Over a period to several years CRE has conducted an extensive public outreach program to develop a science based program for addressing emissions from new coal fired plants. See the CRE Option.
From: Inside EPA
Dawn Reeves
As EPA considers whether to require new coal plants to install partial carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), critics and supporters are offering different options for how the agency can drop the requirement without abandoning its effort to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) at new power plants.
For example, the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness (CRE), a group that charges that the CCS mandate is unlawful because it violates the Data Quality Act (DQA), is suggesting in an options paper that EPA issue an “interim” rule that sets a standard for new coal plants that is just shy of CCS, while conducting a peer review on the state of carbon capture technology.
This morning, March 9, 2015 in the Ninth Circuit in the case W. Harkonen v. USDOJ the Department of Justice stated that although the DQA does not give members of the public the right for judicial review of agency denials of Requests for Correction it does provide the public with the right to seek such relief from OMB. The Department explained to the judges that the DQA is “policed is through OMB”–not through the courts; therefore they went on to state that OMB has the right to “take action” if agencies are not living up to their DQA duties.
The Fall 2014 Edition of the Administrative Law Review contains an article titled: The Regulatory Budget Revisited written by Jeff Rosen and Brian Callanan which concludes that it is time to give serious attention to implementing a regulatory budget.
The article traces in detail the history, theory and experimentation with regulatory budgets. The record is clear; regulatory budgets should be given consideration comparable to procedural suggestions for regulatory reform.
As the authors state, nearly forty years ago OMB performed a detailed analysis of a regulatory budget, developed a Regulatory Cost Accounting Act of 1980 to provide the attendant requirement for cost information and developed an experimental regulatory budget for EPA
The Regulatory Accountability Act is one of the most comprehensive regulatory reform bills under consideration by the Congress.
It should be noted that more than three decades ago Senator Dale Bumpers of Arkansas, a senator with a near 100% rating by liberal groups, introduced the Bumpers Amendment, a proposal to improve the regulatory process by eliminating the deference accorded to agency decisions.
It is very possible that the Bumpers Amendment would have passed had it not been subject to immense opposition by the Carter White House. An Index of OMB internal papers identifies a White House Memorandum on Bumpers (Item 3) which CRE is trying to locate.
Most Recent: William Kelly former GC of CRE on judicial review of the DQA and the Prime Time decision.
Editor’s Note: In the foreward to the attached article Jim Tozzi states that Mr. Kogan laid to rest the myth that there were no hearings on the DQA. That said, the final copy of the Kogan report, which is published below, omitted that passage and is being reproduced at the end of this post. The omitted section is of particular significance because it demonstrates that both the Congress and the Administration were more than well aware of the ramifications of the DQA and therefore establishes the basis for the Judiciary not to abuse Article III standing by a judicial intervention based upon Prudential Standing as set forth below.
Editor’s Note: The Request for Correction is attached here.
Skewed geographic distribution of star ratings demonstrates program’s flaws, says Dialysis Patient Citizens
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Dialysis Patient Citizens has filed the first challenge to a CMS quality program under the Data Quality Act, contending that the agency’s Dialysis Facility Compare (DFC) star ratings methodology fails to satisfy federal requirements for objectivity and utility in presenting information to the public. The day after being served with the complaint, CMS conceded it should have conducted cognitive testing of this system on consumers, reversing a position the agency had defended for nearly four months.
Jim Tozzi submitted a plan for re-inventing retrospective review of regulations to ACUS, titled:
AFTER 36 YEARS IT TAKES MORE THAN A NUDGE TO JUMP START THE REVIEW OF EXISTING REGULATIONS
Please see, http://www.acus.gov/member-comment/tozzi-comments-retrospective-review-draft-recommendation.
Editor’s Note: CRE has had a historical interest in expanding public participation in rulemaking through its development of Interactive Public Dockets.
The June 6, 2014 Plenary Session the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) addressed the concept of “ex parte” comments.
Ex parte comments as defined by federal regulators “describe a communication directed to the merits or outcome of a proceeding that, if written, is not served on all parties to the proceeding and, if oral, is made without giving all the parties to the proceeding advance notice and an opportunity to be present.”
December 21 will mark the beginning of the fifteenth year of the public using the Data Quality Act (DQA), aka the Information Quality Act, to ensure that federal agencies disseminate accurate information.
The most substantive recognition of the importance of the milestone in Executive agency accountability is the Office of Management and Budget issuing a binding Directive to agencies to improve the DQA’s implementation.
OMB has just issued data quality guidance applicable to federal statistical agencies that is equally applicable to the functioning of all agencies.
