See this post on the Yale-ABA Notice and Comment blog.
As a result of the insight of Professor Ed Richards, Director of the Louisiana State University Climate Change Law and Policy Project, the give and take in the development of one of the more controversial regulations dealing with visibility protection to national parks is available on video. This video is one of a kind. It was narrated by a very famous actor, Edward G. Marshall, some thirty years ago and goes to a painstaking effort to document the development of a contentious regulation over a considerable period of time.
The publication of the landmark treatise on the Data Quality Act (aka IQA) is timely because there is a substantial increase in its use by NGOs.
One petitioner states the following:
The IQA has not been frequently litigated, but some courts have hinted at the possibility that judicial intervention may be appropriate to compel agencies to comply with its requirements. If any administration is likely to convince the courts that judicial enforcement of basic information quality standards is necessary, it is this one.
The Data Quality Act (aka Information Quality Act) has been the subject of numerous articles, many of which conclude that:
- there is no significant legislative history on the legislation
- no court has found the Act to be judicially reviewable, and
- the Act is not judicially reviewable.
In recent years we have seen the media move from in-depth analyses of events to the maximization of articles by writing short off the cuff news stories. However this is not always the case. We call your attention to a recent article published by Inside Washington Publishers (IWP), the publishers of a range of agency-specific publications including Inside EPA.
In this instance IWP conducted a detailed analyses of the institutional consequences of implementing a regulatory budget. It deserves a bookmark in the annals of centralized regulatory review.
Some time ago DEA asked HHS, including FDA, for its views on kratom.
DEA never responded to CRE’s request for a copy of the letter it sent to the FDA nor did CRE obtain a copy of the HHS response to the DEA.
CRE was and still is of the opinion that FDA was a major player in the potential listing of Kratom on Schedule I. It was for this reason that the CRE recommended that Kratom users submit to regulation by the FDA with an emphasis on dosage and purity. CRE wanted the FDA to spend its time on developing a sensible regulation not a legal strategy to ban kratom.
Editor’s Note: Former Senator Nickels and former Congressman McIntosh were instrumental in the establishment of CRE a number of years prior the first successful use of the CRA.
A Harvard Law Review article of the past summarizes in a very concise manner the merits of the Congressional Review Act:
The CRA provides that when a disapproval resolution is sent from the Senate to the House, or vice versa, the receiving chamber cannot refer the resolution to a committee.
Second, the CRA prohibits filibusters of disapproval resolutions in the Senate, setting time limits for debate and eliminating many procedural hurdles.
Notwithstanding the ever growing number of regulations in the Administrative state you know you have arrived when you no longer have to:
(1) use a smartphone
(2) ride Uber
Centralized Regulatory Review has been around for a half century. In that space of time the concept of centralized regulatory review has emerged from an extralegal innovation of the Presidency to a necessary tool for governance of the administrative state with a bipartisan base of support.
What is the relationship between centralized regulatory review and pending legislation for regulatory reform? In large part the proponents of regulatory reform conclude that centralized regulatory review, while making a contribution, is not living up to their expectations.
A Mechanism for Communicating With Administration Officials Subsequent to the Close of the Public Comment Period
An IPD is an Interactive Public Docket.. The purpose of an IPD is to break the government’s monopoly over what is contained in a regulatory docket.
More specifically, the docket for a regulatory proceeding and access to it by the public is very limited. Presently the regulators are the sole determinant of what papers used in the pre-Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) stage goes into the docket; the regulators are also the sole determinant of what papers go into the docket subsequent to the close of the public comment period. The public can only affect the content of the docket in a limited time period of say, 60 to 90 days, out of a period of one or more years need to complete a rulemaking.