Public Comments’ Influence on Science Use in U.S. Rulemaking: The Case of EPA’s National Emission Standards

Abstract

Scholarship on bureaucratic policymaking has long focused on both the use of expertise and public accountability. However, few have considered the degree to which public input affects the use of research in U.S. regulatory impact analyses (RIAs). We examine changes in the research that is cited in RIAs in response to public comments to assess the influence of participation on the use of information for rulemaking. We conduct an in-depth analysis of comments on a major proposed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule to determine whether regulators alter the evidence used based on public input and whether some types of commenters have more influence than others. We analyze the text similarity of comments to scientific research utilized in the RIAs to determine whether regulators iteratively update their rule justification based on scientific information referenced in comments. We find support for seminal subgovernment theories about the relationship between business interests, Congress, and the bureaucracy; in relation to all kinds of commenters, members of Congress and industry groups had the strongest effect on changes in the research used in the RIAs. The article provides one of the first statistical analyses of science exchange between the public and a bureaucratic agency.

Another Person’s Peril: Peanut Allergy, Risk Perceptions, and Responsible Sociality

“…This can help us understand how individuals’ experiences, identities, and putative choices can create perceptions of public support and shape agenda-setting (Berezin and Eads 2016; Bergstrand 2014; Rohlinger et al 2015). Moreover, regulatory agencies are expected to demonstrate their rulemaking has at least attended to substantive issues raised by the public, making these kinds of comments an influential mode of public discourse (Costa, Desmarais, and Hird 2019).…”

Does consultation count for corruption? The causal relations in the EU-28

“…US studies are often dedicated to pressure groups' influence on rule-making (Yackee, 2019;Yackee & Yackee, 2006) and, more recently, to the limits of consultation in reaching out to relevant stakeholders (Farina & Newhart, 2013). Costa et al (2019) approach the problem of stakeholder engagement in rule-making from a different perspective and look into the relationship between public comments and the use of science in regulatory impact assessment. In Europe too we find literature informed by pressure group politics, the study of policy networks, and the nature and reach of stakeholders' influence (Ackland & Halpin, 2018;Baldwin, 2018;Kaya, 2019), with empirical works mainly focussing on whether consultation provides a level-playing field.…”

Research utilization in higher education rulemaking: A multi-case study of research prevalence, sources, and barriers

“…Experts' perspectives have also been considered in policymaking (Davies, 2004). Policymakers have sought expert testimony in legislative hearings (Perna, Orosz, & Kent, 2019), via consulting relationships (Morgan et al, 2006), or in written statements, such as public comments during the rulemaking process (Costa et al, 2019). Expert perspectives are not in themselves a separate category of influence in policymaking but typically fit into one of the other categories: experts may present the results of research or other data, discuss something they learned from previous experience, or speak about their own beliefs or values.…”

“…Although previous literature has not examined how research has been used in higher education rulemaking, understanding research utilization in this process is important for several reasons. First, federal law requires government agencies to conduct analyses at different points during the rulemaking process, including regulatory impact assessments and cost-benefit analyses, for many regulations (Belfield, Bowden, & Rodriguez, 2018;Costa, Desmarais, & Hird, 2019;Executive Order 12866, 1993). Rules deemed insufficiently based on evidence are more likely to be struck down by a court (Association of Private Sector Colleges & Universities [APSCU] v. Duncan, 2012;Costa et al, 2019), which can in turn result in confusion about the rule's status and expenditure of additional government time and resources on redeveloping the regulations (Kelchen, 2019).…”

“…First, federal law requires government agencies to conduct analyses at different points during the rulemaking process, including regulatory impact assessments and cost-benefit analyses, for many regulations (Belfield, Bowden, & Rodriguez, 2018;Costa, Desmarais, & Hird, 2019;Executive Order 12866, 1993). Rules deemed insufficiently based on evidence are more likely to be struck down by a court (Association of Private Sector Colleges & Universities [APSCU] v. Duncan, 2012;Costa et al, 2019), which can in turn result in confusion about the rule's status and expenditure of additional government time and resources on redeveloping the regulations (Kelchen, 2019). The study presented here reveals the extent to which research was considered in the creation of several key higher education regulations and the sources of that research.…”