GW Regulatory Studies Podcast

Director of the GW Regulatory Studies Center Roger Nober shares perspectives from his recent public comment to the EPA regarding California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards for In-Use Locomotive Regulation. Nober draws from his extensive career in transportation policy and regulation to call for a rejection of the California emissions plan. Federal preemption is key to interstate commerce, he argues. Read the full comment.

Director of the GW Regulatory Studies Center Roger Nober discusses the implications that new limitations on the longstanding Chevron Deference doctrine would have for federal agencies and regulatory rulemaking. Nober contends that the rhetoric around Chevron is overblown. The likely outcome of new limitations on Chevron would be a phase of regulation by adjudication as agencies adapt to build on their authority in the adjudicatory area. Read the full commentary.

Professor Steve Balla discusses a new legislative proposal which aims to implement recommendations of the Administrative Conference of the United States to better handle mass campaigns and computer-generated inputs in the public commenting process. The Comment Integrity and Management Act promotes best practices in commenting at federal agencies and directs further study on the impacts of mass campaigns and computer-generated content. Read the full commentary.

Policy analyst Sarah Hay dives into the Congressional Review Act (CRA), explaining its role in regulatory oversight by Congress. Hay unpacks the mechanics & usage, addresses common misconceptions, and sheds light on how Congress has used the CRA over time since its introduction in 1996. Read the full commentary online.

Last year was especially action-packed for watchers of federal regulation. Take a look back at major trends of 2023 with analysts Zhoudan (Zoey) Xie, Mark Febrizio and Sarah Hay as they share their perspectives on developments including artificial intelligence, greenhouse gas emissions, immigration, an overhaul of regulatory impact analysis, and much more. Read the full commentary and find previous yearly reviews at our website.

Connecticut is one of 17 states that currently complies with California’s stricter standards for vehicle emissions, pushing toward an improbably fast phaseout of gas-powered vehicles and making EVs a mandatory 100% of new car sales in just a few years. Bryce Chinault of the Yankee Institute discusses how the many economic and environmental tradeoffs of such a shift have state policymakers in Hartford questioning the wisdom of sticking with the EV mandate. For more, read Chinault’s recent Wall Street Journal op-ed: Connecticut Hits a ‘Speed Bump’ on the Race to Mandate EVs.

On December 6, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) released the Fall 2023 Unified Agenda, the semiannual roadmap containing information about regulatory actions in development or recently completed by federal agencies. This release marks the Biden administration’s sixth Unified Agenda. Senior Policy Analyst Zoey Xie provides an overview of the document, key takeaways, and trends to watch in the months ahead. Read Zoey's full commentary.

The Biden Administration is more targeted than predecessors in its efforts to improve public participation. But will tools focused on the "supply" side of the equation be enough to increase public engagement? How are the Biden engagement initiatives different or similar from past administrations? Steve Balla and Sarah Hay share their perspectives on the challenges and opportunities ahead. Read their complete commentary for more insights.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) just released its finalized guidance document instructing federal agencies in regulatory impact analysis: the Circular A-4. The final version comes after a draft proposal was unveiled in April of this year and following an extensive comment and review process. What elements changed from draft to final? Policy analysts Sarah Hay, Mark Febrizio and Zoey Xie discuss the notable differences to bring you up to speed. Read more in their commentary.

In the transition to electric vehicles (EVs), will the AM radio band be left behind? Automakers say that electromagnetic interference from EV motors disrupts the same frequencies AM station signals rely on, rendering their broadcast largely unintelligible. Tesla, BMW and Volvo have already eliminated AM radio from new EV models, with Volkswagen and Mazda signaling they will follow suit. Their decision to eliminate the band, however, has elicited a range of responses from stakeholders, which may eventually lead to regulatory action. In this discussion, Dylan Desjardins summarizes the bipartisan Senate bill, AM For Every Vehicle Act, and considers whether the public interest is served by requiring AM radio on auto dashboards. Read Dylan's full commentary online.

Co-Director of the Regulatory Studies Center Joe Cordes interviews Visiting Scholar Mary Sullivan for a discussion about the Draft Merger Guidelines developed by the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice. As a former economist at the FTC and the Antitrust Division of the DOJ, Sullivan explains how the guidelines diverge from the longstanding objective of protecting consumer welfare. Furthermore, the draft guidelines appear to favor policy goals of the administration and leave too much room for agency discretion. Read Sullivan's public interest comment on the draft merger guidelines.

Reeve Bull is Deputy Director for the Office of Regulatory Management in the Office of the Governor of Virginia. Bull's working paper, "Building an Evidence-Based System of Regulatory Analysis from the Bottom-Up" is available on the Center's website. In this conversation with RSC Director Susan Dudley, Bull explores the role states can develop for advancing competitive policies that benefit regulatory stakeholders. Although many systems are inclined to favor federal leadership in regulation, states have the advantage of being closer to the businesses and consumers impacted by their regulations and can provide more opportunities for stakeholder input. Read the full article.

When estimating the impacts that a proposed regulation may have over time, an important step is to apply a “discount rate” to translate future impacts to present value terms. This analysis can help determine whether the regulation costs are worth the benefits. Susan Dudley explains why using a single standard discount rate—as proposed in OMB’s Draft Circular A-4—may result in greater uncertainty than using a range of rates for regulatory impact analysis. Read Susan's essay for more details.

An overview of guidelines on public engagement for federal agencies, newly released by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Policy Analyst Sarah Hay discusses the proposed framework which emphasizes early involvement, transparency, proactive engagement, and meaningful participation. Read Sarah's full commentary on this topic.

Senior Policy Analyst Zhoudan (Zoey) Xie reviews trends and highlights of the latest Unified Agenda—the White House's semi-annual plan for regulatory priorities. Read Zoey's full commentary on the Unified Agenda for more details.

GW Regulatory Studies Center Director Susan Dudley shares her perspectives on the OMB Draft Circular A4. Susan emphasizes the durability of regulatory impact analysis under the existing circular across administrations dating back nearly 30 years. Although the draft revisions contain some worthwhile updates, Susan explains that some aspects of the draft appear designed to steer analytical results to support this administration’s policy preferences, rather than present objective evidence and estimates to policy makers and the public. Safeguarding the objectivity and durability of regulatory analysis is key for the circular's value going forward.

Economist and scholar Mary Sullivan joins the podcast to share perspectives on the proposed introduction of distributional weighting as part of the new draft Circular A-4. The circular, which guides analysis of regulatory costs and benefits, aims to address issues of equity when those costs and benefits are borne differently among various groups. Trade-offs in economic efficiency and lesser transparency are important factors to consider, Mary explains.

President Biden’s Executive Order “Modernizing Regulatory Review” introduces significant changes in how the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) defines the economic significance of rules and approaches public engagement. Research Professor Bridget Dooling and Senior Policy Analyst Mark Febrizio consider the proposed updates in the order and how it may impact centralized regulatory review in the executive branch agencies. For additional coverage, visit Parsing the Proposals for Modernizing Review.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is proposing a new rule for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing that seeks to simplify compliance by program participants and focus on outcomes rather than process. Policy Analyst Sarah Hay shares recommendations from her public interest comment which HUD may consider for improving public engagement and encouraging the use of joint Equity Plans among participants. Read Sarah's full commentary.

This week we celebrate the regulatory reforms of President Jimmy Carter, who set in motion a wave of deregulation that brought lower prices and better consumer choices to the airline industry, telecommunications, rail, trucking, and more. GW Regulatory Studies Center Director Susan Dudley discusses how competition in formerly-regulated markets unleashed innovation and generated lasting benefits for consumers and society as a whole, and stands out today as an underappreciated legacy of the Carter administration. For more details, read Dudley's op-ed in The Regulatory Review.