How many regulations has obama created

The Trump administration recently unveiled a wide-ranging executive order directing federal agencies to review and streamline their rules. The natural question is whether this order will prompt a vigorous review that results in meaningful regulatory streamlining or end up as a mostly symbolic exercise.

The Office of Management and Budget provided additional guidance to agencies on complying with the review program later that year. Agencies submitted their original plans in and provided biannual progress reports through the end of the Obama administration. The initial set of agency plans issued in generated relatively little public comment.

Initial rulemaking activity pursuant to the review plan was also fairly tepid. The Administration reported in May —about 16 months after the retrospective review plan began—that agencies had proposed retrospective review rules and finalized 50 of those rules.

The EPA gasoline pump rule was among the rules finalized during this period. Philip A. Wallach and Nicholas W. Zeppos Wednesday, February 1, th U. Connor Raso Friday, January 27, Rulemaking pursuant to the retrospective review plans increased somewhat over the next year.

The Government Accountability Office examined the impact of the plans from 22 executive agencies through August , or roughly 30 months after the retrospective review program began see Table 1. By that time, the 22 agencies studied had issued a total of final rules under retrospective review plans.

Of course, not all rules are equally important a concept measured below , and perhaps those adopted under the retrospective review plans were of outsized importance. Unfortunately, the GAO report does not include data on the importance of the rules issued under retrospective review plans, leaving open the question of whether they were more important, on average, than the general population of rules.

The relatively low number of comments on the agency retrospective review plans suggests this is probably not the case, however. This piece turns to original data see Table 1 and Table 2 on the agency progress reports filed in July , more than five years into the retrospective program and near the end of the Obama administration. By July , the 22 agencies examined in the GAO report had largely reported a new and different set of initiatives from those studied by the GAO. Of these ideas, had culminated in final rules by mid-April Still, the overall impact of the program was relatively modest compared to total regulatory activity, much less the number of rules already on the books.

Given the relative magnitudes of new rulemaking and reviews, we can say that the Obama reviews did not come close to satisfying a 1-inout mandate of the sort the Trump administration has committed to. According to the original data, the retrospective review rules were more likely to be important than the average rule adopted during the Obama administration.

Consider the following:. The President institutionalized retrospective review of regulations in Executive Orders and , requiring agencies to regularly report on the status of their retrospective review efforts. The most recent agency reports can be found below. We are proud of the progress made to date on retrospective review, but we know we can do more. It is a process that often takes years. The administration would face lawsuits by environmental and public health groups as well as states and industry groups.

And the Trump administration also could face litigation for any failure to regulate. For years, the agency has been under a court order to produce regulations. NRDC has continually pursued such regulatory litigation, both defending rules and suing agencies for failure to act.

In particular jeopardy are the most recent actions and regulations that already being challenged in court by industry and the states. Under an obscure law known as the Congressional Review Act, Congress could review and override recent major regulations by a simple majority vote. In a memo released the day after the election, the Congressional Research Service said that any regulation finalized after May 30 could be subject to Congressional override.

Goldston said that the cutoff date is not entirely clear, and will depend partly on how long the lame-duck session of Congress lasts this year. A Congressional override of a rule would have long-lasting consequences; the agency would be prohibited from enacting a similar regulation again in the future. The Bureau of Land Management issued the regulations to curb venting, flaring and leaks of natural gas to reduce harmful emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane. It also said the rules would ensure a fair return for federal taxpayers, tribes and states who earn royalties on the sale of gas.

For regulations finalized before May—including some opposed by the energy industry—the Trump administration likely will face legal challenges that will slow or derail his deregulatory plans.

Rules that are still being written are the easiest to block, by simply ordering the agency to stop working on them.

The Trump administration could choose to allow the legal challenge to play out. But the administration also could file a motion to withdraw the rule. If the court allowed it, the EPA would have to go through the public comment process to revise or eliminate the rule.

Congress also could pass a law overturning the rule, but that likely would require 60 votes in the Senate, meaning Republicans would need the support of at least nine Democrats. It may be easier for Congress to cut funding for the EPA to implement the rule, since budget measures require only a simple majority. Energy producers strongly oppose the new permitting and regulatory requirements and North Dakota has led a legal challange to the rule.

A federal appeals court issued a stay on the regulations last October while that case proceeds. This regulation requires energy producers to systematically monitor gas leaks and make repairs at new oil and gas industry sites to prevent methane leaks.