Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Agency dynamics: States that require administrative agencies to conduct cost-benefit analysis before implementing rules (2020)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
This survey is part of a series of 50-state surveys examining the five pillars key to understanding the administrative state
Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Agency control
• Executive control
• Judicial control
•Legislative control
• Public Control
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.


Disclaimer: The research presented on this page was completed in 2020. It has not been regularly updated since its completion. This page is likely outdated and may be incomplete.

BP-Initials-UPDATED.png This Ballotpedia article is in need of updates. Please email us if you would like to suggest a revision. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.


This page contains information from a Ballotpedia survey about administrative agency dynamics, one of the five pillars key to understanding the main areas of debate about the nature and scope of the administrative state. Ballotpedia reviewed all 50 state constitutions and administrative procedures acts (APAs) to determine which states required administrative agencies to conduct cost-benefit analysis before implementing rules as of 2020.

Cost-benefit analysis requires administrative agencies to consider whether the potential costs of a new rule will outweigh its benefits. This 2020 survey showed whether states had similar requirements for their administrative agencies.

According to the Ballotpedia survey, 29 state APAs required administrative agencies to conduct cost-benefit analysis before implementing rules as of September 2020. This page features the following sections:

In 2025, Ballotpedia updated the pillar system used to understand the main areas of debate about the nature and scope of the administrative state. Click here to learn more about this updated structure and to see Ballotpedia's current content related to the administrative state.



Background and methodology

Background

For this survey, Ballotpedia examined whether states required administrative agencies to conduct cost-benefit analysis before implementing rules. States with such provisions in their Administrative Procedure Acts (APAs) ask administrative agencies to examine the potential economic impact of new rules before they go into effect.

Since President Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12291 in 1981, federal administrative agencies have conducted cost-benefit analyses for any new major rules. President Bill Clinton refined cost-benefit analysis requirements in Executive Order 12866 in 1993 and Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump have maintained cost-benefit analysis requirements in their own executive orders.

Ballotpedia’s survey of state agency cost-benefit analysis standards revealed a variety of results among the states.

Methodology

Ballotpedia examined all 50 state constitutions and Administrative Procedure Acts (APAs) to see whether states required administrative agencies to conduct cost-benefit analysis before implementing rules. Ballotpedia reviewed each provision involving agency rulemaking to see if and when agencies would perform such analyses.

Administrative Procedure Acts (APAs) govern the procedures state administrative agencies must follow to issue regulations and adjudicate disputes. The particular procedures outlined in each APA vary among the 50 states.

Other state laws might have required administrative agencies to conduct cost-benefit analysis before implementing rules, but those were beyond the scope of this survey.

Many states required administrative agencies to perform cost-benefit analysis before making or changing any rules or regulations. Thus, Ballotpedia concluded that those states required cost-benefit analysis.

Some states required administrative agencies to perform cost-benefit analysis only in certain circumstances. For instance, Illinois only required such analysis if a proposed rule may have had an impact on small businesses, nonprofit corporations, or small municipalities. Thus, Ballotpedia concluded that those states conditionally required cost-benefit analysis.

Some states required administrative agencies to perform limited cost-benefit analysis before making rules. For instance, Alaska required agencies to estimate annual costs for the state agency to implement the new rule. Thus, Ballotpedia concluded that those states required limited cost-benefit analysis.

Some states did not require administrative agencies to perform cost-benefit analysis before making or changing any rules or regulations. Thus, Ballotpedia concluded that those states did not require cost-benefit analysis.

To see the specific legal provisions Ballotpedia used to categorize each state, click here.

Summary of findings

Ballotpedia's survey of state constitutions and APAs produced the following key takeaways (as of September 2020):

  • 29 states had APAs that required cost-benefit analysis.
  • 11 states had APAs that conditionally required cost-benefit analysis.
  • 3 states had APAs that required limited cost-benefit analysis.
  • 7 states had APAs that did not require cost-benefit analysis.

Results: States that required administrative agencies to conduct cost-benefit analysis before implementing rules

The table below includes each state in alphabetical order and indicates those that had specific provisions in their constitutions or APAs that required administrative agencies to conduct cost-benefit analysis before implementing rules.

  • Done means that the state APA or constitution required administrative agencies to conduct cost-benefit analysis before implementing rules
  • —— means that the state APA or constitution conditionally required administrative agencies to conduct cost-benefit analysis before implementing rules
  • ** means that the state APA or constitution required administrative agencies to conduct limited cost-benefit analysis before implementing rules
  • DefeatedA means that the state APA or constitution did not require administrative agencies to conduct cost-benefit analysis before implementing rules

Other state laws that might have imposed sunset provisions for administrative rules were beyond the scope of this survey.

State Constitution or APA provisions that required administrative agencies to conduct cost-benefit analysis before implementing rules
Alabama ——
Alaska **
Arizona Done
Arkansas Done
California Done
Colorado ——
Connecticut Done
Delaware DefeatedA
Florida Done
Georgia Done
Hawaii DefeatedA
Idaho ——
Illinois ——
Indiana Done
Iowa ——
Kansas DefeatedA
Kentucky Done
Louisiana Done
Maine Done
Maryland ——
Massachusetts Done
Michigan Done
Minnesota Done
Mississippi Done
Missouri ——
Montana ——
Nebraska Done
Nevada Done
New Hampshire Done
New Jersey Done
New Mexico DefeatedA
New York Done
North Carolina Done
North Dakota ——
Ohio Done
Oklahoma Done
Oregon Done
Pennsylvania DefeatedA
Rhode Island Done
South Carolina ——
South Dakota **
Tennessee **
Texas Done
Utah DefeatedA
Vermont Done
Virginia Done
Washington ——
West Virginia Done
Wisconsin Done
Wyoming DefeatedA

See also

Footnotes

v • e
The Administrative State
MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
Pillars
Reporting
Laws
Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Cases
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
Terms
Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
Bibliography
Agencies
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Agency_dynamics:_States_that_require_administrative_agencies_to_conduct_cost-benefit_analysis_before_implementing_rules&oldid=10423527"