From: Scientific American
By David Wogan
A couple of items about fracking regulations worth keeping track of. First, the Associated Press reports that the comment period is being extended by 60-days for a new rule that will regulate hydraulic fracturing on public lands. The 171-page rule would require companies who drill for oil and natural gas using hydraulic fracturing to disclose chemicals used in the process.
From: Cleveland Plain Dealer/PolitiFact – Ohio
Portman was explaining a bill he co-introduced that could require additional cost-benefit analysis and allow more business flexibility before new federal regulations and rules could be issued. Portman says too many government regulations are imposed without a commonsense assessment of their burden on businesses and jobs. And he said that President Barack Obama’s administration has put out “more of these major rules than the Clinton administration or the Bush administration during comparable times.”
The term “Anti-Precautionary Principle” was discussed by Mercatus Center Senior Research Fellow Adam Thierer in this paper. According to Thierer, the Anti-Precautionary Principle
… would generally hold that:
1. society is better off when technological innovation is not preemptively restricted;
2. accusations of harm and calls for policy responses should not be premised on hypothetical worst-case scenarios; and
3. remedies to actual harms should be narrowly tailored so that beneficial uses of technology are not derailed.
Although the Anti-Precautionary Principle concept was discussed within the context of a Federal Trade Commission proceeding on privacy and cybersecurity, it has broad implications for federal technology-related regulations.
From: The Hill/RegWatch
By Julian Hattem
The oil and gas industry is pushing back against an expected Obama administration rule to tighten smog standards that public health groups say could save thousands of lives.
Cities and towns are still struggling to comply with a 2008 standard, the industry argues, and any new regulations could amount to the equivalent of “closed-for-business signs” across as much as 97 percent of the places Americans live.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) first proposed new standards for ozone pollution in 2010, but the White House overrode the agency and delayed the standards, a decision met with scorn by environmental and public health groups.
From: The Berkeley Blog
by Dan Farber, professor of law
Just fill in the blanks, and you can save yourself the trouble of reading newspaper accounts about any new EPA action:
New EPA Regulations Spark Controversy
The Environmental Protection Agency today announced tough new regulations on [name of industry]. According to the agency, the regulations will save thousands of lives by reducing dangerous levels of [name of substance] pollution. The total cost of the regulations is estimated at $[number] billions. The regulations were sent to the White House last year, where they were stalled in the office of the “regulatory czar” until last week.
From: Mercatus Center/George Mason University
Concern over the impact of regulations on jobs is not new, but the efforts of federal agencies to forecast the likely impact of regulatory changes have never focused effectively on labor market impacts. This failure means that agency analysis misses several important ripple effects of regulation, in particular the economic cost of job displacement for workers of all ages.
Editor’s Note: The author correctly highlights in the article below that FDA is required by OMB Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis, “to analyze options that are not currently legal so as to inform the president and Congress when there are more efficient ways of solving a particular social problem than Congress had envisioned.”
From: Mercatus Center/George Mason University — Public Interest Comments, Docket No: FDA-2011-N-0921
Michael L. Marlow
Introduction
From: Regulation
By Susan E. Dudley
Last January 14th, the Environmental Protection Agency published a final rule in the Federal Register updating the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter. The rule reduces by 20 percent the allowable annual concentrations of fine particles less than 2.5 micrometers in size (PM 2.5), from the current 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) that was affirmed in 2006, to 12.0 μg/m3.
From: Investors Business Daily
By HENRY I. MILLER
Economic prospects for the nation remain dismal for the foreseeable future, especially in the context of historical trends.
Following recessions, the economy usually comes roaring back — and the longer and deeper the recession, the more robust economic growth tends to be as productivity and job-growth surge.
But the recovery from the recession of the last decade has been anemic at best, and is expected to remain comparatively weak at least through the remainder of Obama’s second term.
From: The Hill/RegWatch
By Megan R. Wilson and Ben Goad
The Obama administration’s failure to release its legally required regulatory agenda has business groups worried that they could be blindsided by costly new federal rules.
Federal regulators are required to release a Unified Agenda in the spring and fall — typically occurring in April and October — that details plans and anticipated deadlines for regulations.
But Obama officials have missed the spring deadline for the second year in a row, stoking anxiety for businesses that want to know what mandates and rules are coming down the pike.