Public Participation

CRE is not supportive of the EPA science initiative at this time because it creates a new regulatory regime without first exploiting to the fullest the existing regulatory regime which consists of the Data Access Act and the Data Quality Act. It has been nearly a month since CRE announced its opposition to the EPA Silent Science Initiative. During that time period we have examined the position of others and it appears that with the exception of NGOs, CRE is the only organization which has stated an outright opposition to the EPA proposal.

Here are CRE positions on this matter:

June 2018

In that the Editor will approach his eightieth year in several weeks, he has been asked to provide the names of his contemporaries who not only made a noteworthy but also a lasting impact on the functioning of the Administrative State, who did so both as a federal employee and in prior or subsequent non-federal employment, who were confirmed by the Senate and who are currently employed in their chosen field of endeavor.

Notwithstanding the aforementioned formidable list of qualifying conditions the names that come to mind in very short order include but are not limited to:

Editor’s Note: The conference programme is available here.

St Mary’s University, London, UK will hold a conference on Quantum Law on Tuesday 26th June 2018.  Mr. Bruce Levinson, CRE Senior Vice President—Regulatory Intervention will make a presentation. For additional information contact Mr. Levinson at the CRE.

The following has been extracted from the brochures describing the program.

Quantum theory, the study of the nature and behaviour of matter and energy on the atomic and subatomic level, has come to occupy a dominant position in physics. It is however increasingly important also as both the basis of new or potential technologies and as a broader idea outside of subatomic physics itself, as both an artefact of popular culture but also a means of explaining other complex phenomena.

Notwithstanding regulatory folklore to the contrary, the Data Access Act and the Data Quality Act did not evolve from an overreach of centralized regulatory review but instead are based upon an explicit grant of authority from the Congress to the Director of OMB in the 1995 Amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

44 U.S. Code § 3504 – Authority and functions of Director

• The Director shall oversee the use of information resources to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of governmental operations to serve agency missions, including burden reduction and service delivery to the public. In performing such oversight, the Director shall—(B) provide direction and oversee—

EPA is issuing an NPRM to revamp its procedures for the use of benefit-cost analysis in evaluating its regulatory proposals.

OIRA alumnus Paul Noe states:

But one of the greatest yet most readily addressable impediments to smarter regulation is that regulatory agencies such as EPA too often have interpreted their statutes to limit their ability to fully engage in benefit-cost balancing and thus to comply with the presidential directives to do more good than harm. Yet, the actual text of the statutes typically does not prohibit benefit-cost balancing and thus does not require or authorize non-compliance with the presidential benefit-cost orders.

There is a tendency for many disciplines to operate as a “silo”, that is to be unaware or insensitive to the contribution other disciplines might make to their discussions.  Some might think the last place that such an interdisciplinary approach might be undertaken is in the arcane legal arena; in particular Administrative Law whose domain includes one of the most significant areas of concern in a democracy — the separation of power among the three branches of government.

Not to worry, on June 8 the Administrative Law Section of the American Bar Association held a panel discussion on centralized regulatory review. In doing so 40% of the panel consisted of political scientists.

In order to encourage discussion and debate on the Data Access issue, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and Federal Focus, Inc. jointly sponsored a symposium on the Data Access issue on February 26, 1999, in Washington, D.C. Specific focus of the discussion was on the data provisions contained in the FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-277) and conference report. Under that Act, OMB was required to amend its Circular A-110 (“Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations”) to make publicly-funded research data available to the public through requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).