1. Comments containing original empirical research on specific regulatory issues were filed with many agencies, including the FCC, the DOT, and the FDA. These filings tended to be the most convincing work of the program because the empirical work made the filings more valuable and more credible than they might otherwise be. See, e.g., Reply Comments of the Bureaus of Competition, Consumer Protection, and Economics of the FTC, In the Matter of Amendment of Section 73.3555 of the Commission's Rules, Broadcast Multiple Ownership Rules, MM Docket No;On Review of UPL Advisory Op. 2003-02, 588 S.E.2d 741 (Ga. 2003) (No. S03U1451,1987
2. Reply Comment of the Staff of the Bureau of Economics and the San Francisco Regional Office of the FTC, In the Matter of Reexamination of the Effective Competition Standard for the Regulation of Cable Television Basic Service Rates, Carriage of Television Broadcast Signals by Cable Television Systems;the Matter of Amendment of Part 74 of the Commission's Rules Concerning FM Translator Stations, MM Docket No. 88-140, RM-5416,1989
3. Empirical work done by a BE economist and the Commission's report on competition in the health care industry have complemented advocacy filings on "any willing provider" laws involving retail pharmaceutical sales in Rhode Island and California legislation that would impose disclosure requirements on PBMs. See Michael G. Vita, Regulatory Restrictions on Selective Contracting: An Empirical Analysis of "Any-Willing-Provider" Regulations, 20 J. Health Econ;Docket Nos. 91N-0384, 84N-0153, 85N-0061, 91N-0098, 91N-0099, 91N-0094, 91N-0096, 91N-0095,1992