Understanding the factors that impact federal rulemaking: a survey of former EPA regulators.

Health affairs scholar Pub Date : 2024-10-03 eCollection Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1093/haschl/qxae125
Rachel J Topazian, Emma E McGinty, Shelley A Hearne
{"title":"Understanding the factors that impact federal rulemaking: a survey of former EPA regulators.","authors":"Rachel J Topazian, Emma E McGinty, Shelley A Hearne","doi":"10.1093/haschl/qxae125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While federal rulemaking is an essential part of American governance, it is not well understood by researchers and advocates. We surveyed 115 former regulators at the Environmental Protection Agency to understand their views on the kinds of information they valued most and their communication preferences (June-August 2023). Respondents highly valued information about the scope of a problem (96%), legal analysis (97%), technology assessments (96%), and impacts of a proposed rule (99%). Regulators had difficulty accessing several kinds of information: 16% of respondents viewed racial equity information as easy to access and 30% thought financial information was easy to access. Respondents valued communications that provided data (99% viewed as effective), made compelling arguments (97%) or technical recommendations (93%), and storytelling (88%). Respondents indicated that the content of comment letters was important: 94% viewed letters containing data as important and 90% valued technical recommendations. Only 22% thought that repetition of the same comments across letters was important. Our findings reveal opportunities for researchers and advocates to help fill information gaps and identify communication strategies that might resonate with federal regulators.</p>","PeriodicalId":94025,"journal":{"name":"Health affairs scholar","volume":"2 10","pages":"qxae125"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11488514/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health affairs scholar","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxae125","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While federal rulemaking is an essential part of American governance, it is not well understood by researchers and advocates. We surveyed 115 former regulators at the Environmental Protection Agency to understand their views on the kinds of information they valued most and their communication preferences (June-August 2023). Respondents highly valued information about the scope of a problem (96%), legal analysis (97%), technology assessments (96%), and impacts of a proposed rule (99%). Regulators had difficulty accessing several kinds of information: 16% of respondents viewed racial equity information as easy to access and 30% thought financial information was easy to access. Respondents valued communications that provided data (99% viewed as effective), made compelling arguments (97%) or technical recommendations (93%), and storytelling (88%). Respondents indicated that the content of comment letters was important: 94% viewed letters containing data as important and 90% valued technical recommendations. Only 22% thought that repetition of the same comments across letters was important. Our findings reveal opportunities for researchers and advocates to help fill information gaps and identify communication strategies that might resonate with federal regulators.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
了解影响联邦规则制定的因素:对前 EPA 监管者的调查。
虽然联邦规则制定是美国治理的重要组成部分,但研究人员和倡导者对其了解不多。我们对环境保护局的 115 名前监管者进行了调查,以了解他们对最重视的信息类型的看法以及他们的沟通偏好(2023 年 6 月至 8 月)。受访者高度重视有关问题范围(96%)、法律分析(97%)、技术评估(96%)和拟议规则影响(99%)的信息。监管者在获取几种信息方面存在困难:16% 的受访者认为种族公平信息易于获取,30% 的受访者认为财务信息易于获取。受访者重视提供数据(99% 认为有效)、提出有说服力的论点(97%)或技术建议(93%)以及讲故事(88%)的沟通方式。受访者表示意见书的内容很重要:94% 的受访者认为包含数据的意见书很重要,90% 的受访者重视技术建议。只有 22% 的受访者认为信件中重复相同的意见很重要。我们的调查结果显示,研究人员和倡导者有机会帮助填补信息空白,并确定可能与联邦监管机构产生共鸣的沟通策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Correction to: No Surprises Act independent dispute resolution outcomes for emergency services. All-cause nursing home mortality rates have remained above pre-pandemic levels after accounting for decline in occupancy. Charting new territory: the early lessons in integrating social determinant of health (SDOH) measures into practice. Scenarios, not shortage forecasts, are key to better workforce policy. Factors impacting vaccine uptake among adult Medicaid beneficiaries: a systematic literature review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1