Editor’s Note: The following is an excerpt from the Conclusion section of “GAO-14-714, Federal Rulemaking: Agencies Included Key Elements of Cost-Benefit Analysis, but Explanations of Regulations’ Significance Could Be More Transparent.” In the section of the report discussing agency comments on the evaluation, GAO noted that OMB was “not opposed to the language in our recommendation directing agencies to include the relevant portion of Executive Order 12866’s definition of significant regulatory action in the preamble to rules.”
From: The Federalist Society
Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group Teleforum
Start : Tuesday, September 09, 2014 01:00 PM
End : Tuesday, September 09, 2014 02:00 PM
Add To Your Calendar
Location:
Federalist Society Teleforum Conference Call
Federalist Society Teleforum Conference Call
Featured Speakers:
Todd J. Zywicki
John D. Graham
Editor’s Note: The material below, from the UK’s Regulatory Policy Committee, explains the duty of regulatory agencies to perform cost-benefit and risk analyses of regulatory proprosals. The material also provides the RPC’s most recent metrics-based report on agency performance.
From: Regulatory Policy Committee
Data on the quality of departmental impact assessments submitted to the Regulatory Policy Comittee
Document
Detail
Regulatory proposals are accompanied by an impact assessment (IA), which assesses and estimates the likely costs and benefits, as well as presenting the associated risks, of a regulatory proposal that has an impact on business, civil society organisations, the public sector or individuals.
Editor’s Note: An OIRA Watch reader sent us the following essay discussing the Administration’s climate accord plans. We think the essay is worthy of publication and its policy proposal is worthy of public discussion. OIRA Watch invites our readers of all perspectives to substantively discuss the climate change essay on our CCS DQA Interactive Public Docket.
Alternative Regulatory Actions for Climate Change
The Obama Administration is invoking its executive authorities to the fullest. More specifically they are negotiating a non-legally binding agreement among nations to establish greenhouse gas emission levels by country.
From: Mercatus Center/George Mason University
Thomas D. Hopkins, Benjamin Miller, Laura Stanley
Regulation in the United States became far more complex over the past several decades as new regulatory agencies with ambitious agendas were created. In response, Congress and recent presidents have implemented new regulatory oversight measures, with varying success. Regulatory agencies are often required to produce benefit-cost analyses for proposed changes to the regulatory landscape, but the quality of these analyses is usually disappointing. Even when the analyses are accurate, agencies sometimes forget the “first principle” of regulation: it ought to identify and correct a failure in the market being regulated. In the absence of a market failure, there is no need to regulate.
Obama hits the gas on regs
Aug 26
From: The Hill
By Tim Devaney
Groups that closely follow regulations are expecting the Obama administration to continue issuing controversial rules through the midterm elections, despite the political risk it could pose for Democrats.
With time running out on President Obama’s second term, federal agencies are hitting the gas on a number of regulatory initiatives that are central to the White House’s “go-it-alone” agenda.
The pace of rulemaking is a stark contrast from the months leading up to the 2012 presidential election, when the flow of rules came screeching to a near halt.
From: Social Science Research Network
Ryan Bubb, New York University School of Law/NYU Law and Economics Research Paper No. 14-21
Editor’s Note: Since criticism of OMB’s regulatory review duties continues to be in fashion among even the most distinguished administrative law scholars, it is worth reviewing reviewing the 1990 report by the National Research Council on OMB’s cost-benefit analysis.
From: The Politics Of Benefit-Cost Analysis (Chapter 3: Valuing Health Risks, Costs, and Benefits for Environmental Decision Making: Report of a Conference)
R. Shep Melnick
From: The Hill
By Patrick A. McLaughlin, contributor
Scientific progress requires measurement, especially when working with a complex system such as the economy or the human body. For example, our understanding of the relationship between cholesterol and human health continues to evolve, but it has only gotten to the point where we debate the merits of “good” cholesterol and “bad” cholesterol via a century of investigation and the development of measurement techniques. Similarly, although in a very different field, professional sports teams increasingly develop new, quantitative metrics of player performance in order to optimize team performance — as described by the book and movie “Moneyball.”
From: Mercatus Center/George Mason University
Since President Reagan’s Executive Order 12291, all presidents have issued executive orders (EOs) requiring agencies to conduct comprehensive regulatory impact analyses (RIAs) for significant regulations to ensure that regulatory decisions solve social problems in a cost-beneficial manner. President Clinton’s Executive Order 12866, as amended by President Obama’s Executive Order 13563, outlines the principal requirements that currently apply. However, experience demonstrates that neither the executive orders nor the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance implementing those orders have been sufficient to ensure that regulation accomplishes important public goals without imposing unnecessary costs on the economy. Even when agencies conduct detailed RIAs, there are often significant gaps in the analyses.
