Archive for April, 2017
Administrative Procedure Act Reform and McNollgast
Editor’s Note: Stakeholders considering changes to the Administrative Procedure Act should study its past and its purpose.
From: Notice & Comment | A Blog from the Yale Journal on Regulation and the ABA Section of Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice
In Bipartisan Reform of the APA, Is There “Fertile Ground Here to Actually Get Something Done”?
by Adam White
As Chris noted last night, Senators Portman and Heitkamp introduced legislation to significantly reform and modernize the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946. There is much to be written about this version of the “Regulatory AccountabilityAct,” including its provision for replacing Auer deference with a Skidmore
Regulatory Reform in the 114th and 115th Congresses
Editor’s Note: A must read article on the regulatory budget. The author states:
“Finally, it bears noting that, while many of the bills discussed in this paper would be a welcome down payment on comprehensive reform, none by themselves will be sufficient to curb the growth of the regulatory state.”
An accurate point but the regulatory budget is the only mechanism which places a ceiling on the size of the regulatory states. Also see
A Website Dedicated to the Implementation of a Regulatory Budget.
My Latest: Sticky Regulations (A Benefit of Ossification?)
From: Notice & Comment
I’m pleased to announce that my latest article, Sticky Regulations, has been posted to SSRN. It will be published next year in The University of Chicago Law Review. If you are interested, I’m going to present it on April 21st at the Rethinking Due Process Public Policy Conference hosted by the Center for the Study of the Administrative State. This is still a very (very) early draft; I appreciate thoughts.
Regulatory Review & Policy Change
Editor’s Note: For an extensive set of regulatory review teaching resources, see the OIRA Teaching Modules.
From: Robert M. La Follette School of Public Affairs, University of Wisconsin–Madison
One of the key components of these projects is bringing faculty members’ research directly to state and national policymakers as well the general public,” said La Follette School Board of Visitors member Chuck Pruitt, who served on the selection committee. “Funding also benefits students, who will work alongside these highly talented scholars as project assistants.”
The funded projects and lead faculty members are:
Evaluating the Paperwork Reduction Act: Are Burdens Being Reduced?
From: American Action Forum
- The short answer to the title of this hearing is, no, burdens are not lower. In 1997, after amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the cumulative burden was 6.9 billion hours. Today, it stands at 11.6 billion hours. Small businesses are particularly affected, with 3.3 billion hours of compliance burdens and $111 billion in costs.
- The PRA suffers from historical mismanagement from federal agencies who routinely violate the law. Last fiscal year, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) reported 283 violations, but there are no consequences for agency violations. Individual or business violations, however, can carry stiff penalties.