
from Presiden
lts of the Pres
burdensome ru
r providing
EO 13,6109).
es’ efforts to
ecommenda
op processe
lations sho
gencies mig
ulgation of
tices for ac
d the effectiv
illions of dol
chieved und
former Adm
d that these
icize the ex
ew of Existing
f Existing Reg
w‐workshop‐sum
ng successful r
ting requireme
s with the pre
nt Ronald Reag
sidential Task
ules” that “sav
a more det
o reevaluate
ation stating
es for system
uld be reta
ght conduct
EO 13,563
hieving the
veness of ex
lars in regul
der the EO 13
ministrator o
e initiatives
xisting syste
Agency Regula
gulations, Wor
mmary.
retrospective r
ents saving $5
evailing interna
gan on the Rev
Force on Regu
v[ed] businesse
tailed
e and
g that
matic
ained,
t that
, the
EO’s
isting
atory
3,563
of the
have
em of
ations,
rkshop
review
billion
ational
view of
ulatory
es and
regulator
reassess
existing
efforts as
regulatio
U
evaluatin
or elimin
“culture
lookback
might no
those co
as an on
policyma
and evol
not only
of an on‐
regulator
necessar
14 See, e.g.
ADMIN. L. R
57A, 60A
Improveme
15 See, e.g.
ON REGULAT
Steinzor,
http://www
16 Aldy, sup
17 Aldy, sup
ry lookback
their own
rules.14 Fro
s inherently
ons rather th
Ultimately, a
ng their own
nating those
of retrospe
k initiative r
ot be an ine
nducting ret
ngoing proc
aking exercis
ving circum
be a backwa
‐going cultu
ry improvem
ry for this m
., Reeve T. Bul
REV. __ (forthco
(2013); Mich
ent Commissio
, Michael A. Li
TION REGBLOG, J
The Real
w.progressiver
pra note 1, at 4
pra note 1, at 4
as inadequ
regulations
om the opp
deregulator
han strength
system of
n regulations
that are de
ective revie
uns the risk
vitable outc
trospective
cess whereb
se and conti
stances, a d
ard‐looking e
re of evalua
ment (includ
easurement
l, Building a Fr
oming 2015); C
ael Mandel &
on: A Politically
ivermore & Jas
July 12, 2012,
“Tsunami”
reform.org/CP
47–48; Coglian
47–48.
uate, especia
and provid
osite perspe
ry, possessin
ening regula
“self‐review
s and, to the
eemed to be
ew.”16 W
k of devolvin
come, howe
reviews and
by agency o
inually reexa
durable com
exercise; rat
ation and ite
ding defining
t will be coll
ramework for
Cary Coglianese
& Diana G. Ca
y Viable Approa
son A. Schwarz
http://www.re
in Federa
RBlog.cfm?idB
nese, supra not
4
ally insofar
des few ince
ective, man
ng a strong b
ations that m
w,” in which
e extent perm
e outdated,
Without a h
ng into an e
ver. If the
d those draft
officials reco
amine their
mmitment ca
ther, it shou
erative impro
g how succe
ected) shou
Governance: R
e, Moving Forw
arew, Progres
ach to U.S. Reg
z, Unbalanced
egblog.org/201
al Regulato
Blog=2480725C
te 14, at 66A.
as it relies
entives for
ny criticize c
bias in favor
may be insuf
individual a
mitted by law
can only su
high‐level co
exercise of p
relevant age
ting new ru
ognize the
regulations
an emerge.1
ld be presen
ovement. P
ess will be m
uld be consid
Retrospective R
ward with Regu
sive Policy In
gulatory Reform
Retrospective
12/07/12‐liver
ry Policy,
C‐9CC8‐717D‐E
upon indivi
ensuring ro
current retro
r of eliminati
fficiently pro
agencies are
w, modifyin
cceed if age
ommitment,
pro forma c
ency official
les, come to
uncertainty
s in light of
17 Regulato
nt from the b
lanning for
measured an
dered an int
Review & Rulem
ulatory Lookba
nstitute Policy
m 13 (May 201
Regulatory Re
rmore‐schwart
CPRBLOG,
E8DE6C4C4A5F
dual agenci
obust analys
ospective re
ing or weake
otective.15
e responsibl
g, strengthe
encies prom
, any regul
compliance.
s, including
o view regul
inherent in
new inform
ry review sh
beginning as
reevaluation
nd how the
tegral part o
making Petitio
ack, 30 YALE J. O
Memo, Regu
13).
eview, PENN PRO
tz‐review.html;
May 22,
FF6EB.
es to
sis of
eview
ening
le for
ening,
ote a
atory
This
both
ation
n the
ation
hould
s part
n and
data
of the
ons, __
ON REG.
ulatory
OGRAM
; Rena
2014,
developm
already p
T
review.
advancin
performi
reviews (
serving t
retrospec
retrospec
the recom
strong c
recomme
policyma
regulatio
consider
collection
determin
identifies
18 In 2011,
reference
complete a
2011‐5, Inc
19 Some sc
identify th
outcomes.
ECONOMICS
OF PRACTICA
pilot proje
use of alte
while ensu
ment proces
part of many
his recomm
To promot
ng their miss
ng the requ
(such that do
to displace
ctive analys
ctive review
mmendation
andidates fo
endation e
aking frame
ons but also
the cumu
n needs and
ne whether
s opportunit
the Conferenc
material publis
and accurate a
corporation by
cholars propos
he actual impa
John DiNard
463–536 (201
AL PROGRAM EVA
ects and regula
ernative regula
uring appropria
ss for appro
y governmen
mendation a
e robust ret
sions. To o
ired analysis
oing so is wh
those exist
is, it is critic
w does not d
n sets forth
or review a
encourages
ework more
to design ne
lative regul
d consider
the regula
ties for con
ce recommend
shed elsewher
ccess informat
y Reference, ¶¶
se the use of
acts caused b
do & David S.
11); see also ge
ALUATION (3d ed
atory phase‐in
tory mechanis
ate levels of reg
opriate rules
nt programs,
ims to help
trospective
btain this “
s and posses
holly integra
ting respons
al that agen
detract from
consideratio
and for con
agencies
e generally,
ew regulatio
atory burde
other regul
ation achiev
serving age
ded that agenc
e in order to e
tion. Administ
¶ 6–10, 77 Fed
experimental
by regulations
. Lee, Program
enerally JOSEPH
d. 2010). This
s to test diffe
sms and other
gulatory prote
5
s. This cult
, but not yet
p agencies
analysis, ag
buy‐in,” the
ss adequate
ated into age
sibilities).
ncies have ad
m other aspe
ons relevant
ducting ret
to integrat
, urging th
ons with an
en. In do
atory drafti
ved its pur
ncy resourc
ies periodically
nsure that the
trative Confere
. Reg. 2257, 22
methods and
and determin
m Evaluation &
H S. WHOLEY, HA
might include
rent regulator
innovative ap
ection.
ture of eval
t of most reg
create such
gency officia
ese officials
e resources f
encies’ othe
Given the
dequate res
ects of their
t both to ide
rospective a
te retrospe
hem not o
eye toward
ing so, age
ng strategie
rpose.19 Fi
ces by taking
y review regula
ey are updated
ence of the Un
259 (Jan. 17, 20
d data‐driven e
ne whether th
& Research D
ARRY P. HATRY, &
e, among othe
ry approaches.
proaches desig
luation and
gulatory pro
h a culture
als must see
must have
for conducti
er responsibi
costs of pe
sources such
r regulatory
entifying reg
analysis.18
ective anal
only to ree
s later reexa
encies shou
es that can
nally, the r
g advantage
ations that hav
d as appropriat
ited States, Re
012).
evaluation tec
hey are achie
Designs, in 4A
& KATHRYN E. N
r things, taking
. Some schola
gned to lessen
improveme
ograms.
of retrospe
e it as critic
a framewor
ng the nece
ilities rather
erforming ro
h that condu
missions. T
gulations tha
In addition
lysis into
evaluate ex
amination a
uld identify
help them
recommend
e of interna
ve incorporate
e and contain
ecommendatio
chniques in or
eving their int
HANDBOOK OF
NEWCOMER, HAN
g the opportun
ars also propo
n regulatory bu
ent is
ective
cal to
rk for
essary
r than
obust
ucting
Thus,
at are
n, the
their
isting
nd to
data
later
ation
l and
d by
on
der to
ended
LABOR
NDBOOK
nity of
se the
urdens
external
furnish in
regulator
approach
opportun
generate
regulator
improves
T
promotin
regulator
its comp
not a “o
over time
an overly
time, sho
element
policyma
retrospec
20 Aldy, su
entities wo
regulations
private and
actually de
BRITO, REGU
whereby b
advocate s
21 Exec. Or
States, Re
2012).
22 PETER H.
sources of i
nformation t
rs may ha
hes would h
nities for eli
ed from retr
ry developm
s the quality
hough the r
ng robust re
ry lookback
eting priorit
ne‐size‐fits‐a
e, so too ma
y rigid fram
ould help fos
of agency d
aking at all s
ctive analys
upra note 1, at
ould use petit
s while preserv
d non‐governm
efend regulatio
ULATION: A PRIM
businesses that
such policies fo
rder No. 13,609
commendation
SCHUCK, WHY G
nformation
to which ag
ve confron
have the do
iminating un
rospective r
ment of simil
y of new regu
ecommenda
etrospective
procedures
ties, and its
all” enterpri
ay retrospect
mework. Rat
ster a regula
ecisionmaki
stages of th
sis as an ep
t 25–26, 70–7
tions for rulem
ving existing le
mental entities
ons that create
MER 18–19 (2d e
t benefit from
or other reason
9, § 1, 77 Fed.
n 2011‐6, Inte
OVERNMENT FAI
and experti
ency officia
ted similar
ouble benef
nnecessary r
review has t
lar rules by
ulations.22
ation identif
e analysis, it
to its statut
current bud
ise. In addi
tive review p
ther, it iden
atory approa
ing and that
e process.
isodic, top‐d
71; see genera
making to urge
evels of regula
’ interests may
e barriers to e
ed. 2012) (des
market interve
ns).
Reg. 26,413, 2
ernational Reg
LS SO OFTEN AND
6
se. In many
ls otherwise
r regulatory
fit of avoidi
regulatory d
the potentia
informing ex
ies certain c
t accepts th
tory mandat
dgetary reso
tion, as opt
procedures.
ntifies consid
ach that inte
accounts fo
The overall
down repor
ally Bull, supra
e agencies to
tory protectio
y not align with
entry for newe
cribing the so‐
entions may m
26,413 (May 4,
gulatory Coope
D HOW IT CAN DO
y instances,
e lack access
y problems
ing duplicat
divergences.
al to conse
x ante regul
common prin
e fact that
tes, the natu
ources. In s
timal regulat
Therefore,
derations an
egrates retro
or the uncer
goal is to m
rting and co
a note 14 (pro
adopt less bu
n). Agencies s
h public intere
er, smaller com
‐called “bootle
make common c
, 2012); Admin
eration, ¶ 4, 7
O BETTER 57 (20
stakeholder
s.20 In othe
, and inco
tion of effo
.21 Further,
rve resourc
latory analys
nciples and
each agenc
ure of its reg
hort, retros
tory approa
the recomm
nd best pra
ospective an
rtainty inher
move away
ompliance o
oposing a syste
rdensome alte
should neverth
ests and that es
mpetitors. SUS
eggers and Bap
cause with civi
nistrative Confe
77 Fed. Reg. 2
014).
rs may be ab
r cases, ove
orporating t
rt and prov
the inform
es during fu
sis, which in
opportunitie
cy must tailo
gulatory mis
pective revi
ches may e
mendation a
actices that,
alysis as a cr
rent in regul
from a mod
obligation to
em whereby p
ernatives to ex
heless recogniz
stablished firm
SAN E. DUDLEY &
ptists” phenom
il society group
erence of the U
2259, 2260 (Ja
ble to
rseas
these
viding
ation
uture
n turn
es for
or its
ssion,
ew is
volve
voids
over
ritical
atory
del of
o one
private
xisting
ze that
ms may
& JERRY
menon,
ps that
United
an. 17,
where ag
mission.
Value of
1
13,610 w
the Offic
into a rob
Integrati
2
available
regulatio
consider
should b
following
(a
im
ex
in
(b
m
d
th
co
gencies inte
Retrospecti
. The Confe
with respect
e of Manag
bust feature
ng Retrospe
. When for
e resources,
on, establish
including p
be tailored t
g in the fram
a) The m
mpacts cau
xperimental
n supplying r
b) A cle
measurable o
esired outco
han output‐
ost‐effective
rnalize a cul
ive Review
erence endo
to retrospec
ement and
e of the regu
ective Revie
mulating ne
priorities, a
h a framew
portions of t
to the rule
mework:
methodology
sed by the
l designs wh
relevant data
ear stateme
outcome(s)
ome(s). To t
based. Obj
eness), as ap
lture of retr
RECOM
orses the ob
ctive review
Budget (OM
latory syste
w into New
ew regulati
uthorizing st
ork for rea
the framew
being revie
y by which
e regulation
here approp
a to agencie
ent of the
and a plan
the extent f
jectives may
ppropriate.
7
ospective re
MMENDAT
bjectives of
w of existing
MB), as appro
m.
Regulations
ions, agenc
tatutes, nat
ssessing the
work in the
wed. The
they inten
n, including
riate, taking
es.
rule’s int
n for gathe
easible, obje
y include m
eview as par
TION
Executive O
regulations.
opriate, to d
s
cies should,
ure of the r
e regulation
rule’s pream
agencies sh
d to evalua
g data‐drive
g into accou
ended regu
ring the da
ectives shou
measures of
rt of their ge
Orders 13,5
. Agencies s
develop retr
where ap
egulation, a
n in the fu
mble. The
hould consid
ate the effi
en experim
nt the burde
ulatory res
ata needed
uld be outco
both benef
eneral regul
563, 13,579,
should work
ospective re
ppropriate,
nd impact o
ture and sh
rigor of an
der including
cacy of and
mental or q
ens to the p
ults with s
to measure
ome‐based r
fits and cost
atory
, and
k with
eview
given
of the
hould
alysis
g the
d the
quasi‐
public
some
e the
ather
ts (or
(c
th
w
(d
re
(e
tr
Agencies
and a s
subparag
3
(OIRA) sh
Agencies
that acco
facilitate
retrospec
the insta
4
their reg
agency i
approach
experime
of intern
plans for
OMB Cir
tailor reg
c) Key a
he regulatio
with projecte
d) A targ
egulation.
e) A disc
ribal, and loc
s that have s
chedule for
graphs (a)–(e
. When revi
hould facilita
s should con
ounts separ
retrospect
ctive review
nt rule).
. Where it i
gulations in
n a subsequ
hes to imple
entation, inn
al statistical
r reassessing
cular A‐4, a
gulatory pro
ssumptions
n. This sho
ed regulatory
get time fram
cussion of ho
cal) will be in
systematic re
r their revie
e), as approp
iewing new
ate planning
nsider includ
rately for p
tive review
w (though th
s legally pe
ways that
uent review
ementing its
novation, co
offices, as w
g regulations
gencies sho
ograms to th
underlying
uld include
y costs and b
me or freque
ow the publ
nvolved in th
eview plans
ew of exist
priate, by re
regulations
g for subsequ
ding a sectio
aperwork b
and shoul
e paperwor
rmissible an
allow altern
w of the rule
s regulatory
ompetition,
well as polic
s, to the exte
uld conside
heir specific
8
any regulato
a descriptio
benefits, con
ency with w
lic and othe
he review.
available on
ting rules m
ference to t
s, the Office
uent retrosp
n in the pre
burdens asso
d note tha
k burden wo
nd appropria
native appro
e to determ
y objective.
and experie
y and progra
ent they hav
r allowing s
needs and c
ory impact a
on of the lev
nsistent with
which they pl
r governme
n the intern
may addres
heir plans.
e of Informa
pective revie
eamble of th
ociated wit
at data gap
ould still be
ate, agencie
oaches in th
mine whethe
For examp
ential learnin
am evaluatio
ve such reso
states and lo
circumstanc
analysis bein
vel of uncert
h OMB Circu
lan to reasse
ntal agencie
net that set f
ss the reco
ation and R
ew to the ext
heir propose
h the collec
ps can imp
included in
es should co
he rule that
er there are
ple, agencies
ng (calling u
on offices, in
ources). As r
ocalities gre
es and, in so
ng performe
tainty assoc
ular A‐4.
ess the prop
es (federal, s
forth the pro
mmendation
egulatory A
tent approp
ed and final
ction of da
pede subseq
the total co
onsider desig
t could help
e more effe
s could allow
upon the ins
n order to d
recommende
ater flexibil
o doing, to s
ed on
ciated
posed
state,
ocess
ns in
Affairs
riate.
rules
ta to
quent
ost of
gning
p the
ective
w for
sights
esign
ed by
ity to
serve
as a nat
authorize
flexibility
Prioritizi
5
publicize
should b
rules for
from age
candidat
(a
(b
(c
b
(d
(e
re
(f
ev
in
(g
(h
g
ural experim
e shared res
y.
ng Regulatio
. In light of
e a framewo
e transpare
review in l
ency to agen
es for retros
a) Likelih
b) Likelih
c) Uncer
enefits;
d) Chang
e) Cumu
egulations (i
f) Chang
volving soc
ncorporated
g) Intern
h) Comm
roups and m
ment to be
sponsibility a
ons for Retr
resource co
ork for prio
nt and enab
ight of the
ncy and prog
spective revi
hood of imp
hood of incre
rtainty abou
ges in the sta
ulative regul
ncluding tho
ges in under
cial norms,
by referenc
nal agency a
ments, petit
members of t
evaluated b
among differ
ospective A
onstraints an
oritizing rule
ble the publ
articulated
gram to pro
iew that cou
roving attain
easing net b
ut the accu
atutory fram
atory burde
ose issued by
rlying marke
public risk
ce;
administrativ
tions, comp
the public;
9
by subseque
rent levels o
nalysis
nd competin
es for retros
ic to unders
selection cr
gram, the fo
uld inform re
nment of sta
benefits and
uracy of init
mework unde
en created
y other agen
et or econo
k tolerance
ve burden as
laints, or s
ent retrospe
of governme
ng priorities,
spective an
stand why th
riteria. Tho
ollowing fac
egulatory rev
atutory obje
magnitude o
tial estimat
er which the
by the regu
ncies);
mic conditio
e, and/or s
ssociated wi
suggestions
ective review
ent may be a
, agencies s
alysis. Age
he agency p
ugh conside
tors can hel
vision:
ctive;
of those pot
tes of regul
e regulation
ulation at is
ons, techno
standards t
ith the regul
received fr
w. Statutes
amenable to
hould adopt
ency framew
prioritized ce
erations will
lp identify st
tential benef
latory costs
was issued;
ssue and re
logical adva
that have
ation;
rom stakeh
s that
such
t and
works
ertain
vary
trong
fits;
s and
elated
nces,
been
older
(i
tr
(j
g
(k
re
To the ex
and ben
accurate
6
importan
simple o
allowing
Performi
7
consider
might, to
achieve s
more eff
depend o
to the ex
caused b
various f
modified
8
retrospec
) Differ
rading partn
) Comp
uidance issu
k) Differ
egulated par
xtent applica
efits, and a
.
. Though ag
nt regulation
opportunitie
electronic fi
ing Retrospe
. When con
whether th
o the extent
statutory go
fectively con
on a variety
xtent resour
by regulation
factors artic
d to achieve
. Agencies
ctive review
ences betw
ers;
plexity of the
ued, remand
ent treatme
rties and reg
able, agenci
any addition
gencies will
ns as identifi
s to improv
iling of form
ective Analy
nducting ret
he regulatio
t permitted
oals more fa
nfer regulat
of factors a
rces allow, a
ns, including
culated in r
their intend
should con
w to a set of o
een U.S. reg
e rule (as de
s from the c
ent of simi
gulatory ben
es should co
nal evidenc
likely focus
ied by the fo
ve regulatio
s in lieu of t
ysis
trospective
ns are acco
by law, be
ithfully, min
tory benefits
nd should b
agencies sho
g their effica
recommenda
ed purpose
nsider assig
officials othe
10
gulatory app
emonstrated
courts, or oth
larly situate
eficiaries).
onsider both
e suggestin
their retros
oregoing fac
ons when t
raditional pa
analysis of
mplishing th
modified, s
nimize comp
s. The leve
e tailored to
ould employ
cy, benefits,
ation 5 in d
more effect
gning the p
er than thos
proaches an
d by poor c
her factors);
ed persons
h the initial e
g that thos
spective ana
ctors, they sh
the changes
aper filing).
f existing re
heir intende
strengthene
pliance burd
el of rigor o
o the circum
y statistical t
, and costs a
determining
tively.
primary res
se responsib
d those of k
compliance r
; and
or entities
estimates of
se estimate
alysis resour
hould also ta
s are relativ
egulations,
ed purpose
d, or elimin
ens on regu
of retrospec
mstances. As
tools to iden
and should a
g how regul
sponsibility
le for produ
key internat
rates, amou
(including
f regulatory
s are no lo
rces primari
ake advanta
vely minor
agencies sh
or whether
nated in ord
ulated entitie
tive analysis
s appropriate
ntify the im
also conside
lations migh
for condu
ucing or enfo
tional
unt of
both
costs
onger
ly on
age of
(e.g.,
hould
they
der to
es, or
s will
e and
pacts
er the
ht be
ucting
orcing
the regu
collabora
9
determin
developm
Inter‐Age
1
have iss
maximize
organizat
review e
Group).
1
key tradi
or recogn
advance
undermi
1
considera
Promotin
1
entities
individua
agencies
leverage
lation, if ade
ate with rule
. Agencies s
ne whether
ment and dr
ency Coordi
0. Agencies
ued related
es net ben
tion respon
fforts (or as
1. In conduc
ing partners
nizing foreig
the agenc
ning that mi
2. OIRA sho
ations comm
ng Outside I
3. Regulated
or individu
al regulation
to which
outside exp
equate reso
e producers a
should perio
they are ide
afting practi
nation
should coo
d regulation
efits. Age
sible for pro
ssigning this
cting retrosp
s and exami
gn regulation
cy mission
ssion.
ould consid
mon to agen
nput
d parties, no
als may po
ns and the c
individual a
pertise both
ources are av
and enforce
odically eval
entifying com
ices that sho
ordinate the
ns in order
ncies and
omoting coo
function to
pective revie
ne the poss
ns as equiva
or remove
der formula
cy retrospec
on‐governm
ossess valua
cumulative i
gencies mig
h in reassess
11
vailable. Re
ers.
uate the res
mmon probl
ould be addr
eir retrospec
to promot
OMB shoul
ordination b
an existing
ew, agencies
sibility of eit
lent to their
e an unnec
ating a gui
ctive analyse
mental organ
able inform
impact of a
ght not oth
sing existing
eviewing off
sults of the
lems with th
ressed.
ctive review
te a cohere
ld also con
between age
g entity, such
s should con
ther harmon
r U.S. counte
cessary reg
dance docu
es generally.
nizations, ac
mation conce
body of reg
herwise hav
g regulations
ficials should
ir retrospec
he effectiven
ws with oth
ent regulato
nsider creat
encies in th
h as the Reg
sider regula
nizing regula
erparts when
gulatory diff
ument that
.
cademics, an
erning both
gulations iss
ve access.
s and devisi
d coordinate
ctive reviews
ness of their
er agencies
ory scheme
ting a high‐
eir retrospe
gulatory Wo
tions adopte
atory approa
n doing so w
ference wit
t highlights
nd other ou
h the impa
sued by mu
Agencies sh
ing retrospe
e and
s and
r rule
s that
that
‐level
ective
orking
ed by
aches
would
thout
any
utside
ct of
ultiple
hould
ective
review p
applicabi
within th
collection
should a
the relev
1
existing
publicly a
data in w
analyses
submit
retrospec
Ensuring
1
activities
require
Congress
plans for new
ility of the P
he Act and O
ns associate
lso consider
vant regulati
4. Agencies
regulations
available we
ways that a
concerning
information
ctive review
g Adequate R
5. Agencies
s when deve
additional
s should fund
w regulatio
Paperwork R
OMB’s imple
ed with pro
r using socia
on(s).
should disc
on “regula
ebsites. In so
llow private
existing rule
and analy
ws.
Resources
and OMB
loping and e
resources
d agencies a
ns. In so d
Reduction Ac
ementing re
oposed rule
l media, as a
close releva
tions.gov,”
o doing, to t
e parties to
es’ effective
yses and s
should con
evaluating a
to conduct
as necessary
12
doing, agenc
ct, and agen
egulations (e
s) where p
appropriate,
nt data con
their Open
he extent ap
recreate th
eness. Agen
hould integ
nsider agen
gency budge
t appropria
.
cies should
ncies and OM
e.g., a strea
permissible
, to learn ab
ncerning the
Governme
ppropriate, a
he agency’s
cies should
grate releva
ncies’ retros
et requests.
ately search
be mindful
MB should u
amlined com
and approp
bout actual e
eir retrospec
nt webpage
agencies sho
work and t
encourage p
ant informa
spective rev
To the exte
hing retrosp
of the pote
utilize flexib
mment perio
priate. Age
experience u
ctive analys
es, and/or o
ould organiz
to run addit
private parti
ation into
view needs
ent that age
pective rev
ential
ilities
od for
encies
under
es of
other
ze the
tional
ies to
their
s and
encies
views,