Httpsphetcoloradoedusimshtmlmolecule-shapeslatestmolecule-sh

https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/molecule-shapes/latest/molecule-shapes_en.html

Name__________________________________

Period_________________________________

Date___________________________________

CLICK!

Part 1 Directions: Draw pictures of 4 different molecules you create

using bonds and lone pairs. Record geometries and angles, below.

Picture 1

Picture 2

Picture 3

Picture 4

Molecule geometry

Electron geometry

Bond angles

Part 1 Questions:

1. How many bonds can you add total? _____________________________

2. How many lone pairs can you add total? _____________________________

3. How many bonds and lone pairs can you add total? _____________________________

4. How can you make the molecule geometry be DIFFERENT than the electron geometry?

5. Molecules have shape! Make a few and drag and rotate them around. Record below:

Make at least 2 molecules that are 1D or 2D (Draw 2!)

Make at least 2 molecules that are 3D (Draw 2!)

Set-up: Choose “Model”

Check the two “Name” tools and the “Show Bond Angles” box.

Play with the sim adding bonds and lone pairs.

PhET Molecule Shapes html5 Click to run

https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/molecule-shapes/latest/molecule-shapes_en.html

Name__________________________________

Period_________________________________

Date___________________________________

Part 2 Set-up: Click Check boxes:

Part 2 Directions: Turn molecules around

with mouse. Describe each molecule in the

table, below

NH3

CH4

SF4

XeF4

BrF5

PCl5

SF6

AA31 Labs

https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/molecule-shapes/latest/molecule-shapes_en.html

Name__________________________________

Period_________________________________

Date___________________________________

http://www.clipartbest

.com/clipart-nTXoXjoEc

Part 2 Questions:

1. Can you change the shape of the molecules by twisting them around?

Y or N

2. What happens to the molecules you dragged and twisted?

3. Are the bond angles in part 1 the same as the bond angles in part 2? Why do you think that they are the same/different?

Going Further:

4. Why do you think you cannot get more than 6 things around the central atom?

5. Organic molecules (like CH4) have carbon as the central atom. How many bonds can a carbon central atom support?

6. Is CH4 planar (2D)?

7. DNA is a large organic molecule that has a shape described as a “double helix” shown in a cartoon, right. Given what you know about the carbon molecule’s geometry (Q6) does this shape make sense? Why or why not?

AA31 Labs

157

(UN)LIMITING ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW: WIND RIVER, SECTION 2401(A), AND THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE FEDERAL AGENCIES

John Kendrick*

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 158 I. STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS, STATUTES OF REPOSE, AND 28

U.S.C. § 2401(a) ............................................................................ 160 II. MECHANICS OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW ...................................... 164

A. Types of Administrative Challenges ........................................ 164 1. Procedural Challenges ...................................................... 165 2. Policy Challenges .............................................................. 165

B. Standing and Finality Requirements ....................................... 166 III. THE WIND RIVER DOCTRINE ............................................................ 170

A. Development of the Doctrine ................................................... 170 B. Spread of the Doctrine ............................................................. 175

IV. THE MEANING OF SECTION 2401(a) ................................................ 179 A. Textual Analysis ....................................................................... 180

1. General Understanding of Claim Accrual ........................ 181 2. Accrual of Claims Arising out of Public Duties ................ 185 3. Persuasive Supreme Court Precedent ............................... 189 4. Conclusion ......................................................................... 190

B. Other Interpretive Sources ...................................................... 192 1. Statutory Development ...................................................... 193 2. Congressional Inaction ..................................................... 195 3. Analogous Judicial Interpretations ................................... 199

C. Policy Considerations ............................................................. 203 1. The Role of Policy in Statutory Interpretation .................. 203 2. The Policy Case for Wind River ....................................... 204 3. The Policy Case Against Wind River ................................ 207

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 209

* Associate at a New York law firm. Future law clerk to the Honorable Amul R. Thapar,

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky and the Honorable Jeffrey S. Sutton, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. J.D., 2016, University of Virginia School of Law. I would like to thank Professors John Duffy and Caleb Nelson for providing invaluable ideas and feedback.

158 Virginia Law Review [Vol. 103:157

INTRODUCTION

N eight federal circuits, a person’s right to sue a federal agency may be time-barred before it exists—an odd result made possible

by the Wind River doctrine.1 This Note argues that the doctrine is wrong as a matter of interpretation, despite its widespread acceptance.

A party who is “adversely affected or aggrieved” by a federal agen- cy’s decision has a cause of action against the agency under the Admin- istrative Procedure Act (“APA”).2 The aggrieved party may challenge the action as ultra vires (beyond constitutional or statutory authority), procedurally deficient, or simply as an arbitrary policy choice.3 But each of these claims is subject to a time limit. 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) directs that “every civil action commenced against the United States shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues.”4

Under the Wind River doctrine that provision has two different mean- ings. For ultra vires administrative challenges and every single nonad- ministrative claim to which Section 2401(a) applies, a party’s “right of action first accrues” as soon as (but not before) he or she has suffered a legally cognizable injury and is entitled to seek legal relief. This under- standing of accrual is almost universally accepted throughout the law, and has been for over a century. Its rationale is that, while plaintiffs should be encouraged to pursue their rights diligently, they cannot be encouraged to pursue rights they do not yet have.

But Section 2401(a) has been interpreted to have a unique alternative meaning for procedural and policy-based administrative challenges. Un- der Wind River’s gloss on Section 2401(a), a party’s right to bring either of these claims “first accrues” as soon as the agency has acted. This is true even if the agency’s action has yet to actually cause a legally cog- nizable injury or even remotely affect the party. It is true even if the par- ty does not yet exist. Under Wind River, a party’s right of action may ac-

1 The doctrine was created in Wind River Mining Corp. v. United States, 946 F.2d 710 (9th Cir. 1991), so this Note will refer to it as the “Wind River doctrine” for readability.

2 5 U.S.C. § 702 (2012). As clarification, the terms “cause of action” and “right of action” can be used interchangeably, and will be in this Note. Compare Cause of Action, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (defining “cause of action” as “[a] group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to ob- tain a remedy in court from another person”), with Right of Action, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (defining “right of action” as “[t]he right to bring a specific case to court”).

3 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)–(D) (2012). 4 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) (2012).

2017] (Un)Limiting Administrative Review 159

crue and become time-barred before that party actually has a right of ac- tion.

The Wind River doctrine seems facially flawed. But it has been ac- cepted by eight federal circuits, often with only a few sentences of anal- ysis, and no circuits have rejected it. This Note stands alone against the wind (pun intended) and argues that the doctrine is clearly inconsistent with the plain meaning of Section 2401(a). Because it takes a position that is novel in the literature and not shared by any court, this Note un- dertakes an exhaustive analysis of the sources that inform Sec- tion 2401(a)’s meaning. To date, no court or commentator has per- formed such an analysis, which helps explain the Wind River doctrine’s prevalence. Every source points the same way: the text of the provision itself, its statutory context, cases and treatises from when it was first en- acted, its revision history alongside developments in the law, and finally, how it has been interpreted by every federal court (including the U.S. Supreme Court) in every other legal context aside from administrative claims. “Accrual” means, and has always meant, the same thing. A par- ty’s right of action cannot accrue until he or she has actually been harmed by the defendant. As a matter of pure statutory interpretation, Wind River cannot stand.

Wind River is on stronger footing as a matter of policy. Indeed, the implications of this Note’s conclusion are dramatic. If it is right, then there is no general time limit on APA claims. Every decision made by every federal agency during its entire history can be freshly challenged on policy or procedure, so long as the decision has injured the plaintiff within the past six years. Whenever there is a newly injured plaintiff a new challenge may be brought. Following Section 2401(a)’s express in- structions would open the floodgates to effectively unlimited administra- tive review. But these are indeed Section 2401(a)’s express instructions. They cannot and should not be disregarded based on judges’ policy con- cerns. Further, this Note argues that these policy concerns are over- blown, and in fact there are competing (and compelling) policy argu- ments in favor of following Section 2401(a)’s plain meaning.

All APA plaintiffs who find themselves blocked by the Wind River doctrine can use this Note as a blueprint for their briefs. It is organized as follows. Part I provides an overview of legal limitations periods gen- erally and Section 2401(a) specifically. Part II provides a more detailed overview of administrative review litigation. Part III outlines the devel- opment of the Wind River doctrine. Part IV analyzes the doctrine in light

160 Virginia Law Review [Vol. 103:157

of Section 2401(a)’s textual meaning and contextual interpretive sources. It then briefly reconsiders the doctrine’s pragmatic justifica- tions. The final Part offers concluding thoughts.

I. STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS, STATUTES OF REPOSE, AND 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a)

The Wind River doctrine has effectively morphed Section 2401(a) from a statute of limitations into a statute of repose. To understand what this means, it is important to define the terms.

Statutes of limitations and statutes of repose both act as time limits on legal claims, but operate very differently. For statutes of limitations, the “clock starts to tick” when a potential plaintiff’s legal claim accrues— generally the moment when he is able to bring a lawsuit. As defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, a “statute of limitations” is “a statute establish- ing a time limit for suing in a civil case, based on the date when the claim accrued (as when the injury occurred or was discovered).”5 This definition is basically unchanged from the dictionary’s first edition, pub- lished in 1891.6 Indeed, statutes of limitations like this have existed since the thirteenth century.7

In contrast, statutes of repose did not emerge until the 1970s.8 For these statutes, the time limit starts running immediately upon the poten-

5 Statute of Limitations, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). “Accrue” is separately

defined as “to come into existence as an enforceable claim or right; to arise <the plaintiff’s cause of action for silicosis did not accrue until the plaintiff knew or had reason to know of the disease>.” Accrue, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). Accrual is also mentioned in the definition of “right,” which notes that an “accrued right” is “[a] matured right; a right that is ripe for enforcement (as through litigation).” Right, Accrued Right, Black’s Law Dic- tionary (10th ed. 2014).

6 See Statute of Limitations, Black’s Law Dictionary (1st ed. St. Paul, Minn., West Pub- lishing Co. 1891) (defining “statute of limitations” as “[a] statute prescribing limitations to the right of action on certain described causes of action; that is, declaring that no suit shall be maintained on such causes of action unless brought within a specified time period after the right accrued”). “Accrue” was defined as follows: “to arise, to happen, to come into force or existence; as in the phrase, ‘The right of action did not accrue within six years.’” Accrue, Black’s Law Dictionary (1st ed. St. Paul, Minn., West Publishing Co. 1891).

7 Note, Developments in the Law—Statutes of Limitations, 63 Harv. L. Rev. 1177, 1177 (1950).

8 See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 899 cmt. g (Am. Law Inst. 1979) (“In recent years special ‘statutes of repose’ have been adopted in some states . . . . The statutory period in these acts . . . may have run before a cause of action came fully into existence.”); see also CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 134 S. Ct. 2175, 2185–86 (2014) (noting that although the term

2017] (Un)Limiting Administrative Review 161

tial defendant’s last culpable act or omission—regardless of whether the potential plaintiff has actually been injured by the conduct yet, is physi- cally or legally capable of suing, or even exists at all.9 Black’s Law Dic- tionary defines “statute of repose” as “[a] statute barring any suit that is brought after a specified time since the defendant acted (such as by de- signing or manufacturing a product), even if this period ends before the plaintiff has suffered a resulting injury.”10

Simply put, statutes of limitations punish the plaintiff while statutes of repose protect the defendant. The two statutes are targeted at different actors because they have different purposes. The main thrust of statutes of limitations is to encourage plaintiffs “to pursue [their] claims diligent- ly.”11 Since a plaintiff cannot pursue his right to sue before it exists, statutes of limitations “do not preclude claims before they are ripe for adjudication.”12 But statutes of repose do. These statutes “effect a legis- lative judgment that a defendant should ‘be free from liability after the legislatively determined period of time,’” offering defendants a “fresh start.”13 At some point the potential defendant’s interest in finality out- weighs the potential plaintiff’s right to sue, no matter how blameless the plaintiff is for the delay.

28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) is the statute of limitations for civil suits against the U.S. government.14 It reads in relevant part:

[E]very civil action commenced against the United States shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues. The action of any person under legal disability or

“statute of repose” was in the legal lexicon before the 1970s, it was just another name for statutes of limitations).

9 Waldburger, 134 S. Ct. at 2178–79. This can make a critical difference for late-occurring “latent” injures, such as when a landowner’s activities contaminate a parcel of land and the environmental harm does not become apparent until decades later, after the old landowner is long gone. See id. at 2181.

10 Statute of Repose, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). 11 Waldburger, 134 S. Ct. at 2178–79. This explains why statutes of limitations can be

“tolled” (effectively hitting the “pause” button on the clock) when the plaintiff is under some sort of legal disability. It would be unreasonable to require such plaintiffs to bring suit or lose their claim. See id. at 2179.

12 54 C.J.S. Limitations of Actions § 2 (2010). 13 Waldburger, 134 S. Ct. at 2183 (citation omitted) (quoting 54 C.J.S. Limitation of Ac-

tions § 7, at 24 (2010)). 14 See Stevens v. Dep’t of Treasury, 500 U.S. 1, 8 n.2 (1991) (describing § 2401(a) as “the

general statute of limitations for a civil action against the Government”).

162 Virginia Law Review [Vol. 103:157

beyond the seas at the time the claim accrues may be commenced within three years after the disability ceases.15

Section 2401(a) originated in the Tucker Act of 1887.16 The Act sim- ultaneously waived the federal government’s sovereign immunity for certain types of claims and granted federal courts jurisdiction over them. It was designed to “give the people of the United States what every civi- lized nation of the world ha[d] already done—the right to go into the courts to seek redress against the Government for their grievances.”17 But the Tucker Act limited this right with Section 2401(a)’s precursor, which read, “no suit against the Government of the United States, shall be allowed under this act unless the same shall have been brought within six years after the right accrued for which the claim is made.”18 Though the provision’s wording and its location in the U.S. Code have changed over the years, its substance has always been an accrual-based frame- work.19

Section 2401(a) is merely a default statute of limitations that applies if Congress has not provided a different time limit for the specific claim at issue. Congress often does so, and thus Section 2401(a) does not near- ly apply to “every civil action commenced against the United States” de- spite what its text says.20 However, the universe of cases to which it does apply is still quite large, and includes claims arising under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”),21 claims seeking return of property seized through civil and criminal forfeiture,22 state law contract claims under

15 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) (2012). 16 Auction Co. of Am. v. FDIC, 132 F.3d 746, 749 (D.C. Cir. 1997), decision clarified on

denial of reh’g, 141 F.3d 1198 (D.C. Cir. 1998). 17 18 Cong. Rec. 2680 (1887) (statement of Rep. Bayne). 18 Act of Mar. 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 505, 505. 19 See infra Subsection IV.B.1. 20 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a); see, e.g., id. § 2401(b) (providing a separate, shorter limitations

period for tort claims against the United States as part of the Federal Tort Claims Act, ch. 753, 60 Stat. 842 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 28 U.S.C.)); 28 U.S.C. § 2501 (2012) (claims within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims); see also Howard v. Megginson, 775 F.3d 430, 438 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (finding “irreconcilable conflict” between § 2401(a) and Title VII’s specific limitations provisions, and thus applying the latter). Sec- tion 2401(a) also does not apply to claims that have long been understood as exempt from statutes of limitations, such as habeas petitions. See Walters v. Sec’y of Def., 725 F.2d 107, 111–14 (D.C. Cir. 1983).

21 Spannaus v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 824 F.2d 52, 56 (D.C. Cir. 1987). 22 Santiago-Lugo v. United States, 538 F.3d 23, 24 (1st Cir. 2008) (per curiam).

2017] (Un)Limiting Administrative Review 163

$10,000 in value,23 employment-related suits by federal employees,24 suits by service members seeking to correct their allegedly improper dis- charge designation,25 various claims under Native American-specific statutes,26 and, most importantly, challenges to agency action brought under the APA and various other agency-specific statutes.27

***

Based on the preceding discussion, Section 2401(a)’s operation would appear clear-cut across all the claims to which it applies. It is, like all statutes of limitations, expressly based on accrual—a legal concept with a well-settled meaning that dates back hundreds of years. Claims accrue once the plaintiff’s legal right to relief comes into existence. So based on a plain reading of Section 2401(a), for every claim it covers, potential plaintiffs should have a six-year time limit to bring suit that starts run- ning once their legal right comes into existence, and not a moment be- fore. This plain reading does in fact hold true across all cases to which Section 2401(a) applies, with one exception. For certain APA suits, eve- ry court presented with the question has gone against the statute’s appar- ently clear instructions and has instead found that the six-year period begins to run upon the last act of the defendant agency rather than the first existence of the plaintiff’s right of action. For these APA claims, the judiciary has effectively transformed Section 2401(a) from a statute of limitations to a statute of repose. Part II will provide a background on administrative challenges, and Part III will explain how Section 2401(a) has been interpreted for these challenges.

23 Auction Co. of Am. v. FDIC, 132 F.3d 746, 747, 749 (D.C. Cir. 1997). 24 See Stevens v. Dep’t of Treasury, 500 U.S. 1, 8 n.2 (1991) (age discrimination); Saffron

v. Dep’t of Navy, 561 F.2d 938, 941–42 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (discharged employee seeking re- instatement and damages).

25 Walters, 725 F.2d at 114–15. 26 See, e.g., Christensen v. United States, 755 F.2d 705, 708 (9th Cir. 1985). 27 Preminger v. Sec’y of Veterans Affairs, 517 F.3d 1299, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (collect-

ing cases from the First, Fourth, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits and noting that “our sister circuits have held that actions for judicial review under the APA are subject to the statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a)”); Coal. for a Sustainable Delta v. FEMA, 812 F. Supp. 2d 1089, 1106 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (Endangered Species Act claims).

164 Virginia Law Review [Vol. 103:157

II. MECHANICS OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

This Part will explain the mechanics of bringing policy-based and procedural administrative challenges. First, it will summarize the sub- stantive standards that govern them. Then it will review their biggest procedural hurdle—standing.

A. Types of Administrative Challenges

The APA was enacted in 1946 in response to the rapidly expanding administrative state and was meant to serve as “a check upon adminis- trators whose zeal might otherwise have carried them to excesses not contemplated in legislation creating their offices.”28 In the words of one of its sponsors, it “is a bill of rights for the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose affairs are controlled or regulated” by federal agen- cies.29 To that end, it grants a right of action to any person who is “suf- fering legal wrong” or “adversely affected or aggrieved” by a federal agency.30

This right is fleshed out in Section 706, which requires the reviewing court to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and con- clusions” that violate one of six standards.31 Two of them are not rele- vant here.32 Of the four others, two are not affected by the Wind River doctrine: constitutional and statutory challenges.33 Their operation is fairly self-explanatory—the reviewing court simply interprets the consti- tutional or statutory provision at issue and determines whether the agen- cy action violates it.34 However, the final two—policy and procedural challenges—require more explanation, both because they are less intui- tive and because they are the targets of Wind River.

28 Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n, 135 S. Ct 1199, 1211 (2015) (Scalia, J., concurring)

(quoting United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 644 (1950)). 29 92 Cong. Rec. 2149 (1946) (statement of Sen. McCarran). 30 5 U.S.C. § 702 (2012); see also 3 Charles H. Koch, Jr., Administrative Law and Practice

§ 8:10, at 69 (3d ed. 2010). 31 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (2012). 32 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(E) covers a specific range of administrative claims and § 706(2)(F) is

relevant only for administrative adjudications. Id. § 706(2)(E)–(F). 33 Id. § 706(2)(B)–(C). 34 Of course, Chevron deference to agency interpretations complicates this enterprise. See

Chevron U.S.A. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 842–43 (1984).

2017] (Un)Limiting Administrative Review 165

1. Procedural Challenges

If an agency did not follow the proper procedures before acting then its action is unlawful.35 There are three possible sources for such proce- dures—the APA, some other statute, or the agency itself. Sections 551– 559 of the APA prescribe various procedures that agencies must follow before acting. For instance, Section 553 requires the agency to give the public notice of and opportunity to comment on proposed regulations before adopting them (commonly referred to as “notice and com- ment”).36 Congress can also supplement or replace the APA’s require- ments with agency-specific procedures. For example, the National Envi- ronmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to prepare and publish Environmental Impact Statements prior to undertaking certain actions.37 Finally, an agency may impose additional procedural requirements on itself beyond those required by statute. Once created, these are binding: “One of the most firmly established principles in administrative law is that an agency must obey its own rules.”38 Any agency action taken without observance of all the required procedures can be invalidated.

2. Policy Challenges

Congress often grants agencies significant authority to build on top of statutory language with additional regulations.39 These additional regula- tions are agency policy. “Policymaking has long been characterized as the ‘zenith’ of administrative authority” vis-à-vis the courts.40 And un- derstandably so: Such actions have been authorized by Congress and are taken within the sphere of the agency’s expertise. A court scrutinizing such activity should proceed with great caution. But proceed they must, since the APA requires them to strike down any agency action that was “arbitrary, capricious, [or] an abuse of discretion.”41 This “generally ap- plicable” standard must be met even for agency actions undertaken with

35 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D) (invaliding actions taken “without observance of procedure re- quired by law”).

36 Id. § 553(b)–(c). 37 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (2012). 38 1 Koch, supra note 30, § 4:22, at 305. 39 Of note, this is different from agency statutory interpretation. For a helpful discussion of

the differences between policymaking and statutory interpretation, see Charles H. Koch, Jr., 32 Federal Practice and Procedure: Judicial Review of Administrative Action § 8112(d), at 7 (2006).

40 4 Koch, supra note 30, § 11:31, at 114. 41 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (2012).

166 Virginia Law Review [Vol. 103:157

congressional authorization, constitutional authority, and after following appropriate procedures.42 These actions are still unlawful if they were an arbitrary policy choice.

Courts have struck a balance between this mandated scrutiny and the need for deference by evaluating the agency’s decision-making process rather than the decision itself. The Supreme Court has instructed that:

Review under the arbitrary and capricious standard is deferential; we will not vacate an agency’s decision unless it “has relied on factors which Congress had not intended it to consider, entirely failed to con- sider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.”43

In other words, “[t]he policy decisions of agencies must be set aside if they are not the product of reasoned decision-making”44 but affirmed if the agency “considered the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the policy choice made.”45 This process-based analysis helps ensure that well-reasoned agency policy will not be struck down as arbitrary and capricious simply “because the reviewing court might have made a different determination were it empowered to do so.”46

B. Standing and Finality Requirements

Standing is “[a] party’s right to make a legal claim or seek judicial en- forcement of a duty or right.”47 A brief explanation of standing is neces- sary, both because there are some wrinkles in the administrative context and because the connection between standing and accrual is crucial for the analysis later in Part IV.

42 Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 415–16 (1971). 43 Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defs. of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 658 (2007) (quoting

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)).

44 Ala. Power Co. v. FCC, 311 F.3d 1357, 1371 (11th Cir. 2002). 45 Tenneco Gas v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 969 F.2d 1187, 1196 (D.C. Cir.

1992). 46 SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 94 (1943). 47 Standing, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014).

2017] (Un)Limiting Administrative Review 167

There are two components of standing that are relevant here— constitutional and statutory.48 Constitutional standing stems from Article III’s restriction of the federal judicial power to “Cases” and “Controver- sies”—words understood to limit the types of disputes that can be re- solved in federal court.49 In a nutshell, constitutional standing requires that a potential plaintiff have (1) a concrete and particular injury; (2) that was caused by the defendant’s conduct; and (3) is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.50 Without these three elements, a plaintiff’s dis- pute is not a “case” or “controversy” under the Constitution and thus it cannot be heard in federal court. Statutory standing is the requirement that the plaintiff actually have a cause of action under applicable stat- ute.51 This requirement is generally met if the plaintiff’s interests “fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.”52

For most administrative challenges the standing inquiry is fairly run- of-the-mill. Constitutional standing is satisfied when a regulation that is somehow invalid (unconstitutional, arbitrary and capricious, etc.) injures a party.53 This could be through a direct application in an enforcement action, or indirectly through some other means—for example, placing restrictions on how a property owner may use his property.54 Injury and causation are present, and so is redressability because the reviewing court can strike down the offending regulation.

Statutory standing stems from the APA’s right of action, as glossed by the zone-of-interests test. A party that has been adversely affected or aggrieved by an agency’s action must also fall within the zone of inter- ests protected by the statute that the agency is relying on for its authori-

48 So-called “prudential standing” is not relevant here and might be eliminated soon any-

way. See 4 Richard Murphy & Charles H. Koch Jr., Administrative Law and Practice § 13:14, at 128 (rev. 3d ed. Supp. 2016). (“[I]t seems fair to say that the Court [has] signaled a possible intention to do away with the category of ‘prudential’ standing altogether.” (refer- ring to Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377, 1388 (2014))).

49 Richard H. Fallon, Jr. et al., Hart and Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and The Federal System 101 (7th ed. 2015).

50 Id. This formulation of constitutional standing was established by the Supreme Court in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992).

51 Lexmark, 134 S. Ct. at 1386–88. 52 Id. at 1388 (quoting Allen v Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984)) (internal quotation

marks omitted). This is known as the “zone of interests” test. 4 Koch, supra note 30, § 13:14, at 335.

53 See 4 Koch, supra note 30, § 13:10, at 322. 54 See, e.g., Barnum Timber Co. v. EPA, 633 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 2011).

168 Virginia Law Review [Vol. 103:157

ty.55 But as applied to APA challenges the test “is not meant to be espe- cially demanding” because of “Congress’s ‘evident intent’ when enact- ing the APA ‘to make agency action presumptively reviewable.’”56 A plaintiff only needs to assert an interest that is “arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute” and this does not require them to be a member of a class that the statute seeks to benefit.57 For example, this means when an agency acquires land pursuant to a statute meant to foster Indian tribes’ economic development, a non- Indian owner of an adjacent property can satisfy the zone-of-interests test and mount an APA challenge.58

In the context of procedural challenges, statutory standing basically matches the description above, but constitutional standing has some wrinkles. As the Supreme Court has said, “[t]here is . . . much truth to the assertion that ‘procedural rights’ are special.”59 Particular attention must be paid to the injury requirement; in contrast, causation and re- dressability are relaxed. First, the injury requirement: In a sense there is an abstract injury to everyone in the country when an agency violates the law by acting without appropriate procedures, but this injury cannot support standing because it is neither particularized to a plaintiff nor concrete.60 Instead, constitutional standing “must be based on harm to a concrete interest [of a particular plaintiff] that the procedure is designed to protect.”61

On the other hand, given the nature of procedural violations, the tests for causation and redressability are easier to meet.62 Because the plain- tiff’s concrete injury stems from the substantive agency action rather than the lack of procedure itself, it is possible that even if the agency were to follow proper procedures it would still make the same substan-

55 Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 132 S. Ct. 2199,

2210 (2012). 56 Id. (quoting Clarke v. Sec. Indus. Ass’n, 479 U.S. 388, 399 (1987)) (first internal quota-

tion marks omitted). 57 Id. (emphasis added) (quoting Ass’n of Data Processing Serv. Orgs. v. Camp, 397 U.S.

150, 153 (1970)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 58 Id. at 2210–12. 59 Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 572 n.7 (1992). 60 Id. at 560, 573–74. 61 4 Murphy & Koch, supra note 48, § 13:11, at 112. 62 Id. § 13:13, at 127 (“[The] person who has been accorded a procedural right to protect

his concrete interests can assert that right without meeting all the normal standards for re- dressability and immediacy.” (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 572 n.7) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2017] (Un)Limiting Administrative Review 169

tive decision and still cause the same injury to the plaintiff. But-for cau- sation would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove and thus is not re- quired for standing. In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, the Court used the example of a property owner adjacent to a federally licensed dam that was proposed without an environmental impact statement.63 Such a property owner would have standing “even though he cannot establish with any certainty that the statement will cause the license to be with- held or altered, and even though the dam will not be completed for many years.”64 The redressability requirement is relaxed for the same reason— were the reviewing court to rule in favor of the plaintiff and make the agency go through the proper procedures, there is no guarantee that it would decide differently.

There is another preliminary hurdle that administrative challengers must meet. Under the APA, a court may only review “final agency ac- tion.”65 Like the general requirement of standing, this ensures that dis- putes are focused enough for judicial resolution, avoiding “judicial en- tanglement in abstract policy disagreements.”66 The Supreme Court has broken up finality into two separate requirements: “First, the action must mark the ‘consummation’ of the agency’s decisionmaking process . . . it must not be of a merely tentative or interlocutory nature[,]” such as a preliminary rule that could be changed after the public notice-and- comment process. “[S]econd, the action must be one by which ‘rights or obligations have been determined,’ or from which ‘legal consequences will flow.’”67

In most cases, finality overlaps with standing’s injury-in-fact element since the plaintiff is only affected once a regulation is legally binding, and a regulation is only legally binding once it is final.68 Since accrual is based on injury, it is often an easy shortcut to say that a claim accrues upon final agency action—and many courts do.69 But this does not mean

63 504 U.S. at 572 n.7. 64 Id. 65 5 U.S.C. § 704 (2012). This category includes “the whole or a part of an agency rule,

order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act.” Id. § 551(13).

66 Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55, 66 (2004). 67 Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177–78 (1997) (citations omitted). 68 Id. 69 See, e.g., Harris v. FAA, 353 F.3d 1006, 1009–10 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“[A] suit challeng-

ing final agency action pursuant to section 704 must be commenced within six years after the right of action first accrues. The right of action first accrues on the date of the final agency action.” (citations omitted)).

170 Virginia Law Review [Vol. 103:157

that the two are absolutely tied together. Instead, finality and injury are two separate concepts: A final agency regulation only causes injury to a party once he or she is actually affected by it, and this could first happen decades after the regulation became final. A recent opinion by Judge Sutton on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recognized this distinction:

Some courts, it is true, have suggested that an APA claim “first ac- crues on the date of the final agency action.” But these cases show why we don’t read precedents like statutes. These cases all involved settings in which the right of action happened to accrue at the same time that final agency action occurred, because the plaintiff either be- came aggrieved at that time or had already been injured.70

Courts offhandedly noting that administrative claims accrue upon final agency action cannot really mean what they say—they are arguably be- ing led astray by the Wind River doctrine.

III. THE WIND RIVER DOCTRINE

Section 2401(a)’s six-year time limit applies to all of the administra- tive challenges discussed above.71 For statutory and constitutional chal- lenges it operates like a normal statute of limitations, only starting to run once the agency regulation in question has actually caused injury to the potential plaintiff. But for both procedural and policy-based agency challenges, the Wind River doctrine has effectively turned Sec- tion 2401(a) into a statute of repose. Once six years have passed from the agency’s action, it cannot be challenged on policy or procedural grounds, even if the would-be challenger was not actually injured before the time limit expired. Thus, Wind River’s gloss on Section 2401(a) wipes out these rights of action before they come into existence. This Part will first discuss how the Wind River doctrine developed in the Ninth Circuit, and then how it came to be the law in seven other circuits.

A. Development of the Doctrine

Wind River’s now-prevalent judicial gloss on Section 2401(a) emerged in the early 1990s with two Ninth Circuit cases: Shiny Rock

70 Herr v. U.S. Forest Serv., 803 F.3d 809, 819–20 (6th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). 71 Id. at 817–18.

2017] (Un)Limiting Administrative Review 171

Mining Corp. v. United States72 and Wind River.73 Of note, though both Section 2401(a) and the APA had been around for many decades before the Wind River doctrine emerged, courts did not begin to find that Sec- tion 2401(a) applied to APA claims until the 1980s.74 This explains why the doctrine emerged when it did—soon after the two statutes were linked together.

Shiny Rock turned on the meaning of accrual under Section 2401(a) in the context of a procedural agency challenge, with the Ninth Circuit concluding that accrual occurred on final agency action.75 The case’s timeline began in 1964, when the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) issued a public order that protected a tract of land from appro- priation for mining use.76 Fifteen years later in 1979, Shiny Rock applied to the BLM for a mineral patent that would enable it to mine the tract in question and was rejected because of the prior public order.77 Shiny Rock then challenged the procedural validity of that order, “arguing that there were errors and violations of statutes and regulations in [its] for- mulation and publication.”78 The Ninth Circuit ultimately dismissed the plaintiff’s suit as time-barred, holding that its claim accrued upon final agency action in 1964 and thus Section 2401(a) cut it off in 1970—nine years before the plaintiff even applied for a mining permit.79 In so doing, the court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that accrual could not have happened until later.80

Shiny Rock argued that standing to sue “is a prerequisite to the accru- al of a right of action for statute of limitations purposes.”81 But the Ninth Circuit found this seemingly clear-cut point “fatally flawed” because of policy concerns, asserting that adopting the plaintiff’s argument “would virtually nullify the statute of limitations for challenges to agency or- ders.”82 It also mistakenly relied on Sierra Club v. Penfold, a case that

72 906 F.2d 1362, 1366 (9th Cir. 1990). 73 946 F.2d at 715–16. 74 See, e.g., Sierra Club v. Penfold, 857 F.2d 1307, 1315 (9th Cir. 1988); Impro Prods. v.

Block, 722 F.2d 845, 849–50, 850 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1983). 75 Shiny Rock, 906 F.2d at 1366. 76 Id. at 1363. 77 Id. 78 Id. 79 Id. at 1366. 80 Id. at 1364–66. 81 Id. at 1365. 82 Id. As a side note, the Shiny Rock court does not deserve all of the blame for this error.

The plaintiff did not provide a single citation for its accrual argument, despite the wealth of

172 Virginia Law Review [Vol. 103:157

did involve the application of Section 2401(a) to a procedural challenge, but did not address claim accrual at all.83 Shiny Rock also argued that injury “was necessary for the right of action to accrue,” and the court re- jected this argument “for the same reasons” it rejected the standing ar- gument.84 The court then vaguely asserted that “the only injury required for the statutory period to commence was that incurred by all persons when . . . the amount of land available for mining claims was decreased” and at that time “any interested party” could have sued.85 It is unclear whether the court meant that the statutory period began running against everyone when a single “interested party” acquired a right to sue, or whether it meant that anyone could have sued in 1964 regardless of their concrete interest in the case. Either way, the court was wrong: Accrual is analyzed plaintiff-by-plaintiff, and a party cannot bring suit in federal court without a concrete injury.86 Ultimately, the best support for Shiny Rock’s holding is a pragmatic concern for agency finality that the court expressed in a few one-off sentences.

One year later, the Wind River court expanded on these policy ration- ales to justify Shiny Rock’s rule, but still did not adequately analyze the textual meaning of Section 2401(a). Like Shiny Rock, Wind River in- volved a mining company frustrated by a BLM order protecting land for environmental reasons.87 In 1979 the BLM designated a tract of federal land in California a Wilderness Study Area (“WSA”).88 By statute, WSAs are “roadless areas of five thousand acres or more” having certain wilderness characteristics.89 Over a several-month period between 1982 and 1983, Wind River staked several mining claims within the region,

authority available to support it. Id.; see supra Part I; infra Section IV.A. If the case had been better argued, then maybe the Ninth Circuit would have gone the other way and nipped the Wind River doctrine in the bud. The whole episode illustrates that the arguments a lawyer makes for his client in a single case can have far-reaching jurisprudential consequences— like a Chinese butterfly that flaps its wings and causes a thunderstorm in Central Park.

83 Shiny Rock, 906 F.2d at 1365 (citing Sierra Club v. Penfold, 857 F.2d 1307, 1316 (9th Cir. 1988)). The court would have done better had it instead looked at its own precedent from four years earlier in Acri v. International Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 781 F.2d 1393, 1396 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Under federal law a cause of action accrues when the plaintiff is aware of the wrong and can successfully bring a cause of action.”).

84 Shiny Rock, 906 F.2d at 1365. 85 Id. at 1365–66. 86 See supra Section II.B; infra Section IV.A. 87 Wind River, 946 F.2d at 711. 88 Id. 89 Id. (citing 43 U.S.C. § 1782(a) (1988)).

2017] (Un)Limiting Administrative Review 173

but was prevented from actually mining the land due to its designation as a WSA.90 In 1987 Wind River asked the BLM to declare its prior de- cision invalid, alleging that it was both beyond the agency’s statutory authority (because the land was not “roadless” as required by the statute) and an unconstitutional taking.91 After it was rebuffed by the agency’s internal review process, Wind River sued in federal court in 1989, mak- ing the same statutory and constitutional arguments.92 The case eventual- ly came before the Ninth Circuit, where the BLM raised Sec- tion 2401(a)’s limitations period as a defense.93

The Wind River court recognized that the case turned on the date of accrual and focused on that point.94 After summarizing Shiny Rock’s analysis of a procedural challenge and surveying other circuits’ analyses of statutory challenges, the court adopted a rule that it believed “ma[de] the most sense.”95 Although it was only faced with statutory and consti- tutional challenges, it reached out and created an overarching framework that governed accrual for all administrative challenges. First, it an- nounced that a challenge based on either a “mere procedural violation” or on policy grounds must be brought within six years of the agency’s action.96 Admitting that this result was “not dictated” by Ninth Circuit precedent in Shiny Rock, the court justified it on policy grounds.97 It ar- gued that for procedural and policy challenges the basis for bringing a claim

will usually be apparent to any interested citizen within a six-year pe- riod following promulgation of the decision; one does not need to have a preexisting mining claim in an affected territory in order to as- sess the wisdom of a governmental policy decision or to discover pro- cedural errors in the adoption of a policy. The government’s interest in

90 Id. 91 Id. at 711–12. 92 Id. at 712. 93 Id. 94 Id. at 714. 95 Id. at 715. Although the Wind River court attributed its approach to a prior decision of

the D.C. Circuit, that case did not come close to announcing Wind River’s chosen framework for administrative challenges. Id. (citing Oppenheim v. Campbell, 571 F.2d 660, 662–63 (D.C. Cir. 1978)). Indeed, Oppenheim held that a cause of action accrues when a plaintiff’s “right to resort to federal court [is] perfected.” 571 F.2d at 662.

96 Wind River, 946 F.2d at 715. 97 Id.

174 Virginia Law Review [Vol. 103:157

finality outweighs a late-comer’s desire to protest the agency’s action as a matter of policy or procedure.98

In contrast, the court held that statutory and constitutional challenges may be brought “within six years of the agency’s application of the dis- puted decision to the challenger” regardless of when the initial decision itself was made.99 It reasoned that “[s]uch challenges, by their nature, will often require a more ‘interested’ person than generally will be found in the public at large” and that “[t]he government should not be permit- ted to avoid all challenges to its actions, even if ultra vires [beyond legal authority], simply because the agency took the action long before any- one discovered the true state of affairs.”100 Notably absent from the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning was a textual analysis of the statute its holding was based on—Section 2401(a). Applying its newly discovered frame- work, the court held that because Wind River’s challenge was based on statutory authority it did not accrue until the agency’s final decision was applied to the plaintiff in 1987, and thus its 1989 suit was timely under Section 2401(a).101

Departing from the traditional understanding of claim accrual can lead to odd results. Cloud Foundation v. Kempthorne is one of many ex- amples.102 That case involved an environmental group’s policy-based challenge to a 1987 BLM land-use plan that sealed off the land at issue from access by wild horses.103 The Montana district court rejected the plaintiff’s 2006 challenge as time-barred by Section 2401(a).104 The court acknowledged that “[u]nder federal law a cause of action accrues when the plaintiff is aware of the wrong and can successfully bring a cause of action”105 but still found that the plaintiff’s challenge became time-barred six years after the plan was published, even though it admit- ted that the plaintiff did not even exist at that time.106 (It probably goes without saying that a plaintiff who does not yet exist cannot “successful- ly bring a cause of action.”) The court justified this odd result by assert-

98 Id. 99 Id. at 716. 100 Id. at 715. 101 Id. at 716. 102 546 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 1010–11 (D. Mont. 2008). 103 Id. at 1006–07. 104 Id. at 1010–11. 105 Id. at 1010 (emphasis added) (quoting Acri v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists, 781 F.2d 1393,

1396 (9th Cir. 1986)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 106 Id. at 1011.

2017] (Un)Limiting Administrative Review 175

ing that publication in the Federal Register was somehow “legally suffi- cient notice” to the (nonexistent) plaintiff, and by citing Wind River.107 The district court’s result was correct because it was bound by Ninth Circuit precedent, but its twisted legal reasoning illustrates the problems with the Wind River doctrine.

B. Spread of the Doctrine

Despite its problems, Wind River has been very influential. Its frame- work has been adopted by the Second,108 Fourth,109 Fifth,110 Sixth,111 Eleventh,112 D.C.,113 and Federal114 Circuits.115 Most of them cited Wind River in doing so, and none of them discussed the issue in more detail than the Wind River court itself. No circuit has rejected it. A reader might be skeptical that a doctrine so troubling could yet become so widely accepted without dissent. But indeed it has, for a variety of rea- sons.

The most common reason why courts adopt Wind River’s approach is a misunderstanding of the relationship between claim accrual and “final agency action” under the APA. As explained above, though both events can and often do happen at the same time, they are not invariably tied together.116 An agency’s final action might not actually injure a party un-

107 Id. (citing Wind River, 946 F.2d at 715). 108 Wong v. Doar, 571 F.3d 247, 263 & n.15 (2d Cir. 2009) (holding that a procedural

APA challenge was time-barred because, “[u]nder the APA, the statute of limitations begins to run at the time the challenged agency action becomes final” (citing Wind River, 946 F.2d at 716)).

109 Hire Order Ltd. v. Marianos, 698 F.3d 168, 170 (4th Cir. 2012) (holding that a policy- based facial challenge was time-barred because “[w]hen, as here, plaintiffs bring a facial challenge to an agency ruling . . . ‘the limitations period begins to run when the agency pub- lishes the regulation’” (quoting Dunn-McCampbell Royalty Interest v. Nat’l Park Serv., 112 F.3d 1283, 1287 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing Wind River, 946 F.2d at 715))).

110 Dunn-McCampbell, 112 F.3d at 1287 (citing Wind River, 946 F.2d at 715). 111 Sierra Club v. Slater, 120 F.3d 623, 631 (6th Cir. 1997) (holding the procedural chal-

lenge had accrued on final agency action and was therefore time-barred when plaintiff brought suit).

112 Alabama v. PCI Gaming Auth., 801 F.3d 1278, 1292 (11th Cir. 2015). 113 See JEM Broad. Co. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 320, 324 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (noting the time limit

for bringing a procedural administrative challenge under a different statute of limitations be- gan to run upon final agency action).

114 Preminger v. Sec’y of Veterans Affairs, 517 F.3d 1299, 1306–07 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 115 Of course, the Ninth Circuit still follows Wind River as well. See Ctr. for Biological

Diversity v. Salazar, 695 F.3d 893, 904 (9th Cir. 2012) (reaffirming the Wind River frame- work in passing).

116 See supra notes 69–70 and accompanying text.

176 Virginia Law Review [Vol. 103:157

til many years later. But courts can muddle these two concepts together when they cite or quote previous cases out of context. For instance, in Harris v. FAA, the D.C. Circuit incorrectly stated that under the APA a “right of action first accrues on the date of the final agency action.”117 As support, it quoted similar language from a previous case, Impro Products v. Block.118 But Impro Products cannot support such a broad statement; that case just happened to involve a situation where “final agency action” and claim accrual overlapped because the plaintiff was immediately injured.119 Indeed, that court used the proper test for accru- al: “Plainly, the cause of action accrues when the ‘right to resort to fed- eral court [is] perfected.’”120

The misconception that APA claims accrue on final agency action has become pervasive throughout the law, often appearing where courts adopt Wind River’s framework. It has even taken on a life of its own. For instance, in Sierra Club v. Slater, the Sixth Circuit noted in passing that “[u]nder the APA, a right of action accrues at the time of ‘final agency action.’”121 Its only authority was the APA itself, which says nothing about accrual. There was no analysis of the issue beyond that single sentence. Nonetheless, the Federal Circuit relied on Slater for that same proposition when it adopted the Wind River framework ten years later.122 And then the Second Circuit in turn relied on that Federal Cir- cuit case when it adopted Wind River.123 It appears that many courts are adopting the Wind River doctrine on the basis of a mistaken assumption.

Some litigants have noticed, but their efforts to convince courts have failed. For example, the Fifth Circuit adopted the Wind River framework over a plaintiff’s objections.124 The plaintiff in that case advocated a

117 353 F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2004). 118 Id. (“In this case, where no formal review procedures existed, the cause of action ac-

crued when the agency action occurred.” (quoting Impro Prods. v. Block, 722 F.2d 845, 850–51 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

119 Impro Prods., 722 F.2d at 850–51. 120 Id. at 850 (alteration in original) (quoting Oppenheim v. Campbell, 571 F.2d 660, 662

(D.C. Cir. 1978)). 121 120 F.3d 623, 631 (6th Cir. 1997) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 704 (1994)). 122 Preminger v. Sec’y of Veterans Affairs, 517 F.3d 1299, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing

Slater, 120 F.3d at 631 and Wind River, 946 F.2d at 714). 123 Wong v. Doar, 571 F.3d 247, 263 & n.15 (2d Cir. 2009). The Second Circuit also relied

on Harris, 353 F.3d at 1010, a case that is similarly unsupported, as shown in the previous paragraph.

124 Dunn-McCampbell Royalty Interest v. Nat’l Park Serv., 112 F.3d 1283, 1287–88 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing Wind River, 946 F.2d at 715).

2017] (Un)Limiting Administrative Review 177

“[d]iscovery [r]ule” of accrual—that the statute of limitations should have only started to run against the plaintiff when it actually acquired a possessory interest in the regulated land, rather than the earlier date when the land regulation was passed.125 The government responded that Wind River’s approach was correct, and the Fifth Circuit agreed.126 Its analysis relied heavily on summaries of cases from other circuits.127 The Federal Circuit adopted Wind River in a similar fashion.128 Its only justi- fication was a concern that under the plaintiff’s theory “there effectively would be no statute of limitations”—the same policy concern that moti- vated Wind River itself.129

The Fourth Circuit’s opinion in Hire Order Ltd. v. Marianos130 is a good example of all the issues discussed in the previous three para- graphs. In that case, the Fourth Circuit adopted and then used the Wind River doctrine to reject a policy-based administrative challenge as time- barred by Section 2401(a).131 The two plaintiffs were both gun dealers who first became federally licensed in 2008.132 They found themselves unable to sell guns to out-of-state residents because of a Bureau of Al- cohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) rule promulgated by the agency over thirty years before, in 1969.133 Believing the state resi- dency restriction to be arbitrary and capricious, the plaintiffs brought a policy-based challenge.134 The Marianos court held that the plaintiffs’ claims had accrued on “final agency action” in 1969 and thus were for- ever barred by Section 2401(a) six years later in 1975.135 Like many oth- er courts, it mistakenly relied on a case where “final agency action” and claim accrual happened to occur at the same time to support the proposi- tion that they always occur at the same time.136 It then recited the Wind

125 Brief of Appellants at 47, Dunn-McCampbell, 112 F.3d 1283 (No. 95-40770). 126 Brief for Appellees at 17–18, Dunn-McCampbell, 112 F.3d 1283 (No. 95-40770) (cit-

ing Wind River, 946 F.2d at 715). 127 Dunn-McCampbell, 121 F.3d at 1287–88. 128 Preminger v. Sec’y of Veterans Affairs, 517 F.3d 1299, 1306–07 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (cit-

ing Wind River, 946 F.2d at 714). 129 Id. at 1307. 130 698 F.3d 168 (4th Cir. 2012). 131 Id. at 170. 132 Id. at 169. 133 Id. 134 Id. 135 Id. at 170 (citing Wind River, 946 F.2d at 715) (internal quotation marks omitted). 136 Id. (citing Jersey Heights Neighborhood Ass’n v. Glendening, 174 F.3d 180, 186 (4th

Cir. 1999)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

178 Virginia Law Review [Vol. 103:157

River framework without any independent analysis.137 The plaintiffs had argued for a normal injury-based understanding of accrual, citing Su- preme Court authority in doing so.138 But the Fourth Circuit found that this argument “utterly fail[ed]” for no reason other than that the plain- tiffs happened to be bringing a policy-based challenge.139

Apart from courts and litigants, the Wind River doctrine has gone al- most entirely unscrutinized by commentators. The one exception is an environmental law treatise—Public Natural Resources Law.140 It con- tains a section on Section 2401(a) that briefly discusses the doctrine.141 The authors’ principal problem is that it “create[d] exceptions not de- creed by Congress.”142 Section 2401(a) simply states that “civil actions against the United States must be commenced within six years ‘after the right of action first accrues,’” without “distinguish[ing] between proce- dural and substantive challenges or between ‘policy’ and ‘ultra vires’ challenges.”143 In other words, their problem with Wind River is not that its understanding of accrual was incorrect, but that it did not pick a uni- form accrual date for all administrative claims. The authors did briefly mention what the proper accrual date should be, and they got it right. After acknowledging that “finality” favors the date of agency action and “fairness” favors the date when the plaintiff was affected, they chose the latter because it was more congruent with standing requirements for ad- ministrative claims.144 No other source seriously engages with the Wind River doctrine.145

A reader might wonder how Wind River could go virtually unnoticed and unscrutinized for so long. First of all, it is quite possible that many courts share Wind River’s policy concern for agency finality, and are predisposed to reject the alternative plain-text reading given its potential to cause a serious increase in the volume of administrative litigation. A

137 Id. 138 Opening Brief of Appellants at 8–10, Marianos, 698 F.3d 168 (No. 11-1802). 139 Marianos, 698 F.3d at 170. 140 1 George Cameron Coggins & Robert L. Glicksman, Public Natural Resources Law (2d

ed. 2015). 141 Id. § 8:36, at 8-224 to -25, 8-227 to -30. 142 Id. at 8-230. 143 Id. at 8-229 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a)). 144 Id. at 8-230 to -31. 145 One article about facial constitutional challenges contains a paragraph that mentions the

Wind River doctrine but then summarily determines that it must not mean what it says, and cites other cases applying a normal accrual rule. Timothy Sandefur, The Timing of Facial Challenges, 43 Akron L. Rev. 51, 70–71 (2010).

2017] (Un)Limiting Administrative Review 179

less cynical explanation is that courts have a tendency to mistakenly equate “final agency action” with claim accrual, as discussed above.146 Indeed, courts have been using imprecise phrasing on this issue for over a hundred years.147 They can often get away with it because, in the vast majority of cases, the defendant’s allegedly unlawful action immediately causes the plaintiff’s injury without any gap in time.148 As the discussion above shows, a single court’s confusion of the issue can quite easily be picked up by others,149 especially when litigants are not vigilant— something that happens all too often.150 This problem might be magni- fied here because “accrual” is a transsubstantive concept; lawyers who specialize in administrative law might not be aware of how unusual Wind River’s conception of accrual is to the legal world as a whole. Ad- ditionally, like all statutes of limitations, Section 2401(a)’s operation is very clear-cut. Thus, Wind River’s gloss on the statute provides a very clear signal to any potential litigant, and likely dissuades many of them from even attempting to challenge the doctrine once their circuit has adopted it. Ultimately, as much as we would like to believe otherwise, legal errors really can go unnoticed for many years.151

IV. THE MEANING OF SECTION 2401(a)

This Part will do what no one else has: take an in-depth look at what Section 2401(a) means. The key to evaluating Wind River’s fidelity to Section 2401(a) is the meaning of the word “accrue,” and all sources of authority on that issue point in one direction. A litigant’s claim cannot accrue until he has a right to sue. Section IV.A will examine the original meaning of Section 2401(a)’s predecessor, while Section IV.B will trace

146 See supra notes 117–23. 147 See infra notes 170–76 and accompanying text. 148 For example, in a run-of-the-mill battery tort, the plaintiff is immediately affected (and

immediately acquires the right to sue) upon completion of the defendant’s harmful/offensive touching.

149 See supra notes 116–23 and accompanying text. 150 See, e.g., supra note 82. 151 See, e.g., John F. Duffy, Are Administrative Patent Judges Unconstitutional?, 77 Geo.

Wash. L. Rev. 904, 904–05, 904 n.1, 912 (2009) (discovering that the appointment method for administrative patent judges, which had been in place for nearly ten years, was “almost certainly unconstitutional,” prompting a change in the relevant statute); Jacqueline Bell, Questions Linger over Patent Judge Appointments, Law360 (Aug. 12, 2008), https://www.law360.com/articles/65957/questions-linger-over-patent-judge-appointments [https://perma.cc/E7P7-KJ6D].

180 Virginia Law Review [Vol. 103:157

the statute’s development over time. Section IV.C will then briefly eval- uate Wind River on its own terms, as a matter of policy.

A. Textual Analysis

In the absence of “persuasive reasons to the contrary,” the “words used in a statute are to be given their ordinary meaning.”152 Ordinary meaning refers to the “contemporary, common meaning” of the words “at the time Congress enacted the statute.”153 For Section 2401(a) the relevant time is 1887, when its first statutory parent was enacted as part of the Tucker Act.154 Though its surrounding provisions have been modi- fied and its location moved since then, the substance of its right-accrual framework has remained unchanged.155 Indeed, the relevant language has only been amended once since 1887, during an organizational recod- ification in 1948 that was meant to “continu[e] . . . existing law.”156 Be- fore this recodification, the relevant language barred suits against the government unless brought “within six years after the right accrued for which the claim is made.”157 After it, the operative provision read (and still reads): “within six years after the right of action first accrues.”158 It is clear that the legal directive supplied by the text of Section 2401(a) today is the same as was supplied by the original Tucker Act in 1887.

So the key question is this: In 1887, what did it mean for a right of ac- tion to “accrue”? There is a wealth of authority on this point, and it all suggests that causes of action accrued when the particular plaintiff was able to bring suit, and not a moment before. Subsection IV.A.1 explains the general understanding of claim accrual in 1887. Subsection IV.A.2 will then specifically analyze the late-nineteenth-century claims that are most analogous to modern APA claims. Subsection IV.A.3 looks at Su- preme Court precedent from that time. Finally, Subsection IV.A.4 con-

152 Burns v. Alcala, 420 U.S. 575, 580–81 (1975). 153 BedRoc Ltd. v. United States, 541 U.S. 176, 184 (2004) (quoting Perrin v. United

States, 444 U.S. 37, 42 (1979)) (first internal quotation marks omitted). 154 See supra Part I. 155 See supra Part I. 156 See Act of June 25, 1948, ch. 646, § 2680, sec. 2(b), 62 Stat. 869, 985 (1948); Fourco

Glass Co. v. Transmirra Prods. Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 227 (1957) (“Statements made by sev- eral of the persons having importantly to do with the 1948 revision are uniformly clear that no changes of law or policy are to be presumed from changes of language in the revision un- less an intent to make such changes is clearly expressed.”).

157 Act of Mar. 3, 1887, ch. 359, § 1, 24 Stat. 505, 505. 158 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) (2012).

2017] (Un)Limiting Administrative Review 181

cludes with what this analysis means for the Wind River doctrine. Though perhaps a bit copious, these sources offer the best clues to Sec- tion 2401(a)’s actual meaning, and conclusively show that the Wind Riv- er doctrine is inconsistent with that meaning.

1. General Understanding of Claim Accrual

Conveniently enough, the 1887 Tucker Act was bookended in 1883159 and 1893160 by the first and second editions of the self-proclaimed “most exhaustive work” on the law of limitations: H.G. Wood’s Treatise on The Limitation of Actions at Law and in Equity.161 For reference, the fol- lowing analysis cites sections of the first edition, but these sections are all either identically worded or at least substantively the same in the sec- ond edition.162 The only difference is ten more years’ worth of cases— there was no drastic change in the law of limitations between 1883 and 1893.

In chapter one the first edition announced: “It may be stated, as the uniform result of the cases decided on the statute of limitations, that it does not deprive a party of his remedy, unless he has been guilty of the laches or default contemplated therein.”163 (Laches is basically negligent failure to enforce one’s rights.164) A plaintiff who does not bring suit un- til he actually has a cause of action is obviously not “guilty” of negligent delay in any sense. Indeed, this was exactly the point that Wood was making—he cited a wealth of American and English cases refusing to find that a plaintiff’s cause of action had accrued before he had one. For example, Wood cited Murray v. East India Co., where the court de-

159 H.G. Wood, A Treatise on the Limitation of Actions at Law and in Equity (Boston,

Soule & Bugbee Law Publishers 1883). 160 H.G. Wood, A Treatise on the Limitation of Actions at Law and in Equity (Boston, The

Bos. Book Co., 2d ed. 1893). 161 The Preface to the later third edition began: “Mr. Wood’s treatise upon the Law of Lim-

itations has long been recognized as the most exhaustive work upon the subject existing in America or England.” H.G. Wood & John M. Gould, A Treatise on the Limitation of Actions at Law and in Equity, at iii (3d ed. 1901).

162 For example, compare Wood, supra note 159, at 11, with 1 Wood, supra note 160, at 18; Wood, supra note 159, at 254, with 1 Wood, supra note 160, at 311–12; Wood, supra note 159, at 330–31, with 1 Wood, supra note 160, at 413–14; Wood, supra note 159, at 362–64, with 1 Wood, supra note 160, at 447–49.

163 Wood, supra note 159, at 11 (citing cases). 164 See Laches, Black’s Law Dictionary (1st ed. 1891) (defining “laches” as “[n]egligence,

consisting in the omission of something which a party might do, and might reasonably be expected to do, towards the vindication or enforcement of his rights”).

182 Virginia Law Review [Vol. 103:157

clared, “It cannot be said that a cause of action exists unless there be al- so a person in existence capable of suing.”165 This plaintiff-focused ap- proach was further confirmed by Wood’s inclusion of an entire chapter on the extent to which potential plaintiffs’ legal disabilities postpone the running of the limitations period against them.166

Wood backed up his assertion that this general rule was “the uniform result of the cases decided on the statute of limitations” by discussing hundreds of cases in various areas of the law.167 Take contracts for ex- ample. Chapter Ten, entitled “When Statute Begins to Run. Contracts,” starts out:

Must be Party to sue or be sued. — By the express terms of all the statutes, the statute of limitations only begins to run from the time when the right of action accrues; but an important rule to be borne in mind in determining when the statute attaches to a claim is, that at the time when a right of action accrues there must be in existence a party to sue and be sued, or the statute does not attach thereto.168

The law governing contract claims is quite pertinent to determining Section 2401(a)’s original meaning, since the original Tucker Act pri- marily applied to contract suits against the federal government.169 In 1887, as a matter of law, a party’s right of action could not “accrue” un- til both he and it actually existed.

The same was true of tort claims, though there were some finer dis- tinctions involved. Wood began by noting that for torts, “the statute usu- ally commences to run from the date of the tort” as opposed to when the plaintiff discovers his injury.170 But he then clarified that there has not actually been a tort until the plaintiff can legally sue, even if only for nominal damages. The relevant distinction is between when there has been a legal wrong done to the plaintiff, at which time his cause of ac-

165 Wood, supra note 159, at 11 n.4 (quoting Murray v. East India Co. (1865) 106 Eng.

Rep. 1167; 5 B. & Ald. 204) (internal quotation marks omitted). 166 Id. at 471. 167 Id. at 11. 168 Id. at 254 (citing cases). Despite the somewhat ambiguous reference to “a party to sue,”

the examples cited and discussed make it clear that the author was not implying that once a single person could sue the statute began to run against everyone.

169 See Act of Mar. 3, 1887, ch. 359, 24 Stat. 505. Again, the Tucker Act is § 2401(a)’s precursor. See supra notes 16–19 and accompanying text.

170 Wood, supra note 159, at 362.

2017] (Un)Limiting Administrative Review 183

tion accrues, and when the plaintiff discovers the consequences of that legal wrong:

Although, as has been seen, time commences usually to run in a de- fendant’s favor from the time of his wrongdoing, and not from the time of the occurrence to the plaintiff of any consequential damage, yet in order to produce this result it is necessary that the wrongdoing should be such that nominal damages may be immediately recovered. Every breach of duty does not create an individual right of action. . . . Thus a breach of public duty may not inflict any direct immediate wrong on an individual; but neither his right to a remedy, nor his lia- bility to be precluded by time from its prosecution, will commence till he has suffered some actual inconvenience.171

Wood deemed this principle “an invariable rule.”172 The analogy to modern administrative claims is apparent. An agency might breach its public duty to follow proper procedures, but until a specific plaintiff suf- fers “some actual inconvenience,” his claim against the agency has not accrued and the statute of limitations should not begin to run against him.

Wood’s treatise covered a wide variety of causes of action and factual situations but these principles remained consistent throughout all of them. For instance, it discussed what happened to a creditor’s claim when he died. In a situation where at time #1 the creditor dies, at time #2 the debtor subsequently defaults, and at time #3 an administrator is ap- pointed to represent the legal interests of the creditor’s estate, statutes of limitations did not begin to run until time #3.173 This was again based on the principle that “the statute cannot begin to run until there is a person in existence capable of suing or being sued upon the claim.”174 At time #2 the dead creditor was obviously unable to bring suit, and because an administrator had not yet been appointed, the cause of action was still in legal limbo. The date of the defendant’s action was not relevant.

Likewise, in suits by judgment creditors (victorious plaintiffs) against sheriffs who collected their winnings but did not turn them over within the statutorily prescribed period, accrual occurred at the end of the peri- od—the moment when the sheriff’s violation was complete and the

171 Id. at 363–64 (emphasis added) (citing cases). 172 Id. at 364. 173 Id. at 399–400 (citing cases). 174 Id. at 400.

184 Virginia Law Review [Vol. 103:157

plaintiff could sue him.175 Wood disapprovingly cited a Georgia case that instead found the cause of action accrued when the defendant sheriff collected the judgment:

[T]his doctrine can hardly be regarded as well founded, because the sheriff has the whole period fixed by law within which to make his re- turn, and until that time has elapsed the creditor has no means of knowing whether the sheriff intends to pay over to him the money col- lected, or not; nor, until the return-day has passed, can he maintain an action against him either for not collecting, or for refusing to pay over the money when collected.176

The same was true of salaciously named “seduction” actions, in which fathers sued seducers for “the loss of service consequent upon the seduc- tion, debauching, and impregnation of [their] daughter[s].”177 In these cases, the statute did not begin to run “until the birth of the child and the mother’s recovery therefrom, or in other words, until the loss of service has accrued”—as opposed to the defendant’s act of seduction, which presumably occurred about nine months earlier.178

It appears that in 1887, Wood’s work was the only American treatise devoted to statutes of limitations. But its comprehensive nature and co- pious case citations suggest it is fairly reliable as a restatement of the generally existing law at the time. Further, Wood’s conclusions were confirmed by other sources. For instance, John Kelly’s A Treatise on the Code Limitations of Actions Under All State Codes, first published in 1903.179 It contained an entire chapter devoted to “When the Cause of Action Accrues” that begins:

The cause of action accrues at the time the party is entitled to sue, de- mand relief, or make the entry. . . . it is logical that the cause accrue when the party has been “hurt” and not when the other party has vio- lated the contract or the law, unless both concur, because there are cases where the breach or the wrong did not cause the “hurt.”180

175 Id. at 330–31. 176 Id. at 331 (citing Thompson v. Cent. Bank of Ga., 9 Ga. 413 (1851)) (emphasis added). 177 Wilhoit v. Hancock, 68 Ky. (5 Bush) 567, 568 (1869). 178 Wood, supra note 159, at 384 (citing Wilhoit, 68 Ky. (5 Bush) 567). 179 John F. Kelly, A Treatise on the Code Limitations of Actions Under All State Codes

(1903). 180 Id. at 91 (emphasis added).

2017] (Un)Limiting Administrative Review 185

This is consistent with Black’s definition. The 1891 edition defined “statute of limitations” as “[a] statute prescribing limitations to the right of action on certain described causes of action; that is, declaring that no suit shall be maintained on such causes of action unless brought within a specified period after the right accrued.”181 “Accrue” was defined as fol- lows: “to arise, to happen, to come into force or existence; as in the phrase, ‘The right of action did not accrue within six years.’”182

2. Accrual of Claims Arising out of Public Duties

Although in the late nineteenth century there was no cause of action like that currently contained in the APA, there were various claims that could be raised against local government officials for violation of their public duties.

One example: actions against municipal recording officers for errors in registering property titles. These lawsuits were surprisingly com- mon—in fact the question of their accrual date eventually earned its own American Law Reports database.183 Much like torts, these causes of ac- tion were said to accrue at the time of the wrongful act, but the relevant distinction was still between the time of legal wrong and the time of consequential damages.

It may be observed that there is a difference between situations in which an undiscovered wrong exists, and liability could be enforced if knowledge thereof existed, and those in which the complaining party, who may be damaged, had no previous right or capacity to enforce such a liability. It seems evident that this distinction, among others, must be kept in mind in any discussion of direct and consequential damages, in this connection.184

In each case discussed in the database, the court focused on when the plaintiff became legally entitled to sue as the earliest possible date of ac- crual, even if the actual harm was quite slight and the full consequences of the local government official’s error did not become apparent until later.185

181 Statute of Limitations, Black’s Law Dictionary (1st ed. 1891). 182 Accrue, Black’s Law Dictionary (1st ed. 1891) (emphasis omitted). 183 Annotation, When Statute of Limitation Commences to Run Against an Action Based

on Breach of Duty by Recording Officer, 110 A.L.R. 1067 (1937). 184 Id. at 1068. 185 Id. at 1067–70.

186 Virginia Law Review [Vol. 103:157

For example, in State ex rel. Graham v. Walters, a municipal recorder incorrectly registered a lender’s lien such that it covered a third party’s land rather than the borrower’s.186 As a result, when the borrower took out a second mortgage, it gained credit priority over the first one.187 The first lender’s cause of action accrued when the error was made—at that time he was legally capable of suing; even if he had not yet investigated the facts and learned of his right, it still existed:

The fact that a person entitled to an action has no knowledge of his right to sue, or of the facts out of which his right arises, does not pre- vent the running of the statute, or postpone the commencement of the period of limitation, until he discovers the facts or learns of his rights thereunder. Nor does the mere silence of the person liable to the action prevent the running of the statute. To have such effect, there must be something done to prevent discovery,—something which can be said to amount to concealment.188

The question was about when the plaintiff first became legally entitled to sue. It was the plaintiff’s responsibility to discover that he had such a right, and assuming no concealment by the defendant, it was his fault that he did not do so. The statute of limitations operated to punish the plaintiff who slept on his rights.

But plaintiffs could not be punished for sleeping on rights that they did not yet have, and the cases reflected that. Bank of Hartford County v. Waterman is one example.189 There, a bank had sued a debtor and asked the sheriff to attach his property at the outset to ensure that it was still there if and when the bank obtained a final judgment against him.190 Several years later the bank won, but to their surprise the sheriff had at- tached the wrong property, and there was nothing left to satisfy the judgment.191 The bank sued the sheriff, and he raised the statute of limi- tations as a defense, arguing that the bank’s claim against him accrued when he made the error over two years earlier—beyond the limitations period.192 The court rejected his defense because it found that the bank

186 66 N.E. 182, 182 (Ind. App. 1903). 187 Id. 188 Id. at 184. 189 26 Conn. 324 (1857). 190 Id. at 325. 191 Id. at 326. 192 Id.

2017] (Un)Limiting Administrative Review 187

was not able to sue until it actually had a legal entitlement to the debt- or’s property—an entitlement that was frustrated by the improperly rec- orded title:

The consequences are not, in such a case, mere aggravating circum- stances, enhancing a legal injury already suffered or inflicted; nor are they the mere development of such a previous injury, through which development the party is enabled for the first time to ascertain or ap- preciate the fact of the injury; but, inasmuch as no legal wrong existed before, they are an indispensable element of the injury itself, and must therefore themselves fix, or may fix, the period when the statute of limitations shall commence to run. Authorities can hardly strengthen a proposition so manifestly just. If we are wrong, some strictly legal in- juries might never for a moment be capable of redress.193

It then elaborated on the unique issues involved in determining accrual for causes of action arising out of public duties:

[W]here the duty is of a public nature, there is no direct relation be- tween the public officer and the party in whose behalf the duty is to be performed. . . . The duty violated is primarily a duty to the public; the violation is therefore unlawful; and when its consequences are the in- vasion of an individual right, (and then only,) it becomes a proper sub- ject of redress by him.194

The court analogized the public duty at issue to the duty of a municipali- ty to keep the roads clear. This duty is for the benefit of each individual, and each is harmed by its breach, but that does not entitle each individu- al to sue.195 Of course, the sheriff’s duty to properly attach property for a particular plaintiff does not seem so generalized, an argument that the court did not address. Regardless, its discussion of public duties is illus- trative and could easily be mapped onto a modern discussion of private suits against agencies for violating their public duties under the APA. Finally, even if the court’s answer was wrong, it was asking the right question—when was this particular plaintiff entitled to bring suit?

193 Id. at 331–32 (emphasis omitted). 194 Id. at 336. 195 Id.

188 Virginia Law Review [Vol. 103:157

All of the public duty cases of this era turned on that question.196 A slightly later case and the commentary it spurred are further evidence of this point. Like Graham above, State ex rel. Daniel v. Grizzard involved a lender who lost priority on a debtor’s assets because of an improperly recorded mortgage.197 Like other cases, the court determined that the lender could have sued the recorder at the moment he breached his duty, and thus the statute of limitations began to run at that time, rather than when the lender discovered the mistake.198 It distinguished cases where “there was no one in esse [existence] to sue,” consistent with other cases of that era.199 Still, Grizzard was swiftly criticized two months later by a commenter who thought the court’s holding was unfair to plaintiffs and out of step with the law:

The theory of the case is that a negligent breach of official duty is in itself an invasion of the rights of all members of the class likely to be affected by it. Such a doctrine is fantastic on its face, and entirely at variance with the principle that actual damage is an essential part of an action for negligence.200

This is probably an exaggeration of Grizzard’s holding. But it is an ac- curate description of the reasoning underlying the modern Wind River doctrine. Compare the above statement with the discussion in Shiny Rock Mining Corp. v United States of Section 2401(a) in procedural agency challenges:

The only injury required for the statutory period to commence was that incurred by all persons when, in 1964 and 1965, the amount of land available for mining claims was decreased.

196 See, e.g., Betts v. Norris, 21 Me. 314, 319 (1842) (“It is undoubtedly very true, that no

man has a right of action against a wrongdoer, unless he is personally injured. But . . . [for] every violation of the rights of a particular individual, the law implies damage. It may be but nominal. But still a right of action accrues for it.”); see also McKinder v. Littlejohn, 23 N.C. (1 Ired.) 66, 74–75 (1840) (“[U]nless there be a person against whom claim may rightfully be made, the bar of the statute does not attach. It is indispensable to the prosecution of a claim, that there should be a person in being, against whom it may of right be demanded, as that there should be a rightful claimant in existence, to bring it forward; or that the claim be of such a nature as that its performance may be demanded.”

197 23 S.E. 93, 93 (N.C. 1895). 198 Id. at 94. 199 Id. at 95. 200 Recent Cases, 9 Harv. L. Rev. 356, 363 (1895).

2017] (Un)Limiting Administrative Review 189

Once notice of the land withdrawals was given by publication in the Federal Register, the six-year limitation period of 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) was triggered, for at that time any interested party acquired a “right to file a civil action in the courts against the United States.”201

To borrow from the language above, this reasoning probably would have been considered “fantastic on its face” in 1887.

3. Persuasive Supreme Court Precedent

Unfortunately there is not a wealth of Supreme Court precedent that addresses the question of accrual in suits against the federal government. But the cases that do exist are consistent with the legal principles dis- cussed above.

Rice v. United States was decided three days after the Tucker Act be- came law and briefly addressed claim accrual in the context of another federal statute of limitations.202 The timeline began as the Civil War was winding down in 1864, when “persons duly authorized and acting in be- half of the United States” seized nearly $50,000 worth of cotton from a Georgia citizen.203 The Court found that a statute of limitations enacted in 1877 applied and accordingly denied certiorari.204 The statute barred “[e]very claim against the United States cognizable by the court of claims” that was not brought “within six years after the first claim first accrues.”205 The date of accrual was undisputed because the case turned on whether the statute of limitations applied at all, but the Court still noted in passing that “[a] claim first accrues, within the meaning of the statute, when a suit may first be brought upon it, and from that day the six-years limitation begins to run.”206 Though the Court did not go any deeper than that, the very fact that it made this statement so nonchalantly suggests that it reflected a generally understood legal reality. This reality bears strongly on the meaning of the similarly worded and then-recently enacted Tucker Act.

201 906 F.2d 1362, 1365–66 (9th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted) (quoting Crown Coat Front Co. v. United States, 386 U.S. 503, 511 (1967)). 202 Act of Mar. 3, 1887, ch. 359, 24 Stat. 505, 505; Rice v. United States, 122 U.S. 611,

611 (1887). 203 Rice, 122 U.S. at 612. 204 Id. at 620. 205 Id. at 616. 206 Id. at 617 (emphasis added).

190 Virginia Law Review [Vol. 103:157

Two years later, the Court analyzed accrual under a state statute of limitations in Redfield v. Parks.207 That case involved a dispute over a parcel of land. It was initially owned by the U.S. government, which transferred it to the plaintiff’s predecessor in 1875.208 In 1882 plaintiff brought an ejectment action against the defendant, who claimed adverse possession—he had in fact possessed the land since 1868, and the state statute of limitations barred real property claims after seven years.209 Against an ordinary plaintiff this claim would have been successful, but since statutes of limitations do not run against the government, the claim did not accrue until the private plaintiff himself acquired title in 1875:

If it be shown that the plaintiff has not the legal title; that the legal title at the time of the commencement of the action or at its trial is in some other party—the plaintiff cannot recover. The facts in the present case show that this title to the land in controversy was in the United States until the 15th day of April, 1875. Up to that time the statute of limita- tions could not begin to run in bar of any action dependent on this ti- tle. The plaintiff could not sue or recover in the courts of the United States upon the equitable title evinced by his certificate of purchase made by the register of the land office. His title, therefore, being de- rived from the United States, the right of action at law to oust the de- fendant did not commence until the making of that patent.210

Plaintiff’s 1882 claim was (just barely) within the seven-year state stat- ute of limitations. Consistent with the cases discussed above, his claim did not accrue until he was able to bring it in court.

4. Conclusion

In 1887 there were well-established legal principles on what it meant for a claim to “accrue” under a statute of limitations. Then, as today, the rationale behind these statutes was plaintiff-focused. They encouraged potential plaintiffs to pursue their rights diligently by punishing them when they did not. Therefore, it was “the uniform result of the cases” that statutes of limitations did not bar plaintiffs’ claims unless they were “guilty” of negligent delay in pursuing their legal rights.211 This meant

207 132 U.S. 239 (1889). 208 Id. at 241. 209 Id. at 242. 210 Id. at 244. 211 See Wood, supra note 159, at 11.

2017] (Un)Limiting Administrative Review 191

that a limitations period did not begin before a plaintiff actually existed, and not just a plaintiff—the plaintiff against whom the statute was raised must have been “in existence” and “capable of suing.”212 To be capable of suing, the potential plaintiff must have actually suffered some legal harm. So it was an “invariable rule” that the statute of limitations did not begin to run against a plaintiff until “he ha[d] suffered some actual in- convenience.”213 At that time, the plaintiff actually had a legal right to sue—his claim had accrued, and he could be punished for failing to bring it in time.

This proposition was considered “manifestly just” because otherwise “some strictly legal injuries might never for a moment be capable of re- dress.”214 The time of the defendant’s allegedly wrongful action was not independently relevant. It just happened to often match up with when the plaintiff suffered a legal wrong. The same was true of broad public du- ties to large groups of people. Though the violation of such a duty in a sense caused harm to a wide array of people, a potential plaintiff’s claim did not accrue (and the statute of limitations did not begin to run) until he or she suffered a particularized legal wrong.215

This was the legal background against which the Tucker Act was passed, and by extension the legal background against which Sec- tion 2401(a) should be interpreted. Though in 1887 there was no cause of action exactly like that currently provided by the APA, these princi- ples are very informative. They strongly suggest that the Wind River doctrine’s gloss on Section 2401(a) is inconsistent with its textual mean- ing.

By its terms, the Wind River doctrine considers the plaintiff’s status irrelevant in determining when his claim accrues—all that matters is when the defendant agency acted.216 Six years after that date, the cov- ered claims of everyone who then exists or will exist in the future are barred. This is inconsistent with the plaintiff-centered approach embod- ied in statutes of limitations.217 It bars claims of plaintiffs who do not yet exist and claims of existing plaintiffs who are not yet “adversely affect-

212 See id. at 11 n.4 (citing Murray v. East India Co. (1865) 106 Eng. Rep. 1167, 1171;

5 B. & Ald. 204, 214–15). 213 Supra notes 171–72 and accompanying text. 214 Bank of Hartford Cty. v. Waterman, 26 Conn. 324, 331–32 (1857). 215 See supra notes 183–200 and accompanying text. 216 See supra Part III. 217 Wood, supra note 159, at 11.

192 Virginia Law Review [Vol. 103:157

ed or aggrieved” by the agency’s action.218 These plaintiffs were clearly not guilty of negligence in failure to pursue their rights, but they are nonetheless barred by Section 2401(a). As a result, their “strictly legal injuries [are] never for a moment . . . capable of redress”—an outcome that any lawyer reading the Tucker Act in 1887 would probably have thought was “manifestly [un]just.”219 And it cannot be justified by some hidden intent of Congress either. Again, statutes of repose, which oper- ate like the Wind River doctrine, did not come into existence for nearly a hundred years, in the mid-twentieth century.220 Wind River’s defendant- centered doctrine would probably have been beyond comprehension in 1887.

B. Other Interpretive Sources

Any interpretation of Section 2401(a) should be anchored by what it meant for a right of action to “accrue” in 1887. But that is not the end of the matter. This Section will first trace Section 2401(a)’s development as the statute has undergone several minor amendments over the years, amidst the ongoing evolution of the law. Next, this Section will review how modern courts have interpreted Section 2401(a) in contexts outside of the Wind River doctrine’s reach. Ultimately, this context further con- firms its original meaning. Indeed, were a court to analyze Sec-

218 5 U.S.C. § 702 (2012). 219 See Bank of Hartford Cty., 26 Conn. at 331–32. 220 See Milton F. Lunch, Statutes of Repose Under Attack; Laws Protecting Design Profes-

sionals and Contractors from Suit Are Being Challenged in Oklahoma and Missouri, Build- ing Design & Construction, Aug. 1990, at 29 (noting that the first statute of repose was en- acted in 1961); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 899 cmt. g (Am. Law Inst. 1979) (noting that statutes of repose had been adopted by some states “in recent years”). The term “statute of repose” is meant to refer to statutes that insulate the defendant from being sued by anyone for an allegedly unlawful act after a specified period of time (as Wind River inter- prets § 2401(a) to do). This is a slight oversimplification, as there were preexisting statutory time limits that operated in a similar way—as substantive conditions on rights themselves. Wood, supra note 159, at 1–2. For instance, there were time limits on executing a judgment. Id. at 2. But these statutes were meant to serve “public convenience” as opposed to balancing policies of repose against rights of action. See Battle v. Shivers, 39 Ga. 405, 409–10 (1869) (explaining the operation of these statutes and how they were not “statutes of limitations”). Similar statutes were later enacted at the federal level to govern specific types of orders is- sued by specific governmental entities. See 28 U.S.C. § 2344 (2012) (giving aggrieved par- ties the right to file a petition for review of an agency order “within 60 days after its entry”). Point being, modern statutes of repose were an unknown legal concept when the Tucker Act was enacted in 1887, and the statutes that did operate to cut off rights certainly did not refer to “accrual” of a potential plaintiff’s legal claim.

2017] (Un)Limiting Administrative Review 193

tion 2401(a)’s meaning today on a blank slate it would likely not follow the Wind River approach.

1. Statutory Development

When it was enacted in 1887, Section 2401(a)’s predecessor barred suits against the United States that were not “brought within six years after the right accrued for which the claim is made.”221 The very fact that the language mentions a “right” is the first contextual clue that the stat- ute does not begin to run until the plaintiff can actually bring suit. The language presupposes that a right to sue exists and is then cut off after the passage of time, whereas Wind River prevents rights of action from coming into existence in the first place.222

The statute was first amended in 1911. Congress left the operative sentence unchanged but added a tolling provision that read in relevant part:

Provided, That the claims of married women, first accrued during marriage, of persons under the age of twenty-one years, first accrued during minority, and of idiots, lunatics, insane persons, and persons beyond the seas at the time the claim accrued, entitled to the claim, shall not be barred if the suit be brought within three years after the disability has ceased.223

This amendment further confirms the statute’s plaintiff-focused ap- proach.224 It protects the claims of specific individuals who for various reasons might have been practically unable to pursue their claim when it accrued. This language would be pointless if the statute was meant to run against every potential plaintiff when just one became entitled to sue, or if it was meant to run from the time the government acted regard- less of potential plaintiffs’ legal or practical capacity to sue. Further, to the extent that the reenactment of the operative provision without change

221 Act of Mar. 3, 1887, ch. 359, 24 Stat. 505, 505. 222 See CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 134 S. Ct. 2175, 2187 (2014) (making a similar point in

interpreting a different statute). 223 Act of Mar. 3, 1911, Pub. L. No. 475, § 24, 36 Stat. 1087, 1093. 224 See Waldburger, 134 S. Ct. at 2187–88 (making a similar point in interpreting a differ-

ent statute).

194 Virginia Law Review [Vol. 103:157

“sweeps up” then-existing legal meanings, the definition of “accrue” had not changed between 1887 and 1911.225

The next amendment was in 1948. (Of note, the APA itself was en- acted two years earlier,226 but there is no reason to think that it had any substantive impact on Section 2401(a).227) The amendment contained three changes: 1) the operative provision was slightly reworded; 2) the tolling provision was broadened into a general catch-all that covered all legal disabilities; and 3) the entire statute was relocated to its current home in Section 2401(a).228 This relocation alone is not substantively meaningful, and to the extent the tolling amendment matters it merely reaffirms the argument in the paragraph above (perhaps strengthening it because the broader language evinces an enhanced concern for plain- tiffs). The operative provision still remained substantially the same: a six-year time limit for bringing claims based on when they accrued. But it could at least be argued that the slight rewording and reenactment of the provision was intended to codify then-existing understandings of ac- crual.229

To the extent that this is true, it only further undermines Wind River. In 1948 the law had begun a shift towards a more plaintiff-friendly in- terpretation of accrual. Again, traditional doctrine had found accrual as soon as a plaintiff technically had the legal ability to sue, even if he had not yet discovered the facts that gave him this right.230 Because this

225 See Kelly, supra note 179, at 91; 1 H.G. Wood, A Treatise on the Limitation of Actions

at Law and in Equity 615–16 (4th ed. 1916). 226 See supra notes 28–29 and accompanying text. 227 The APA does not mention claim accrual and does not contemplate any limitations pe-

riod at all. Indeed, courts did not discover that § 2401(a)’s six-year limit applied to APA claims until thirty years later. See supra note 74 and accompanying text.

228 Act of June 25, 1948, ch. 646, § 2401, 62 Stat. 869, 971. After the amendment it read in full:

Every civil action commenced against the United States shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues. The action of any person under legal disability or beyond the seas at the time the claim accrues may be commenced within three years after the disability ceases.

229 Of course, this argument would have to get over a big hurdle—the 1948 recodification is presumed to have worked no change in the then-existing law. Act of June 25, 1948, ch. 646, § 2680, sec. 2(b), 62 Stat. 869, 985; Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Prods. Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 227 (1957) (“Statements made by several of the persons having importantly to do with the 1948 revision are uniformly clear that no changes of law or policy are to be pre- sumed from changes of language in the revision unless an intent to make such changes is clearly expressed.”).

230 See supra Section IV.A.

2017] (Un)Limiting Administrative Review 195

could lead to unfair results, some courts had begun to move towards a more liberal “discovery rule,” where a claim did not accrue until it was both legally cognizable and reasonably discoverable by the plaintiff.231 All courts still maintained that at least the former was required for a plaintiff’s claim to accrue.232 Indeed, the fact that legislatures enacted new statutes in the 1970s when they wanted to create time limits based on the defendant’s action further proves that then-existing accrual-based statutes of limitations did not operate in this way.233

Section 2401(a) was next amended in 1978, when a preliminary clause was added to remove claims covered by the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 from its reach.234 Nothing else was changed. Accrual still had the same meaning.235 In 2011 the provision was amended for the last time, when the phrase “Contract Disputes Act” was replaced with that Act’s location in the code. The preliminary clause now reads: “Except as provided by chapter 71 of title 41 . . . .”236 The 1978 and 2011 amend- ments left the operative provisions untouched.

In short, Section 2401(a) has been amended several times throughout the years, but it has always been a normal, accrual-based statute of limi- tations. Congress has never changed this basic substance.

2. Congressional Inaction

It could be argued that congressional inaction indicates a tacit approv- al of the Wind River doctrine. After all, the doctrine has been in place for more than twenty years and Congress has failed to override it. However, this argument probably fails for a number of reasons.

First, congressional inaction plays a minor part, if any, in the interpre- tation of statutes. The Supreme Court itself has said so: “As a general matter . . . we have stated that [arguments based on congressional inac-

231 See Developments in The Law: Statutes of Limitations, 63 Harv. L. Rev. 1177, 1200,

1216–17 (1950). This coincided with and was likely influenced by the merger of law and equity, since the equitable equivalent of statutes of limitations—laches—operated based on discovery rather than accrual. Id. at 1213.

232 Id. at 1200. 233 See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 899 cmt. g (Am. Law Inst. 1979). 234 Contract Disputes Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95–563, § 14(b), 92 Stat. 2383, 2389. 235 Compare Accrue, Cause of Action, Black’s Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1968) (“A cause of

action ‘accrues’ when a suit may be maintained thereon”), with Accrue, Cause of Action, Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979) (same).

236 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) (2012); Act of Jan. 4, 2011, Pub. L. No. 111–350, § 8707, sec. 5(g)(8), 124 Stat. 3677, 3848.

196 Virginia Law Review [Vol. 103:157

tion] deserve little weight in the interpretive process.”237 This is particu- larly true where courts are asked to adopt a gloss that is “inconsistent with the controlling statute,” as Wind River apparently is.238 The reason that congressional inaction is such a weak indicator of intent to acqui- esce is that it could indicate many other things as well. It is

impossible to assert with any degree of assurance that congressional failure to act represents (1) approval of the status quo, as opposed to (2) inability to agree upon how to alter the status quo, (3) unawareness of the status quo, (4) indifference to the status quo, or even (5) politi- cal cowardice.239

Second, whatever weight congressional inaction has, it has generally been used as a tool of stare decisis. Specifically, courts use it to add to the precedential force of previous interpretations.240 This plainly limits the doctrine’s impact to jurisdictions that are actually bound by the pre- vious decision. So Congress’s failure to override Wind River should be irrelevant in any of the circuits that have not yet adopted the doctrine and, most importantly, in the Supreme Court. Though some individual Justices on the Court have expressed a willingness to use congressional inaction more expansively, their view appears to be disfavored.241 For

237 Cent. Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, 511 U.S. 164, 187 (1994). 238 Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115, 121 (1994). In these situations, “congressional silence

‘lacks persuasive significance.’” Id. (quoting Cent. Bank of Denver, 511 U.S. at 187). 239 Johnson v. Transp. Agency, 480 U.S. 616, 672 (1987) (Scalia, J., dissenting); see also

Zuber v. Allen, 396 U.S. 168, 185 n.21 (1969) (“Congressional inaction frequently betokens unawareness, preoccupation, or paralysis.”). See generally Caleb Nelson, Statutory Interpre- tation 448–53 (2011) (discussing various problems with using congressional inaction in the interpretative process).

240 See, e.g., Watson v. United States, 552 U.S. 74, 82–83 (2007) (“[I]n 14 years Congress has taken no step to modify Smith’s holding, and this long congressional acquiescence ‘has enhanced even the usual precedential force’ we accord to our interpretations of statutes.” (quoting Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 23 (2005) (citation omitted))); see also Nel- son, supra note 239, at 448 (“[P]eople sometimes maintain that the legislature’s failure to override prominent judicial interpretations of statutes should add to the precedential force of those interpretations.”).

241 Nelson, supra note 239, at 454; see, e.g., Hubbard v. United States, 514 U.S. 695, 711 (1995) (plurality opinion of Stevens, J., joined by Ginsburg and Breyer, JJ.) (finding it per- suasive that “Congress has not seen fit to repudiate” either a Supreme Court decision or a “substantial following” of lower court decisions in tension with statutory text); Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485, 500 (1994) (Souter, J., dissenting, joined by Blackmun and Ste- vens, JJ.) (“Congress’s failure to express legislative disagreement with the appellate courts’ reading of the [statute] cannot be disregarded, especially since Congress has acted in this ar- ea in response to other Courts of Appeals decisions that it thought revealed statutory flaws

2017] (Un)Limiting Administrative Review 197

good reason. Aside from the general problems discussed above, aggres- sive use of congressional inaction would effectively allow lower courts to set precedent for the Supreme Court.242

Third, even assuming that congressional inaction can be considered here, it has little significance for Wind River. To be relevant, congres- sional inaction must indicate actual approval. Congress cannot have ap- proved of a doctrine that it is unaware of, and it is probably unaware of Wind River.

Courts look to a number of indicators of congressional awareness, and none are present here. Legislative proposals are one such indicator. If bills dealing with the previous gloss have been proposed and rejected, then courts assume that Congress is aware of and happy with the status quo.243 The classic example is Flood v. Kuhn, where the Court declined to overrule its prior decision exempting baseball from the antitrust laws.244 There, over fifty bills had been introduced on the subject, but none had passed.245 Here, there have been no proposed amendments to Section 2401(a).

In the absence of express proposals on the subject, congressional awareness has to be inferred from a variety of factors. One is subject matter—if the glossed statute covers an area that Congress frequently monitors and changes, such as tax law, then it is more likely that the gloss has been considered.246 Unlike tax, there is no congressional com- mittee charged with overseeing administrative agencies as a whole.247 Instead, administrative issues typically come up in the context of com- mittee oversight over specific subject matters and agencies. It is likely

requiring ‘correct[ion].’” (alternation in original)). But see Manhattan Props., Inc. v. Irving Tr. Co., 291 U.S. 320, 336 (1934) (“What of the activities of the Congress while this body of decisions interpreting section 63a was growing? From 1898 to 1932 the Bankruptcy Act was amended seven times without alteration of the section. This is persuasive that the construc- tion adopted by the courts has been acceptable to the legislative arm of the government.” (footnote omitted)).

242 See Nelson, supra note 239, at 454 (expressing this concern). 243 Id. at 453. 244 407 U.S. 258, 282 (1972). 245 Id. at 281. 246 See Zuber v. Allen, 396 U.S. 168, 186 n.21 (1969) (noting that the significance of con-

gressional silence “is greatest when the area is one of traditional year-by-year supervision, like tax, where watchdog committees are considering and revising the statutory scheme”); see also 26 U.S.C. § 8001 (2012) (establishing the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxa- tion).

247 See Congressional Committees, GovTrack, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/co mmittees/ [https://perma.cc/GKA7-9KRZ].

198 Virginia Law Review [Vol. 103:157

that Congress has missed the forest for the trees and is unaware of Wind River’s gloss on Section 2401(a).

Congressional awareness can also be inferred when Congress amends one part of the relevant statute but does not change the previously glossed section.248 As a preliminary matter, it is important to differenti- ate this argument from the concept of “implicit codification.” Implicit codification occurs when Congress recodifies the provision that has ac- tually been interpreted, rather than neighboring provisions.249 Doing so without change can indicate an intent to “bake in” the previous gloss in- to the newly enacted provision. Here, Congress amended the first few words of Section 2401(a) in 2011 but did not change or recodify the op- erative accrual provision.250 Thus, the 2011 amendment cannot be con- sidered an implicit codification of Wind River’s gloss on that provision. At most it could serve as evidence of acquiescence, but the circumstanc- es indicate that it probably is not.

Regarding acquiescence, the Supreme Court has instructed that when “Congress has not comprehensively revised a statutory scheme but has made only isolated amendments . . . ‘[i]t is impossible to assert with any degree of assurance that congressional failure to act represents’ affirma- tive congressional approval of the [previous] statutory interpretation.”251 The phrase “isolated amendment” describes what happened in 2011 to a T. The amendment was one sentence of a 186-page reorganizational bill, replacing “the Contract Disputes Act of 1978” with “chapter 71 of title 41.”252 The legislative history does not even mention Section 2401(a), let alone Wind River. Not only that, but the House Report is quite clear that the amending Congress wanted to “conform to ‘the understood policy, intent, and purpose of the Congress in the original enactments’” as op- posed to subsequent judicial interpretations.253 It also repeatedly empha- sizes that the bill is simply organizational and thus “not intended to have

248 Nelson, supra note 239, at 454. 249 2B Norman J. Singer & J.D. Shambie Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction

§ 49:8, at 117 (7th ed. 2012) (“Th[e] rule is based upon the theory that a legislature is famil- iar with a contemporaneous interpretation . . . and therefore impliedly adopts the interpreta- tion upon reenactment.” (emphasis added)).

250 Act of Jan. 4, 2011, Pub. L. No. 111–350, § 8707, sec. 5(g)(8), 124 Stat. 3677, 3848. 251 Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 292 (2001) (quoting Patterson v. McLean Credit

Union, 491 U.S. 164, 175 n.1 (1989)). 252 Act of Jan. 4, 2011 § 8707, sec. 5(g)(8). 253 H.R. Rep. No. 111-42, at 2 (2009) (emphasis added) (quoting 2 U.S.C. § 285b(1)

(2006)).

2017] (Un)Limiting Administrative Review 199

substantive effect.”254 It would be quite difficult to convince a court that this miniscule afterthought in a reorganizational codification was some- how a tacit acceptance of the Wind River doctrine.

In sum, (1) congressional inaction deserves little, if any, weight in the interpretive process; (2) to the extent that it matters it should only serve as an argument against overruling Wind River in the circuits that have already adopted it, not as an argument in favor of adopting it in new ju- risdictions; and (3) even if the doctrine is expanded beyond this use and applied here, the circumstances do not indicate that Congress is aware of Wind River. Finally, it is also worth mentioning that adoption by silence would also go against two more prominent legal developments: the move towards a discovery rule of accrual and the existing glosses on Section 2401(a) in every other type of claim that it covers.255 Both of these shifts further deepen the divide between Wind River’s understand- ing of accrual and its meaning in every other area of law. For all of these reasons, Congress’s failure to override Wind River is irrelevant.

3. Analogous Judicial Interpretations

The Supreme Court and various circuit courts have addressed the meaning of accrual for other claims covered by Section 2401(a) and for other similarly worded statutes of limitations. They have uniformly fol- lowed the usual understanding of accrual outlined above in Section IV.A. Wind River’s unconventional interpretation sticks out like a sore thumb. Because of Wind River, Section 2401(a) has two different mean- ings: one for procedural and policy-based administrative claims, and an- other for every other claim to which it applies.

In Crown Coat Front Co. v. United States, the Supreme Court found that a contract claim against the federal government “accrued” under Section 2401(a) when the plaintiff could first bring suit, and not be- fore.256 The alleged contract violation occurred in 1956, but under the contract the aggrieved plaintiff had agreed to go through administrative proceedings before it could sue in court.257 These proceedings did not end until 1963, when the agency (unsurprisingly) decided that it had not

254 Id. 255 Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549, 555 (2000) (“Federal courts, to be sure, generally apply

a discovery accrual rule when a statute is silent on the issue.”). For a discussion of the other types of claims covered by § 2401(a) see infra Subsection IV.B.3.

256 386 U.S. 503, 514 (1967). 257 Id. at 505–07.

200 Virginia Law Review [Vol. 103:157

done anything wrong.258 The plaintiff promptly sued, seeking contract damages and challenging the decision as “arbitrary, capricious and not supported by substantial evidence”—words very much resembling the language of a policy-based challenge under the APA.259 Having delayed the plaintiff’s lawsuit with its administrative process, the agency said that it had become time-barred by Section 2401(a).260 The Supreme Court unanimously rejected that defense, holding that because the plain- tiff was unable to bring suit before the review process had finished, its claim did not accrue until that time261—“It is only then that his claim or right to bring a civil action against the United States mature[d] and . . . he ha[d] ‘the right to demand payment . . . the hallmark of ac- crual of a claim in this court.’”262 Otherwise, some contract plaintiffs would never be able to seek judicial review for their injuries, an “unfor- tunate impact” that the Court wanted to avoid.263 If Crown Coat’s hold- ing were extended to APA claims, the Wind River doctrine would not stand.

Several circuit courts have read Section 2401(a) the same way. For instance, the D.C. Circuit has stated that “[a] cause of action against an administrative agency ‘first accrues,’ within the meaning of § 2401(a), as soon as (but not before) the person challenging the agency action can institute and maintain a suit in court” and “[t]hat a statute of limitations cannot begin to run against a plaintiff before the plaintiff can maintain a suit in court seems virtually axiomatic.”264 But the court was discussing agency challenges under FOIA rather than the APA—in fact, the D.C.

258 Id. at 508. 259 Id. at 507. 260 Id. at 508. 261 Id. at 512–14. 262 Id. at 514 (emphasis added) (quoting Nager Elec. Co. v. United States, 368 F.2d 847,

859 (1966)) (fourth alteration in original). 263 Id. The Court also noted:

[T]he hazards inherent in attempting to define for all purposes when a “cause of ac- tion” first “accrues.” Such words are to be “interpreted in the light of the general pur- poses of the statute and of its other provisions, and with due regard to those practical ends which are to be served by any limitation of the time within which an action must be brought.”

Id. at 517. On its face this language is broad enough for the Wind River doctrine to pass through. But the Court was merely referring to the specific question of accrual dates in cases where parties have administrative remedies that can or must be pursued before they bring suit in court. Id. at 517–19.

264 Spannaus v. United States, 824 F.2d 52, 56 & n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

2017] (Un)Limiting Administrative Review 201

Circuit actually adopted the Wind River doctrine a few years later.265 It still has not tangled with this inconsistency. Other cases contain similar language to the D.C. Circuit’s accrual rationale in Spannaus v. United States. Examples include the Third Circuit in United States v. Sams (“‘A claim first accrues when all the events have occurred which fix the al- leged liability of the United States and entitle the claimant to institute an action’”)266 and the Eighth Circuit in Andersen v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“For purposes of § 2401(a) a claim accrues ‘when the plaintiff either knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that [he or she] had a claim.’”).267

Wind River’s interpretation of Section 2401(a) is not only inconsistent with other interpretations of that statute, it is also inconsistent with how similarly worded statutes of limitations have been interpreted. Sec- tion 2401(a)’s statutory neighbor is Section 2401(b): the statute of limi- tations for tort claims against the United States.268 It bars any claim that was not “presented in writing to the appropriate federal agency within two years after such claim accrues.”269 In United States v. Kubrick, the Supreme Court held that such a claim accrues “when the plaintiff knows both the existence and the cause of his injury.”270 The three dissenters read the statue even more liberally, wishing to additionally require that the plaintiff have knowledge that his injury was the result of a tort.271 Similarly, in Bay Area Laundry & Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corp. of California, the Court rejected a defendant’s argument that the Employment Retirement Income Security Act’s statute of limita- tions could begin to run before the plaintiff could file suit, calling it “in- consistent with basic limitations principles.”272 Quoting previous cases, the Court asserted:

265 See JEM Broad. Co. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 320, 325–26 (D.C. Cir. 1994). 266 United States v. Sams, 521 F.2d 421, 429 (3d Cir. 1975) (quoting Japanese War Notes

Claimants Ass’n of the Phil. v. United States, 373 F.2d 356, 358 (Ct. Cl. 1967)) (deciding coram nobis post-conviction challenge).

267 Andersen v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 678 F.3d 626, 629 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting Izaak Walton League of Am., Inc. v. Kimbell, 558 F.3d 751, 759 (8th Cir. 2009)) (deciding lawsuit challenging removal of eligibility for federal contracts).

268 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) (2012). 269 Id. 270 444 U.S. 111, 113 (1979). 271 Id. at 126–27 (Stevens, J., dissenting). 272 522 U.S. 192, 200 (1997).

202 Virginia Law Review [Vol. 103:157

“All statutes of limitation begin to run when the right of action is complete[].” Unless Congress has told us otherwise in the legislation at issue, a cause of action does not become “complete and present” for limitations purposes until the plaintiff can file suit and obtain relief. []“While it is theoretically possible for a statute to create a cause of action that accrues at one time for the purpose of calculating when the statute of limitations begins to run, but at another time for the purpose of bringing suit, we will not infer such an odd result in the absence of any such indication in the statute.”[]273

Though that particular statute ran from “the date on which the cause of action arose,” the Court’s discussion is still persuasive.274 The analysis was similar in Franconia Associates v. United States.275 That case turned on the statute of limitations for claims over which the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 2501.276 Such claims are barred un- less the aggrieved party files a petition “within six years after such claim first accrues.”277 The Court rejected the argument “that § 2501 creates a special accrual rule for suits against the United States” and applied the traditional definition of accrual for contract claims.278

Supreme Court and circuit precedent make it clear that statutes of lim- itations operate consistently throughout federal law, and that the gov- ernment is supposed to play by the same rules as everyone else.279

273 Id. at 201 (citation omitted) (first quoting Clark v. Iowa City, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 583,

589 (1875); and then quoting Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258, 267 (1993)). 274 Id. (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1451(f)(1) (2012)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 275 536 U.S 129 (2002). 276 Id. at 138. 277 Id. 278 Id. at 145. 279 However, that statement might need a slight qualification. Statutes defining the scope

of a governmental waiver of sovereign immunity, as limitations periods do, have sometimes been referred to as “jurisdictional” statutes that must be strictly construed. There is now a 4- 3 circuit split on whether § 2401(a) is jurisdictional. See Herr v. U.S. Forest Serv., 803 F.3d 809, 817–18 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing cases from each circuit that has addressed the issue). The Supreme Court has yet to weigh in, although it has acknowledged the split. John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130, 145 (2008) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (“Courts of Appeals have divided on the question whether § 2401(a)’s limit is ‘jurisdictional.’”). Ulti- mately the issue does not impact this Note’s conclusions. A finding that § 2401(a) is jurisdic- tional would not justify the Wind River doctrine—it would simply mean that the statute is not subject to waiver or equitable tolling. The meaning of “accrue” would be unaffected. There is a difference between strictly construing and misconstruing.

2017] (Un)Limiting Administrative Review 203

C. Policy Considerations

Of course, the Wind River opinion did not really try to interpret Sec- tion 2401(a). Instead, it balanced the interests of federal agencies against those of potential plaintiffs and picked a result that it thought made sense. Thus, the analysis above does not actually tackle the doctrine on its own terms—policy. This Section will do so and show that the doc- trine still cannot stand even when policy considerations are taken into account. First, it will briefly address the relevance of these considera- tions in statutory interpretation generally. Then, it will explain and re- spond to the concerns that motived the Wind River court and those that followed it.

1. The Role of Policy in Statutory Interpretation

To start, it is important to clarify the role that policy considerations should play in interpreting statutes. The Supreme Court recently ex- pounded on this issue in a very high profile case—King v. Burwell.280 There, the Court stated that “[i]f the statutory language is plain, we must enforce it according to its terms.”281 That Court determined that the stat- utory language was in fact ambiguous, not plain, based on a purely tex- tual analysis of the statute.282 It only looked to policy considerations af- ter it had found this initial textual ambiguity, as a way to resolve it.283 Because the plaintiffs’ reading would have effectively destroyed health insurance markets, the Court resolved the ambiguity in favor of the gov- ernment.284 This approach shows that no matter how dire the policy con- sequences might be, the Supreme Court only considers them after it has found textual ambiguity. As argued above, the plain text of Sec- tion 2401(a) is unambiguous. Therefore, policy concerns should not matter at all.

280 135 S. Ct. 2480, 2488–89 (2015). 281 Id. at 2489. 282 Id. at 2492 (“After reading Section 36B along with other related provisions in the Act,

we cannot conclude that the phrase ‘an Exchange established by the State under [Section 18031]’ is unambiguous.” (alteration in original)).

283 Id. at 2492–93 (“Given that the text is ambiguous, we must turn to the broader structure of the Act to determine the meaning of Section 36B. . . . Here, the statutory scheme compels us to reject petitioners’ interpretation because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any State with a Federal Exchange, and likely create the very ‘death spirals’ that Congress designed the Act to avoid.” (emphasis added)).

284 Id. at 2496.

204 Virginia Law Review [Vol. 103:157

Of course, the Court has not always been consistent in its approach. Older opinions give leeway to depart from a statute’s text in “rare and exceptional circumstances . . . where the application of the statute as written will produce a result ‘demonstrably at odds with the intentions of its drafters’ . . . so bizarre that Congress could not have intended it.”285 Some Justices take an even more purposivist approach, and “feel freer to go beyond the confines of statutory text” in an effort to “carry out [its] purpose as best [they] can.”286 The ongoing debate between textualism and purposivism is outside the scope of this Note; suffice it to say that unambiguous text is a high hurdle to clear, no matter one’s interpretive approach.

Section 2401(a)’s plain meaning is unambiguous, so it should control. But even if policy consequences are considered, these consequences are certainly not “so bizarre that Congress could not have intended [them].”287 In fact, the plain-meaning interpretation is better as a matter of policy than Wind River’s approach.

2. The Policy Case for Wind River

The Wind River doctrine was initially justified, and has spread, based on a quite reasonable concern for agency finality. Allowing newly in- jured plaintiffs to challenge regulations decades after they have been promulgated would certainly undermine this goal.

No court has provided a better pragmatic defense of the Wind River doctrine than Wind River itself. Its holding essentially rested on a bal- ancing of interests. The court reasoned that cutting off policy and proce- dural challenges six years after an agency action would not significantly undermine agencies’ accountability or parties’ ability to seek review of

285 Demarest v. Manspeaker, 498 U.S. 184, 190–91 (1991) (citations omitted) (quoting

Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 485 U.S. 564, 571 (1982)) (finding that, even though “[t]here may [have] be[en] good reasons” in favor of an atextual reading, that was not enough to disregard the unambiguous text of the statute); see also Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Okla. Tax Comm’n, 481 U.S. 454, 461 (1987) (“Unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise, ‘when we find the terms of a statute unambiguous, judicial inquiry is complete.’” (quoting Rubin v. United States, 449 U.S. 424, 430 (1981))).

286 Abbe R. Gluck, The States as Laboratories of Statutory Interpretation: Methodological Consensus and the New Modified Textualism, 119 Yale L.J. 1750, 1764 (2010) (second al- teration in original) (quoting Henry M. Hart & Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application of Law 1374 (1994)) (internal quotation marks omitted) (placing Justice Breyer in this category).

287 Demarest, 498 U.S. at 191 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2017] (Un)Limiting Administrative Review 205

their decisions.288 Because both types of challenges are based on the soundness of the agency’s initial reasoning process, the grounds for bringing either of them “will usually be apparent to any interested citi- zen within a six-year period following promulgation of the decision.”289 Though the court did not elaborate on this point, it was referencing the limited scope of review used in policy and procedural claims. As ex- plained in Section II.A, policy-based review goes only to the arbitrari- ness of the agency’s initial reasoning process, and procedural review goes to the agency’s compliance with then-existing procedures.290 Given that later events cannot change the scope of this review, the court con- cluded that “[t]he government’s interest in finality outweighs a late- comer’s desire to protest the agency’s action as a matter of policy or procedure.”291

However, the Wind River court decided that the balance is flipped for statutory and constitutional challenges. It argued that these challenges “by their nature, will often require a more ‘interested’ person than gen- erally will be found in the public at large.”292 On the agency’s side of the ledger, the rule of law would be undermined if it could cement unconsti- tutional or unauthorized actions simply by the passage of time.293 “The government should not be permitted to avoid all challenges to its ac- tions, even if ultra vires, simply because the agency took the action long before anyone discovered the true state of affairs.”294 Given this rough balancing of interests, the Wind River court concluded that a bifurcated interpretation of Section 2401(a) “ma[de] the most sense.”295

Many other courts have agreed. Again, eight circuits have adopted the doctrine, often with only a cursory or circular analysis.296 For example, the Federal Circuit adopted Wind River because it thought that otherwise “there effectively would be no statute of limitations” for administrative claims.297 The Fifth Circuit summarily adopted the doctrine too, and the

288 Wind River, 946 F.2d at 715–16. 289 Id. at 715. 290 See supra notes 35–46 and accompanying text. 291 Wind River, 946 F.2d at 715. 292 Id. 293 Id. 294 Id. 295 Id. 296 See supra notes 108–14. 297 Preminger v. Sec’y of Veterans Affairs, 517 F.3d 1299, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing

Wind River, 946 F.2d at 714).

206 Virginia Law Review [Vol. 103:157

dissenting opinion, which did not disagree with the majority’s adoption of Wind River, provided a more detailed justification:

Because it is imperative to the administrative process that procedural challenges be posed at the onset of a newly-promulgated regulation, a number of agency statutes set very short deadlines, e.g. 60 days, on in- itiating such claims. The [defendant agency] lacks such organic statu- tory protection, however, so the six-year general federal limitations statute governs procedural challenges in this case, and no party, in- cluding [the plaintiff], could pursue these challenges after [six years].298

In other words, Section 2401(a) is a catch-all time limit used when Con- gress does not provide a specific time limit for certain procedural chal- lenges, and so it should apply in the same way as those time limits usu- ally do.

Perhaps the most full-throated defense of Wind River is contained in Wildearth Guardians v. Salazar.299 That district court explained that us- ing a plaintiff-based concept of accrual for Section 2401(a)

might very well have the effect of vitiating the essential function of the limitations period—to provide repose when parties elect not to act upon their legal rights in a timely manner. In particular, Plaintiffs’ theory would require federal agencies to constantly reevaluate and de- fend their past policy decisions in perpetuity, even in the absence of a mandatory statutory or regulatory duty to do so, whenever they take some action that somehow pertains to or relies upon those past deci- sions. Simply put, this “theory cannot hold water because . . . it would thwart statutes of limitations by allowing for instant revival of chal- lenges to decades-old agency actions.”300

This is absolutely true. The traditional meaning of accrual does not fac- tor in the date of the defendant’s action, only the time of the plaintiff’s injury.301 Applying this meaning to Section 2401(a) would certainly re- sult in more administrative litigation, as each newly injured party would

298 Dunn-McCampbell Royalty Interest v. Nat’l Park Serv., 112 F.3d 1283, 1289 (5th Cir.

1997) (Jones, J., dissenting) (citations omitted). 299 783 F. Supp. 2d 61 (D.D.C. 2011). 300 Id. at 69 (alteration in original) (quoting Friends of the Earth v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior,

478 F. Supp. 2d 11, 26 (D.D.C. 2007)). 301 See supra Section IV.A.

2017] (Un)Limiting Administrative Review 207

be able to sue, regardless of when the agency action that injured it took place.

3. The Policy Case Against Wind River

Wind River’s policy arguments are not as compelling as they seem, and in fact there are good reasons to follow the plain meaning of Sec- tion 2401(a).

The Wind River court asserted that the procedural or policy problems of a regulation “will usually be apparent to any interested citizen within” six years of its promulgation.302 But what about citizens who do not be- come “interested” or do not even come into existence until later? Even if the grounds for challenging a regulation are apparent to every single person in the country, only those who actually have standing can chal- lenge it in court.303 In the same vein, the Wind River court pointed out that “one does not need to have a preexisting mining claim in an affected territory in order to assess the wisdom of a governmental policy decision or to discover procedural errors in the adoption of a policy.”304 This is true, but a preexisting mining claim (or some other concrete interest) is needed in order to actually sue the agency, and to get a meaningful as- sessment of its wisdom by a federal court. If the courthouse doors are closed to a potential challenger until he has met all of the requirements for standing, it only seems fair that they be opened to him when he final- ly does.

Wind River also argued that statutory and constitutional challenges should be subject to a different rule because “[t]he government should not be permitted to avoid all challenges to its actions, even if ultra vires, simply because the agency took the action long before anyone discov- ered the true state of affairs.”305 But this argument applies equally to pol- icy and procedural challenges. An action that violates either of these le- gal standards is unlawful, just as an action taken without authority is unlawful. It is equally likely that six years could pass before anyone dis- covers that a regulation is arbitrary and capricious or procedurally inva- lid. An agency could announce a decision based on a coin flip, and as long as no one was both aware of and actually injured by the decision, it

302 Wind River, 946 F.2d at 715. 303 See supra Section II.B. 304 Wind River, 946 F.2d at 715. 305 Id.

208 Virginia Law Review [Vol. 103:157

would be completely insulated after six years by the Wind River doc- trine. Ultimately, it appears that Wind River’s decision to treat policy and procedural challenges differently rested on a value judgment that they are less important than statutory and constitutional challenges. This may be true, but it is not a choice that Congress has made in either Sec- tion 2401(a) or the APA.

The Wildearth Guardians court gave another justification for Wind River: A conventional reading of accrual “would require federal agen- cies to constantly reevaluate and defend their past policy decisions in perpetuity” against a flood of administrative challenges by newly injured plaintiffs.306 These concerns are overblown for a variety of reasons. First, standing doctrines place strict limits on the number of plaintiffs who can bring suit. Again, every plaintiff must have (1) a concrete inju- ry that (2) was caused by the agency’s action and (3) is likely to be re- dressed by a favorable court decision, and must additionally (4) fall within the zone of interests of the statute at issue and (5) be challenging a final agency action.307 Second, agencies receive quite a bit of deference in policy-based challenges.308 An agency is insulated as long as it simply “considered the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the policy choice made.”309 It is not hard for agencies to defend their policy choices and for courts to quickly dispose of challenges to them. Only decisions that are truly beyond the pale are subject to invalidation by the reviewing court.310 Third, agencies are already forced to defend their decisions “in perpetuity” from statutory and constitutional chal- lenges. So the proper question is not whether agencies should be com- pletely immune after six years, but rather if they should be immune from certain types of challenges and not others. As argued above, all adminis- trative challenges should be treated the same way.

306 Wildearth Guardians, 783 F. Supp. 2d at 69. 307 See supra Section II.B. 308 See supra Subsection II.A.2. 309 Tenneco Gas v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 969 F.2d 1187, 1196 (D.C. Cir.

1992). 310 Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defs. of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 658 (2007) (“Review

under the arbitrary and capricious standard is deferential; we will not vacate an agency’s de- cision unless it ‘has relied on factors which Congress had not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.’” (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983))).

2017] (Un)Limiting Administrative Review 209

Finally, the Wind River doctrine itself leads to troubling policy re- sults, as this Note has repeatedly pointed out. The purpose of statutes of limitations is to encourage plaintiffs to pursue their rights diligently.311 But Wind River’s gloss on Section 2401(a) indiscriminately eliminates rights of action before they even arise, punishing plaintiffs who have not yet obtained any rights to pursue. This is inconsistent with the funda- mental purpose of limitations statutes, and unfair to these plaintiffs. Re- call Cloud Foundation v. Kempthorne, where the court found that publi- cation in the Federal Register was “legally sufficient notice” to a plaintiff who did not exist when the regulation was published.312

In conclusion, Section 2401(a)’s text is unambiguous, so policy con- siderations should not matter at all. Even if they are factored in, Wind River’s justifications are not as compelling as they seem, and the doc- trine has its own policy problems. Maybe if Congress drafted a new statute of limitations for procedural and policy-based challenges, they would choose to make it run from the time of final agency action. But they have not, and Section 2401(a)’s text says what it says. It should be interpreted to mean what it says.

CONCLUSION

If the Wind River doctrine were to come before the Supreme Court, it would not survive a close look as it currently stands. To adopt the doc- trine, the Court would have to reconceptualize the APA’s right of action as a kind of public right that “accrues” against the whole public when an agency acts, or redefine accrual to encompass everyone who exists or will exist as soon as a single person has a right of action arising out of a given set of facts. Either of these efforts would require an impressive feat of legal gymnastics.313 Wind River’s reading could possibly be justi- fied on policy grounds. However, the Court has claimed that it does not consider policy consequences if the plain text of a statute is unambigu-

311 See supra Section IV.A; see also CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 134 S. Ct. 2175, 2182–83

(2014) (discussing the purposes of statutes of limitations and statutes of repose). 312 546 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 1011 (D. Mont. 2008) (quoting Shiny Rock Mining Corp. v.

United States, 906 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1990)); see supra notes 102–07 and accompa- nying text.

313 The biggest hurdle would be the APA’s text, which plainly contemplates an individual right of action: “A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely af- fected or aggrieved by agency action . . . is entitled to judicial review thereof.” 5 U.S.C. § 702 (2012) (emphasis added).

210 Virginia Law Review [Vol. 103:157

ous. This claim would be put to the test if Wind River were to reach the Court, because there really is no colorable textual argument for any oth- er reading of Section 2401(a). In the meantime, would-be agency chal- lengers who find themselves time-barred by the Wind River doctrine would do well to use this Note as a blueprint for their briefs. Doing so would at least force out some textual argument in support of the doc- trine, or alternatively an admission that it is justified on policy alone. That could lead to a circuit split, Supreme Court review, and victory.

Copyright of Virginia Law Review is the property of Virginia Law Review Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Loading... Accessibility Information and Tips Back 1 article(s) will be saved.

The link information below provides a persistent link to the article you've requested.

Persistent link to this record: Following the link below will bring you to the start of the article or citation. Cut and Paste: To place article links in an external web document, simply copy and paste the HTML below, starting with "<a href"

To continue, in Internet Explorer, select FILE then SAVE AS from your browser's toolbar above. Be sure to save as a plain text file (.txt) or a 'Web Page, HTML only' file (.html). In FireFox, select FILE then SAVE FILE AS from your browser's toolbar above. In Chrome, select right click (with your mouse) on this page and select SAVE AS

Record: 1

Title:: The quality and use of regulatory analysis in 2008.
Authors:: Ellig J; Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Arlington, VA, USA. [email protected] McLaughlin PA
Source:: Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis [Risk Anal] 2012 May; Vol. 32 (5), pp. 855-80. Date of Electronic Publication: 2011 Nov 07.
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Language:: English
Journal Info:: Publisher: Blackwell Publishers Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 8109978 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1539-6924 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 02724332 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Risk Anal Subsets: MEDLINE
Imprint Name(s):: Publication: 2002- : Malden, MA : Blackwell Publishers Original Publication: New York : Plenum Press, c1981-
MeSH Terms:: Government Agencies* Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Information Services ; United States
Abstract:: This article assesses the quality and apparent use of regulatory analysis for economically significant regulations proposed by federal agencies in 2008. A nine-member research team used a six-point (0-5) scale to evaluate regulatory analyses according to criteria drawn from Executive Order 12866 and Office of Management and Budget Circular A-4. Principal findings include: (1) the average quality of regulatory analysis, though not high, is somewhat better than previous regulatory scorecards have shown; (2) quality varies widely; (3) biggest strengths are accessibility and clarity; (4) biggest weaknesses are analysis of the systemic problem and retrospective analysis; (5) budget or "transfer" regulations usually receive low-quality analysis; (6) a minority of the regulations contain evidence that the agency used the analysis in significant decisions; (7) quality of analysis is positively correlated with the apparent use of the analysis in regulatory decisions; and (8) greater diffusion of best practices could significantly improve the overall quality of regulatory analysis. (© 2011 Society for Risk Analysis.)
Entry Date(s):: Date Created: 20111109 Date Completed: 20120822 Latest Revision: 20120502
Update Code:: 20210210
DOI:: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01715.x
PMID:: 22059696
Persistent link to this record (Permalink):: https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mdc&AN=22059696&site=eds-live
Cut and Paste:: <A href="https://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mdc&AN=22059696&site=eds-live">The quality and use of regulatory analysis in 2008.</A>
Database:: MEDLINE Complete

The Quality and Use of Regulatory Analysis in 2008.

This article assesses the quality and apparent use of regulatory analysis for economically significant regulations proposed by federal agencies in 2008. A nine‐member research team used a six‐point (0–5) scale to evaluate regulatory analyses according to criteria drawn from Executive Order 12866 and Office of Management and Budget Circular A‐4. Principal findings include: ( 1) the average quality of regulatory analysis, though not high, is somewhat better than previous regulatory scorecards have shown; ( 2) quality varies widely; ( 3) biggest strengths are accessibility and clarity; ( 4) biggest weaknesses are analysis of the systemic problem and retrospective analysis; ( 5) budget or "transfer" regulations usually receive low‐quality analysis; ( 6) a minority of the regulations contain evidence that the agency used the analysis in significant decisions; ( 7) quality of analysis is positively correlated with the apparent use of the analysis in regulatory decisions; and ( 8) greater diffusion of best practices could significantly improve the overall quality of regulatory analysis.

Keywords: Benefit‐cost; cost‐benefit analysis; regulation; regulatory impact analysis; regulatory process; regulatory reform

Since 1974, all presidents have issued executive orders requiring regulatory agencies to analyze the anticipated effects of proposed regulations. President Obama's Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles and review processes in Executive Order 12866, which has guided regulatory analysis since 1993.([[ 1]])

Scholars, decisionmakers, interest groups, and advocates spill much ink debating whether and how agencies should do regulatory analysis. Some view regulatory analysis as an imperfect but necessary tool for understanding regulation's effects.([ 3]) Others see regulatory analysis as an attempt to "stack the deck" against new regulations, arguing that costs are easier to measure than benefits (pp. 35–36).([[ 4]]) Yet others regard regulatory analysis as a tool for crafting "smart" regulations that do more good than harm.([[ 6]]) Some view the whole enterprise as a fundamentally immoral attempt to put prices on public values that cannot be assigned monetary worth (pp. 61–62).([ 4])

Nonetheless, many scholars agree that regulatory analysis is here to stay.([ 3], [ 6], [ 8], [ 9], [10], [11], [12]) Executive Order 13563 provides further evidence of this. Yet as former Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Administrator Sally Katzen noted, "we still do not know whether the agencies are implementing CBA [cost‐benefit analysis] appropriately and whether the way the agencies use CBA produces better regulatory decisions" (pp. 1314��1315).([11])

This article takes up that challenge. We apply a 12‐point qualitative framework to evaluate regulatory analyses of "economically significant" rules that were reviewed by OIRA in 2008 and proposed in the Federal Register.4 The evaluation criteria are drawn from Executive Order 12866 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A‐4, the 2003 guidance document on best practices in regulatory analysis.([13])

Our evaluation yields numerous insights into the quality and use of regulatory analysis. Principal findings include: ( 1) the average quality of regulatory analysis is not high; ( 2) quality varies widely; ( 3) the biggest strengths in the analyses are accessibility and clarity; ( 4) the biggest weaknesses are analysis of the systemic problem and retrospective analysis; ( 5) budget or "transfer" regulations receive much lower quality analysis than other regulations; ( 6) the agency claimed to use the analysis in significant decisions for a minority of the regulations; ( 7) quality of analysis is positively correlated with the apparent use of the analysis in regulatory decisions; and ( 8) greater diffusion of best practices could significantly improve the overall quality of regulatory analysis.

2. EXISTING LITERATURE AND OUR APPROACH

Several strands of scholarly literature assess the quality of federal regulatory analysis. Some assessments are in‐depth case studies, whereas others apply quantitative scoring methods to numerous regulatory analyses.

2.1. Case Studies

Case studies suggest that even extensive economic analyses of regulations can have significant flaws. They also find that regulatory impact analysis has had marginal effects on some regulations, but rarely if ever drives major decisions.

McGarity presents five case studies from the Reagan administration.([14]) Some are success stories, but they also reveal shortcomings in monetizing benefits, gathering reliable cost data, explaining large uncertainties in estimates, or identifying a wide range of regulatory options. Similarly, Fraas credits good Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs) with improvements in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rules removing lead from gasoline and banning asbestos, but he also finds analytical shortcomings and notes that they did not serve as "blueprints" for the entire EPA decision.([15]) Case studies of 12 EPA rules issued between 1985 and 1995 in Morgenstern (p. 458) reveal that economic analysis always helped reduce costs, and it increased the benefits of five rules.([16]) Nevertheless, economics had little effect on decisions. The analyses exhibited a "considerable range" in quality (p. 456).([16]) Posner performed the only published study we have seen that assesses the quality of regulatory analysis for budget or "transfer" regulations that define how the federal government will spend or collect money.([17]) He concludes that agencies rarely perform analysis for these regulations and presents several cases of inadequate analysis.

Several validation studies judge the quality of RIAs by comparing their predictions to the actual results of the regulation revealed by retrospective analysis. Validation studies find that agencies tend to overstate benefits and costs more frequently than they understate them. OMB concludes that agencies tend to overstate benefit‐cost ratios, whereas independent scholars conclude there is no systematic bias in the ratios. All of these studies find that benefits, costs, and benefit‐cost ratios are inaccurate (over‐ or underestimated) more frequently than they are accurate.([18], [19], [20])

Harrington et al. present the most recent collection of case studies.([10]) They assembled multiple studies of three "relatively sophisticated" RIAs issued during the G. W. Bush administration. Despite their sophistication, the analyses had significant flaws. The authors' recommendations for improvement are: consider meaningful alternative policy options, use baselines that reveal choices and tradeoffs, include a checklist of practices that should be in an analysis, and explain deviations from this list. Noting that some regulatory analyses are prepared after key decisions have been made, they also call on EPA to prepare a preliminary regulatory impact analysis six months before the agency's final review of proposed and final regulations.

2.2. Quantitative Scoring

Quantitative approaches usually employ a "yes/no" checklist to assess whether RIAs include certain elements. Early Government Accountability Office evaluations of health, safety, and environmental regulations found that RIAs frequently failed to include key elements recommended in OMB's guidance.([[21]]) Robert Hahn co‐authored a series of papers that evaluate the quality of analysis for health, safety, and environmental regulations across three administrations—Ronald Reagan, G. H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton—using a "yes/no" checklist based on OMB guidance.([23], [24], [25], [26]) The regulatory analyses of a large sample of environmental regulations covered an average of approximately 30 of 76 items on Hahn's scorecard, or 40% (p. 74).([27])

Belcore and Ellig score the quality of analysis for all economically significant regulations issued by the Department of Homeland Security between 2003 and 2007.([28]) They found that the quality of analysis is generally low but improved over time. They also found that quality tends to be lower for rules issued subject to tight legislative deadlines, or where Congress gave the department little discretion.

Fraas and Lutter assess 13 of the most important rules issued by EPA between 2005 and 2009, after OMB issued new and more detailed guidance in the form of Circular A‐4.([29]) Scores ranged from three points to a maximum possible nine, with an average of 5.25 (58%). Fraas and Lutter maintain that the quality of analysis is generally higher for rules issued under legislation that requires agencies to consider costs or net benefits.

Shapiro and Morrall examine 100 economically significant regulations adopted between 2002 and 2010.([30]) They assign each analysis a score of between zero and six points based on six OMB criteria. Scores ranged from zero to six, with an average of 3.85 (64%). They find that the quality of analysis is unrelated to the size of the rule's net benefits, but rules with lower political salience have higher net benefits.

Both the qualitative and quantitative literature reveal some general patterns. Some RIAs are relatively high quality, but many lack key information, and even the best ones could be improved. Analysis has never dictated decisions but has sometimes influenced decisions on the margin, and occasionally these margins involve large benefits or costs.

2.3. Our Approach

We develop a scoring system to evaluate the quality and use of regulatory analysis for a relatively large number of regulations. Our approach differs from most previous evaluations in several ways.

• 1

It is the first project that evaluates the regulatory analyses accompanying all economically significant regulations proposed in a given year. Most previous evaluations focus on health, safety, and environmental regulations.

• 2

We focus on proposed regulations, rather than final regulations. We seek to gauge the quality of analysis at the earliest possible point, when it arguably has the best chance of affecting decisions. Of course, many decisions have already been made by the time a rule is proposed,([31]) but we remain optimistic that better analysis may sometimes lead to better decisions (pp. 18–19).([32]) In any case, the analysis accompanying the proposed rule is usually the first comprehensive regulatory analysis available to evaluate.

• 3

We opt for a qualitative evaluation of how well the analysis was performed, rather than an objective "yes/no" checklist of analytical issues and approaches covered.

• 4

Our approach assesses whether the agency actually claims to use regulatory analysis to guide decisions. We also evaluate whether the agency makes a commitment to conducting retrospective analysis to assess the actual outcomes of the rule in the future.

Although we seek to evaluate the quality and use of regulatory analysis, one might also interpret this study as an evaluation of the quality of regulations themselves, for a couple of reasons. First, regulatory analysis and regulations are often jointly produced, with lawyers and economists working together on every step of a rulemaking, possibly making the quality of the analysis correlated with quality of the regulation. Second, the quality of regulatory analysis is likely correlated with the quality of regulations because the outputs of the regulatory analysis should serve as inputs to regulatory decisions. For example, one important component of regulatory analysis is the consideration of alternative approaches to achieve the desired outcomes. If a low‐quality analysis fails to consider alternatives, how can an agency be confident that its regulatory approach represents the best one, however "best" may be defined?

Although our results may provide a perspective on the quality of regulations, we caution against interpreting our study as a comprehensive evaluation of regulatory quality. We can rate the quality of regulatory analysis because a number of components are required by executive order or statute. These components are familiar to most economists and can easily be assessed by any economist with the right training. Conversely, we have not attempted to define a method of rating the quality of regulations themselves. Although such an endeavor may be worthwhile, it is beyond the scope of this article.

3. EVALUATION PROTOCOL

3.1. What Was Evaluated?

Evaluations were performed for 45 economically significant proposed regulations whose OIRA reviews were completed in 2008.5 The research team read the preamble to each proposed rule and the accompanying RIA. In some cases, agencies produced a risk assessment or additional analysis in technical support documents that we also considered. We included the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, which assesses the effects on small entities, to the extent that this analysis had content relevant to our evaluation criteria.

This approach is broader than just reading the RIA document or section of the Federal Register notice explicitly labeled "Regulatory Impact Analysis." It is necessary because agencies organize the content differently in different rules. Sometimes the RIA is a separate document only referenced or summarized in the Federal Register preamble.([33]) Alternatively, the entire RIA may constitute a separate section of the preamble.([34]) In one case, the RIA for a proposal was in the preamble of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for a related regulation published the same day.([35]) Some parts may be in a separate regulatory analysis section of the preamble, and other parts, such as environmental impact analysis or risk assessment, may be in other sections of the preamble that discuss justifications for the regulation.([36], [37], [38]) Reading all of this material allowed us to give the agency credit when due, regardless of where the analysis appears.

3.2. Scoring System

We evaluate regulatory analysis on the basis of 12 criteria, grouped into three categories:

• 1

Openness: How easily can a reasonably informed, interested citizen locate the analysis, understand it, and verify the underlying assumptions and data?

• 2

Analysis: How well does the analysis define and measure the outcomes or benefits the regulation seeks to accomplish, define the systemic problem the regulation seeks to solve, identify and assess alternatives, and evaluate costs and benefits?

• 3

Use: How much did the analysis appear to affect decisions in the proposed rule, and what provisions did the agency make for tracking the rule's effects in the future?

Fig. 1 lists the 12 criteria. Appendix A lists detailed questions considered under each criterion. Appendix B presents a cross‐walk chart that maps OMB's November 2010 "Regulatory Impact Analysis Checklist" into our scoring criteria. The Openness and Analysis criteria, numbered 1–8, are straightforward interpretations of provisions in Executive Order 12866 and Circular A‐4.

Graph: 1 Regulatory analysis assessment criteria.

The Use criteria deserve further explanation. The first Use criterion asks whether the analysis seemed to affect decisions. To score this criterion, we assess whether the agency claimed to use information about the regulation's expected outcomes, the systemic problem, or benefits or costs of alternatives to make decisions. The second Use criterion asks whether the agency made its decisions fully cognizant of the net benefits of alternatives. We do not expect the analysis to dictate the decision via a rigid rule, such as "regulate only when monetized benefits exceed monetized costs."Section 1 of Executive Order 12866 explicitly instructs agencies to regulate only when the benefits "justify" the costs, unless the law requires another approach. Thus, we look to see whether the agency either selected the alternative that maximized net benefits or clearly explained why some other alternative was preferable to the one that maximized net benefits.

Searching the Federal Register notice for documentation of use will not identify any undocumented, "behind the scenes" influence of the analysis. We may also overestimate the effects of analysis in situations where the agency reached decisions, then crafted or cited the analysis to support those decisions.([31]) The actual influence of economists and economic analysis in rulemaking (as opposed to the influence documented in the Federal Register notice) likely differs across agencies and even across rules within agencies. At one extreme, economists can have a lot of influence when a regulation is drafted, although it may not be documented in the proposed regulation or preamble (pp. 6–7).([32]) At the other extreme, economists and their analyses may be ignored entirely. Two points in between are: ( 1) the economic analysis has no effect, but the agency writes it to support the rule, or ( 2) the economic analysis has some effect that is documented in the notice. Our evaluation method identifies these latter kinds of cases. Because we cannot easily distinguish between the two on the basis of claims in the NPRM or RIA, our method only assesses whether the agency seemed to use the analysis. By examining the documentation of use, we at least identify where analysis is likely to have influenced rulemaking and offer a starting point for future research into the matter.

Criteria 11 and 12 assess the extent to which the RIA or preamble to the regulation make provisions for retrospective analysis. The executive orders governing regulation offer scant guidance on this, but Executive Order 13563 reiterates the requirement in Executive Order 12866 that each agency have a plan for retrospective review of regulations. A recent edition of OMB's annual report on the benefits and costs of federal regulation declared, "we recommend that serious consideration be given to finding ways to employ retrospective analysis more regularly, in order to ensure that rules are appropriate, and to expand, reduce, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned" (p. 43).([39]) The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Modernization Act of 2010 requires the federal government and agencies to identify high‐priority goals; specify the programs, activities, tax expenditures, and regulations that contribute to each goal; and regularly evaluate the contributions.([40]) An agency can lay the groundwork for compliance with the law by establishing goals and measures, identifying data, and committing to retrospective analysis in the preamble to the regulation. Agencies have in fact done these things for some regulations.6([41], [42], [43], [44])

For each criterion, evaluators assigned a score ranging from 0 (no useful content) to 5 (comprehensive analysis with potential best practices). Thus, each analysis has the opportunity to earn between 0 and 60 points. In general, the research team used the guidelines in Table I for scoring. Because the Analysis criteria involve many discrete issues, we developed a series of subquestions for each of the four Analysis criteria (listed in Appendix A), and awarded a 0–5 score for each subquestion. These scores were then averaged to calculate the score for the individual criterion.

I What Do the Scores Mean?

5	Complete analysis of all or almost all aspects, with one or more "best practices."
4	Reasonably thorough analysis of most aspects and/or shows at least one "best practice."
3	Reasonably thorough analysis of some aspects.
2	Some relevant discussion with some documentation of analysis.
1	Perfunctory statement with little explanation or documentation.
0	Little or no relevant content.

Compared to an objective checklist, our qualitative approach provides a richer and potentially more accurate evaluation of the actual quality of the analysis. As OIRA notes: "Objective metrics can measure whether an agency performed a particular type of analysis, but may not indicate how well the agency performed this analysis" (p. 19).([45]) For example, rather than just asking whether the analysis considered alternatives or counting the number of alternatives considered, we give an analysis a higher score if it considered a wider range of alternatives. Instead of just asking whether the agency named a market failure, we assess whether the agency provides a coherent theory and plausible evidence that the market failure exists, awarding a higher score on the basis of how convincing the evidence is. The qualitative approach also encourages agencies to find the best way to do analysis that can inform decisions, instead of treating regulatory analysis as a "check the box" compliance exercise.

A qualitative evaluation can be more subjective, less transparent, and harder to replicate. Several aspects of our research design seek to minimize these drawbacks. We designed the evaluation process to achieve a common, intersubjective understanding of which practices deserve which kind of score, and evaluators took notes justifying each score.7 The entire nine‐member research team underwent extensive training in which we evaluated several of the same proposed regulations and accompanying RIAs, compared scores, and discussed major differences until we achieved a consensus on scoring standards. For questions that were particularly difficult to evaluate, we developed written guidelines describing practices that would justify various scores in most cases. Each analysis was scored by one of the authors of this article and another team member, with discussion to achieve consensus when scores differed significantly. Each author also reviewed the other's scores and notes, and then discussed and resolved differences to ensure that all documents were evaluated as consistently as possible on all questions.

In addition, we subjected the scores to ex post statistical analyses to test whether our research design produced a high degree of interrater reliability. Interrater reliability is the degree to which raters agree with each other about their subjective evaluations of a given object. The Cohen kappa index is the most commonly used statistical measure of interrater reliability in social sciences.([[48]]) Other typical tests include Spearman's rho and Pearson's chi‐squared, both of which test the independence of the ratings.

The goal of our interrater reliability testing was to ascertain whether our evaluation system yields consistent agreement among raters trained in the system. First, we created agreement matrices using the prediscussion scores for all questions together and for each individual question. These scores reflected each rater's evaluation before any discussion and deliberation about differences in ratings. Appendix C reports these agreement matrices. The first matrix, in Table A.I, uses score data for all criteria. Each subsequent table shows the agreement matrix for a specific scoring criterion. The first scorer's rating dictates vertical location whereas the second scorer's rating controls the horizontal location. Thus, each matrix that corresponds to a particular criterion—Tables A.II through A.XIII—has 45 observations of score pairs.

A well‐designed system would show substantial agreement between scorers, regardless of whom the scorers were or which regulation was scored. Such agreement would produce density along the diagonal in the agreement matrices, and that is precisely what we observe. At the bottom of each agreement matrix, we list the count and percentage of score pairs that are in perfect agreement or disagreement by different numbers of points. Table A.I reveals considerable agreement between raters: 42.4% of all ratings (229 of 540) were in perfect agreement, and another 36.7% (198 of 540) exhibited a difference of only one point. About 15% (79 of 540) showed a difference of two points, and only 6.3% (34 of 540) had a difference of more than two points. Tables A.II–A.XIII show similar results for the agreement distributions for each individual question. No particular question stands out as an egregious generator of disagreement among the raters.

Cohen's kappa for the entire sample is 0.4784, which, according to the rules of thumb put forth by Landis and Koch, indicates moderate agreement.([50]) Of course, this kappa is calculated using prediscussion ratings. After discussions, there was 100% agreement, and Cohen's kappa equaled 1. Table II shows the results of Spearman's rho tests for the entire sample and for each individual question. The values of rho range from 0.414 to 0.713, and the null hypothesis that the two ratings are independent is strongly rejected for each question. We also tested independence by calculating Pearson's chi‐squared (not reported), finding similar results.

II Analysis of Interrater Reliability

Criterion	Spearman's rho	p‐Value
All	0.621	0.000
1	0.414	0.005
2	0.675	0.000
3	0.713	0.000
4	0.504	0.000
5	0.447	0.002
6	0.586	0.000
7	0.646	0.000
8	0.591	0.000
9	0.639	0.000
10	0.504	0.000
11	0.421	0.004
12	0.465	0.001

The tests indicate that our rating system would likely produce statistical agreement for any set of raters, assuming they underwent the same training. Scores for each regulation on each criterion, as well as notes justifying the scores, are available at http:/www.mercatus.org/reportcard.

3.3. An Example

To illustrate how the evaluation protocol works, Table III reproduces scores and notes for a regulation that received a middling score on criterion 5, outcomes. "Outcomes are not what the program itself did but the consequences of what the program did" (p. 15).([51]) We intentionally employ the broader term "outcomes" rather than "benefits" because some regulations seek to achieve goals that do not necessarily meet the economist's definition of a social benefit. We ask merely whether the regulatory analysis articulates, measures, and justifies an outcome that affects citizens' quality of life, regardless of whether the goal increases net social benefits.

III Outcome Discussion in Labor Department's Cranes and Derricks Proposed Rule

Criterion	Score	Comment
How well does the analysis identify the desired outcomes and demonstrate that the regulation will achieve them?	3	–
Does the analysis clearly identify ultimate outcomes that affect citizens' quality of life?	5	Workplace safety—reduced fatalities and accidents.
Does the analysis identify how these outcomes are to be measured?	5	Number of fatalities and accidents avoided.
Does the analysis provide a coherent and testable theory showing how the regulation will produce the desired outcomes?	1	Asserts only that "OSHA analysis" shows that an indicated number of fatalities would be eliminated. The text of the rule does a better job explaining several published articles that identify major causes of crane accidents.
Does the analysis present credible empirical support for the theory?	2	Some examples of recent accidents are presented, and the preamble to the rule explains how the proposed rules would have prevented those accidents. It is not clear if these are typical or generalized examples.
Does the analysis adequately assess uncertainty about the outcomes?	2	Uncertainty is acknowledged, and several benefit estimates are offered. However, the sensitivity discussion is cursory and does not provide much in‐depth analysis on how injuries and fatalities would likely be affected.

The regulation in Table III is an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulation intended to improve safety around cranes and derricks at construction sites. The analysis identified workplace safety outcomes and explained how to measure them, earning a five on each of these questions. However, the analysis does not provide much documented theory or evidence that the regulations would reduce fatalities and accidents; the reader is simply assured that "OSHA analysis" proves this is so. An explicit theory, rather than just an assertion, and documentation of evidence supporting the theory would have earned this analysis a higher score on these two questions. Although the RIA acknowledges uncertainty about benefits, it provides little analysis showing how the uncertainties would affect estimates of injuries and fatalities.

3.4. Caveats

Three significant caveats accompany our findings. First, we evaluate the quality of regulatory analysis and its apparent use in decisions, but we do not evaluate whether the proposed rule is economically efficient, fair, or otherwise good public policy. This article is an assessment of how agencies conduct and claim to use regulatory analysis, not a policy analysis of the regulations themselves.

Second, we evaluated whether the RIA and preamble to the proposed rule make a reasonable effort at covering the major elements of regulatory analysis. We did not seek to replicate the results, produce our own analysis, or verify the underlying data and studies. Commenters on this article who have in‐depth experience with particular regulations have usually told us that we have been too lenient. For example, an EPA air pollution regulation proposed in 2008 scores fairly high for its analysis of uncertainty regarding the size of benefits, but Fraas documents significant shortcomings in the EPA's uncertainty analysis of benefits of air quality regulations.([52]) A high‐scoring analysis may thus still have flaws and inaccuracies because of poor underlying data or theories that turn out to be wrong. Authors of previous regulatory scorecards have also noted this drawback (p. 196, p. 3).([[24], [29]]) Nevertheless, as Dudley (p. 8) notes: "Benefit‐cost analysis isn't perfect, but it's the best we have."([ 3]) The strength of a scorecard approach is its ability to rank numerous regulatory analyses according to consistent criteria. As we shall see, the approach identifies significant differences in the quality of analysis across different regulations.

Third, we give each criterion the same weight. Of course, some criteria, such as whether the agency identified a systemic problem or whether it analyzed a broad array of alternatives, may have more policy impact than whether the RIA is clearly written for the average citizen. The results below often break out score data by our three categories of criteria or by individual criteria, so that readers who want to focus on particular criteria or groups of criteria can do so. For example, readers who are concerned solely about the quality of regulatory analysis can ignore our evaluations of Use and focus on criteria 1–8, which assess Openness and Analysis. We calculated Spearman's rho and Kendall's tau‐b to assess whether inclusion of the Use criteria substantially alters the ranking of the regulations. The rankings with and without the Use criteria are highly correlated—ρ= 0.959 and τb= 0.861—with p‐values of 0.000. Readers who believe some individual criteria should be omitted or weighted more heavily are welcome to download our Excel spreadsheet with a full set of score results for every regulation, and conduct similar tests.8

4. SCORES AND RANKINGS

4.1. Summary Statistics

Both the average and median score were 27 of 60 possible points, or 45%. The best analysis received 43 points (72%), and the worst received only seven points (12%). Fig. 2 shows the distribution of scores.

Graph: 2 Distribution of analysis scores.

In general, the documents score higher on Openness than on the other two categories. The average score on the Openness criteria was 11 of 20 possible points, compared to 8.5 points for Analysis, and 7.7 points for Use.

4.2. Best and Worst Analyses

Table IV lists scores for all 45 regulations, along with their Regulation Identifier Numbers and the name of the issuing department. The best initial analysis in 2008 was for the Department of Transportation's (DOT) proposed Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulation, followed by the EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Lead, and Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) proposed revisions to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The three worst analyses come from the Social Security Administration, Department of Veterans' Affairs, and Department of Defense.

IV Scores for 45 Economically Significant Regulations from 2008

Proposed Rule	RIN	Department	Total	Openness	Analysis	Use
Car and Light Truck Corporate Average Fuel Economy 2011–2015	2127‐AK29	DOT	43	15	16	12
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead	2060‐AN83	EPA	42	14	16	12
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act	2502‐AI61	HUD	41	15	16	10
Class Exemption for Provision of Investment Advice, Proposed Rule	1210‐AB13	Labor	40	15	15	10
Congestion Management Rule for LaGuardia Airport	2120‐AI70	DOT	39	13	13	13
Large Aircraft Security Program	1652‐AA53	DHS	38	15	13	10
US VISIT Biometric Exit System	1601‐AA34	DHS	38	9	15	14
Fiduciary Requirements for Disclosure in Participant‐Directed Plans	1210‐AB07	Labor	37	15	11	11
Notice of Class Exemption for Provision of Investment Advice	1210‐ZA14	Labor	37	12	14	11
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Construction	2040‐AE91	EPA	37	14	14	9
Electronic Prescriptions for Controlled Substances	1117‐AA61	DOJ	36	14	12	10
Migratory Bird Hunting	1018‐AV62	Interior	35	14	12	9
Nondiscrimination in State/Local Government Services	1190‐AA46	DOJ	35	14	9	12
Nondiscrimination by Public/Commercial Facilities	1190‐AA44	DOJ	34	14	9	11
Railroad Tank Car Transportation of Hazardous Materials	2130‐AB69	DOT	33	10	13	10
HIPAA Code Sets	0958‐AN25	HHS	33	15	10	8
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993	1215‐AB35	Labor	33	18	10	5
Congestion Mgt. for John F. Kennedy Airport and Newark Airport	2120‐AJ28	DOT	30	10	8	12
Cranes and Derricks in Construction	1218‐AC01	Labor	30	14	9	7
Refuge Alternatives for Underground Coal Mines	1219‐AB58	Labor	28	12	8	8
Integrity Management Program for Gas Distribution Pipelines	2137‐AE15	DOT	28	7	11	10
State‐Specific Inventoried Roadless Area Management	0596‐AC74	USDA	28	11	12	5
Energy Conservation Standards for Fluorescent Lamps	1904‐AA92	Energy	27	6	11	10
Alternative Energy Production on the OCS	1010‐AD30	Interior	27	8	10	9
Standardized Risk‐Based Capital Rules (Basel II)	1557‐AD07	Treasury	27	9	9	9
Changes to the Outpatient Prospective Payment System	0938‐AP17	HHS	27	13	7	7
Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems	0938‐AP15	HHS	27	14	6	7
Oil Shale Management–General	1004‐AD90	Interior	26	9	9	8
HIPAA Electronic Transaction Standards	0938‐AM50	HHS	25	12	8	5
Employment Eligibility Verification	9000‐AK91	FAR	24	13	7	4
Teacher Education Assistance Grant Program	1840‐AC93	ED	23	10	4	9
Abandoned Mine Land Program	1029‐AC56	Interior	21	10	4	7
Maximum Operating Pressure for Gas Transmission Pipelines	2137‐AE25	DOT	21	11	7	3
Federal Perkins Loan Program	1840‐AC94	ED	21	10	2	9
Revisions to Medicare Advantage and Prescription Drug Benefits	0938‐AP24	HHS	19	8	6	5
Prospective Payment System for Long‐Term Care Hospitals	0983‐AO94	HHS	17	9	2	6
Medicare Program: Revisions to Physician Fee Schedules	0938‐AP18	HHS	17	6	4	7
Medicaid Program Premiums and Cost Sharing	0938‐AO47	HHS	17	10	3	4
State Flexibility for Medicaid Benefit Packages	0938‐AO48	HHS	16	9	4	3
Proposed Hospice Wage Index for Fiscal Year 2009	0938‐AP14	HHS	16	9	3	4
Prospective Payment System for Skilled Nursing Facilities	0938‐AP11	HHS	14	7	2	5
Schedule of Fees for Consular Services	1400‐AC41	State	13	7	4	2
CHAMPUS/TRICARE	0720‐AB22	Defense	12	7	4	1
Post‐9/11 GI Bill	2900‐AN10	VA	10	6	2	2
Time and Place for a Hearing Before an Administrative Law Judge	0960‐AG61	SSA	7	4	0	3
Average			27.3	11.04	8.5	7.7

1 Note: Regulations in italics are budget or "transfer" regulations.

4.3. Average Scores by Regulation Type

The 15 regulations in italics in Table IV are budget or "transfer" regulations. These regulations outline how the federal government will spend money, set fees, or administer spending programs. Most of these regulations score poorly. Calculating average scores by type of regulation reveals a big discontinuity, as Table V shows. Average scores for most types of regulations range between 30 and 35 points. Transfer regulations, however, average just 17 points. Transfer regulations score lower on all the three categories of criteria, but the biggest difference is in the Analysis category, where transfer regulations score only about one‐third the points of other types of regulations.

V Average Scores by Regulation Type

Type	Number of Regulations	Average Score	Openness	Analysis	Use
Civil rights	2	34.5	14.0	9.0	11.5
Economic	10	34.2	13.4	11.4	9.4
Security	3	33.3	12.3	11.7	9.3
Environment	9	31.8	11.2	11.6	9.0
Safety	6	29.3	11.3	10.0	8.0
Transfer	15	17.1	8.6	3.5	4.9

This finding is consistent with OMB's observation that agencies do not usually estimate the social benefits and costs of transfer regulations (p. 19).([39]) Posner documents the same phenomenon.([17]) It is not obvious why transfer regulations should receive different analytical treatment, for as OMB notes (p. 19), transfer regulations generate substantial social costs via mandates, prohibitions, and price distortions.([39]) Our results on transfer regulations illustrate a more general point: the data from this project can provide a starting point for analyzing a variety of factors that might influence the quality of regulatory analysis, such as the nature of the regulation, politics, legislative mandates, or deadlines. (See Shapiro and Morrall and Belcore and Ellig (pp. 38–41) for similar examples.)([[30]])

4.4. Agency Average Scores

Table VI lists average scores for each agency. HUD's one regulation earned it the highest agency average. EPA placed second, and Homeland Security placed third. Scores decline relatively smoothly as one moves down the list, except for the 7.7‐point gap that separates Health and Human Services (HHS), ranked 13th, from State, ranked 14th.

VI Agency Average Scores

Agency	Number of Regulations	Average Score	Openness	Analysis	Use
1. HUD	1	41.0	15.0	16.0	10.0
2. EPA	2	39.5	14.0	15.0	10.5
3. DHS	2	38.0	12.0	14.0	12.0
4. DOJ	3	35.0	14.0	10.0	11.0
5. Labor	6	34.2	14.3	11.2	8.7
6. DOT	6	32.3	11.0	11.3	10.0
7. USDA	1	28.0	11.0	12.0	5.0
8. Interior	4	27.3	10.3	8.9	8.3
9. Treasury	1	27.0	9.0	9.0	9.0
10. Energy	1	27.0	6.0	11.0	10.0
11. Federal acquisition	1	24.0	13.0	7.0	4.0
12. Education	2	22.0	10.0	3.0	9.0
13. HHS	11	20.7	10.2	5.0	5.5
14. State	1	13.0	7.0	4.0	2.0
15. Defense	1	12.0	7.0	4.0	1.0
16. Veterans affairs	1	10.0	6.0	2.0	2.0
17. Social security	1	7.0	4.0	0	3.0

Most of the agencies in the top half of the list produced more than one economically significant regulation in 2008. All of the agencies in the bottom half produced just one, except for HHS (11 regulations) and Education (two regulations). Whether this pattern reflects economies of scale or mere coincidence remains to be seen.

We caution the reader against drawing strong inferences about agencies' analytical abilities on the basis of these scores for one year. Most departments produced small numbers of regulations, and many consist of diverse agencies that may not all produce the same quality of analysis. Generalizations about different agencies' abilities would require either a larger data set spanning more years or in‐depth case studies.

4.5. Average Scores by Criterion

Average scores on individual criteria reveal where regulatory analysis in practice is generally strongest and weakest. The criterion with the highest average score in Table VII is criterion 1, Accessibility. This is not surprising, as making documents accessible to the public via the Internet is relatively easy to do regardless of the quality of the analysis itself. The two lowest scoring criteria are both related to retrospective analysis: establishing measures and goals to track the regulation's effects in the future (criterion 11) and gathering data for such assessment (criterion 12).

VII Ranking of Scores on Individual Criteria

Criterion	Including Transfer Regulations	Excluding Transfer Regulations
Accessibility	3.53	3.30
Clarity	2.93	3.50
Some use of analysis	2.44	2.63
Outcome definition	2.36	3.10
Model documentation	2.33	2.83
Alternatives	2.29	2.93
Data documentation	2.24	2.63
Net benefits	2.20	2.93
Benefit‐cost analysis	2.09	2.60
Systemic problem	1.80	2.40
Retrospective data	1.73	2.03
Measures and goals	1.36	1.53
Overall average score	27.31	32.43

The other low‐scoring criterion is identification of the market failure or other systemic problem the regulation is supposed to solve. This low score is puzzling because Section 1 of Executive Order 12866 leads off by stating that each regulation must identify the problem it seeks to address and assess the significance of that problem. The analyses that score low on this criterion either simply assert a reason for the regulation, with no accompanying theory or evidence, or mention no explicit rationale at all beyond implementing a statute. Such weaknesses are disturbing. It is hard to have confidence that a regulation really will solve a problem, or that the agency has selected the best option for solving a problem, if the agency cannot articulate the problem, cite convincing evidence that the problem exists, and explain its root cause.

Given the lower average scores of transfer regulations, it is no surprise that average scores on individual criteria are generally higher when transfer regulations are excluded. But even excluding transfer regulations, the average score on this criterion is only 2.4 points. We can identify more than a few examples of prescriptive regulations that scored a 1 or 2 on identification of the systemic problem. These include Treasury's risk‐based capital rules for banks, Interior's abandoned mine land program and oil shale management rules, DOT's maximum operating pressure for gas transmission pipelines, and Federal Acquisition's employment eligibility verification rules.

5. USE OF REGULATORY ANALYSIS

Different scholars offer different conclusions about whether economic analysis actually has much influence on regulatory decisions. Hahn and Tetlock conclude that few RIAs have much effect.([27]) Officials interviewed by West claim that decisionmakers often make up their minds before the analysis is done.([31]) Williams, on the other hand, suggests that regulatory analysis can affect decisions behind the scenes, even if the agency does not explicitly explain in its Federal Register notice (pp. 6–7).([32]) Our scoring on the Use criteria offers another perspective on this question.

5.1. Do Agencies Claim to Use Regulatory Analysis?

Table VI shows that criterion 9, Use of Analysis, has the third highest average score. An agency can earn points on this criterion even if statutorily prohibited from considering some factors, such as costs or net benefits. For example, when setting NAAQS, "[a]ccording to the Clean Air Act, EPA must use health‐based criteria in setting the NAAQS and cannot consider estimates of compliance cost."([42]) However because health is one of the key benefits of air quality standards, the EPA received two points on criterion 9 for using the health analysis to inform its decision.

Criterion 10, Net Benefits, receives a lower average score when transfer regulations are included (2.20 points) than when they are excluded (2.93 points). One might argue that net benefits are irrelevant when a regulation "merely" transfers money, but surely most federal expenditures are supposed to achieve some type of public benefit that could often be measurable. To achieve a good score on this criterion, the agency does not have to select the alternative that maximizes net benefits. Rather, the agency must demonstrate that it was cognizant of net benefits and weighed them against other factors when making its decision. If the RIA calculates net benefits of multiple alternatives but the preamble to the proposed rule clearly states the justification for choosing an alternative that did not maximize net benefits, the agency can still score well on this criterion. We score the Net Benefits criterion this way to avoid imposing the value judgment that agencies "ought" to choose the alternative that maximizes net benefits. Instead, we evaluate whether decisionmakers considered net benefits and then determined what weight net benefits should have in the decision.

Figs. 3 and 4 show that the scores on these two criteria have a somewhat bimodal distribution. About 10 regulations earned a score of 4 or 5. For more than 20 regulations, the agency seems to have used little or nothing of the analysis. The remaining regulations show some apparent use of the analysis, but not substantial use. We infer from this that agencies sometimes claim regulatory analysis had a significant effect on the regulation, but more often they claim a marginal effect or make no claim at all.

Graph: 3 Breakdown of criterion 9.

Graph: 4 Breakdown of criterion 10.

The really low scores in the Use category are on the two retrospective analysis criteria. Only four regulations earned a 3 or better on criterion 11, Measures and Goals, and only 10 regulations earned a 3 or better on criterion 12, Retrospective Data. Few economically significant regulations include any substantial plans for retrospective analysis of either costs or benefits. Seventeen years after passage of the GPRA required agencies to develop goals and measures for their major programs, this is disappointing news indeed. Because economically significant regulations are the ones with the largest impact, surely most of them are related to an agency's fundamental mission and strategic goals.

5.2. Correlation of Quality and Use

Because we evaluated both the quality and the apparent use of regulatory analysis, we can test to see whether there is any correlation between the two. Table VIII shows regression results using all 45 regulations; Table IX excludes transfer regulations. Both tables reveal that there is a tighter and more significant correlation between Use (criteria 9–12) and the Analysis score (criteria 5–8) than between Use and the total Quality score (criteria 1–8). In other words, agencies are likely to claim they used the analysis if it is more thorough, even if it is more difficult to find, less thoroughly documented, or harder to read.

VIII Use of Analysis Versus Quality, 45 Regulations (Tobit Regressions)

Dependent Variable	Constant	Quality Score (Criteria 1–8)	Analysis Score (Criteria 5–8)	Chi‐Squared	Pseudo R‐Squared
Criteria 9–12 (All Four Use Criteria)	1.48	0.32	–	27.27**	0.12
	[1.36]	[6.12]***	–	–	–
Criteria 9–12 (All Four Use Criteria)	3.20	–	0.54	34.77***	0.15
	[4.49]***	–	[7.24]***	–	–
Criteria 9 and 10 (Some Use and Net Benefits)	1.69	–	0.35	22.37***	0.11
	[2.69]***	–	[5.35]***	–	–
Criteria 11 and 12 (Measures and Goals and Retrospective	1.28	–	0.21	10.99***	0.06
Data)	[2.24]**	–	[3.51]***	–	–
Criterion 9 (Some Use of Analysis)	1.43	–	0.12	6.88***	0.04
	[3.36]***	–	[2.71]***	–	–
Criterion 10 (Net Benefits)	−0.02	–	0.26	29.46***	0.18
	[−0.05]	–	[6.26]***	–	–
Criterion 11 (Measures and Goals)	0.36	–	0.11	7.70***	0.06
	[0.97]	–	[2.85]***	–	–
Criterion 12 (Retrospective Data)	0.68	–	0.12	9.37***	0.07
	[1.91]*	–	[3.22]***	–	–

2 t‐statistics in brackets.
3 ***Significant at the 1% level.
4 **Significant at the 5% level.
5 *Significant at the 10% level.

IX Use of Analysis Versus Quality, 30 Nontransfer Regs (Tobit Regressions)

Dependent Variable	Constant	Quality Score (Criteria 1–8)	Analysis Score (Criteria 5–8)	Chi‐Squared	Pseudo‐R2
Criteria 9–12 (All Four Use Criteria)	4.35	0.209	–	5.14**	0.04
	[2.09]**	[2.37]***	–	–	–
Criteria 9–12 (All Four Use Criteria)	3.58	–	0.51	13.73***	0.10
	[2.57]**	–	[4.17]***	–	–
Criteria 9 and 10 (Some Use and Net Benefits)	2.31	–	0.30	5.47**	0.04
	[1.63]	–	[2.44]**	–	–
Criteria 11 and 12 (Measures and Goals and Retrospective	0.90	–	0.24	4.58**	0.04
Data)	[0.72]	–	[2.21]**	–	–
Criterion 9 (Some Use of Analysis)	0.67	–	0.18	4.56**	0.04
	[0.71]	–	[2.19]**	–	–
Criterion 10 (Net Benefits)	1.44	–	0.14	3.73*	0.04
	[1.75]*	–	[1.98]*	–	–
Criterion 11 (Measures and Goals)	0.15	–	0.12	3.69*	0.04
	[0.72]	–	[1.98]*	–	–
Criterion 12 (Retrospective Data)	0.63	–	0.12	3.28*	0.03
	[0.77]	–	[1.85]*	–	–

6 t‐statistics in brackets.
7 ***Significant at the 1% level.
8 **Significant at the 5% level.
9 *Significant at the 10% level.

Table VIII shows that there is a positive and statistically significant correlation between the quality of the analysis and every subcomponent of the Use score. When the sample is confined to nontransfer regulations, however, the relationship is somewhat less extensive, as Table IX shows. Taken together, the Use criteria are still highly correlated with quality of the analysis. Quality of analysis is also correlated with the sum of criteria 9 and 10 (Some Use of Analysis and Net Benefits), and with the sum of criteria 11 and 12 (Measures and Goals and Retrospective Data). But when the regressions are run using individual criteria, the quality of analysis is only marginally significant for criteria 10–12. For nontransfer regulations, it seems that the principal source of correlation between quality and apparent use is criterion 9, which measures whether the agency claimed the RIA affected decisions in the regulation. For nontransfer regulations, good analysis might not be correlated with consideration of net benefits, nor does it necessarily imply that the agency will provide for retrospective analysis.

Nevertheless, there is some evidence that agencies claim they used the analysis in regulatory decisions when the analysis is better. Perhaps improving the quality of analysis improves the odds that decisionmakers will find it useful. Or perhaps when decisionmakers are willing to use regulatory analysis, better regulatory analysis gets produced. It is also possible that, by the time a proposed rule and the accompanying analysis emerge from several iterations of revision within the agency and the OIRA review process, quality and use are mutually interdependent. Finally, the correlation may be driven by other factors, such as statutory requirements that agencies either must or must not consider various aspects of regulatory analysis when making decisions.

Even if most agencies treat RIAs as a mere compliance exercise, it is interesting to note that agencies are more likely to claim that their analysis influenced their decisions when the analysis is better. Clearly, the relationship between quality of analysis and agencies' claimed use of analysis is an area ripe for further research.

6. BEST PRACTICES

Our qualitative evaluation method identifies which analyses have done a particularly good job according to the various criteria. Table X compares the average score on each criterion with the highest score any analysis achieved on that criterion. On most criteria, only a handful of analyses earned the highest score of 5. No analysis earned a score of 5 for criterion 8, Benefit‐Cost Analysis, but at least one earned a 5 on each subquestion under Benefit‐Cost Analysis. Clearly, more widespread adoption of existing best practices could substantially improve the quality of most regulatory analyses.

X Best Practices Not Widely Shared

Criterion	Average Score	Highest Score Achieved	No. Earning Highest Score
1. Accessibility	3.53	5	12
2. Data documentation	2.24	5	1
3. Model documentation	2.33	5	3
4. Clarity	2.93	5	3
5. Outcome definition	2.36	5	2
6. Systemic problem	1.80	5	1
7. Alternatives	2.29	5	1
8. Benefit‐cost analysis	2.09	4	3
9. Some use of analysis	2.44	5	2
10. Considered net benefits	2.20	5	2
11. Measures and goals	1.36	5	1
12. Retrospective data	1.73	5	1

7. CONCLUSIONS

Regulatory analysis is supposed to inform regulatory decisions, not simply justify them after the fact or merely fulfill a requirement to clear a rule through OIRA. Because proposed regulations usually reflect a great deal of up‐front work and are supposed to represent the agency's preferred approach to problem solving, we evaluated the quality of regulatory analyses accompanying proposed regulations. This allows us to assess whether the analysis publicly disclosed closest to the time when initial decisions are made is comprehensive and reliable enough to inform those decisions. In addition, we evaluated whether the agency claims to use regulatory analysis to inform its decisions, now and in the future. This allows us to assess whether the quality of regulatory analysis is correlated with its apparent use.

Our findings on quality are generally consistent with prior literature. Previous regulatory scorecard literature finds that analyses earn an average of 40–64% of the total possible points, with higher scores for more recent years.([[27], [29]]) The average for all regulations we assessed was 27.3 of 60 possible points, or 46%. Excluding transfer regulations, the average was 32.4 points, or 54%. Along with Shapiro and Morrall and Fraas and Lutter, our figures may suggest that the quality of regulatory analysis has improved somewhat since Hahn's seminal scorecards.([[30]])

Qualitative scoring allows us to distinguish between better and worse implementation of economic analysis. The scores clearly indicate that every aspect of regulatory analysis is done at least somewhat well by someone in some agency on some regulation, but no single analysis comes close to doing everything well. Substantial improvements in regulatory analysis could occur across the board if federal agencies had the incentives to mobilize and spread know‐how that already exists.

Our results also suggest that regulatory analysis is perhaps more widely used than previous research has shown. Agencies claimed that some aspect of the analysis affected some major aspect of the regulatory decision in about 10 rules, or 22% of the total. Moreover, the apparent use of analysis is positively correlated with quality of analysis. Agencies are more likely to claim they used the RIA when the RIA is better—though which way the causation runs remains to be seen.

This article reports just the first steps in a multifaceted, ongoing research project. One extension would be to evaluate regulations issued in 2009, to assess whether there was much difference in the quality of regulatory analysis during the last year of the Bush administration and the first year of the Obama administration. Evaluations similar to ours could also be used to assess whether President Obama's Executive Order 13563 has any effect on the quality of regulatory analysis.

Finally, the data can be used to analyze other factors that might affect the quality of regulatory analysis, such as deadlines, politics, statutory requirements, court decisions, or institutional factors unique to particular agencies. Some of the literature cited in Section 1 found that these types of factors affected the quality of regulatory analysis.([[30]]) Other research is also suggestive. McLaughlin, for example, finds that "midnight" regulations issued late in an outgoing administration's term receive shorter review at OIRA.([53]) McLaughlin and Ellig report that midnight regulations, transfer regulations, and regulations with statutory deadlines all have lower quality analysis, and the latter two types of regulations also receive shorter review times at OIRA.([54]) This suggests that the quality of analysis varies systematically with institutional factors. The evaluations reported in this article are the first step in testing these types of hypotheses.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This article reports on the first stage of an ongoing project initiated by the authors at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Although one of the authors (McLaughlin) is no longer affiliated with the Mercatus Center, his part in the evaluation of RIAs was performed when he was a research fellow at the Mercatus Center and before his employment with the U.S. Department of Transportation. It is a revised version of a longer working article available online at http://mercatus.org/publication/quality‐and‐use‐regulatory‐analysis‐2008._SP_(_sp_[55]_SP_)_sp_ We acknowledge the substantial contributions of the other individuals who served on the research team that evaluated these regulatory analyses: Mark Adams, David Bieler, Katelyn Christ, Christina Forsberg, Stefanie Haeffele‐Balch, Gabriel Okolski, and Kevin Rollins. We thank Mohamad Elbarasse for research assistance, and Rick Belzer, Susan Dudley, Art Fraas, Randy Lutter, John Morrall, Marcus Peacock, Richard Williams, and two anonymous peer reviewers for helpful comments. The views and opinions expressed by the authors do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. government, the U.S. Department of Transportation, or the Federal Railroad Administration, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

Appendices

APPENDIX A: MAJOR FACTORS CONSIDERED WHEN EVALUATING EACH CRITERION

Note: Regardless of how they are worded, all questions involve qualitative analysis of how well the RIA addresses the issue, rather than "yes/no" answers.

Openness

1 How easily were the RIA, the proposed rule, and any supplementary materials found online?

How easily can the proposed rule and RIA be found on the agency's website?

How easily can the proposed rule and RIA be found on Regulations.gov?

Can the proposed rule and RIA be found without contacting the agency for assistance?

2 How verifiable are the data used in the analysis?

Is there evidence that the RIA used data?

Does the RIA provide sufficient information for the reader to verify the data?

How much of the data are sourced?

Does the RIA provide direct access to the data via links, URLs, or provision of data in appendices?

If data are confidential, how well does the RIA assure the reader that the data are valid?

3 How verifiable are the models and assumptions used in the analysis?

Are models and assumptions stated clearly?

How well does the RIA justify any models or assumptions used?

How easily can the reader verify the accuracy of models and assumptions?

Does the RIA provide citations to sources that justify the models or assumptions?

Does the RIA demonstrate that its models and assumptions are widely accepted by relevant experts?

How reliable are the sources? Are the sources peer‐reviewed?

4 Was the Regulatory Impact Analysis comprehensible to an informed layperson?

How well can a nonspecialist reader understand the results or conclusions?

How well can a nonspecialist reader understand how the RIA reached the results?

How well can a specialist reader understand how the RIA reached the results?

Is the RIA written in "plain English"? (Light on technical jargon and acronyms, well organized, grammatically correct, and direct language used.)

Analysis

5 How well does the analysis identify the desired outcomes and demonstrate that the regulation will achieve them?

How well does the RIA identify ultimate outcomes that affect citizens' quality of life?

How well does the RIA identify how these outcomes are to be measured?

Does the RIA provide a coherent and testable theory showing how the regulation will produce the desired outcomes?

Does the analysis present credible empirical support for the theory?

Does the analysis adequately assess uncertainty about the outcomes?

6 How well does the analysis identify and demonstrate the existence of a market failure or other systemic problem the regulation is supposed to solve?

Does the analysis identify a market failure or other systemic problem?

Does the analysis outline a coherent and testable theory that explains why the problem (associated with the outcome above) is systemic rather than anecdotal?

Does the analysis present credible empirical support for the theory?

Does the analysis adequately assess uncertainty about the existence and size of the problem?

7 How well does the analysis assess the effectiveness of alternative approaches?

Does the analysis enumerate other alternatives to address the problem?

Is the range of alternatives considered narrow or broad?

Does the analysis evaluate how alternative approaches would affect the amount of the outcome achieved?

Does the analysis adequately address the baseline—what the state of the world is likely to be in the absence of further federal action?

8 How well does the analysis assess costs and benefits?

Does the analysis identify and quantify incremental costs of all alternatives considered?

Does the analysis identify all expenditures likely to arise as a result of the regulation?

Does the analysis identify how the regulation would likely affect the prices of goods and services?

Does the analysis examine costs that stem from changes in human behavior as consumers and producers respond to the regulation?

Does the analysis adequately address uncertainty about costs?

Does the analysis identify the approach that maximizes net benefits?

Does the analysis identify the cost‐effectiveness of each alternative considered?

Does the analysis identify all parties who would bear costs and assess the incidence of costs?

Does the analysis identify all parties who would receive benefits and assess the incidence of benefits?

Use

9 Does the proposed rule or the RIA present evidence that the agency used the Regulatory Impact Analysis?

Does the proposed rule or the RIA assert that the RIA's results affected any decisions?

How many aspects of the proposed rule did the RIA affect?

How significant are the decisions the RIA affected?

10 Did the agency maximize net benefits or explain why it chose another option?

Did the RIA calculate net benefits of one or more options so that they could be compared?

Did the RIA calculate net benefits of all options considered?

Did the agency either choose the option that maximized net benefits or explain why it chose another option?

How broad a range of alternatives did the agency consider?

11 Does the proposed rule establish measures and goals that can be used to track the regulation's results in the future?

Does the RIA contain analysis or results that could be used to establish goals and measures to assess the results of the regulation in the future?

In the RIA or the proposed rule, does the agency commit to performing some type of retrospective analysis of the regulation's effects?

Does the agency explicitly articulate goals for major outcomes the rule is supposed to affect?

Does the agency establish measures for major outcomes the rule is supposed to affect?

Does the agency set targets for measures of major outcomes the rule is supposed to affect?

12 Did the agency indicate what data it will use to assess the regulation's performance in the future and establish provisions for doing so?

Does the RIA or proposed rule demonstrate that the agency has access to data that could be used to assess some aspects of the regulation's performance in the future?

Would comparing actual outcomes to outcomes predicted in the RIA generate a reasonably complete understanding of the regulation's effects?

Does the agency suggest it will evaluate future effects of the regulation using data it has access to or commits to gathering?

Does the agency explicitly enumerate data it will use to evaluate major outcomes the regulation is supposed to accomplish in the future?

Does the RIA demonstrate that the agency understands how to control for other factors that may affect outcomes in the future?

APPENDIX B: CROSS‐WALK OF 2010 OMB REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS CHECKLIST WITH OUR EVALUATION C...

OMB Checklist	Our Evaluation Criteria
Does the RIA include a reasonably detailed description of the need for the regulatory action?	Criterion 6: How well does the analysis demonstrate the existence of a market failure or other systemic problem the regulation is supposed to solve?
Does the RIA include an explanation of how the regulatory action will meet that need?	Criterion 5: How well does the analysis identify the desired outcomes and demonstrate that the regulation will achieve them?
Does the RIA use an appropriate baseline (i.e., best assessment of how the world would look in the absence of the proposed action)?	Criterion 7, question D: Does the analysis adequately assess the baseline—what the state of the world is likely to be in the absence of further federal action?
Is the information in the RIA based on the best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, and economic information and is it presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner?	Criterion 2: How verifiable are the data used in the analysis
	Criterion 3: How verifiable are the models or assumptions used in the analysis?
	Criterion 4: Was the analysis comprehensible to an informed layperson?
	Criterion 3 includes an assessment of whether the models and assumptions are based on peer‐reviewed or otherwise reliable publications. However, the evaluation does not assess the quality of the underlying science.
Are the data, sources, and methods used in the RIA provided to the public on the Internet so that a qualified person can reproduce the analysis?	Criterion 1 takes the first step by assessing how easily the RIA itself can be found on the Internet.
	Criteria 3 and 4 include an assessment of how easily the reader could find the underlying data, sources, and methods from information or links provided in the RIA or the Federal Register notice.
To the extent feasible, does the RIA quantify and monetize the anticipated benefits from the regulatory action?	Criterion 5, question 2: How well does the analysis identify how the outcomes are to be measured?
To the extent feasible, does the RIA quantify and monetize the anticipated costs?	Multiple questions under Criterion 8 (Benefits and Costs) assess how well the analysis identifies, quantifies, and monetizes costs.
Does the RIA explain and support a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify)?	Criterion 8, question F: Does the analysis identify the approach that maximizes net benefits?
	Criterion 8, question G: Does the analysis identify the cost‐effectiveness of each alternative considered?
Does the RIA assess the potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives?	Criterion 7: How well does the analysis assess the effectiveness of alternative approaches?
Does the preferred option have the highest net benefits (including potential economic, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity), unless a statute requires a different approach?	Criterion 10: Did the agency maximize net benefits or explain why it chose another option?
Does the RIA include an explanation of why the planned regulatory action is preferable to the identified potential alternatives?	Criterion 9: Does the proposed rule or RIA present evidence that the agency used the regulatory analysis?
	Criterion 10: Did the agency maximize net benefits or explain why it chose another option?
Does the RIA use appropriate discount rates for the benefits and costs that are expected to occur in the future?	Considered under Criterion 5, question 2: How well does the analysis identify how the outcomes are to be measured?, as well as several questions about measurement and comparison of benefits and costs under Criterion 8 (Benefits and Costs).
Does the RIA include, if and where relevant, an appropriate uncertainty analysis?	Criterion 5, question E: Does the analysis adequately assess uncertainty about the outcomes?
	Criterion 6, question D: Does the analysis adequately assess uncertainty about the existence and size of the problem?
	Criterion 8, question E: Does the analysis adequately address uncertainty about costs?
Does the RIA include, if and where relevant, a separate description of the distributive impacts and equity (including transfer payments and effects on disadvantages or vulnerable populations)?	Criterion 8, question H: Does the analysis identify all parties who would bear costs and assess the incidence of costs?
	Criterion 8, question I: Does the analysis identify all parties who would receive benefits and assess the incidence of benefits?
Does the analysis include a clear, plain‐language executive summary, including an accounting statement that summarizes the benefit and cost estimates for the regulatory action under consideration, including the qualitative and nonmonetized benefits and costs?	Criterion 4: Was the analysis comprehensible to an informed layperson?
Does the analysis include a clear and transparent table presenting (to the extent feasible) anticipated benefits and costs (qualitative and quantitative)?	Criterion 4: Was the analysis comprehensible to an informed layperson?
Goals and measures to assess results of the regulation in the future—No content.	Criterion 11: Does the proposed rule establish measures and goals that can be used to track the regulation's results in the future?
Provisions for gathering data to assess results of the regulation in the future—No content.	Criterion 12: Did the agency indicate what data it will use to assess the regulation's performance in the future and establish provisions for doing so?

APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF INTERRATER RELIABILITY

Graph

Footnotes

1 "Economically significant" regulations are defined as regulations that have an economic impact exceeding $100 million or that adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities (Sec. 3[f][1]). Economically significant regulations require an extensive Regulatory Impact Analysis that assesses the need, effectiveness, benefits, costs, and alternatives for the proposed regulation (Sec. 6[a][3][C]).

2 Reginfo.gov lists 48 proposed, economically significant regulations whose OIRA reviews were concluded in 2008. Three RIAs could not be found at the time these evaluations were performed, leaving us with 45 regulations to evaluate.

3 For readers who are still skeptical about the value of including the two retrospective analysis criteria, we calculated Spearman's rho and Kendall's tau‐b to assess whether inclusion of these criteria substantially alters the ranking of the regulations. The rankings with and without the Use criteria are highly correlated—rho = 0.981 and tau‐b = 0.920—with p values of 0.000.

4 The term "intersubjective" refers to subjective interpretations that different individuals can share because they have commonly understood meanings. Social scientists most commonly use the term to denote economic agents' ability to understand the interpretations and meanings of other economic agents, or the social scientist's ability to understand the interpretations and meanings of the economic agents who are the subject of study.(46, 47) We think it applies equally well here, when colleagues share similar subjective understandings of what constitutes better and worse analyses.

5 The spreadsheet is available at http://www.mercatus.org/reportcard.

REFERENCES

Obama B. Improving regulation and regulatory review—Executive Order 13563. Presidential Documents. Federal Register, 2011 ; 76 (14): 3821 – 3823.

Clinton WJ. Regulatory planning and review—Executive Order 12866. Presidential Documents. Federal Register, 1993 ; 58 (190): 51734 – 51744.

Dudley SE. Lessons learned, challenges ahead. Regulation, 2009 ; 32 (2): 6 – 11.

Ackerman F, Heinzerling L. Priceless: On Knowing the Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing. New York : New Press, 2004.

Parker RW. Grading the government. University of Chicago Law Review, 2003 ; 70 (4): 1345 – 1486.

6 Graham J. Saving lives through administrative law and economics. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 2008 ; 157 (1): 395 – 540.

7 Viscusi WK. Fatal Trade‐Offs: Public and Private Responsibilities for Risk. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1992.

8 Sunstein CR. The Cost‐Benefit State. Chicago : American Bar Association, 2002.

9 Revesz RL, Livermore MA. Retaking Rationality: How Cost‐Benefit Analysis Can Better Protect the Environment and Our Health. New York : Oxford University Press, 2008.

Harrington W, Heinzerling L, Morgenstern R. Reforming Regulatory Impact Analysis. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press, 2009.

Katzen S. Cost‐benefit analysis: Where should we go from here? Fordham Urban Law Journal, 2006 ; 33 (4): 1313 – 1317.

Hahn RW, Sunstein CR. A new executive order for improving federal regulation? Deeper and wider cost‐benefit analysis. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 2002 ; 150 (5): 1489 – 1552.

Office of Management and Budget. Circular A‐4, 2003. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars%5fa004%5fa‐4/, Accessed on April 27, 2010.

McGarity T. Reinventing Rationality. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Fraas A. The role of economic analysis in shaping regulatory policy. Law and Contemporary Problems, 1991 ; 54 (4): 113 – 125.

Morgenstern R. Economic Analysis at EPA. Washington, DC : Resources for the Future, 1997.

Posner EA. Transfer regulations and cost‐effectiveness analysis. Duke Law Journal, 2003 ; 53 (3): 1067 – 1110.

Harrington W, Morgenstern R, Nelson P. On the accuracy of regulatory cost estimates. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 2000 ; 19 (2): 297 – 332.

Validating Regulatory Analysis : Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities. Washington, DC : Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 2005.

Harrington W. Grading Estimates of the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulation: A Review of Reviews. Discussion Paper 06–39. Washington, DC : Resources for the Future, 2006.

Air Pollution : Information Contained in EPA's Regulatory Impact Analyses Can be Made Clearer. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office, 1997.

Regulatory Reform: Agencies Could Improve Development, Documentation, and Clarity of Regulatory Economic Analyses. Washington, DC : Government Accountability Office, 1998.

Hahn RW, Burnett J, Chan YI, Mader E, Moyle P. Assessing regulatory impact analyses: The failure of agencies to comply with Executive Order 12866. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 2000 ; 23 (3): 859 – 871.

Hahn RW, Dudley P. How well does the government do cost–benefit analysis? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2007 ; 1 (2): 192 – 211.

Hahn RW, Lutter RW, Viscusi WK. Do Federal Regulations Reduce Mortality? Washington, DC : AEI‐Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, 2000.

Hahn RW, Litan R. Counting regulatory benefits and costs: Lessons for the U.S. and Europe. Journal of International Economic Law, 2005 ; 8 (2): 473 – 508.

Hahn RW, Tetlock PC. Has economic analysis improved regulatory decisions? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2008 ; 22 (1): 67 – 84.

Belcore J, Ellig J. Homeland security and regulatory analysis: Are we safe yet? Rutgers Law Journal, 2008 ; 40 (1): 1 – 96.

Fraas A, Lutter R. The Challenges of Improving the Economic Analysis of Pending Regulations: The Experience of OMB Circular A‐4. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 2010.

Shapiro S, Morrall J. The Triumph of Regulatory Politics: BCA and Political Salience. Rutgers University, Working paper, 2011.

West W. Inside the black box: The development of proposed rules and the limitations of procedural controls. Administration & Society, 2009 ; 41 (5): 579 – 599.

Williams R. The Influence of Regulatory Economists in Federal Health and Safety Agencies. Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Working paper, 2008.

Department of Transportation. Passenger Car and Light Truck Corporate Average Fuel Economy 2011–2015. Regulatory Impact Analysis, 2008.

Department of Labor. Class exemption for provision of investment advice. Proposed Rules. Federal Register, 2008 ; 73 (164): 49895 – 49920.

Department of Labor. Class exemption for provision of investment advice. Notices. Federal Register, 2008 ; 73 (164): 49924 – 49932.

Environmental Protection Agency. Effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the construction and development point source category. Proposed rules. Federal Register, 2008 ; 73 (230): 72561 – 72614.

Department of Health and Human Services. Proposed hospice wage index for fiscal year 2009. Proposed rules. Federal Register, 2008 ; 73 (85): 24000 – 24035.

Department of Health and Human Services. Proposed changes to the hospital inpatient prospective payment systems and fiscal year 2009 rates. Proposed Rules. Federal Register, 2008 ; 73 (84): 23528 – 23938.

2009 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities. Washington, DC : Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 2009.

GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111–352, 124 Stat. 3866 (January 4, 2011).

Department of Homeland Security. Air/Sea Biometric Exit Project. Regulatory Impact Analysis, 2008.

Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed Lead NAAQS, Regulatory Impact Analysis, 2008.

Department of Transportation. Pipeline Safety: Integrity Management Program for Gas Distribution Pipelines. Regulatory Impact Analysis, 2008.

Department of Transportation. Congestion Management Rule for New York LaGuardia Airport. Regulatory Impact Analysis, 2008.

2008 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on States, Local, and Tribal Entities. Washington, DC : Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 2008.

Schütz A. Common‐sense and scientific interpretation of human action. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 1953 ; 14 :(1): 1 – 38.

Lavoie D. Hermeneutics, subjectivity, and the Lester‐Machlup debate: Toward a more anthropological approach to empirical economics. Pp. 167 – 184 in Samuels WJ (ed). Economics As Discourse: An Analysis of the Language of Economists. Norwell, MA : Kluwer Academic Publishers ; 1990.

Siegel S, Castellan NJ. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Ed. New York : McGraw‐Hill, 1988.

Perreault WD, Laurence LE. Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 1989 ; 26 (2): 135 – 148.

Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 1977 ; 33 (1): 159 – 174.

Hatry HP. Performance Measurement. Washington, DC : Urban Institute Press, 1999.

Fraas AG. Uncertainty in EPA's Analysis of Air Pollution Rules: A Status Report. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 10–04, February, 2010.

McLaughlin PA. The consequences of midnight regulations and other surges in regulatory activity. Public Choice, 2011 ; 147 (3): 395 – 412.

McLaughlin PA, Ellig J. Does OIRA review improve the quality of regulatory impact analysis? Evidence from the final year of the Bush II administration. Administrative Law Review, 2011 ; 63 (SE forthcoming): 102 – 123.

Ellig J, McLaughlin PA. The Quality and Use of Regulatory Analysis in 2008. Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Working paper, 2010.

~~~~~~~~

By Jerry Ellig and Patrick A. McLaughlin

Reported by Author; Author

Source: Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2012 May, Vol. 32 Issue 5, p855 Item: 22059696


	

	
		Back

6/17/2021 PUB-7002 V3: Administrative Law (6929289940) - PUB-7002 V3: Administrative Law (6929289940)

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/108827/printsyllabus/PrintSyllabus 1/3

Books and Resources for this Week

Week 4

PUB-7002 V3: Administrative Law (6929289940)

Adjudication and Enforcement of Administrative Law

This week’s lesson explores evidentiary adjudication of the federal government’s

administrative regulations, which encompasses specific formal proceedings held before a

judicial authority—usually a judge or a special court-appointed arbitrator. At these

proceedings, the evidence is presented into the legal record, and a determination on the

legal standing, rights, and obligations of individuals, corporations, and other entities must

be made. This is largely based on the facts presented before the convening authority and

judicial precedent. This type of evidentiary adjudication is commonly used in a wide array

of administrative decision processes ranging from determining if an individual or a group

is eligible for a specific benefit or entitlement, or has been illegally or unfairly denied due

process in a variety of economic, health care, or labor relations practices. These hearings

often involve court appearances of concerned parties and in-person testimonies.

For the professional bureaucrats responsible for implementing a federal agency’s

regulatory responsibilities, adjudication requires a detailed, well-documented explanation

to the judicial authority of exactly what statutory laws and agency regulations are being

applied, how, when, why, and by whom. These bureaucrats must also be able to succinctly

explain and articulate how the particular rule(s) in question are being consistently, fairly,

and properly enforced. The result of these evidentiary hearings is a formal decision, which

is made and subsequently published by the judicial authority. Unlike traditional

democratic notions of protracted public debate and open consideration and dialogue

between elected representatives at a public forum, administrative evidentiary adjudication

is generally a much more concise, streamlined process.

Be sure to review this week's resources carefully. You are expected to apply the

information from these resources when you prepare your assignments.

80 % 4 of 5 topics complete

javascript:void(0);

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/home/108827

6/17/2021 PUB-7002 V3: Administrative Law (6929289940) - PUB-7002 V3: Administrative Law (6929289940)

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/108827/printsyllabus/PrintSyllabus 2/3

Rosenbloom, D. H. (2015).

Administrative law for public managers.

Boulder, Colorado : Westview Press,

2015. Link

Ellig, J., & McLaughlin, P. A. (2012). The

quality and use of regulatory analysis in

2008. Risk Analysis: An Official

Publication Of The Society... Link

How do I write a white paper? Link

Kendrick, J. (2017). (Un)limiting

administrative review: Wind River,

Section 2401(A), and the right to

challenge federal agencies. Virginia Law

Review Link

Week 4 - Assignment: Analyze the Power of

Administrative Rulemaking Assignment

Due July 11 at 11:59 PM

After completing this week’s assigned reading materials, identify what you see as the

most daunting contemporary challenge federal agencies face today as they seek to create,

modify, and enforce far-reaching administrative regulations nation-wide.

A white paper is a document which provides a reader with background on a particular

topic to increase understanding, enable problem-solving, and foster decision-making. In

the policy-making process, a white paper is generally written in formal language, with

substantive text and ample data to provide an in-depth discussion of an issue. For this

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/108827/viewContent/1145550/View

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/108827/viewContent/1145538/View

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/108827/viewContent/1857434/View

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/108827/viewContent/1145539/View

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/108827/viewContent/1145518/View

6/17/2021 PUB-7002 V3: Administrative Law (6929289940) - PUB-7002 V3: Administrative Law (6929289940)

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/108827/printsyllabus/PrintSyllabus 3/3

exercise, you are a senior public administrator assigned to the Administrative Enforcement

Division of Federal Agency ‘X’ in Washington, DC. You have been tasked to prepare a

white paper for your agency’s director providing an analysis on your understanding of

how federal agency-level administrative action is considered law for federalism purposes,

yet not law within the constitutionally-enshrined separation of powers by the executive,

legislative, and judicial branches of government. Next, critically analyze what you see as

the inherent strengths and weaknesses of differences of administrative rulemaking as

compared to traditional statutory rulemaking, which is performed by the country’s elected

political representatives on Capitol Hill and within the Oval Office. Specify how public

officials can address any potential weaknesses you identify in this white paper.

Support your assignment with at least five scholarly resources. In addition to these

specified resources, other appropriate scholarly resources, including seminal articles, may

be included.

Length: 5-7 pages, not including title and reference pages

Your assignment should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts

presented in the course by providing new thoughts and insights relating directly to this

topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards. Be sure

to adhere to Northcentral University's Academic Integrity Policy.

Upload your document and click the Submit to Dropbox button.

1.Rosenbloom, D. H. (2015). Administrative law for public managers. Boulder, Colorado : Westview Press, 2015.

2. Ellig, J., & McLaughlin, P. A. (2012). The quality and use of regulatory analysis in 2008. Risk Analysis: An Official Publication Of The Society..

3. Kendrick, J. (2017). (Un)limiting administrative review: Wind River, Section 2401(A), and the right to challenge federal agencies. Virginia Law Review

How do I write a white paper?

from The Handy English Grammar Answer Book

The “white paper,” originally used to describe a government policy, has become a standard form of communication in the business world. White papers are used to describe a particular problem and propose a specific solution to that problem. White papers typically include the following:

Begin the white paper with a general title, e.g., “White Paper on Network Slowdown.”

State the main problem your paper is addressing in one or two direct sentences (e.g., sales are decreasing, network speed is too slow, customers are complaining).

Include any necessary background information, taking care to consider your audience's need for detail. You do not want your white paper to be either too simple or too complex for your readers.

Write the body of the white paper, which will typically range from 1–5 pages. Begin the body by elaborating on the problem you identified in the introduction. Follow with the solutions you are proposing, including any step-by-step implementation that will be needed.

Close with a summary that reviews the problem, your suggested solution, and the anticipated results.

APA

Chicago

Harvard

MLA

How do I write a white paper? (2015). In C. A. Hult, Handy answer book series: The handy English grammar answer book. Visible Ink Press. Credo Reference: https://login.proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/vipgrammar/how_do_i_write_a_white_paper/0?institutionId=1633

The Handy English Grammar Answer Book

The Handy English Grammar Answer Book offers fundamental principles, grammar rules, punctuation advice, insights on writing, and writing examples for everyone and every occasion. From a brief history of the English language to the deconstruction and explanation of the different parts of a sentence, and from showing how to punctuate correctly to how to organize a well-argued essay, this easy-to-use reference answers nearly 500 questions and offers fun facts on the English language and its usage.

Author(s): Christine A. Hult

Edition: 1st

Articles: 166

Images: 115

blog3

The Quality and Use of Regulatory Analysis in 2008.

2. EXISTING LITERATURE AND OUR APPROACH

2.1. Case Studies

2.2. Quantitative Scoring

2.3. Our Approach

3. EVALUATION PROTOCOL

3.1. What Was Evaluated?

3.2. Scoring System

3.3. An Example

3.4. Caveats

4. SCORES AND RANKINGS

4.1. Summary Statistics

4.2. Best and Worst Analyses

4.3. Average Scores by Regulation Type

4.4. Agency Average Scores

4.5. Average Scores by Criterion

5. USE OF REGULATORY ANALYSIS

5.1. Do Agencies Claim to Use Regulatory Analysis?

5.2. Correlation of Quality and Use

6. BEST PRACTICES

7. CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Appendices

APPENDIX A: MAJOR FACTORS CONSIDERED WHEN EVALUATING EACH CRITERION

Openness

Analysis

Use

APPENDIX B: CROSS‐WALK OF 2010 OMB REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS CHECKLIST WITH OUR EVALUATION C...

APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF INTERRATER RELIABILITY

Get help from top-rated tutors in any subject.