OIRA@2050

From: Federal Computer Week

By Camille Tuutti

The federal spending transparency bill came under fire earlier this week when an administration official said the act adds additional regulatory complexity while removing some of the necessary Office of Management and Budget oversight.

At a June 13 panel discussion hosted by the Partnership for Public Service, OMB controller Danny Werfel said the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act is inconsistent with some the lessons learned from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

From: RegBlog

David Harrington

Federal  regulations in the United States encompass all aspects citizen’s lives. However, finding regulations has never been very easy for members of the public or regulated businesses because relevant materials can be spread across numerous sections of the United States Code (USC) and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

Attached is a letter from CRE to the Bureau of Land Management discussing the agency’s compliance with BLM, DOI and OMB open government/transparency guidelines.

I am writing to bring to your attention a violation of the Open Government and Transparency Initiative championed by the White House and implemented by the agencies through guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Specifically, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is refusing to release to the public the public’s own comments on the agency’s draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Oil Shale. BLM requested public comments on the draft document in a Federal Register notice on February 6, 2012.

Editor’s Note:  The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness filed a Request for Correction petition with the FCC under the Data Quality Act in 2007 explaining that the Commission could not use a highly publicized localism study attributed to a former agency employee because it did not comply with OMB and FCC data quality standards.  CRE’s petition may be found here.  The FCC notification that they would respond to the petition in the rulemaking is found here.  A trade press article discussing the CRE petition may be found here and a law review article discussing CRE’s petition may be found here.  In their February 2008 Report and Order (Footnote 467), the FCC stated that they would not use the studies that CRE had explained could not be used.

Editor’s Note:  OMB Watch’s contention that there is a “fundamental principle of modern workplace safety laws” which holds that indications which “suggest” risk justify regulation is simply not true.  Among other problems with this unsupported contention is that it contradicts President Obama’s Executive Order 13563 on improving regulation and regulatory review.  The January 2011 Executive Order explicitly reaffirmed the long-standing principle that agencies must “propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs….”

From: OMB Watch

From: RegBlog

Jerry Ellig and Patrick A. McLaughlin

How well do federal agencies conduct the regulatory analysis required in Executive Order 12866 and use it to make decisions?

By IAN URBINA

WASHINGTON — It is a political tradition that is almost as old as the White House: a president on the way out, unconstrained by electoral considerations, fast-tracks a flurry of contentious regulations in the waning hours of his term, sometimes even cutting short review from industry or the public.

As he was leaving, President George W. Bush expanded Justice Department surveillance powers, relaxed rules on certain types of coal mining and altered protections for endangered animals. President Bill Clintonpushed through new rules on chemicals in drinking water and on workplace injuries caused by repetitive movements.

Editor’s Note:  The complete paper is attached below.

From: Mercatus Center

by Colleen Haight, Derek Thieme

Abstract

ENHANCING THE COMPETITIVENESS OF THE AMERICAN STANDARDS SYSTEM BY RENEWING CIRCULAR A-119

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
OMB-2012-0003
Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary
Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities

See the comments of Scott Raferty attached below.

Rafferty Comment OMB-2012-0003

Editor’s Note:  The Regisration link for the event is here. 

From: The George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center