Public Comments’ Influence on Science Use in U.S. Rulemaking: The Case of EPA’s National Emission Standards

• Author: Bruce A. Desmarais,John A. Hird,Mia Costa
• Published date: 01 January 2019
• DOI: 10.1177/0275074018795287
• Date: 01 January 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074018795287

American Review of Public Administration

2019, Vol. 49(1) 36 –50

© The Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0275074018795287

journals.sagepub.com/home/arp

Article

Introduction

For decades, scholars of public administration and policy

in the United States have considered the ways in which

external sources of information shape the policymaking

process (see, e.g., Lindblom & Cohen, 1979; Shulock,

1999; Weiss, 1979). Research has long examined policy

makers’ engagement with various political actors to gather

the “best” evidence and apply it to regulatory decisions

(Kaufman, 1981; Rourke, 1969), and this practice is part of

a larger process of governmental transparency and account-

ability (Mabillard & Zumofen, 2017). While the role of

science in policymaking has been elevated in recent years,

its implementation is shaped by political dynamics (Lee,

2013; Taylor & Millar, 2002). Subgovernment theories,

and those of “iron triangles” in particular, suggest that the

exchange of information is most prevalent between bureau-

crats, policy-area specialists in the legislature, and the

regulated industry, which facilitates policy implementation

that serves each actor’s narrow interest (Adams, 1981;

McCubbins & Schwartz, 1984; Ripley & Franklin, 1984).

Other actors participate as well, such as interest groups,

advisory boards, and the general public (Moffitt, 2014).

The central question then becomes, “How does participa-

tion by various actors affect the use of information in

policymaking?”

Recent debates about this flow of information and utiliza-

tion of evidence have focused on how information technology

has changed participatory policymaking. In particular, public

comments are an important component of participation in the

regulatory process, and the development of electronic rule

dockets can potentially alter the extent to which commenters

are able to affect the rulemaking process because access is

widespread and nearly costless. Despite the vast amount of

research on the subject, a debate still exists over the extent to

which agencies respond to commenters through policy

changes, if at all (Furlong & Kerwin, 2005; Naughton,

Schmid, Yackee, & Zhan, 2009; Noveck, 2004; Rosener,

1982; Shapiro, 2008; Yackee & Yackee, 2006). Many schol-

ars have found contrasting if not competing results regarding

which type of participation matters and under what conditions

(e.g., Golden, 1998; McKay & Yackee, 2007; West, 2004;

Woods, 2009). A principal challenge is that many external

actors advocate for the same regulatory changes, making it

795287ARPXXX10.1177/0275074018795287The American Review of Public AdministrationCosta et al.

research-article2018

1Dartmouth College, NH, USA

2The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, USA

3University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA

Corresponding Author:

Mia Costa, Department of Government, Dartmouth College, Hanover,

NH 03755, USA.

Email: mia.costa@dartmouth.edu

Public Comments’ Influence on Science

Use in U.S. Rulemaking: The Case of

EPA’s National Emission Standards

Mia Costa1, Bruce A. Desmarais2, and John A. Hird3

Abstract

Scholarship on bureaucratic policymaking has long focused on both the use of expertise and public accountability. However,

few have considered the degree to which public input affects the use of research in U.S. regulatory impact analyses (RIAs).

We examine changes in the research that is cited in RIAs in response to public comments to assess the influence of

participation on the use of information for rulemaking. We conduct an in-depth analysis of comments on a major proposed

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule to determine whether regulators alter the evidence used based on public

input and whether some types of commenters have more influence than others. We analyze the text similarity of comments

to scientific research utilized in the RIAs to determine whether regulators iteratively update their rule justification based on

scientific information referenced in comments. We find support for seminal subgovernment theories about the relationship

between business interests, Congress, and the bureaucracy; in relation to all kinds of commenters, members of Congress

and industry groups had the strongest effect on changes in the research used in the RIAs. The article provides one of the first

statistical analyses of science exchange between the public and a bureaucratic agency.

Keywords

evidence-based policy; regulatory impact analysis; EPA; public comments; government bureaucracy