OIRA Watch

Centralized regulatory review has been in operation for some forty five years, beginning with the implementation of the Nixon Quality of  Life Review.  If a decision were made to modify the existing process some of the reasons for such an action are  contained in this post.

A successful restructuring of centralized regulatory review will probably be dependent upon  the presence of policy entrepreneurs in the Executive Office of the President who among other things  develop a nationwide constituency for centralized regulatory review, if not for OIRA, see this post.

This article in the Wall Street Journal WSJ CRA has resulted in a number of inquiries regarding whether or not the CRA can be used to rescind rules whose promulgation were not properly reported to the Congress.

CRE utilized this mechanism some six years ago.

Relevant Background Materials:

CRS Report

Violation of CRA Introduced Into Litigation (II.B)

Are Denials for Review Under the Data Quality Act Subject to the CRA?

The utilization of the CRA to rescind or revise existing rules is an issue that is not going to fade into the sunset.

Editor’s Note: For practical guidance on how the Trump Administration can achieve its deregulatory intentions, see here.

From: The Washington Post

By David Weigel

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the incoming chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, used a meeting with Donald Trump to deliver a list of 232 regulations that the incoming president could repeal immediately. “We felt like it was important to put together a real working document,” Meadows told CNN.

The list, shared by Meadows’s office, includes President George W. Bush’s order restricting access to executive branch papers and Federal Aviation Administration regulations that limit overland supersonic flights. The rationale for repealing that last regulation, in its entirety: “Make Sonic Boom Again.”

Editor’s Note: We are very pleased with the reception our readers have had to the following post. In particular that the prestigious Notice and Comment website sponsored by two of the nation’s leading legal institutions, Yale Law School and The American Bar Association Section on Administrative Law, took the lead in the publication of the article.

The responses we have received have been so great that it now ranks in the top five publications of CRE as so noted in the Featured Items section of the CRE homepage. Although the primary target of the article are members of the incoming Administration we also realize that many of our readers either serve as advisors to these individuals or command influential positions which will bring them into contact with the said individuals.

Publisher’s Note: This website is visited frequently by the press, Congressional staff and agency staff. CRE accepts comments from named individuals as well as anonymous comments in the comment section below.

In the last several days considerable attention is being given to use of a sleeper act, the Congressional Review Act (CRA), as a mechanism for correcting a perceived tilt in the regulatory state. Simultaneously there is increasing attention to limiting the Chevron deference by the enactment of proposed legislation (Separation of Powers Restoration Act).

Publisher’s Note: This is a must read for students and supporters of a effective regulation.

This report contains a set of recommendations for the Trump Administration that, if implemented, would strengthen the process of regulatory review. These recommendations reflect the general consensus of a group of former OIRA Administrators and Acting Administrators who served under both political parties. These recommendations can be accomplished by executive action.

The Data Quality Act (DQA), aka the Information Quality Act, allows members of the public to file citizen petitions to obtain corrections of inaccurate information disseminated by federal agencies. Consequently the DQA provides a means for the public to obtain corrections in press releases, reports and regulations issued by federal agencies. In essence the DQA merely requires that federal agencies tell the truth.

Publisher’s Note: Kudo’s to the ABA for placing the CRE recommendation on its meeting agenda. “An OIRA that is understood is an OIRA that is respected.”

Memorandum

To:          Standards and Accreditation Committee, American Bar Association

From:     Jim Tozzi[1], Center for Regulatory Effectiveness

Subject: Increasing Attorney Expertise in the Regulatory State

The purpose of this memorandum is to request that the Committee on Standards and Accreditation address the increasingly greater subject matter deficit in law school curricula which makes it difficult for graduates to cope with the broad reach of the regulatory state.