While executive branch agencies perform a regulatory impact analysis when they propose and finalize rules, too often similar analysis fails to take place after the rules have taken effect to ensure they work as intended. In a new insight, AAF’s Dan Bosch and Mariam Chachava analyze several major rules finalized in fiscal year 2012 to determine if there is enough publicly available information for non-governmental researchers to conduct their own retrospective reviews.

Key points:

• Since federal efforts at retrospective review have been underwhelming, this analysis attempts to identify whether public researchers have the information they would need to fill in the gaps.
• Based on this review, it is apparent that agencies often fail to disclose all their assumptions and methods for developing regulatory impact analyses when they publish rules.
• Combined with incomplete publicly available data, these factors make it difficult for public researchers to generate quality retrospective analysis.

Read the analysis