Oct
30

Outcome of presidential election will impact judicial review of vital federal regulations

From: Economic Policy Institute Blog

Daniel Costa

The impact of each presidential election on the makeup of the Supreme Court receives plenty of media attention and is analyzed extensively by experts and court watchers—and deservedly so. During the vice presidential debate, Vice President Biden predicted that the next president is likely to appoint “one or two” justices to the nation’s highest court. Although this prediction may have spooked a few of the Supreme Court justices, given that they would either have to die or retire to open a seat on the court, the election’s impact on the judiciary is a crucial consideration. Lifetime appointments for Supreme Court nominees mean they are sometimes the most enduring legacy of a president’s administration. Given that the Supreme Court is currently comprised of five conservative and four moderately progressive justices, the next administration could realistically tip the ideological balance of the court.

Oct
30

RAHN: The coming regulatory tsunami

 

Editor’s Note:   Another view is expressed in an article  titled:   Question: Have regulations exploded under President Obama?  

Feds withholding required report

 Knowledgeable officials are expecting a regulatory tsunami after the election. By law, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to publish a report each April and October about new regulations that government agencies are considering. OMB failed to publish the April report. The question is why — what is it hiding?

Oct
29

When is a Federal Agency not a Federal Agency?

Editor’s Note:  The following article highlights the importance of independent agency adherence to the “good government” laws that regulate the regulators.  Ensuring such adherence is well within OMB’s authority without additional statutory authority.

From:  RegBlog

Cary Coglianese

As the size and scope of government has expanded over the last century, so too has the web of administrative law that constrains the actions of government agencies. Yet a story in last Thursday’s Wall Street Journal has raised a provocative question about the limits of administrative law: Is it possible for a federal agency to escape from the normal rules governing agency action?

Oct
26

House Republicans blast OIRA over late regulations report

From: FederalNewsRadio.com 1500AM

By Jack Moore

The chairmen of the House Oversight and Judiciary committees have writtento the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) demanding to know why the public release of a report on upcoming federal regulations is behind schedule.

OIRA publishes the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actionstwice a year — in the spring and the fall. The report provides a snapshot of regulations that agencies are considering acting upon in the next year.

But the most recent reportthe agency has published is for fall 2011.

Oct
23

Center for Strategic and International Studies Calls for Revisions to OMB Circular A-130

From: FISMA Focus

FISMA Focus Editor’s Note:  The Center for Strategic and International Studies’ paper “Updating U.S. Federal Cybersecurity Policy and Guidance” by Franklin S. Reeder, Daniel Chenok, Karen S. Evans, James A. Lewis, and Alan Paller is attached here. The must-read analysis, subtitled “Spending Scarce Taxpayer Dollars On Security Programs That Work” calls for a long-overdue revision to OMB Circular A-130 which governs federal information security policy.

Oct
19

EPA to Speed up Regulation after U.S. Election

From: Helicopter Association International

No matter who wins the White House, Election Day is likely to unleash a flurry of regulatory action within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But if Mitt Romney wins, the stakes will be particularly high as the EPA seeks to approve several rules that have been caught up in regulatory purgatory amid election-year politics.

Oct
18

Enhancing Science and Policy for Chemical Risk Assessments: 10/23, 1 – 5pm with reception (Foggy Bottom Campus)

Editor’s Note:  The flyer for the event is attached here.  Conference registration is available here.

From: George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center

The George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center and Center for Risk Science and Public Health, the Society for Risk Analysis, and the American Chemistry Council, in collaboration with Administrative Conference of the United States, are hosting an afternoon workshop to discuss constructive solutions to enhance the quality and credibility of chemical risk assessments. Discussion will build on recent reports from the National Academy of Sciences and the Keystone Group.

 

 

Oct
17

Regulatory Review, Capture, and Agency Inaction by Michael A. Livermore & Richard L. Revesz

Editor’s Note: The Livermore & Revesz paper is attached here.

From: New York University School of Law

PUBLIC LAW & LEGAL THEORY RESEARCH PAPER SERIES — WORKING PAPER NO. 12-47

LAW & ECONOMICS RESEARCH PAPER SERIES — WORKING PAPER NO. 12-28

Oct
15

Paul Noe and a Penn Conference Address Impacts Regulations Have on Jobs

Paul Noe

Published in the ABA’s  Administrative and Regulatory Law News

Mr. Noe concludes:

There are concrete steps that could reduce the adverse impact of regulations on jobs. For economically significant rules agencies should analyze the employment effects, monetize those impacts to the extent feasible, and incorporate them into the BCA.”

Read article Impacts of Regs on Jobs NOE 1012

 

 RegBlog

Oct
11

Risk Assessment, Safety Assessment, and the Estimation of Regulatory Benefits

From: Mercatus Center/George Mason University

by Richard Belzer

Most federal agencies are required to conduct benefit-cost analyses for their largest regulations. Benefit-cost analysis is intended to objectively inform decision makers about the myriad effects of a range of potential alternatives. For many regulations, benefit-cost analyses depend on health risk assessment. It is well established that a clear conceptual distinction must be established and maintained between (positive) risk assessment and (normative) risk management. Decision makers cannot ensure that regulatory choices conform with their intentions if they cannot discern where the science in an analysis ends and value judgments begin.

Older posts «