From: Federal Computer Week
By Camille Tuutti
Crowdsourcing has lately been a popular way to gather ideas and information from an array of sources. Now, the White house is taking that avenue to ask citizens to chime in on how to help them overhaul and simplify rules and regulations.
Writing for the OMBlog, Cass Sunstein, administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, said the administration wants to hear from the public on which rules should be eliminated, streamlined or made more effective. Citizens are also encouraged to share their insight on how to decrease reporting and paperwork burdens, as well as the best way to cut regulatory costs.
From: Wall Street Journal
By Elizabeth WilliamsonCass Sunstein, director of the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget, at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on March 16, 2011. (AP Photo)
They’ve asked the people who make the rules, and now they’re asking you: The White House is seeking the public’s ideas on regulations made simple.
From: The Hill
By Nancy A. Nord and Anne M. Northup, commissioners, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
Government agencies should review their rules regularly to ensure that those rules impose the lowest reasonable burden consistent with fulfilling the agency’s statutory objectives. As commissioners at the Consumer Product Safety Commission, we are faced with regulatory decisions that affect over 15,000 products worth billions to the American economy each year. As good regulators, it is incumbent upon us to consider the costs and benefits of the rules we adopt. To that end, we challenge our colleagues at the CPSC to embrace the spirit of President Obama’s Executive Order 13579, which asked independent agencies to use cost benefit analysis and to conduct retrospective reviews to identify and fix or repeal rules that are ineffective or too burdensome.
Michael Alan Livermore and Jason A. Schwartz
The potential of the retrospective review of rules adopted by federal agencies has been hailed by both the right and the left as a way to improve regulation and increase efficiency: by collecting information on what works and what does not, we can make better choices in the future. The Obama Administration has embraced this vision of retrospective review, but unfortunately, by focusing almost exclusively on cutting costs, it is walking back its commitment to use this tool in a balanced fashion.
The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness (CRE) recently submitted comments on the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Retrospective Regulatory Review. In the comments, the CRE recommended that:
1. DOE Should Review Select Existing Regulations Across All Agencies that Have a Major Impact on the National Energy Policy
2. DOE Must Ensure That Future Energy Regulations and Environmental Analyses are Transparent (such as BLM’s Oil Shale PEIS, see here: http://www.thecre.com/oil/?p=221), Including Releasing Public Comments to the Public
Read the comments in their entirety here: DOE Review of Regulations – Center for Regulatory Effectiveness Comments
The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) recently submitted a letter to Congressman Issa and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
NAM identified the following regulations as harming job growth:
1. PHMSA Hazardous Materials: Transportation of Lithium Batters
2. EPA Utility MACT
3. EPA Clean Water Act Jurisdiction
4. EPA Hydraulic Fracturing
5. EPA Greenhouse Gas Regulations New Source Performance Standards
6. EPA Cooling Water Intake Structures
7. EPA/DOJ Environmental Justice
8. NLRB Poster Rule
9. NLRB Ambush Elections
10. DOL OFCCP Hiring Rule
11. DOL Persuader Rule
The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness (CRE) recently submitted a letter to Congressman Issa and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
The Letter is available in its entirety here: Center for Regulatory Effectiveness Letter to Congressman Issa
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to modernize our regulatory system and to reduce unjustified regulatory burdens and costs, itis hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. Regulations play an indispensable role in protecting public health, welfare, safety, and our environment, but they can also impose significant burdens and costs. During challenging economic times, we should be especially careful not to impose unjustified regulatory requirements. For this reason, it is particularly important for agencies to conduct retrospective analyses of existing rules to examine whether they remain justified and whether they should be modified or streamlined in light of changed circumstances, including the rise of new technologies.
Home Medical Equipment Industry Sustaining a Substantial Reduction in Employment as a Result of Federal Regulation
The small businesses that provide oxygen and medical equipment to senior citizens are a dying breed as a result of a CMS regulation—competitive bidding. The CMS competitive bidding program has been criticized by over 200 leading economists.
Over 300 DME firms have vanished.
The President’s Science Advisor should act in accordance with the recommendation of CRE asking him to advise CMS that its competitive bidding program is not based upon sound science.
The President assigned the Science Advisor the responsibility of ridding the regulatory process of misplaced science; it is time he exercises that authority
BLM is working on a preliminary environmental impact statement on the development of oil shale reserves. BLM will not release the comments it received from the public until which time it issues the final EIS.
CRE is indifferent to whether BLM uses Regulaltions.gov or another mechanism to disseminate the comments it receives but its difficult to comprehend in the year 2012 that a federal agency refuses to release the comments it receives from the public on an ongoing regulatory matter. In doing so, BLM does monopolize the proceeding by prohibiting the various stakeholders from reviewing the comments of other stakeholders.