Things are sure a lot different than when I worked for the Federal Aviation Administration. Where I worked we did regulatory analyses.
The FAA, like the Federal Communications Commission, is a regulatory agency. Congress would pass a law giving the agency authority to regulate in a certain area, but would not spell out what the regulations would be.
The agency, through its knowledge of the subject matter and with guidance from the administration, would decide that.
The agency was required to perform a study showing both the positive and negative impacts of the proposed regulation on the agency and the public. This would help the agency decide if the proposal was worth producing.
Never miss a local story.
The agency was required by law to publish the proposed regulation in the Federal Register for anyone to read. Then there was a period set aside for the public to comment on the proposal. These comments would also be available to the public.
The agency was not required to let these comments decide the matter, but it should at least consider them.
I was involved in a proposed regulation to increase flight restrictions in the San Diego area to help prevent another midair collision. My analysis showed that collision risk would be reduced, but the restrictions would impose a burden on private pilots.
When this proposal was published there was a tremendous negative reaction from private pilots, but the commercial pilots supported the proposal. The agency went ahead with the regulation.
Today, there is no need for Congress to empower an agency to make a regulation. The president can simply order it.
The agency is not required to conduct a study or publish the proposed regulation. Not even Congress could see the new "net neutrality" law.
Most people are completely unaware that this is not the way it is supposed to work.