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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
From: FISMA Focus
Editor’s Note: The TechAmerica Foundation’s Big Data Commission has released its report “Demystifying Big Data: A Practical Guide To Transforming The Business of Government” attached here. The report includes a recommendation that the federal government develop expertise in managing Big Data projects, See below.
From: TechAmerica Foundation
Editor’s Note: For more on Regulation by Litigation, see here.
From: Interia Wins!
The federal regulatory process is a complicated thing. As with any complex body of law, there are loopholes that agencies can exploit. Over at the Washington Times, Wayne Crews and I point out three of these loopholes, and kindly suggest that Congress close them.
The first is “sue and settle.” Agencies like the EPA work closely with environmental and other pressure groups that sue targeted employers or states over some grievance to force a settlement, opening what our Competitive Enterprise Institute colleague William Yeatman aptly describes as “EPA’s New Regulatory Front.” Litigation is costly. Companies routinely settle to avoid protracted court battles, and settlement terms usually force compliance with the goals of the EPA or the allied interest group.
Editor’s Note: It will be interesting to see how well the OMB Watch analysis stands up under scrutiny, particularly since it focuses on the number of rules promulgated rather than their total economic cost.
From: OMB Watch
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27, 2012—Business interests and their allies on Capitol Hill have escalated their rhetoric over the number of regulations coming out of the Obama administration. OMB Watch today released a report, The Regulatory Tsunami That Wasn’t, that shows little difference between the Obama administration and past administrations in their overall level of regulatory activity, nor is there evidence that a “flood” of new rules will be unleashed after the November elections.
From: RegBlog
Cary Coglianese
Has the United States suffered a regulatory breakdown? The answer to this question would appear to be an obvious “yes.” Times have been especially tough during the past several years, and virtually every account of the nation’s woes places considerable blame on regulation. But in truth, the regulatory system is far less clearly to blame than most of us think.
According to a Gallup poll released last week, over three-quarters of Americans think the country has either too much or too little regulation. One might well say that criticism of regulation has become one of the rare commonalities between Democrats and Republicans as of late—it’s only their respective reasons for their dissatisfaction that differ profoundly.
