NRC Rules Would Benefit from OIRA Review

Editor’s Note: See also Expanding the Scope of OIRA Review and A Blueprint for OMB Review of Independent Agency Regulations (March 1, 2002).

From: American Action Forum

Dan Bosch, Dan Goldbeck, Philip Rossetti

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  • The Trump Administration is considering expanding the White House’s review of regulations to include reviewing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) rules.
  • The NRC is a good candidate for review because its incentive to regulate is misaligned with the safety risks of newer technologies.
  • The benefits of expanding regulatory review to the NRC markedly outweigh the costs.

INTRODUCTION

HHS Entries in OIRA’s Latest Regulatory Reform Report

From: Regulatory Studies Center | GW Columbian College of Arts and Sciences

By Bridget C.E. Dooling

Cutting red tape in the Medicare program delivers cost savings while other deregulatory efforts fall short

Download the Regulatory Insight (PDF)

Introduction

Executive Order 13771 imposed new constraints on executive branch regulatory agencies, directing them to cut two rules for any new rule issued and to offset any costs imposed by new rules. The Regulatory Reform Report for fiscal year (FY) 2018, issued last month by the Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), provides an update on agency actions over the course of the year. It shows a present value estimate of $23.4 billion in “overall regulatory costs” saved.

The CRA Spring Gun May Soon Fire its First Shot

From: Notice & Comment | A Blog from the Yale Journal on Regulation and the ABA Section of Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice

by Bridget C.E. Dooling

Earlier this month the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a proposed rule that may turn out to be the first opportunity to test the Congressional Review Act (CRA) post-disapproval restriction on rulemaking.

Time for a regulatory budget

Editor’s Note:  See also A Website Dedicated to the Implementation of a Regulatory Budget.

From: The Hill

***

A budget would help address regulations’ two major issues: The obvious, affordability, and the overlooked, accountability.

America’s private sector bears the cost of regulation.  Regardless of good intention, costs mount. Regulations have been aptly called an invisible tax.  As with taxes, while often justified by some programs deemed worthwhile, they still subtract from private individuals’ means.  The private sector — individuals and businesses — can do less than they would otherwise — save, invest, and spend.

Re-Imagining OIRA: A Call for Papers on the Future of Regulatory Budgets, Cost-Benefit Analysis, and White House Regulatory Oversight

Editor’s Note: For an invaluable resource on regulatory budgeting, see A Website Dedicated to the Implementation of a Regulatory Budget.

From: Notice & Comment | A Blog from the Yale Journal on Regulation and the ABA Section of Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice

by Adam White

A CALL FOR PAPERS

As the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs nears its fortieth birthday, we tend to spend a lot of time thinking about its history. But in a constitutional government that is nearly 230 years old, OIRA is actually very, very young—less a monument than an experiment.

Whose science? A new era in regulatory “science wars”

From: Science

Wendy Wagner1, Elizabeth Fisher2, Pasky Pascual3

Lessons in bipartisan deregulation from 30,000 feet

Editor’s Note: President Carter deserves much of the credit for institutionalizing White House review of federal regulations. The administrative state would be a vastly less contained enterprise were it not for his leadership in creating OMB’s institutional capacity to review regulations. The Godfather of Regulatory Budgeting explains “‘President Carter had set up this office [OIRA] of almost 90 people and we had been reviewing regulations. When Reagan issued the executive order, we had an infrastructure, which is very important . . . .'”

From: The Hill

The Annual ABA Section on Administrative Law Regulatory Summit

Editor’s Note: See the Complete 2018 ABA Administrative Law Conference Agenda.

From: Regulatory Pacesetters

***

Whether or not to institute a ceiling on these de facto taxes is a public policy issue that needs to be addressed when, and preferably before, the existing constraint on regulatory expenditures expires.  In a nutshell presently there is a constraint on the incremental costs that regulators can impose on the public; should this constraint, or a variant thereto, continue for the foreseeable future?  The particular mechanism to do so is also open for debate.

Responsiveness and durability: An analysis of the Accountability and State Plans rule

From: Brookings

Summary

This report analyzes the complex dynamics surrounding the federal rulemaking process, focusing on the relationship between agency responsiveness and rule durability. Using the Accountability and State Plans rule as a case study, author Elizabeth Mann Levesque explores the input that the department received from public comments and Congress, as well as how the department revised the draft rule in response to this feedback. The analysis within provides insight into how the public, agencies, and Congress shape the content and lifespan of final rules.

***

Improving the Efficiency of the Paperwork Reduction Act

Editor’s Note: See also Comments on the Draft Report to The Administrative Conference of the United States on the Paperwork Reduction Act.

From: The Regulatory Review

, , and

ACUS collaborated with agency officials to identify inefficiencies in the PRA approval process.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) has long been accused of adding excessive delay to the process of federal agencies producing surveys and other valuable information gathering efforts. Other experts have praised the PRA for serving as a necessary constraint on the ability of agencies to burden the public. In its recent plenary session, the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) approved a set of recommendations to improve the operation of the PRA. These proposals build on related suggestions from 2012, which considered statutory changes.