From: SSRN
An Updated Look at the Federal Policies Governing How Agencies Use Voluntary Consensus Standards in Regulatory, Procurement, and Science Documents
Bruce Levinson
Abstract:
From: RegBlog | Penn Program on Regulation
In these hyper-partisan times, one is hard-pressed to identify any areas of overlap between the left and right. One rare exception is the concept of “regulatory capture.” Tea Party Republicans, Progressive Democrats, and centrists in both parties regularly decry the evils of “crony capitalism,” though each side emphasizes different aspects of the problem. A recent forum on regulatory capture hosted by the Administrative Conference of the United States highlighted this bipartisan consensus: U.S. Senators Mike Lee (R-Utah), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), as well as a range of academics from across the political spectrum, all pointed to a common malady, but they offered somewhat different sets of cures.
The Regulatory Budget Debate
Jun 17
From: N.Y.U. Journal of Legislation & Public Policy | Volume 19, Issue 2
Richard J. Pierce, Jr.
***
CONCLUSION
Both the application of NEPA by agencies and OIRA review of agency actions create delays in decision making and increase the resources that agencies must devote to each major action they take. I believe that both NEPA and OIRA application of BCA are so valuable to the agency decision-making process that those adverse effects are justified by the contributions that both make to the quality of agency decisions. As I have argued at length elsewhere, I cannot say the same about the massive adverse effects of judicial review on the time and resources that agencies must devote to the process of issuing a major rule. I continue to support the proposal that Justice (then Professor) Breyer made in 1993: we should replace counterproductive judicial review with review by a version of OIRA that is better staffed and broader in the values it brings to the review process. [Emphasis added. Notes omitted]
From: RegBlog | Penn Program on Regulation
It is not every day that I have the opportunity to join with my colleagues Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to advance the same cause. On paper, you might think that the three of us do not have much in common.
***
The modern administrative state flips this theory on its head, consolidates power, and assumes that good intentions will always overcome “the latent causes of faction.” This upending of our constitutional order was not accidental, and it did not happen overnight. Over the course of the 20th century, Congress steadily surrendered its constitutional powers and responsibilities to the executive branch. And, since that period, this trend has only accelerate
From: American Action Forum
SAM BATKINS
***
However, for economically significant measures, May of 2016 blew away the field. OIRA concluded review of 14 significant measures, 27 percent more than 2012, 50 percent more than 2008, and 114 percent more than 2004. Below are just some of the notable regulations released last month:
- Final “E-Cigarettes” Rule;
- Final Revised Fracking Standards;
- Nondiscrimination Rules under the ACA;
- Final Overtime Standards; and
- A Pair of Final Food Labeling Revisions.
From: SSRN
Eloise Pasachoff
Georgetown University Law Center
Yale Law Journal, Vol. 125, 2016, Forthcoming
Abstract:
From: Article 1 Project
by U.S. Senator Mike Lee, U.S. Representative Jeb Hensarling, U.S. Representative Dave Brat, U.S. Representative Barry Loudermilk, U.S. Representative Mia Love, U.S. Representative John Ratcliffe, U.S. Representative Mark Walker
Executive Summary
The federal regulatory state is out of control.
It is out of control economically,costing Americans between $1 trillion and $2 trillion per year in artificially inflated prices. And it is out of control politically, as federal bureaucrats now write upwards of 95 percent of all new federal “laws” without winning a single vote in Congress or at the ballot box.
From: Social Science Research Network
Cass R. Sunstein, Harvard Law School | Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 16-12
We Need to Get Back to Work
May 10
Editor’s Note: The solution to regulatory ossification is the regulatory budget. See, Regulatory Deossification Revisited.
From: RegBlog | Penn Program on Regulation
Rulemaking has slowed to a crawl throughout the executive branch. If an agency does not have a statutory mandate to undertake such a brutal and resource-intensive process, the choice to accomplish its mission through any other means will be tempting. Of course, if the policy issues are controversial, no pathway to their redress—rule, adjudication, guidance, or bully pulpit—will be problem-free. The opposition party made clear, almost as soon as President Barack Obama was elected, that over-regulation would remain among its most shrill and pervasive battle cries.
From: Competitive Enterprise Institute
Ten Thousand Commandments 2016 – Chapter 5
What little regulatory disclosure does exist has suffered under the Obama administration. “The Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions” (the Agenda) outlining agency priorities normally appears in the Federal Register each fall and, minus the Regulatory Plan component, each spring. However, these days it seems even this limited disclosure has become too much to ask of a government that avoids preparing a comprehensive and balanced fiscal budget for itself, let alone a regulatory one. Election campaign considerations can cause agencies to hold back on rules or report fewer of them. In addition, OMB now routinely reports on fewer “long-term” planned rules—including disclosure of rules affecting small business—an omission that misleadingly pushes the overall Agenda count downward. The overall number of rules appearing in the Agenda has decreased of late, yet that does not mean regulatory bur – dens have decreased. In any event, counts for the costlier subset of rules are up.