From: The Regulatory Review
Scholars argue for legal mandates requiring regulations to do more good than harm.
***
Reflecting on their experiences working in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) during the Bush Administration, former OIRA Administrator John D. Graham and his former Counselor, Paul R. Noe, urge legislators to require regulators to adopt an outcome-oriented approach to regulatory excellence.
***
An administrative substance requirement would demand that regulators use regulatory impact analysis to compare the estimated benefits of regulations to their estimated costs. If the analysis shows that a regulation’s expected benefits do not exceed its expected costs, regulators should abandon the regulation.